OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD

REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4

20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
1.1 General...........................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives and Scope...................................................................................2
1.3 Limitation on Use and Liability....................................................................2
1.4 List of Supplied Information........................................................................3

2.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY...............................................................................................3

3.0 GROUND TREATMENT’S DESIGN CRITERIA........................................................4

4.0 REVIEW ON THE PROVIDED SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION............................5

4.1 Subsoil Conditions.......................................................................................6

5.0 REVIEW ON GEOTECHNICAL DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN (DED)

REPORT.....................................................................................................................7
5.1 Subsoil Parameters......................................................................................7
5.1.1 Bulk Density......................................................................................7
5.1.2 Chemical Properties.........................................................................8
5.1.3 Undrained Shear Strength Parameters...........................................8
5.1.4 Effective Shear Strength Parameters..............................................9
5.1.5 Compressibility Parameters.............................................................9
5.2 Review on the Ground Treatment Design................................................10
5.2.1 Ground Treatment Type.................................................................10
5.2.2 Embankment Stability Analyses....................................................12
5.2.3 Settlement Analyses.......................................................................13

6.0 REVIEW ON THE GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DRAWINGS...................................14

7.0 INDEPENDENT ANALYSES...................................................................................15

7.1 Settlement Analysis....................................................................................15
7.2 Embankment Stability Analysis.................................................................17

8.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................20

i
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

8.1 Differential Settlement at Piled Embankment..........................................20

8.2 Pile Adequacy Assessment for Piled Embankment................................21
8.3 Sand Blanket and Drainage for Dissipation of Excess Pore Water.......21
8.4 Differential Settlement at Interface between Newly Widen Road and
Existing Embankment................................................................................22
8.5 Potential Thicker PEAT Layer....................................................................23
8.6 Ground Water Level....................................................................................23
8.7 Instrumentation Scheme, Monitoring and Interpretation........................23
8.8 Trial Embankment.......................................................................................24

9.0 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................24

TABLES

FIGURES

APPENDICES

ii
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD (G&P) has been engaged by OPUS CONSULTANTS (M)
SDN BHD (OPUS) as the Geotechnical Specialist to assist in reviewing the ground treatment
designs submitted by the respective Detailed Design Consultants (DDC) for the Proposed
Construction and Completion of the Sarawak Second Trunk Road Project.

The Second Trunk Road project consists of 3 work packages (Package A, Package B and
Package C) as below (length shown ae indicative and subjected to final alignment design):

1. Package A
 A1- Batang Samarahan to Batang Sadong (21.9km)
 A2- Batang Sadong to Batang Lupar (32.2km)
 A3- Batang Lupar to Batang Saribas (27.0km)
 A4- Batang Saribas Bridge (3km)
 A5- Batang Saribas Bridge to Roban Interchange (27.5km)

2. Package B
 B1- Sebuyau to Lingga (28.6km)
 B2- Lingga to Batang Lupar Bridge No.2 (36.8km)
 B3- Batang Lupar Bridge No.2 (0.9km)
 B4- Batang Lupar Bridge No.2 to Betong Interchange (27.5km)

3. Package C
 C1- Jalan Kelupu/jalan Tanjung Genting to Simpang Jalan Tulai (14km)
 C2- Simpang Jalan Tulai to Lanang Bridge (15.9km)

There are significant engineering challenges in dealing with the thick deposition of peaty soils
and peats along the entire alignment. As such, technical review of the proposed ground
improvement works by the package Detailed Design Consultant (DDC) and assessment on
the expected performance of road embankment complying with the stability and serviceability
requirements are required.

Page 1 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

1.2 Objectives and Scope

The main objectives of this geotechnical review report are to present and summarise the
outcome of the review on the ground treatment design for Package A4 (from CH 0 to CH
3000), which includes the followings:

i. Review the adequacy of SI information and interpreted subsoil parameters adopted by

the DDC in the ground treatment design.

ii. Review Geotechnical Design Report and ground treatment drawings submitted by the
DDC.

iii. Highlight potential issues and concerns from the review on the provided information,
including technical aspect to be considered in the ground treatment design.

iv. Carry out independent analytical check using engineering software (e.g. Slope/W,
PLAXIS) on selected representative cross sections of the road embankment.

1.3 Limitation on Use and Liability

The independent geotechnical review on the design of permanent works is purely

based on the supplied information as provided when preparing this report, site
inspection and has assumed the soil investigation has been carried out under the
supervision by the project consultant (which is the Submitting Person of the Project). If
so they are directly relevant only to the ground at the place where and the time when
the investigations were carried out and are believed to be reported accurately.

Any interpretations or recommendations given in this report shall be understood to be

based on judgement and experience and not on greater knowledge of the facts that the
reported investigations would imply. The responsibility of G&P Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd.
(G&P) is solely to its Client (OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD) and the Authorities
the report is submitted to on the design of permanent works reviewed by G&P in
accordance to the scope of works as appointed. This report may be disclosed to other
professional advisors assisting the Client in respect of the project concerned only. It is
not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party. No liability is
undertaken to any third party.

Page 2 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

1.4 List of Supplied Information

This independent geotechnical review report shall be read in conjunction with the following
provided documents:

a) Development of the Proposed Sarawak Coastal Road Network and Second Trunk
Road - Design Brief

b) Soil Investigation Report (Volume 1 to 6) dated June 2018 prepared by Sri Datai
Construction (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd in Collaboration with CHEC Construction (M) Sdn
Bhd

c) Soil Investigation Works for Proposed Construction of Highway from Batang Saribas
Bridge (at Kuala Saribas) to Roban Interchange (at Pan Borneo Highway), Betong
(A4) dated November 2019 prepared by Geospec Sdn Bhd (Report No.:
GSI/2019/3116)

d) Package A4: Proposed Construction of Batang Saribas Bridge (at Kuala Saribas),
Betong Division: Geotechnical Detailed Engineering Design (DED) Report – Road
Revision 01 (November 2020) prepared by Jurutera TCS Sendirian Berhad

e) Tender Drawings for Ground Treatment and Piled Embankment (List of Drawings
refers to Appendix A (only latest revision received is listed))

f) Back Analyses of Settlement Data From Approach Road to Btg Rajang Bridge At
Durin, Sibu Division, Sarawak dated April 2020 by KTA (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd

2.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY

Based on the Geological Map of Sarawak, Second Edition, published in 1992 by Director-
General, Geological Survey of Malaysia, the proposed road alignment along Package A4 is
underlained with Alluvium of Quaternary age (Pleistocene – Holocene) as shown in Figure 1.
The alluvium deposits generally consist of coastal and riverine alluvium, and terraces of clay,
silt, sand and gravel with layers of peats.

