OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD

REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1

20E1497\RW0-0080\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...........................................9
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....................................................13
5.2.3 Settlement Analyses.......................................................................14

6.0 REVIEW ON THE GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DRAWINGS...................................16

7.0 INDEPENDENT ANALYSES...................................................................................16

7.1 Settlement Analysis....................................................................................16
7.2 Embankment Stability Analysis.................................................................18

8.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................21

i
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

8.1 Differential Settlement at Piled Embankment..........................................21

8.2 Pile Adequacy Assessment for Piled Embankment................................22
8.3 Sand Blanket and Drainage for Dissipation of Excess Pore Water.......23
8.4 Differential Settlement at Interface between Newly Widen Road and
Existing Embankment................................................................................23
8.5 Groundwater Level.....................................................................................24
8.6 Instrumentation Scheme, Monitoring and Interpretation........................24
8.7 Trial Embankment.......................................................................................25

9.0 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................25

TABLES

FIGURES

APPENDICES

ii
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\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 are 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. This report presents the review on the ground treatment design for
Package A1 prepared by the DDC, Jurutera TCS Sendirian Berhad. This review report is

Page 1 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

prepared based on the available revised design calculations and drawings received for the
items stated in DRR as shown in Appendix C (complete set of GDR is not available during the
preparation of this review report).

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 A1 (from CH 0 to CH
21719.334), 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

Page 2 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party. No liability is
undertaken to any third party.

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
Division (Package A1) dated October 2019 prepared by Geospec Sdn Bhd (Report
No.: GSI/2019/3116)

d) Proposed Second Trunk Road Package A1: Proposed Construction of Highway from
Batang Samarahan to Batang Sadong, Samarahan Division: Geotechnical Detailed
Engineering Design (DED) Report – Revision 00 (February 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 A1 is
underlain 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.

Page 3 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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

background are as follows:

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 in remarkable land subsidence.

ii. Chemical aggressiveness, likes chloride and sulphate attacks to steel elements and
concrete in saline environment in coastal areas and potential high acidity leachate
from the decomposed organic matters or peats at surficial soils.

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

Page 4 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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

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

Package A1 consists of new road embankment construction approximately 22 km (CH 0 – CH

21719.334) with PVD treatment and piled embankment. The provided Subsurface
Investigation (SI) for Package A1 comprises of boreholes, Mackintosh probes (MP), peat
augers (PA) and vane shear tests (VST). There is total 21 nos. boreholes within Package A1
alignment including existing road boreholes. 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. All boreholes along the alignment Package A1 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 of undisturbed samples in 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) Consolidated Isotropically Undrained (CIU) Triaxial test with pore pressure measurements
were carried out on the mineral soils up to 9m only with SPT-N value of 0. It is
recommended to carry out CIU test on the mineral soils at deeper layer subsoils to obtain
the effective strength design parameters for engineering analysis.

Page 5 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

c) Undrained Shear Strength (Su) of the subsoils was mainly obtained from Vane Shear
Tests (VST) and Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Tests that carried out up to 18m. It is
recommended to carry out more VST and UU tests on the mineral soils at deeper layer
subsoils to obtain the Su for engineering analysis.

d) From the Plasticity Chart shown in Figure 2, the Liquid Limit (LL) of the collected and
tested soil samples generally range from 31% to 161% indicating that samples are of
intermediate to very high plasticity. The samples are scattered above and below the ‘A’-
Line with fine components of primarily CLAY and 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.

e) Based on the water level monitored in the boreholes during SI works, the groundwater
level ranges from 0m to 6.5m 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.

f) No undisturbed soil samples were collected for the very soft and soft predominant
SILT/CLAY material located 18m deep below ground level. Therefore, 1-Dimensional
Consolidation test results available in the SI factual report is limited to top 18mbgl (meter
below ground level) subsoil layer. Consequently, the compressibility parameters of the
very soft and soft subsoils below 18mbgl are 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.

g) Other miscellaneous discrepancies observed from the Factual SI report has been
highlighted in the DRR sheet as shown in Appendix C. (Latest comment dated on
20/11/2020).

