CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

4.1 Methodology
Concrete will be used as the primary material throughout the design and
construction of the retaining wall structure. Additionally, the structure will be
designed in accordance with the regulations and requirements listed in the
Philippine National Structural Code, the American Concrete Institute Code, and
other pertinent and related standards.

In addition, the researchers will utilize the Geo5 software to run simulations
and analysis on the different trade offs presented in each Context. The results
for each design will help verify if it passes the design standards provided by
the Codes stated above.
,

Table 4.1. Trade-offs under the System of Duality / Dual Context

CONTEXT TRADE-OFF 1 TRADE-OFF 2 TRADE-OFF 3
Geotechnic Soil Nailing Geosynthetics RAP
al

Structural Reinforced Gravity Anchored

Concrete Retaining Retaining
Retaining Walls Walls Walls

4.2 Design Process

The following flowchart specified below defines the sequence of actions that the
designers will follow for this chapter in designing the thirty-meter long retaining wall
structure on Antipolo Zigzag Road, Brgy. May-Iba, Teresa, Rizal.
 START
TITLE REVIEW OF RELATED
CONCEPTUALIZATION LITERATURE AND
STUDIES

CONSTRAINTS AND
RESEARCH OF EXISTING
STANDARDS
PRODUCT

GEOTECHNICAL
DESIGN OF TRADE- STRUCTURAL
CONTEXT
OFFS CONTEXT

CANTILEVERED
SOIL NAILING C C
REINFORCED
O O
CONCRETE RETAINING
S S WALLS
T
T
E E
Geosynthethics GRAVITY RETAINING
S
T WALLS
I T
I
M M
A A
RAP T T
E ANCHORED
E
S RETAINING WALLS
S

EVALUATION OF
EVALUATION OF
DESIGN
DESIGN

SELECTION OF DESIGN
SELECTION OF DESIGN
FOR GEOTECHNICAL SELECTION OF FINAL FOR STRUCTURAL
CONTEXT DESIGN CONTEXT

END

Figure 4.1. General Design Process for Dual Context System

4.3 Design Criteria and Parameters
Table 4.2. Design Parameters
Horizontal Seismic 0.5000
Coefficient
Vertical Seismic 0.0000
Coefficient
Soil Bearing Capacity 200 KN/m
Soil Density 10.18 KN/m3
Angle of Internal Friction 32 degrees
Soil Profile Sandy
Gravel
Coefficient of Friction 0.6 (for sandy gravel soil)

In the entire design process, primary consideration of the designers and engineers are the
modes of failure at which the structure to be designed attempts to avoid and counteract,
which are stated here below as follows.
 Overturning
 Loss of bearing capacity
 Sliding along the base
 Shear failure

Figure 4.2. Failure due Figure 4.3. Failure due

to Overturning to Loss of Bearing
Capacity
Figure 4.4. Failure due to Figure 4.5. Failure due to
Sliding along the Base Shear Failure

*Pictures are sourced from Principles of Foundation by Braja Das.

4.3.1 Proportioning
In designing retaining walls, some dimensions must be assumed to suffice the
calculations for the design and analysis of the structure. These assumptions make up
together the basic procedures for what is known as proportioning. Proportioning allows
engineers and designers to check for workable and economical sections and may retry
other dimensions once the analysis yields undesirable results
– that is, when the assumed structure experiences failure in any of the modes introduced
above once the stability checks are performed.
The following assumptions were done for each trade-off category, as stated to existing
codes and standards used by the designers.
4.3.1.1Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall

Table 4.3. Proportioning Assumptions for Cantilevered RC Retaining Walls

Width of Top Stem 200 mm to 400 mm
Width of Base Slab 0.4H to 0.6H
0.6H to 0.75H (for surcharged
walls)
Thickness of Base H/10 or H/14, then find average
Slab
Toe Projection (1/3)(b) to (1/4)(b)
 4.3.1.2Gravity Retaining Wall

Table 4.4. Proportioning Assumptions for Gravity Retaining Walls

Width of Stem (at 0.3 m or 0.08H
Top)
Thickness of Base 0.12H to 0.16H
Slab
Width of Base Slab 0.5H to 0.75H
Toe Length / Heel Length (assumed equal Stem Width to Half of Stem
by the designers) Width