The potential geohazards or geotechnical hazards based on the above-mentioned geological

background are as follows:

Page 3 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

i. Soft compressible alluvium of mostly fine soils and peats/peaty soils of high
compressibility which are prone to consolidation compression and secondary creep
compression resulting land subsidence.

ii. Chemical aggressiveness, likes chloride and sulphate attacks to steel elements and
concrete in saline environment in coastal areas.

3.0 GROUND TREATMENT’S DESIGN CRITERIA

This review report is prepared with respect to the ground treatment design criteria for
embankment as stipulated in the Design Brief, which are summarised as follows:
Item Description Criteria

Local & global slope stability during

Slope Stability FOS= 1.2
construction stage (short term)
(Embankment
Local & global slope stability during
on Soft Ground) FOS= 1.3
serviceability stage (long term)

Post-construction settlement:

Post-construction total settlement

(i) Embankment on clay < 250mm for the first 5 years of
service

Post-construction total settlement

(ii) Embankment on peat < 500mm for the first 7 years of
service
Ground < 100mm differential settlement
(iii) Area within 50m from
Settlement from bridge abutment or piled
structures approach
embankment with pile to set.

< 150mm differential settlement

(iv) 50m < Area ≤ 100m from
from the area between 50m to
structures approach
100m from structures approach.

Achieve 90% degree of primary

(v) Degree of consolidation consolidation during construction,
unless otherwise agreed by JKR

The terminology “structure” in the tabulation shown above refers as embankment or bridge
supported by pile to set foundation system with negligible settlement.

Page 4 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

Road embankment shall be designed to satisfy both stability and settlement criteria. When
settlement occurs, invariably there shall be some differential settlement, which could cause
serviceability problems, distresses and damages to the road embankment, and degrading the
riding comfort and compromising safety. In addition, if the ground (especially soft ground) is
excessively stressed by the overlying embankment, it may cause instability (e.g. failure of
embankment). Hence, settlement (both total and differential) and stability are the two main
technical issues in the road embankment design. As such, the ground treatment design
criteria established for this project as stated in the above table shall be used during the review
for design compliance submitted by the DDC.

4.0 REVIEW ON THE PROVIDED SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

The total chainage for Package A4 is 3000m where CH 0 to CH 175.934 is road embankment,
CH 175.934 to CH 2889.534 is piled embankments and bridges, CH 2889.534 to CH 3000 is
road embankments. The provided Subsurface Investigation (SI) for Package A4 comprises of
boreholes, Mackintosh Probes (MP), Peat Augers (PA) and Vane Shear Tests (VST). The
boreholes are generally located at about 160m interval along the Package A4 alignment.
Mackintosh Probes, Peat Augers and Vane Shear Tests were carried out between these
boreholes to acquire more subsoil information. The available SI is tabulated in Table 1 and the
provided SI layout plan is shown in Appendix B. The boreholes near the ground treatment at
CH 0 to CH 175.934 and CH 2889.534 to CH 3000 were completed with the subsoil conditions
interpreted for ground treatment design.

The followings are observations from the provided SI information:

a) Undisturbed soil sample within the peat layer is not available. Therefore, there is no
laboratory strength test performed for peats to establish the critical design parameters.
Collection undisturbed samples of peats are strongly recommended to establish the
required soil parameters for engineering analyses during investigation stage. Otherwise, it
shall be conducted during construction to verify the adopted design parameters.

b) There are total of 16 nos. of boreholes proposed throughout the entire alignment.
However, only 7 boreholes were completed due to complaint and obstruction by local
residents as stated in Geotechnical Detailed Engineering Design (DED) report. The
boreholes are located at bridge area within Batang Saribas and it is recommended to
complete these boreholes during construction stage to confirm the subsoil information for
bridge foundation design before commencing the foundation construction.

Page 5 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

c) From the Plasticity Chart shown in Figure 2, the Liquid Limit (LL) of the collected and
tested soil samples generally range from 28% to 98% indicating that samples are of high
to very high plasticity. Majority of the samples are scattered below the ‘A’- Line with fine
components of primarily SILT for the subsoils below the surficial peats. Soil classification
based on the particle size distribution and Atterberg Limit tests on the assigned soil
samples show that the subsoil type stated in the provided borelogs in SI factual report
were not updated according to the soil type classification system.

d) Based on the water level monitored in the boreholes during SI works, the groundwater
level ranges from 0m to 5m below ground level. Long term groundwater monitoring using
open standpipe is not available. The design water level adopted by DDC in stability
analyses and settlement analyses is 0.5mbgl (considering earth drains will be provided at
both sides of the embankment to maintain the groundwater at the design level). It is
worthwhile to note that additional subsoil compression is possible with the future lowering
of groundwater table by means of natural fluctuation or man-made activities, especially the
first lowering upon completion of the embankments.

e) No undisturbed soil samples were collected for the very soft and soft predominant
SILT/CLAY material located 15m deep below ground level. Therefore, 1-Dimensional
Consolidation test results available in the SI factual report is limited to top 15mbgl (meter
below ground level) subsoil layer. Consequently, the compressibility parameters of the
very soft and soft subsoils below 15mbgl is not available. It is recommended to collect
undisturbed soil samples throughout the depth of the boreholes so that necessary design
parameters can be obtained from laboratory test.

f) Similar to Item e, the undrained shear strength for the very soft and soft SILT/CLAY
beyond 15mbgl is also not available. Additional SI during construction stage is
recommended to enable collection of the undisturbed soil samples for deeper soil layer to
obtain the subsoil undrained shear strength and also compressible parameters as
mentioned above.