4.1 Subsoil Conditions

Based on the available subsurface investigation and laboratory test results, the subsoil
generally consists of PEAT and SILT/CLAY. The boreholes and peat augers indicated the
PEAT thickness up to 9m, followed by the clayey alluvium below the PEAT with thickness of

Page 6 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

the very soft to soft sandy SILT/CLAY ranged from 9.5m to 32m. The soft layer is generally
underlain by firm to stiff layer to the borehole termination depth at about 41m below ground
level. The subsoil layers obtained from boreholes and peat augers are presented in the
simplified borelog as shown in Figure 3.

DDC has considered the ground treatment design according to the range of PEAT thickness
from 1m to 9m and underlain with very soft to soft SILT/CLAY along the road alignment
according to the chainage with reference to the nearby borehole information. This approach is
reasonable and has captured the worse subsoil condition observed from the available
boreholes for embankment design.

5.0 REVIEW ON GEOTECHNICAL DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN (DED) REPORT

5.1 Subsoil Parameters

As the embankment is located on alluvial deposits, the subsoils consist of predominantly very
soft and soft SILT/CLAY. Therefore, the terminology of “SILT” or “CLAY” stated in this report
refers to the very soft and soft fine soil, which is highly compressible and also the main
concern in the embankment design.

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 13.1kN/m3 to 17.8kN/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 seems to be on high side for
very soft and soft SILT/CLAY. As undisturbed soil sample of PEATS is not available for the
boreholes in Package A1, 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/m3 for
PEATS by DDC is within the acceptable range.

The moisture content of majority tested SILT/CLAY ranges from 30% to 100% whereas the
PEATS has relatively high moisture content of 50% to 1600%. Moisture content of SILT/CLAY
and PEATS against depth are plotted in Figure 6a & Figure 6b. Moisture content can be used

Page 7 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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.

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 of PEATS and Clayey PEATS are presented in Table 2.

The tested peat subsoil with pH value ranges from 5.8 to 6.3. The organic content presented
in the soil samples for PEATS ranges from 0.1% to 99.7%. There are only two (2) tested
PEAT samples which are A1-PA14/D8 and A1-PA29/D4 indicated very low of organic content
that is less than 1% organic content, whereas the remaining tested samples generally more
than 70% organic content. 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 less than 0.1%. The 0.1% SO3 corresponds
to 0.12% SO4. With reference to BRE Special Digest 1: 2005, Table C1, 0.12% SO4 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.

Page 8 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

5.1.3 Undrained Shear Strength Parameters

The undrained shear strength (Su) of the subsoils (PEATS and mineral soils) is obtained from
Vane Shear Tests (VST) and Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Tests for embankment
construction stability analyses. The profiles of S u across the subsoil depth for PEATS and fine
mineral soils are shown in Figure 7a & Figure 7b, whereby the Su values for PEATS vary from
32kPa to 37kPa. However, only 2 nos VST results available for PEATS. More tests are
recommended within PEATS layer to establish the strength profile at different depth. On the
other hand, UU tests results show the undrained shear strength values for SILT/CLAY vary
from 1.0kPa to 33kPa, while the undrained shear strength obtained from VST ranges from
25kPa to 54kPa. The undrained shear strength obtained from VST is uncommonly high for
CLAY/SILT material of such low SPT-N value (i.e. SPT-N= 0 to 1) as reported in the borehole
logs and therefore, further verification on the VST results is needed. The undrained shear
strength parameters of subsoil adopted by DDC are summarised in Table 3. Undrained shear
strength, Su of 18kPa was adopted by DDC for the fine mineral soils (consists of SILT/CLAY)
for up to 10m deep below existing ground. Same Su value was adopted as the subsoil strength
parameter in the embankment stability throughout the entire road alignment in Package A1
while Su value much lower than 18kPa is found at some test locations as shown in Figure 7b.
Therefore, the adopted Su value at certain location could be overestimated, especially if the
actual Su value is lower than the adopted design value, with the same treatment design being
implemented. It is recommended to segmentise the S u from VST and UU tests into several
clusters based on the nearest boreholes within each cluster to determine the suitable design
soil strength instead of generalising the Su throughout the entire alignment.

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 are greater than
unity was adopted by the DDC seems to be at the high side from the interpreted test results as
shown in Figure 9a which may underestimate the magnitude of consolidation settlement.