Note: To ensure that the design process rigidly adheres to the principles of aiming
for the most economical design, the designers had considered an assumed overall
structure wall height of not more than 8 meters. This is to ensure that no counterforts
will be added in the said design; adding such might contradict the vision of the project of
designing and selecting the most economical and safest retaining wall structure
design.
4.4 Design Proper for Geotechnical Context
For the geotechnical context, the trade-offs considered by the designers are soil nailing,
jet grouting, and cement grouting. However, the method for soil nailing will be the
only trade-off that can be designed and analyzed through the GEO5 software. Since the
other two trade-offs will not have any design process, the designers will only provide a
comprehensive declaration of step-by-step procedures for the jet grouting and
cement grouting which includes, but are not limited to, the scope of work and the
materials and equipment being utilized to accomplish the stabilization of the soil
underlaid the retaining structure to be erected. The said detailed procedures will also
allow them to quantify the design results through the final estimates and compare them
with each other by means of creating a final raw ranking table, which will be found in
the latter part of this chapter.
4.5.1 Design of Soil Nailing Technique
4.5.1.1Two- and Three-Dimensional Views
To examine the results in the design of the soil nailing method, the calculations
performed by the designers which were detailed in the appendices, are simulated in
GEO5, the software being used by the designers.
Figure 4.72. Two-Dimensional View of Soil Nailed Wall
Figure 4.73. Three-Dimensional Wireframe of Soil Nailed Wall
4.5.1.2Internal Stability Check

Figure 4.74. Internal Stability Check Results

Figure 4.75. Internal Stability Check

4.5.1.3Bearing Capacity Check

Figure 4.76. Bearing Capacity Check

Figure 4.77. Bearing Capacity Check Results

 Figure 4.78. Bearing Capacity Check Results

4.5.1.4Verification against Slip and Overturning

Figure 4.79. Verification against Slip and Overturning

 Figure 4.80. Verification against Slip and Overturning Results

Figure 4.81. Verification against Slip and Overturning Detailed Results

4.5.1.5Dimensioning Check

Figure 4.82. Shear and Moment Diagram along Vertical Direction

Figure 4.83. Shear and Moment Diagram along Horizontal Direction

Figure 4.84. Shear and Moment Diagram along Horizontal Direction
4.5.1.6Slope Stability

Figure 4.85. Slope Stability Check using All Methods of Analysis

Figure 4.86. Slope Stability Check using Bishop Method of Analysis

Figure 4.87. Slope Stability Check using Morgenstern-Price Method of Analysis

Figure 4.88. Slope Stability Check using All Methods of Analysis

4. 6.1 Design Process for RRAP

Geopier Impact® Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAPs) are a versatile ground

improvement solution designed to reinforce poor soils through the use of a patented
displacement mandrel. This displacement construction method can be used in a
variety of soil conditions.

4.1.1.1 RRAP Steps

 Excavating – Making a cavity in the ground for the mandrel

 Placing Stones – Stones are placed at bottom of the pit.
 Vibrating – Ram the stones by the use of mandrel.
 Repeat – Steps 1 – 3 is repeated until the pit full densified stones

4.1.1.2 RRAP Parameters

 Drilling Diameter - 500mm

 Nozzles – (1 – 2)
 Diameter – (2 – 7 mm)
 Depth – 10m
 Power head max output torque – 100 – 120 KN.m
 Ramming Rate - 6-35RPM
 Motor - 205HP (150kw)
 SB2 Aggregate - 10800X2800X3350mm

4.1.2 Design Process for Geosynthetic for Retaining walls

Geosynthetic inclusions within a soil mass can provide a reinforcement function by

developing tensile forces which contribute to the stability of the geosynthetic-soil
composite. For this project we choose,
Geotextiles as geosynthetic type. Geotextiles form the largest group of
geosynthetics. They are indeed textiles in the traditional sense, but consist of
synthetic fibers rather than natural ones, such as cotton, wool or silk. Geotextiles
are porous to water flow across their manufactured plane and also within their
plane,
but to a widely varying degree