4.1 Subsoil Conditions

One (1) borehole is located at both ends of the proposed bridge abutment respectively, which
are boreholes A4-BBH1 (at Abutment A) and A4-BBH16 (at Abutment B) respectively. Based
on the available subsurface investigation and laboratory test results, the subsoil at Abutment A
generally consists of 24.0m thick of very soft to soft sandy SILT/CLAY near to CH 0 to CH
175.934 based on borehole A4-BBH1 and further underlain with firm to stiff layer of sandy

Page 6 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

SILT/CLAY. On the other side of the Batang Saribas riverbank (CH2889.534 to CH3000,
Abutment B), borehole A4-BBH16 shows the presence of top PEAT layer with 2.5m thick,
followed by about 19.5m thick very soft to soft sandy SILT/CLAY. Firm to stiff sandy
SILT/CLAY is underlain below the soft layer at depth of approximately 22.0m below ground
level. The subsoil layers obtained from boreholes are presented in the simplified borelog as
shown in Figure 3.

5.0 REVIEW ON GEOTECHNICAL DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN (DED) REPORT

5.1 Subsoil Parameters

5.1.1 Bulk Density

The bulk density of the collected very soft and soft SILT/CLAY samples from boreholes for
One-Dimensional (1-D) Consolidation test ranges from 13.7kN/m3 to 17.6kN/m3. Figure 4
shows the plotted profile of bulk density of SILT/CLAY from 1-D Consolidation test samples.
The bulk density of 16kN/m3 for SILT/CLAY adopted by DDC is at the upper bound of the
range. As undisturbed soil sample of PEATS is not available for the boreholes in Package A4,
bulk density of PEATS and Peaty Soils are cross referred to the laboratory test results in
Package A5 that ranges from 9.5kN/m3 to 15kN/m3 as shown in Figure 5. The bulk density of
PEATS ranges between 9kN/m3 to 12kN/m3, several results show higher range of bulk density
shown in Figure 5 is probably due to peaty soil mixed with mineral soils as demonstrated from
the classification. The adopted bulk density of 11kN/m 3 for PEATS by DDC is within the
acceptable range.

The moisture content of SILT/CLAY ranges from 22% to 104% whereas the PEATS has
relatively high moisture content of 655%. Moisture content of soil against depth are plotted in
Figure 6. Moisture content can be used to establish design parameters with the correlation
charts from published literatures as a design guide, which are available in Guidelines for
Construction on Peat and Organic Soils in Malaysia by Construction Research Institute of
Malaysia (CREAM). Nevertheless, site specific design parameters obtained from field and
laboratory tests on the collected soil samples are always preferred for more representative
design.

Page 7 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

5.1.2 Chemical Properties

The chemical properties of the subsoil determined from the laboratory tests mainly comprise
of organic content, pH value, chloride content, and total sulphate content. The determination
of the chemical content is essential to ensure necessary measures taken to reduce any
detrimental effects to the concrete structures or steel materials coming in contact with the
subsoils. The results of chemical tests are presented in Table 2.

The subsoil with pH value ranges from 5.97 to 6.07. The organic content presented in the soil
samples for PEATS and DECAYED WOOD ranges from 82% to 100%. This indicates that
tested samples are of very organic nature according to Section 6, clause 41.4.6,
BS5930:1999.

The chemical test results for chloride content are less than 0.1% as shown in Table 2, which is
insignificant based on equivalent sulphate content as per recommendations of BRE Special
Digest 1:2005.

The sulphate content (SO3) of all soil samples is 0.033%. The 0.033% SO3 corresponds to
0.04% SO4. With reference to BRE Special Digest 1: 2005, Table C1, 0.04% SO 4 falls within
the range of <0.24% which is categorised under design sulphate class of DS-1. The
Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) class for the site is categorised under
AC-1 since the pH values of samples are generally more than 5.5 and under mobile water
condition. The Design Chemical Classes (DC Class) for AC-1 category is DC-1 in which all
cement and combination group of cements are allowed for use in all concrete elements in
contact with the subsoils as recommended by BRE Special Digest 1: 2005, Table D1.

In summary, no special treatment and design consideration other than normal concrete cover
is required in the concrete in contact with the subsoil.

5.1.3 Undrained Shear Strength Parameters

The undrained shear strength (Su) of the subsoils (mineral soils) is obtained from Vane Shear
Tests and Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Tests for embankment construction stability
analyses. The profiles of Su across the subsoil depth for fine mineral soils is shown in Figure
7, whereby the Su values vary from 0kPa to 53.1kPa. The undrained shear strength
parameters of subsoil adopted by DDC are summarised in Table 3.

Page 8 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

5.1.4 Effective Shear Strength Parameters

The effective shear strength parameters of the subsoils (mineral soils) are interpreted from the
Consolidated Isotropically Undrained (CIU) Triaxial Test with pore pressure measurements
and presented in Figure 8. The effective shear strength parameters of subsoil adopted by
DDC are summarised in Table 4.

5.1.5 Compressibility Parameters

Compressibility parameters of subsoils (mineral soils) are interpreted from the One-
Dimensional (1-D) Consolidation Test. Figure 9a shows the profile of over-consolidation ratio
(OCR) interpreted from the 1-D Consolidation Test. Varying OCR values that greater than 1
was adopted by the DDC which is considered acceptable with expected conservative
estimation of consolidating compression.

The compression ratio (CR) and recompression ratio (RR) profiles of compressible subsoils
are shown in Figure 9b and Figure 9c respectively. The adopted CR and RR of compressible
subsoils by DDC is 0.24-0.25 and 0.04 which are also within the interpreted range and, hence
considered reasonably acceptable.

The void ratio (e0) versus depth is plotted as shown in Figure 9d, in which it ranges from 1.33
to 2.33. The Coefficient of Consolidation (C v) versus depth is shown in Figure 9e range from
1.32m2/year to 10.93 m2/year. DDC adopted e0 and Cv of 1.40 to 1.55 and 1.80 to 1.85m2/year
respectively which are within the range of the tests results.

Due to the laboratory testing of PEAT sample is not available, the CR of PEATS was made
reference to the back analyses of consolidation compression at Batang Rajang Bridge (refer to
Figure 10) and is limited to 0.6 for the independent analysis. On the other hand, since there
are no available test results for subsoil layer below 15mbgl, the same compressibility
parameters are applied throughout the very soft and soft subsoil layer deeper than 15mbgl in
the independent analysis as it will be certainly unjustified to assume any more favourable
parameters with engineering judgement.