Page 9 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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 0.22 and 0.03 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 0.97
to 2.46. The Coefficient of Consolidation (C v) versus depth is shown in Figure 9e range from
0.28m2/year to 17.26 m2/year. DDC adopted e0 and Cv of 1.2 and 1.5 to 2.5m2/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 18mbgl, the same compressibility
parameters are applied throughout the very soft and soft subsoil layer deeper than 18mbgl in
the independent analysis as it will be certainly unjustified to assume any more favourable
parameters with engineering judgement.

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
Depth of Embankment
Treatment Description
Peat (m) Height
Type
3.5m 1.5 – 2.0m A1  Stabilising berm.
 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
3.5 – 7.5m 1.5 – 2.8m A2  1 layer reinforcement geotextile.
 Stabilising berm.
 0.5-1m surcharge with PVD for 12-15
months.
7.5 – 9.0m 2.0 – 2.8m A3  2 layers reinforcement geotextile.
 Stabilising berm.
 1m surcharge with PVD for 15 months.

Page 10 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

1.0 – 2.5m 1.8 – 3.0m B1  Maximum R&R 2.5m.

 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.

2.5m 2.3 – 2.9m B2  Maximum R&R 2.5m.

 1 layer reinforcement geotextile.
 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.

1.0 – 1.5m 4.0m C2  Maximum R&R 2.5m.

 1 layer reinforcement geotextile.
 Stabilising berm.
 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
3.5m 1.5m JA1  Stabilising berm.
 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
3.5m 2.8m JA2  Stabilising berm.
 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
2.5m 2.5m JB1  0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
2.5m 2.0m JB2  0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
2.5m 1.8m JB3  1 layer reinforcement geotextile.
 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
1.5m 3.0m JC1  Maximum R&R 2.5m.
1.5m 3.7m JC2  Maximum R&R 2.5m.
 1 layer reinforcement geotextile.
 Stabilising berm.
 1m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.
2.5 – 3.5m 2.5 – 3.0m D1W1  Stabilising berm.
 0.5m surcharge with PVD for 12 months.

Remove & replace (R&R) method will be implemented when the underlying surficial subsoils
of the embankment foundation is considered unsuitable (e.g. with organic content) 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.
Based on the settlement analyses and ground treatment schedule drawing provided by DDC,
R&R will be carried out where PEAT is present with removal up to 2.5m in depth (there is no
R&R for PEAT thickness more than 2.5m thick).

Page 11 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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
provided by the basal reinforcement. The strength of basal reinforcement adopted by DDC are
typically 200kN/m and 400kN/m. Tensile reduction factor and FOS dependent has been
applied to basal reinforcement by DDC in the stability analyses.

Prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) are generally provided in patterns of triangular spacing
with the most efficient drainage radius arrangement in very soft to soft soil layer to expedite
the consolidation settlement. The PVD spacing provided are generally 1.5m with length of
20m to 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 5m to 12m width and 0.5m to 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, then allowing for consolidation with a designated resting period before the
immediate subsequent filling stage can executed.

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

Page 12 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

treatment. The thickness of surcharge preloading fill adopted by DDC are generally 0.5m to
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.

A list of the ground treatment design consideration and impact for embankment can refer to
Appendix D for reference.

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.

Page 13 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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 all types of ground treatment tabulated in Section 5.2.1 were
analysed by DDC. Based on the results presented in the provided GDR, 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 OPUS. The concept of
the embankment stability analyses adopted by the DDC is in line with the criteria elaborated
above. However, the DDC needs to re-visit the adopted undrained shear strength (S u) for area
which VST and UU tests obtained are lower than 18kPa to confirm the short-term
embankment stability FOS as the adopted design undrained shear strength is overestimated
as highlighted in Section 5.1.3. Lower FOS is expected if actual undrained strength is lower
than 18kPa as obtained from the SI at the relevant locations.

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 within the target maintenance cycle.

It is important to estimate the magnitude of total settlements under the self-weight 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 the
realistic and practical design process, the design will still allow for tolerable residual settlement
in the post-construction to reduce high initial ground treatment cost and avoid undue resting
period for ideally complete treatment.