4.2.2.1.1 Steps

 Build of Retaining Wall – This is furtherly discussed in next context

 Geogrid Wrap-Around – Install geogrid to the retaining walls
 Layer-By-Layer - As the wall increases the continuous installation of geogrid
is performed

4.1.1.2 Geosynthetic for Retaining Walls Parameters

4.4.1.1 Flowchart of Design Process for Cantilevered Retaining Walls
In designing the Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall structure, the
designers followed a series of procedures to come up with the most economical and
safest design. The said procedures are systematically arranged in the flowchart
shown below.
 START

ASSUME DIMENSIONS
THROUGH PROPORTIONING

APPLY DESIGN PARAMETERS:

(Soil Bearing Capacity, Angle
of Repose, Height of Soil
Retained, Soil Density, etc.)

REDESIGN
DIMENSIONS DETERMINE DIMENSIONS
AND STEEL
REINFORCEMENTS

CHECK FOR
STABILITY AGAINST
RUN OVERTURNING,
ANALYSIS SLIDING, BEARING
CAPACITY, ETC.

END

Figure 4.5. Design Process for Cantilevered RC Retaining Walls

4.4.1.2 Analysis of Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Through GEO5 Software

To examine the resulting dimensions for both the sections and reinforcements of
the cantilevered reinforced concrete retaining wall, the above calculations are
simulated in GEO5, the software being used by the designers.
4.4.1.2.1 Rendered Two- and Three-Dimensional Views
The following dimensions and sections resulted from the computations based on the
proportioning principles presented on the previous subchapters. The appendices
detail the computations performed by the designers.
 Figure 4.6. Two-Dimensional View of Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall

Figure 4.7. Three-Dimensional Wireframe of Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall

4.4.1.2.2 Dimensioning
Upon inputting the dimensions, four (4) primary checking methods were performed: wall
stem check for front reinforcements, wall stem check for back reinforcements, wall
jump check, and wall heel check. Each of which were tested against shear, bending,
design principles, and other considerations.
a. Wall Stem Check for Front Reinforcements

Figure 4.8. Wall Stem Check for Front Reinforcements

Figure 4.9. Wall Stem Check for Front Reinforcements (2D View)
b. Wall Stem Check for Back Reinforcements

Figure 4.10. Wall Stem Check for Back Reinforcements

Figure 4.11. Wall Stem Check for Back Reinforcements (2D View)
c. Wall Jump Check

Figure 4.12. Wall Jump Check

Figure 4.13. Wall Jump Check (2D View)

d. Wall Heel Check

Figure 4.14. Wall Heel Check

Figure 4.15. Wall Heel Check (2D View)

Figure 4.16. Detailed Dimensioning Check Results
4.4.1.2.3 Bearing Capacity

Figure 4.17. Bearing Capacity Check (2D View)

Figure 4.18. Bearing Capacity Check Results

Figure 4.19. Bearing Capacity Check Detailed Results
4.4.1.2.4 Slope Stability

Figure 4.20. Slope Stability Results using All Methods of Analyses

Figure 4.21. Detailed Slope Stability Results using All Methods of Analyses
 Figure 4.22. Slope Stability Results using Bishop Method

Figure 4.23. Detailed Slope Stability Results using Bishop Method

 Figure 4.24. Slope Stability Results using Morgenstern-Price Method

4.4.1.2.5 Verification Check

Figure 4.25. Wall Structure Verification against Slip and Overturning

Figure 4.26. Detailed Wall Structure Verification Results against Slip and Overturning
4.4.1.2.6 Design Output
To establish a clear graphical representation of the structure to be built, the following
drawings were rendered through Automated Computed-Aided Drafting (AutoCAD)
software and SketchUp Pro.

Figure 4.27. Structural Plan of Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Structure

 Figure 4.28. Front View of Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Structure

Figure 4.29. Isometric View of Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Structure

4.4.2 Design of Gravity Retaining Walls
Gravity retaining walls are designed using a thick section of pure concrete which
will be poured continuously.
4.4.2.1Flowchart
The designers will make use of the flowchart shown below for a step-by-step process of
to be able to come up with a design of the gravity retaining walls. The computations,
however, are entailed in the Appendices in the latter part of this paper.