Page 9 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

5.2 Review on the Ground Treatment Design

5.2.1 Ground Treatment Type

Based on the submitted Geotechnical Detailed Engineering Design (DED) Report, the adopted
ground treatment types can be summarised as follows:
Ground
Chainage Depth of Ref. Embankment
Treatment Description
(m) Peat (m) Borehole Height
Type
CH0 to - A4-BBH1 2.7m Type A  0.5m grubbing.
CH175.934  1m surcharge with
PVD for 9 months.
CH2889.53 2.5m A4-BBH16 2.8m Type B  R&R 2.5m.
4 to 2 layers 400kN/m
CH3000 geotextile.
 Stabilising berm 12m
x 1m.
 1m surcharge with
PVD for 9 months.

Remove & replace (R&R) will be carried out when the underlying surficial subsoils of the
embankment foundation is considered unsuitable (e.g. organic) or does not have the required
engineering properties (e.g. strength, stiffness to ensure the expected design performance).
This method is effective in reducing substantial amount of high compressibility of the top layer
subsoil. Generally, very soft compressible cohesive or/and organic soils are excavated out
and replaced with suitably engineered materials (e.g. compacted sand for filling underwater or
compacted suitable fill for filling above water) to provide a stronger and less compressible
foundation supporting the new road embankment.

Basal reinforcement is a common method to improve the embankment stability from lateral
spreading failure of the embankment. As the degree of resistance mobilisation between the
underlying foundation soil and the straining of basal reinforcement could be different, the
strain compatibility between the shearing of supporting soils and straining of basal
reinforcement has to be taken into consideration to ensure that the intended mobilised
strength in both embankment and supporting subsoils can be achieved simultaneously. This is
important particularly when high strength basal reinforcement is adopted and when the
stability of the embankment is heavily relied on the balance of the strength contribution as

Page 10 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

provided by the basal reinforcement. The strength of basal reinforcement adopted by DDC are
typically 400kN/m.

Prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) are generally provided in patterns of triangular spacing
with the most efficient drainage radius arrangement in very soft to soft clay layer to expedite
the consolidation settlement. The PVD spacing provided are generally 1.5m with length of
25m.

Counterweight berms (CWB) are provided whenever the stability check justifies the need,
provided that there is sufficient space within the Right of Way (R.O.W) to accommodate the
required CWB. CWB are proposed to widen the base of an embankment for necessary
counter balancing action to the destabilising effect from the main embankment, thus
increasing the factor of safety against failure of the supporting soft soils. The proposed CWB
by DDC is 12m width and 1m in height above original ground level. Top level of counterweight
berm will be maintained by having periodic topping up during the ground treatment period as
adopted by DDC.

Stage construction is also adopted especially at locations where the underlying subsoils
beneath the embankment comprise of soft soil such as peats or very soft clay. Embankment is
constructed in stages in order to allow for progressive gain-in strength of the fine subsoils to
facilitate subsequent stage of embankment filling without embankment instability. Each filling
stage is placed and allowing for consolidation with a designated resting period before the
immediate subsequent filling stage can executed. The ground treatment near to Abutment B at
CH2889.534 to CH3000 has adopted stage construction to allow progressive gain-in strength
of the subsoils during the embankment filling.

Surcharging preloading consists of extra fill on top of the constructed embankment reaching
the designed finished level, but without completing the consolidation, to accelerate
consolidation by overloading the consolidating subsoils with increase the magnitude of
settlements within a shorter period of time. Upon reaching the design degree of consolidation
corresponding to the self-weight of embankment with final gross fill thickness, then the
balance of the surcharge fill above the designated level will be removed to end the ground
treatment. The thickness of surcharge preloading fill adopted by DDC are generally 1m. Top of
the surcharge fill level will be maintained by having periodic topping up.

In addition to the lateral spreading failure mode of embankment, other modes of embankment
failure stated in BS8006 shall also be examined, especially the plastic failure in the underlying
soft and weak foundation soils.

Page 11 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

Checklist for ground treatment design consideration and impacts can refer to Appendix C.

5.2.2 Embankment Stability Analyses

The stability of the embankment is analysed to determine the safe configuration of fill slope
gradients, total fill thickness and the required ground treatments to support the embankment
during construction. Generally, the stability of the embankment is assessed using limit
equilibrium analysis. It is very important to check for the stability of the embankment with
consideration for differential potential failure modes, namely for circular bearing failure,
translational wedge failure, lateral spreading of embankment with plastic squeezing extrusion
failure of underlying soils.

The stability of the embankment is most critical when the embankment reaches the maximum
fill thickness during construction (including the surcharge fill in short-term for preloading
treatment) and the consolidating subsoils will gain in strength with time when the excess pore
pressure dissipates. Therefore, critical review on stability analyses generally emphasises on
short-term stability of the embankment. The analyses are based on the undrained shear
strength, Su of the subsoils at the time where the strength gain is estimated. In addition, 10kPa
surcharge is conventionally applied to simulate the temporary construction machinery loading
on top of the embankment. The gradient of fill slope of 1V:2H is adopted for the fill
embankment and fill slope of 1V:1H is adopted for surcharge fill (on top of fill embankment).

The embankment fill thickness above existing ground level (net fill) in the short-term stability
analyses is taken as the summation of the embankment net fill thickness, extra surcharge fill
for preloading and topping up for compensating the consolidation settlement during fill /
surcharging period to maintain the embankment / surcharge fill level. Due to relatively soft
subsoil condition, only 1m surcharge fill is placed on top of the initial embankment and the top
level of this embankment / surcharge fill will be maintained by having periodic topping up
during ground treatment period.

The stability of the embankment after construction (long term) using drained parameters is
also analysed to ensure the long-term stability of the embankment complying with the required
FOS in permanent condition. Normally, this is less of the concern other than compliance with
the FOS in permanent condition.

Embankment stability for ground treatment at CH 0 to CH 175.934 and CH2889.534 to

CH3000 in transverse and longitudinal directions (near bridge approach) were analysed by
DDC. All stability analyses shall achieve the minimum required factor of safety (FOS) of 1.2 for
short-term stability and 1.3 for long-term stability as specified in the Design Brief provided by

Page 12 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

OPUS. The concept of the embankment stability analyses adopted by the DDC is in line with
the criteria elaborated above.

The revised GDR Revision 01 included proposed widening of existing embankment which is
not made available in GDR Revision 00. The detail location of road widening is not shown in
GDR Revision 01 and hence, the reference SI cannot be identified. Based on the ground
treatment drawings, ground treatment type A has been adopted for the proposed widening of
existing embankment. As such, the stability analyses of the proposed road widening can only
be assessed based on the general conceptual design as shown in the GDR by DDC. All
stability analyses of proposed road widening achieved the minimum required FOS of 1.2 for
short-term stability and 1.3 for long-term stability.