START

ASSUME DIMENSIONS
THROUGH PROPORTIONING

APPLY DESIGN PARAMETERS:

(Soil Bearing Capacity, Angle
of Repose, Height of Soil
Retained, Soil Density, etc.)

REDESIGN
DIMENSIONS DETERMINE INTERNAL AND
EXTERNAL FORCES;
DIMENSIONS a/o SECTIONS

CHECK FOR
STABILITY AGAINST
RUN OVERTURNING,
ANALYSIS SLIDING, BEARING
CAPACITY, ETC.

END

Figure 4.30. Design Process for Gravity Retaining Walls

4.4.2.2Analysis of Gravity Retaining Wall through GEO5 Software
The values yielded after the computations performed by the designers are inputted
in the GEO5 software to determine its capacity against several checks. The
following pictures show the simulations performed and executed in the said
software.
4.4.2.2.1 Rendered Two- and Three-Dimensional Views

Figure 4.31. Two-Dimensional View of Gravity Retaining Wall

Figure 4.32. Three-Dimensional View of Gravity Retaining Wall
Figure 4.33. Three-Dimensional View of Gravity Retaining Wall
4.4.2.2.2 Dimensioning Check
a. Construction Joint Check

Figure 4.34. Construction Joint Check (2D View)

Figure 4.35. Construction Joint Check Results

 Figure 4.36. Construction Joint Check Detailed Results

b. Wall Stem Check

Figure 4.37. Wall Stem Check (2D View)

 Figure 4.38. Wall Stem Check Results

Figure 4.39. Wall Stem Check Detailed Results

c.Wall Jump Check

Figure 4.40. Wall Jump Check (2D View)

Figure 4.41. Wall Jump Check Results

 Figure 4.42. Wall Jump Check Detailed Results

4.4.2.2.3 Bearing Capacity Check

Figure 4.43. Bearing Capacity Check (2D View)

 Figure 4.44. Bearing Capacity Check Results

Figure 4.45. Bearing Capacity Check Detailed Results

4.4.2.2.4 Slope Stability Check

Figure 4.46. Slope Stability Check using All Methods of Analyses

Figure 4.47. Failure Plane using All Methods of Analyses

Figure 4.48. Slope Stability Check using Morgenstern-Price Method of Analysis

Figure 4.49. Slope Stability Check using Morgenstern-Price Method of Analysis

4.4.2.2.5 Verification Check

Figure 4.50. Wall Structure Verification against Slip and Overturning (2D View)

Figure 4.51. Wall Structure Verification Results against Slip and Overturning
Figure 4.52. Detailed Results of Wall Structure Verification against Slip and Overturning
4.4.2.2.6 Design Output
To establish a clear graphical representation of the structure to be built, the following
drawings were rendered through Automated Computed-Aided Drafting (AutoCAD)
software and SketchUp Pro.

Figure 4.53. Structural Plan of Gravity Retaining Wall Structure

 Figure 4.54. Front View of Gravity Retaining Wall Structure

Figure 4.55. Isometric View of Gravity Retaining Wall Structure

4.4.3 Design of Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls
4.4.3.1Flowchart
The designers will make use of the flowchart shown below for a step-by-step process
of to be able to come up with a design of the anchored retaining walls. The
computations, however, are entailed in the Appendices in the latter part of this
paper.
4.4.3.2Analysis of Anchored Retaining Wall through GEO5 Software
To examine the resulting dimensions for both the sections and reinforcements of
the anchored retaining wall, the calculations performed by the designers which were
detailed in the appendices, are simulated in GEO5, the software being used by the
designers.
4.4.3.2.1 Rendered Two- and Three-Dimensional Views
The following figures show the rendered two- and three- dimensional views of the
anchored retaining wall, together with the details and dimensions yielded during the
design process.