5.2.3 Settlement Analyses

Construction of embankments over soft compressible soils will cause settlement in the
subsoils during and after filling until the induced excess pore water pressure dissipates
completely. This phenomenon is more obvious for embankment constructed over soft clay or
peats due to their high compressibility under loading. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the
magnitude and rate of settlement of the subsoil supporting the embankments so that the
residual settlements in post-construction stage are within the specified limits and shall not
affect the serviceability of the embankments.

It is important to estimate the magnitude of total settlements under the selfweight of expected
final gross fill thickness and estimate adequate resting period for required degree of
dissipation of excess pore pressure and strength gain with controlled filling rate to ensure
construction stability. In estimating the final gross fill thickness accounting for settlement
compensating fill and at the same time maintaining top elevation of embankment fill at
designated level, iterative process between the compensating fill thickness and the induced
consolidating settlement with respect to the incremental compensating fill is required in an
ideal calculation. In the realistic and practical design process, the design will still allow for
tolerable residual settlement in the post-construction reduce high initial ground treatment cost
and avoid undue resting period for complete treatment.

Assumptions included in the settlement analyses carried out by DDC are summarised as
follows:
1) Using Terzaghi’s 1D Consolidation theory with consideration of stress reduction with
depth (Boussinesq Equation).
2) Grubbing of 0.5m for CH 0 to CH 175.934; Removal and replacement (R&R) of
maximum 2.5m for CH2889.534 to CH3000.

Page 13 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

3) Temporary surcharge of 1m with resting period of 9 months. Periodical topping up of

fill to maintain the fill level and stabilising berm during construction.
4) Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVD) at 1.5m spacing in triangular pattern.
5) Design length for the PVD is about 25m for ground treatment at CH0 to CH175.934
and CH CH2889.534 to CH3000.
6) The PVD is not working in PEAT layer due to non-homogeneous nature of PEAT.
7) Water table was assumed at 0.5mbgl. Fluctuation of groundwater table can also cause
variation of consolidation settlement calculation. Rise of groundwater will reduce
settlement whereas lower of groundwater will increase settlement.

The entire compressible subsoil layer is discretised into multiple layers (each layer with 1m
thick) by the DDC in calculating the time factor (T v) to obtain the degree of consolidation for
every discretised layer and total up the predicted settlement for each discretised layer to
obtain the total settlement. However, the adopted time factor formula shall consider the
degree of consolidation for the entire compressible subsoil as single layer to obtain the
settlement for the entire compressible layer. Therefore, the degree of consolidation and
method of settlement calculation adopted by DDC are not entirely in line with the fundamental
theory behind of the formula used. Furthermore, the profile of excess pore water pressure is
changing from time to time due to the periodical topping up of embankment fill during the
ground treatment, which is not captured in the adopted formula, which is derived from close
form solution for dissipation with prescribed initial boundary profile of excess pore pressure.
There is also continuity problem in the said profile at the interfaces between two adjoining soil
layers, which will not be correctly reflected in the dissipation profile of the adopted close form
solution for a homogeneous soil. Consequently, the computed GIS based on the discretised
soil layers’ degree of consolidation does not reflect the actual changes of excess pore
pressure in the embankment construction. There will also be impact to the computed
consolidation compression of each consolidating soil layers arising from the incorrect
reflection of degree of consolidation. Nevertheless, verification on the subsoil gain-in strength
is recommended during construction stage to ensure the design assumption by DDC is
achieved before subsequent stage of filling works.

GDR prepared by DDC mentioned that PVD is conservatively assumed not working in PEAT
layer in order to cater for non-homogeneous nature of the PEAT, i.e. allow the PEAT to
compress as normal soil in the design but under the condition of high permeability.
Nevertheless, this is irrelevant in this package as the 2.5m thick peat will be completely
removed.

Page 14 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

6.0 REVIEW ON THE GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DRAWINGS

The provided geotechnical ground treatment drawings have been reviewed and the suggested
amendments have been made by the DDC upon the acceptance of DDC on the review
comments. The detailed comments on geotechnical ground treatment drawings are shown in
DRR sheet in Appendix D. It is important for the DDC to ensure the technical design
requirements and issues involving site control discussed in the DRR/GDR are included into
the construction drawings and implemented at site.

7.0 INDEPENDENT ANALYSES

7.1 Settlement Analysis

Independent settlement analysis near the bridge approach at Abutment B has been carried
out by G&P using PLAXIS 2D based on the SI information of nearest boreholes A4-BBH15
and A4-BBH16 to compute the total settlement at removal of surcharge and post-construction
settlement. The post-construction differential settlement between the piled embankment and
embankment on treated ground has also been checked. The periodical topping up of fill to
maintain the fill level at designated level during construction has been considered as per
DDC’s design assumption. The construction sequence of the ground treatment near the bridge
approach are as follows:
1) Removal and replacement (R&R) of 2.5m of PEAT and backfill with sand material up
to original ground level (OGL) and rest for 3 months.
2) Install prefabricated vertical drain (PVD).
3) Fill up to 1.5m above OGL with filling rate of 0.3m per every 2 weeks.
4) Rest for 6 months and allow topping up on weekly basis to maintain the level.
5) Continue to fill up to surcharge level with filling rate of 0.3m per every 2 weeks.
Periodic topping up of the stabilising berm shall be carried out on bi-weekly basis to
designated level as well.
6) Surcharge rest period for 9 months. Topping up is allowed to maintain the surcharge
level.
7) Upon maturity of the surcharge period, trim the embankment to road formation level.
8) Install piles for piled embankment and construct slab.

DDC has considered PEAT layer of 2.5m in the ground treatment design at CH2889.534 to
CH3000 based on borehole A4-BBH16 with removal of PEAT up to maximum 2.5m depth.
The soil parameters of SILT and soft CLAY underneath the embankment are based on the SI

Page 15 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

interpretation from laboratory test results in Package A4. Soil parameters for PEATS are
based on SI results in Package A5 (as there is no laboratory test on PEATS for Package A4)
except compression ratio (CR) is referred to back analyses of settlement performance data
from Batang Rajang Bridge project. The soil parameters adopted in PLAXIS 2D and
settlement analysis are shown in Appendix E.