Figure 4.56. Two-Dimensional View of Anchored Retaining Wall

Figure 4.57. Three-Dimensional View of Anchored Retaining Wall
 Figure 4.58. Three-Dimensional View of Anchored Retaining Wall
4.4.3.2.2 Analysis

Figure 4.59. Moment Diagram of Anchored Retaining Wall

 Figure 4.60. Analysis Results

Figure 4.61. Detailed Analysis Results

4.4.3.2.3 Dimensioning

Figure 4.62. Dimensioning Check Results

Figure 4.63. Detailed Dimensioning Check Results

4.4.3.2.4 Slope Stability

Figure 4.64. Slope Stability Check (Failure Plane)

Figure 4.65. Slope Stability Interface

 Figure 4.66. All Methods of Analyses Results

Figure 4.67. Detailed Results of All Methods of Analyses

Figure 4.68. Morgenstern-Price Analysis Method Results
4.4.3.2.5 Design Output
To establish a clear graphical representation of the structure to be built, the following
drawings were rendered through Automated Computed-Aided Drafting (AutoCAD)
software and SketchUp Pro.

Figure 4.69. Structural Plan of Anchored Retaining Wall Structure

 Figure 4.70. Front View of Anchored Retaining Wall Structure

Figure 4.71. Isometric View of Anchored Retaining Wall Structure

4.5 Design Proper for Geotechnical Context
For the geotechnical context, the trade-offs considered by the designers are soil nailing,
jet grouting, and cement grouting. However, the method for soil nailing will be the
only trade-off that can be designed and analyzed through the GEO5 software. Since the
other two trade-offs will not have any design process, the designers will only provide a
comprehensive declaration of step-by-step procedures for the jet grouting and
cement grouting which includes, but are not limited to, the scope of work and the
materials and equipment being utilized to accomplish the stabilization of the soil
underlaid the retaining structure to be erected. The said detailed procedures will also
allow them to quantify the design results through the final estimates and compare them
with each other by means of creating a final raw ranking table, which will be found in
the latter part of this chapter.
4.5.2 Design of Soil Nailing Technique
4.5.2.1Two- and Three-Dimensional Views
To examine the results in the design of the soil nailing method, the calculations
performed by the designers which were detailed in the appendices, are simulated in
GEO5, the software being used by the designers.

Figure 4.72. Two-Dimensional View of Soil Nailed Wall

Figure 4.73. Three-Dimensional Wireframe of Soil Nailed Wall
4.5.2.2Internal Stability Check

Figure 4.74. Internal Stability Check Results

Figure 4.75. Internal Stability Check

4.5.2.3Bearing Capacity Check

Figure 4.76. Bearing Capacity Check

Figure 4.77. Bearing Capacity Check Results

 Figure 4.78. Bearing Capacity Check Results

4.5.2.4Verification against Slip and Overturning

Figure 4.79. Verification against Slip and Overturning

 Figure 4.80. Verification against Slip and Overturning Results

Figure 4.81. Verification against Slip and Overturning Detailed Results

4.5.2.5Dimensioning Check

Figure 4.82. Shear and Moment Diagram along Vertical Direction

Figure 4.83. Shear and Moment Diagram along Horizontal Direction

Figure 4.84. Shear and Moment Diagram along Horizontal Direction
4.5.2.6Slope Stability

Figure 4.85. Slope Stability Check using All Methods of Analysis

Figure 4.86. Slope Stability Check using Bishop Method of Analysis

Figure 4.87. Slope Stability Check using Morgenstern-Price Method of Analysis

Figure 4.88. Slope Stability Check using All Methods of Analysis

4.6 Final Estimates
The following tables below exhibit the final estimates for every trade-off for both
contexts. Unlike the initial estimates performed in the third chapter, the final estimates
will be now based and reflected from the designing process performed by the designers
in the previous subchapters.

Table 4.5. Final Estimates of Trade-offs for Structural Context

Cantilevered Gravity Retaining Anchored Retaining
Reinforced Concrete Walls Walls
Retaining Walls
Safety 4.59 4.76 6.77
(Factor of Safety
against Slope
Instability)
Economic Php 1,364,578.80 Php 2,321,260.35 Php 1,550,303.15
(Material Cost)
Sustainability ----- ----- ------
(Life Span)
Constructability 95 calendar days 75 calendar days 99 calendar days
(Duration of
Construction)
Environmental 48.357 tonnes CO2e 110.9295 tonnes 18.8325 tonnes
(Carbon Footprint) CO2e CO2e

Table 4.6. Converted Final Estimation for Structural Context

Cantilevered Gravity Retaining Anchored Retaining
Reinforced Concrete Walls Walls
Retaining Walls
Safety
(Factor of 4.59 4.76 6.77
Safety against
Slope
Instability)
Economic Php 1,364,578.80 Php 2,321,260.35 Php 1,550,303.15
(Material Cost)
Sustainability Php 205,402.88 Php 289,171.04 Php 272,205.32
(Maintenance Cost)
Constructability Php 689,450.00 Php 570,450.00 Php 1,171,750.00
(Equipment and
Labor Cost)
Environmental Php 531,427.00 Php 1,220,224.00 Php 207,157.00
(Carbon Emission
Costs)
4.7 Final Raw Ranking of Trade-offs
The designers will then be computing the final raw rankings and tabulate it in the final
raw ranking table to determine the governing trade-off for each context involved in the
design process.
4.7.1 Raw Rankings for Structural Context
4.7.1.1Safety Constraint
The governing value for the safety constraint is the cantilevered reinforced concrete
retaining walls, having least factor of safety against slope instability of 4.59. Therefore,
in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its assigned
subordinate rank.
 1. Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls against Gravity Retaining Walls

4.76 −
% 4.59 𝑥 10 = 0.35
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 4.76

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 0.35 = 𝟗. 𝟔𝟓

2. Cantilever Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls against Anchored Retaining Walls

6.77 −
% 4.59 𝑥 10 = 3.22
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 6.77

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 3.22 = 𝟔. 𝟕𝟖

4.7.1.2Economic Constraint
The governing value for the economic constraint is the cantilevered reinforced
concrete retaining walls, having a total material cost of Php 1,364,578.80 Therefore,
in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its assigned
subordinate rank.

1. Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls against Anchored Reinforced

Concrete Retaining Walls

Php 1,550,303.15 − Php

% 1,364,578.80 𝑥 10 = 1.20
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
Php 1,550,303.15
=

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.20 = 𝟖. 𝟖𝟎

2. Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls against Gravity Retaining Walls

Php 2,321,260.35 − Php

% 1,364,578.80 𝑥 10 = 4.12
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 2,321,260.35
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 4.12 = 𝟓. 𝟖𝟖

4.7.1.3Sustainability Constraint
The governing value for the sustainability constraint is the cantilevered reinforced
concrete retaining wall, having an estimated final maintenance cost of Php
205,402.88. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as
its assigned subordinate rank.

1. Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls against Gravity Retaining Walls

Php 289,171.04 − Php

% 205,402.88 𝑥 10 = 2.90
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 289,171.04

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.90 = 𝟕. 𝟏𝟎

2. Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls against Anchored Retaining Walls

Php 272,205.32 − Php

% 205,402.88 𝑥 10 = 2.45
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 272,205.32

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.45 = 𝟕. 𝟓𝟓

4.7.1.4Constructability Constraint
The governing value for the constructability constraint is the gravity retaining walls,
having a duration of 75 working days, or a converted duration cost of Php 570,450.00.
Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its assigned
subordinate rank.
 1. Gravity Retaining Walls and Cantilever Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls

Php 689,450.00 − Php

% 570,450.00 𝑥 10 = 1.73
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 689,450.00

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.73 = 𝟖. 𝟐𝟕

2. Gravity Retaining Walls and Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls

Php 1,171,750.00 − Php

% 570,450.00 𝑥 10 = 5.13
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 1,171,750.00

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5.13 = 𝟒. 𝟖𝟕

4.7.1.5Environmental Constraint
The governing value for the environmental constraint is the anchored reinforced
concrete retaining wall, having a total concrete carbon emission of 18.8325 tonnes or
a converted carbon emission cost of Php 207,157.00. Therefore, in this particular
constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its assigned subordinate rank.

1. Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls and Cantilever Reinforced

Concrete Retaining Walls

Php 531,927.00 − Php

% 207,157.00 𝑥 10 = 6.10
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 531,927.00

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 6.10 = 𝟑. 𝟗𝟎

2. Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls and Gravity Retaining Walls

Php 1,220,224.00 − Php

% 207,157.00 𝑥 10 = 8.30
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 1,220,224.00
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 8.30 = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟎

4.7.2 Raw Rankings for Geotechnical Context

4.7.2.1Safety Constraint
The governing value for the safety constraint is the cement grouting, with a fortified
soil bearing capacity of 1599.3 KN/m2. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated
trade-off will have 10 as its assigned subordinate rank.