The settlement results from independent analysis and DDC is presented in graph as shown in
Figure 11. As mentioned in Section 5.2.3, the calculated consolidation settlement by DDC
might not be correct due to the incorrect dissipation modelling analysis in using simplified
close form solution for single layer of homogeneous consolidating soils to simulate layered
soils with different characteristics in dissipation. Settlement results for surcharge removal and
post-construction at the first 5 years of service are summarised below:
Independent
Construction DDC’s Design
Analysis Remarks
Stage (Spreadsheet)
(PLAXIS 2D)
Independent analysis indicates
Surcharge
1509mm 1925mm that total settlement less
Removal
(~416mm) than DDC’s design.

Post- Post-construction total

Construction settlement (5 years) < 250mm
Total Settlement 86mm 16.51mm for embankment on clay (Peat
at First 5 Years of will be completed removed as
Service assumed in DDC’s design).

Finite element software, PLAXIS 2D is adopted by G&P, whereas DDC is using spreadsheet
to carry out the settlement analysis. PLAXIS 2D is used to simulate the construction
sequence, including the prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) to expedite the dissipation of
excess pore water pressure and to compute the resulting consolidation settlement. The
modelling of the effect of PVDs in two-dimensional finite element analyses refers to the
methodology presented in the published literature by Safiye Feyza Cinicioglu, C.C Hird etc
(2011) “Modelling the effect of vertical drains in two-dimensional finite element analyses of
embankments on soft ground”. Rate of topping and filling in the analysis is similar to DDC’s
design, which is 300mm per every 2 weeks period for embankment and counterweight berm.

Based on the PLAXIS 2D analysis results, the predicted total settlement (at center of the main
embankment) is about 1509mm at the end of ground treatment. While, the magnitude of
settlement predicted by DDC is about 1925mm. Both settlement analysis performed by G&P

Page 16 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

and DDC can comply with the requirement of post-construction settlement of less than 250mm
for first 5 years for Abutment B.

In addition, independent analysis shows that the post-construction differential settlement

within first five (5) years has exceeded 100mm over 50m distance from the bridge abutment
structure. The differential settlement for the subsequent 50m (between 50m and 100m from
bridge abutment structure) complies to the requirement of 150mm over 50m distance although
part of the piled embankment within this extent is anticipated subject to greater than 250mm
total settlement. Embankment located more than 100m from bridge abutment structure
complies with the total settlement requirement of 250mm. Illustration on the differential
settlement criteria for piled embankment provided by OPUS and results of the PLAXIS
analysis for settlement within piled embankment at Abutment B are shown in Appendix E.

Large magnitude settlement of piled embankment as observed from PLAXIS analysis is

mainly due to inadequate pile penetration length as the design pile length proposed by DDC is
terminated within SPT-N value = 5 SILT material, which could be subjected to remarkable
consolidation settlement within the consolidating subsoils beyond the pile tip (Additional SI is
recommended as mentioned above to confirm the compressibility of the subsoil beyond 15m
below ground level and to review the settlement performance if sufficient favourable
parameters suggest more improved settlement analysis). As a result, more severe differential
settlement is expected in long term.

In order to control the differential settlement to comply with the requirement, it is

recommended to lengthen transition piles within the piled embankment, in which these
frictional piles shall act as settlement reducing piles. In addition, differential settlement
between transition piled embankment and the embankment on treated ground can also be
minimised by extending the embankment ground treatment and surcharge preloading to have
sufficient overlapping extent of treated ground with the transition piled embankment.

On the other hand, adhesion factor recommended by McClelland was not applied to the
undrained shear strength used by DDC to calculate the pile shaft capacity. Appropriate
adhesion factors should be applied to the undrained shear strength in the pile capacity
calculation to determine the required pile length. Other aspects on the piled embankment
design to be taken care are discussed in Section 8.2 (e.g. piled embankment slab level to be
placed lower than existing ground level, effect of negative skin friction to the pile, etc).

Page 17 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

7.2 Embankment Stability Analysis

Independent stability analysis for embankment has been carried out by G&P using Geostudio
Slope/W. The embankment stability for ground treatment at CH2889.534 to CH3000 (2.5m
PEATS with R&R of 2.5m) has been selected to be analysed.

The change of effective vertical stresses for each staged construction from PLAXIS 2D has
been extracted and Appendix F shows calculation of estimated Gained-in Strength (GIS) with
the following formula:

Gained-In Strength (kPa) = Constant (K) x Change of Effective Vertical Stress

K = 0.4 for PEAT and 0.22 for CLAY

The gained-in strength for CLAY is limited to theoretical increase of effective vertical stress as
recommended by Mesri (1975). Full GIS magnitude will be adopted under full ground
treatment areas (maximum embankment fill thickness) whereas half GIS magnitude will be
adopted under sloping areas without full ground treatment (sloping embankment fill thickness).
It is necessary to allow for verification on the achievable gain-in strength at different stages of
filling, depth and rest period during construction to confirm reasonableness of the design
assumptions before proceeding to next stage of filling to higher embankment level.

In addition, re-assessment of the design is recommended during construction stage if there is

any need to alter the design PVD length due to site condition or unexpected subsoil condition
is encountered at site, especially during PVD installation as it governs the achievable GIS that
affects the embankment stability.

Both undrained (during construction) and drained (serviceability stage) analyses were carried
out as shown in Appendix F. The design parameters adopted in the analyses are based on the
nearest borehole A4-BBH15 and A4-BBH16.

Table 5: Design Parameters for Undrained Stability Analysis for Subsoils

Design Parameters
Unit Weight
Material Undrained Shear Strength, Su Effective Frictional
(kN/m3)
/ Effective Cohesion, c’ (kPa) Angle, ’ ( ̊)

PEAT 11.0 5 -

SILT (< 6m) 14.5 7 -

SILT (6m - 11.5m) 14.5 13 -

Page 18 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

CLAY (> 11.5m) 15.0 19 -

Sand Fill 18.0 0 28

Earth Fill 18.0 3 28

Surcharge 18.0 3 30

Table 6: Design Parameters for Drained Stability Analysis for Subsoils

Design Parameters
Unit Weight
Material Effective Effective Frictional
(kN/m3)
Cohesion, c’ (kPa) Angle, ’ ( ̊)

PEAT 11.0 0 30

Very Soft SILT (< 6m) 14.5 0 26

Very Soft SILT (6m - 11.5m) 14.5 0 26

Soft CLAY (11.5 – 29.5m) 15.0 2 26

Firm SILT (29.5 – 56.5m) 15.5 3 26

Very Stiff CLAY (> 56.5m) 17.5 5 29

Sand Fill 18.0 0 28

Earth Fill 18.0 3 28

Surcharge 18.0 3 28

Note: The unit weight and strength parameters for embankment fill and sand fill materials are
based on the values adopted by DDC as stated in drawing (despite the bulk unit weight of
compacted fill appears to be slightly underestimated as mention in Section 9.0 and effective
frictional angle for sand fill might also likely be underestimated.)