1. Cement Grouting against Jet Grouting

1599.3 −
% 1109.94 𝑥 10 = 3.06
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 1599.3

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 3.06 = 𝟔. 𝟗𝟒

2. Cement Grouting against Soil Nailing

1599.3 −
% 1074.6 𝑥 10 = 3.28
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 1599.3

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 3.28 = 𝟔. 𝟕𝟐

4.7.2.2Economic Constraint
The governing value for the economic constraint is the cement grouting, with an overall
material cost of Php 81,484.37. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated
trade-off will have 10 as its assigned subordinate rank.

1. Cement Grouting against Soil Nailing

Php 812,718.00 − Php

% 135,807.28 𝑥 10 = 8.33
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 812,718.00
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 8.33 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟕

2. Cement Grouting against Jet Grouting

Php 848,795.50 − Php

% 135,807.28 𝑥 10 = 8.40
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 848,795.50

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 8.40 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟎

4.7.2.3Sustainability Constraint
The governing value for the sustainability constraint is the soil nailing, with an overall
maintenance cost of Php 330,271.80. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated
trade-off will have 10 as its assigned subordinate rank.

1. Soil Nailing against Jet Grouting

Php 633,042.65 − Php

% 330,271.00 𝑥 10 = 4.78
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 633,042.65

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 4.78 = 𝟓. 𝟐𝟐

2. Soil Nailing against Cement Grouting

Php 462,894.73 − Php

% 330,271.80 𝑥 10 = 2.87
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 462,894.73

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.87 = 𝟕. 𝟏𝟑

4.7.2.4Constructability Constraint
The governing value for the constructability constraint is the soil nailing, with an overall
equipment cost of Php 2,490,000.00. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated
trade-off will have 10 as its assigned subordinate rank.

1. Soil Nailing against Jet Grouting

Php 5,481,631.00 −
% 𝑥 10 = 5.46
Php2,490,000.00 Php
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 5,481,631.00

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5.46 = 𝟒. 𝟓𝟒

2. Soil Nailing against Cement Grouting

Php 4,493,140.00 −
% 𝑥 10 = 4.46
Php2,490,000.00 Php
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 4,493,140.00

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 4.46 = 𝟓. 𝟓𝟒

4.7.2.5Environmental Constraint
The governing value for the environmental constraint is the cement grouting, having a
total carbon emission of 78.4 tonnes or a converted carbon emission cost of Php
862,400.00. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its
assigned subordinate rank.

1. Cement Grouting against Soil Nailing

Php 1,185,800.00 − Php

% 862,400.00 𝑥 10 = 2.73
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 1,185,800.00
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.73 = 𝟕. 𝟐𝟕
 2. Cement Grouting against Jet Grouting

Php 1,509,200.00 − Php

% 862,400.00 𝑥 10 = 4.29
𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= Php 1,509,200.00

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 4.29 = 𝟓. 𝟕𝟏

4.7.2 Final Trade-offs Assessment

4.7.2.1Structural Context Assessments
4.7.2.1.1 Safety Assessment
For the safety constraint, the trade-off which governed is the Cantilevered
Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall, which gained the lowest factor of safety of 4.59.
The factor of safety being considered by the designers is the one examined against slope
instability, since the anchored retaining wall don’t have any factor of safety
consideration against sliding and overturning. This is also to ensure that the
comparison of the results is reliable, credible, and as accurate as possible. A low factor of
safety implies that the structure is safe and economical in its section for as long as the
yielded safety factor meets the minimum requirement. Shown in the graph below is the
performance of the trade-offs for this constraint category.