The analyses results are summarised as follows:

FOS

Case Description Slip Circle Wedge Failure Remarks

Failure

1.5m fill height after

Undrained
resting 3 months of 1.85 1.78 > 1.2, OK
(Stage 1)
2.5m R&R

Undrained 2.8m fill height and 1.23 1.25 > 1.2, OK

Page 19 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

(Stage 2) temporary surcharge

Drained Long term 2.81 2.79 > 1.3, OK

Independent analyses for CH2889.534 to CH3000 revealed that the main embankment and
counterweight berm has global stability and local stability factor of safety (FOS) greater than
1.2 and 1.3 for both short-term and long-term analyses respectively.

The following are the observations that contributes to the different stability FOS between DDC
and independent analysis:

i. Independent analysis using Plaxis-2D shows the achievable GIS is lower than the
value adopted by DDC in the design report for undrained analyses (short term). The
GIS adopted by DDC considered different degree of consolidation along the soil layer.
Fundamentally the approach of degree of consolidation calculation adopted by DDC is
applicable for the subsoil layer beneath the embankment fill as a whole instead of
discretised subsoil layers with different degree of consolidation at various stages as
computed by the DDC. The profile of excess pore water pressure is changing from
time to time due to the periodical topping up of embankment fill during the ground
treatment. As such, the degree of consolidation would be complicated as the initial
pore water pressure is varying within treatment period. Nevertheless, verification on
the subsoil gain-in strength is recommended during construction stage to ensure the
design assumption by DDC is achieved before subsequent stage of filling works.

ii. It was noticed that DDC has considered 10kPa machineries load on top of
counterweight berm which may act as the stabilising force to the global stability check
for the main embankment. The 10kPa above counterweight berm shall not be
included in the main embankment global stability check to prevent over-estimation of
FOS.

iii. The local stability check of counterweight berm is not carried out by DDC. The
counterweight berm shall be maintained at the designated level at all time due to its
contribution as stabilising force to the global stability of main embankment. As such,
machineries on top of counterweight berm shall be controlled and the counterweight
berm is required to be inspected routinely to ensure its local stability.

Page 20 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

8.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Differential Settlement at Piled Embankment

Pile to length embankment foundation transmitted the load from the filled embankment over
the RC slab to greater depth below the ground. This pressure bulb developed in the group
piles at greater depth below the ground surface can cause less consolidation settlement to the
pile to length embankment particularly if there is substantial of soft clay underneath the piles.
Pile to length (pile with different cluster of penetration length) is adopted as shown in the
tender drawing where the pile toe terminated within soft layer which the soft soil underneath is
subjected to compatibly higher consolidation settlement. Thus, it is necessary to consider the
consolidation settlement of piled embankment at different pile length transition zone and check
the differential settlement between the embankment on treated ground with pile embankment
and comply with the serviceability requirement. This is to prevent a drastic change of
settlement between embankment on the treated ground and piled embankment.

8.2 Pile Adequacy Assessment for Piled Embankment

Assessment on structural and geotechnical adequacy of piles in piled embankment shall be

carried out in resisting the induced bending moment and shear force of the lateral earth
pressure from the embankment on treated ground at bridge approach. The pile lateral capacity
(i.e. structural and geotechnical) shall be checked to ensure the sufficiency to resist the lateral
loading from the embankment on treated ground.

It is common to observe that the soft layer beneath piled embankment to settle due to
consolidation under the working fill platform in permanent condition will result in a gap beneath
the piled embankment slab which would cause stability issue due to reduced lateral resistance
in the piles with free standing length. The slip surface of embankment on treated ground will
induce lateral force to the piles if the embankment on treated ground is not stable. Thus, it is
recommended to check the stability within the piled embankment zone.

Down-drag effect from negative skin friction on piles due to consolidation settlement of soft
layer shall be checked in the pile geotechnical design in both aspects of pile capacity and
settlement performance.

Page 21 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

8.3 Sand Blanket and Drainage for Dissipation of Excess Pore Water

For embankment with counterweight berm, a strip of granular materials is recommended to be

placed at the embankment toe to provide shorter drainage path for the excess pore water flow
as shown in Figure 12. This strip of the granular fill drainage has to be maintained (top up with
granular material) during filling of the main embankment and counterweight berm (and during
topping up filling) to enable water to discharge and prevent overfilling that could cover up the
granular material for efficient discharge relief. Besides, the R&R with replacing sand filling is
recommended to extend further away from the main embankment toe to minimize the
contraction of drainage path due to deformation of the drainage blanket after the consolidation
settlement.

For embankment without counterweight berm, wider extent of sand blanket is recommended
as shown in Figure 13. Alternatively, pump sump can be provided at the middle of
embankment as shown in Figure 14 to allow pumping out of the water at the lowest level in the
deformed sand blanket collected from the PVD underneath the embankment. In addition, it is
recommended to lay horizontal PVD as subsoil drain as additional drainage provision to
discharge the water to the side surface drains. Proposed detail of horizontal PVD is shown in
Figure 15.

8.4 Differential Settlement at Interface between Newly Widen Road and Existing
Embankment

It was observed that there is road widening as shown in the ground treatment drawings.
However, assessment and review could not be carried out due to limited information provided
in GDR (location and reference borehole are not available as mentioned above).
Nevertheless, some recommendations are discussed below shall be take note by the DDC.