0
SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Gravity Retaining Wall Anchored Retaining Wall

Figure 4.94. Safety Assessment of Structural Trade-offs
 Table 4.9. Final Estimates for Safety Constraint
TRADE-OFF INITIAL ESTIMATES SUBORDINATE
RANK
Cantilevered RC Retaining Walls 4.59 10
Gravity Retaining Walls 4.76 9.6
5
Anchored RC Retaining Walls 6.77 6.7
8

4.7.2.1.2 Economic Assessment

After the design for the most ideal retaining wall structure, it revealed that the
Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall structure yielded the least overall
material cost, which amounted to Php 1,364,578.80. This is probably due to the
economical cross-section of the structure and the least cost in terms of the reinforcing
part, which the two other trade-offs failed to attain. Thus, cantilevered reinforced
concrete retaining wall had governed in the economic constraint. Shown in the
succeeding figure is the graphical representation of how the trade-offs performed and
behaved in this particular constraint category.

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Gravity Retaining Wall Anchored Retaining Wall

Figure 4.95. Economic Assessment of Structural Trade-offs

Table 4.10. Final Estimates for Economic Constraint

TRADE-OFF INITIAL ESTIMATES SUBORDINATE
RANK
Cantilevered RC Retaining Walls Php 1,364,578.00 10
Gravity Retaining Walls Php 2,321,260.35 5.8
8
Anchored RC Retaining Walls Php 1,550,303.15 8.8
0
4.7.2.1.3 Sustainability Assessment
For the sustainability constraint, the trade-off which exhibited the least amount of
projected maintenance is the Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall, which
costed Php 205,402.88. In this regard, the designers had considered the suggestion of
predicting the maintenance cost for the project through computing a tenth of the overall
development cost, which includes the costs for material (Economic), labor and
equipment (Constructability). The said computation led to the results graphically shown
below. The other trade-offs showed relatively high costs of maintenance as
compared with the governing trade-off.

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Gravity Retaining Wall Anchored Retaining Wall

Figure 4.96. Sustainability Assessment of Structural Trade-offs

Table 4.11. Final Estimates for Sustainability Constraint

TRADE-OFF INITIAL ESTIMATES SUBORDINATE
RANK
Cantilevered RC Retaining Walls Php 205,402.88 10
Gravity Retaining Walls Php 289,171.04 7.1
0
Anchored RC Retaining Walls Php 272,205.32 7.5
5
4.7.2.1.4 Constructability Assessment
Gravity Retaining Wall structure governed the constructability constraint, which yielded
the shortest projected overall construction duration of 75 days, tantamount to a
projected equipment and labor cost of Php 570,450.00. The said amount is comparably
lower as compared with the other trade-offs. Due to the ease of scope of work which
incorporates continuous concrete pouring, constructing a gravity retaining wall
showed less complexity rather than the procedures involved in building cantilevered
and anchored retaining walls. A graphical representation of the results can be seen in
the figure below.

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0
CONSTRUCTABILITY ASSESSMENT

Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Gravity Retaining Wall Anchored Retaining Wall

Figure 4.97. Constructability Assessment of Structural Trade-offs

Table 4.12. Final Estimates for Constructability Constraint

TRADE-OFF INITIAL ESTIMATES SUBORDINATE
RANK
Cantilevered RC Retaining Walls Php 689,450.00 8.2
7
Gravity Retaining Walls Php 570,450.00 10
Anchored RC Retaining Walls Php 1,171,750.00 4.8
7
4.7.2.1.5 Environmental Assessment
To assess how the trade-offs will potentially pose a threat to the environment, the
carbon emissions of each probable solution were determined, and it reveals that the
anchored retaining walls had the least carbon emissions amongst other performing
trade-off, which ranged only up to 18.8325 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2e).
This is probably brought by the fact that the design of the anchored retaining wall
introduced a thinner section as compared with cantilevered and gravity walls, therefore
it also suggests lesser pouring of concrete and lesser amount of carbon emissions.
The accumulated emissions were amounted to Php 207,157.00 carbon emission
cost. Thus, the anchored retaining wall governed in the environmental aspect of the
project.

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Cantilevered RC Retaining Wall Gravity Retaining Wall Anchored Retaining Wall

Figure 4.98. Environmental Assessment of Structural Trade-offs

Table 4.13. Final Estimates for Environmental Constraint

TRADE-OFF INITIAL ESTIMATES SUBORDINATE
RANK
Cantilevered RC Retaining Walls Php 531,427.00 3.9
0
Gravity Retaining Walls Php 1,220,224.00 1.7
0
Anchored RC Retaining Walls Php 207,157.00 10