The treatment design for the widen new embankment need to consider the compatibility on
the rate of settlement between newly widen road embankment and existing embankment to
avoid differential settlement, especially for the interfacing located within the carriageway,
which is important to be identified. Additional site investigation works within existing
embankment is needed to find out the degree of consolidation settlement. Alternatively,
settlement monitoring on the existing embankment can be carried out to ascertain the
activeness and rate of settlement for further assessment. During surcharging period,
monitoring shall be implemented on the existing embankment and also the widen
embankment to compare the rate of settlement for further assessment with necessary
treatment adjustment before surcharge removal.

Page 22 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

For area with relatively narrow widening, the effect of surcharge preload induced would be
less effective compared to wider extent of embankment fill and hence, differential settlement
could still occur. Surcharge coverage to extend further into existing embankment would be
beneficial. Unextendible geogrid reinforcement can be considered to lay underneath the road
base of the pavement between the widen embankment and the existing embankment
(localized excavation into the road base of existing embankment will be needed for such
integration) to smoothen and reduce the impact of the differential settlement at the interfacing
zone of the widen embankment and existing embankment.

For area with PVD, the PVD to be installed beyond interface areas towards the existing
embankment (refer to Figure 16) where possible (with drainage blanket laid over the side
slope of existing embankment for draining the PVD discharge at this area), especially at the
location where the widen road interface is located within the carriageway to provide a gradual
transition.

8.5 Potential Thicker PEAT Layer

DDC has considered PEAT layer of 2.5m in the ground treatment design at CH2889.534 to
CH3000, which is extracted from borehole A4-BBH16. However, borehole A5-BH1 which is
located approximately 160m away from A4-BBH16 has encountered PEAT of 4.5m thick
below existing ground. In view of the potential variation of subsoil condition as demonstrated
by the two (2) nearby boreholes, the PEAT layer shall be further identified along CH2889.534
to CH3000 to ascertain the PEAT thickness during construction stage. In the event where
PEAT encountered at site is deeper than the design assumption of 2.5m, the settlement
analysis and stability analysis for CH2889.534 to CH3000 shall be further re-assessed by the
DDC to ensure both settlement and stability of embankment in complying with design
requirements.

8.6 Ground Water Level

The design water level adopted by DDC in settlement analyses and stability analyses is
0.5mbgl by considering earth drains will be provided at both sides of the embankment to
maintain the groundwater at the design level. However, the groundwater level monitored in the
boreholes during SI works ranges from 0m to 5m below ground level and long-term
groundwater monitoring using open standpipe is not available. There is potential risk of
groundwater level cannot be effectively lowered down across the entire embankment as
expected in design. Therefore, verification of the groundwater level by using open standpipe

Page 23 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

during construction stage is required to ensure the groundwater level is consistent with the
design assumption. There would be potential larger settlement if the initial groundwater level is
higher (leads to lower initial effective vertical stress of the subsoil) than the water level
adopted in design assumption.

8.7 Instrumentation Scheme, Monitoring and Interpretation

In order to confirm the effectiveness of the ground treatment works, timing of surcharge
removal, instrumentation and monitoring scheme are strongly recommended during
construction stage to monitor that the embankment performance can be satisfied without
severe violation to the design assumptions and compliance to design criteria. Instruments
such as deep settlement gauges, displacement markers, inclinometers and vibrating wire
piezometers are recommended to be used to monitor the embankment performance during
construction stage.

The review of the instruments during construction shall decide the necessary adjustment of
the filling rate for stability during construction, assessing the performance of PVD and proper
timing for surcharge removal. Asaoka plot is recommended to be used to determine the
degree of consolidation achieved for surcharge removal. Matsuo stability plot is recommended
to be utilised to check any potential embankment instability before further raising the fill as
planned.

8.8 Trial Embankment

Trial embankment with proper instrumentation is recommended to ascertain the actual

behaviour of the embankment and performance of the embankment fill to enable back-
analyses to establish the site-specific design parameters for subsequent embankment ground
treatment design. Subsurface investigation is also recommended in the trial embankment
works to ascertain the achievable gain-in strength at different depth practically for verification
on the design assumption.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

After reviewing and studying the documents and information made available by the Detailed
Design Consultant (DDC), the following conclusions can be drawn:

Page 24 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

a) Independent analysis carried out on the piled embankment in Abutment B shows the
settlement of piled embankment has exceeded the post construction differential
settlement requirement stipulated in the Design Brief. It is recommended to lengthen the
transition piles within the piled embankment to minimise the differential settlement.
Additional SI is needed to confirm the compressibility and strength parameters of the
subsoil for further assessment.

b) The degree of consolidation and method of settlement calculation adopted by DDC are
not entirely in line with the fundamental theory behind of the formula used. This would
lead to the computed gain-in strength does not reflect the actual changes of excess
pore pressure in the embankment construction. Therefore, verification on the subsoil
gain-in strength is recommended during construction stage to ensure the design
assumption by DDC is achieved for the purpose of confirming the embankment stability.

c) For embankment on treated ground beyond piled embankment (next to Abutment B),
the independent analyses show that the ground treatment is in line with the design
method adopted by the DDC and has attained the expected design performance.

d) Pile adequacy assessment at piled embankment shall be carried out to ensure the
sufficiency of resisting the lateral force due to embankment on treated ground at bridge
approach.

e) Embankment fill material bulk density of 18kN/m3 adopted by DDC in the embankment
stability analyses, could be on the lower side for properly compacted fill material. High
bulk density of the embankment fill material poses higher destabilising force, which
could reduce the stability FOS. Therefore, it is recommended to verify bulk density of
the borrow source material during construction stage using proctor tests and re-visit the
embankment stability if the obtained bulk density is higher than design assumption,

f) The review and independent analyses are based on limited interpreted subsoil
parameters available from the SI. Hence, it involves substantial engineering judgements
and references in the published literatures in establishing the important design
parameters for review, and also independent analyses. It is strongly recommended to
carry out additional SI during construction stage to ascertain the subsoil conditions and
validate the design assumptions, especially if adverse subsoil conditions discovered.
Trial embankment with proper instrumentation is highly recommended to establish the
site-specific design parameters for subsequent embankment ground treatment design.
Instrumentation monitoring is useful and important to verify the actual performance, to

Page 25 of 25
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A4
20E1497\RW0-0062\20\LSS\LYC

indicate the necessary precaution control and determine timing for implementation of
contingency actions as required.

g) Other than the views and suggestions mentioned above and also stated in the DRR for
the consideration of the DDC, generally the design concept and methodology of the
embankment stability by DDC are adopting acceptable engineering practice.

Page 26 of 25