Assumptions included in the settlement analyses carried out by DDC are summarised as
follows:

Page 14 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

1) Using Terzaghi’s 1D Consolidation theory with consideration of stress reduction with

depth (Boussinesq Equation).
2) Grubbing of 0.5m or Removal and replacement (R&R) of maximum 2.5m for PEAT.
3) Temporary surcharge of 0.5m with resting period of 3 months (for ground treatment
type A and D1W1). 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 20m - 25m for ground treatment.
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. Principally
PEAT is generally more permeable for consolidation during initial stage of the filling works and
hence, less reliance on the PVD to discharge the induced excess pore water within the PEAT.

Page 15 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

As the void ratio of the PEAT reduces with time during consolidation, the permeability of PEAT
layer is expected to gradually reduce, in which the discharge of pore water would be assisted
by PVD with comparatively higher permeability.

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 C. 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 for treatment Type A3 (9m PEATS with 20m length of PVD)
based on embankment fill height of 2.8m has been carried out by G&P using finite element
software, PLAXIS 2D to check the total settlement at removal of surcharge and post-
construction settlement. 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 Type A3 as stated in DDC’s drawings are as
follows:
1) Fill up 0.5m compacted sand fill above original ground level (OGL) with filling rate of
0.3m per every 2 weeks.
2) Rest for 3 months and allow topping up with sand on weekly basis to maintain the
level. Periodic topping up of the stabilising berm shall be carried out on weekly basis
to designated level.
3) Install prefabricated vertical drain (PVD).
4) Fill up another 1.0m compacted sand fill and rest for 3 months. Periodic topping up of
embankment and stabilising berm shall be carried out on weekly basis to maintain the
designated 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 weekly basis to
designated level.

Page 16 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

6) Surcharge rest period for 15 months. Topping up is allowed to maintain the surcharge
level.
7) Upon maturity of the surcharge period, trim the embankment to road formation level.

The subsoil design parameters of very soft to soft SILT/CLAY underneath the embankment is
interpreted based on available laboratory test results from nearest boreholes A1-BH2 and A1-
B9. 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 are 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 7 years of service are summarised below:
Independent
Construction DDC’s Design
Analysis Remarks
Stage (Spreadsheet)
(PLAXIS 2D)
Reach Designed
6573mm 6272mm -
Surcharge Level
Surcharge
6768mm 7476mm -
Removal
7 years After
Surcharge 6945mm 7624mm -
Removal
Post-
Construction Post-construction total
Total Settlement 177mm 148mm settlement (7 years) < 500mm
at First 7 Years for embankment on PEATS.
of Service

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

Page 17 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

(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 6768mm at the end of ground treatment. While, the magnitude of
settlement predicted by DDC is about 7476mm. Both settlement analysis performed by G&P
and DDC can comply with the requirement of post-construction settlement of less than 500mm
for first 7 years.

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 Type A3 (9m PEATS with 20m
length of PVD) has been selected to be analysed.

The change of effective vertical stresses in PEAT and CLAY layer in each construction stage
has been extracted from PLAXIS 2D to compute the estimated Gained-in Strength (GIS) using
the following formula. Detailed calculation of the GIS is shown in Appendix F.

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
under normally consolidation 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.

Page 18 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

Both undrained (during construction) and drained (long-term condition) analyses were carried
out as shown in Appendix F. The design parameters adopted in the analyses are based on the
nearest borehole A1-BH2 and A1-BH9.

Table 5: Design Parameters for Undrained Stability Analysis for Subsoils

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

PEAT 11.0 5 -

Very Soft CLAY (9m – 15.0 10 -

13m)

Very Soft CLAY (13m – 15.0 14 -

17.5m)

Soft SILT (>17.5m) 15.5 15 -

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

PEAT 11.0 0 30

Very Soft CLAY 15.0 0 26

(9m – 13m)
Very Soft CLAY 15.0 0 26
(13m – 17.5m)
Soft SILT (>17.5m) 15.5 2 26

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

Page 19 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

compacted fill appears to be slightly underestimated as mentioned 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

1.0m thick fill after

resting 3 months of
0.5m sand fill (top of < 1.2 (not comply
Undrained
filling level is 1.16 1.49 with design
(Stage 1)
maintained at 1.5m requirement)
above original ground
level (OGL)

Filling up to 2.8m thick

above OGL and
temporary surcharge < 1.2 (not comply
Undrained
(1m thick). Top of 1.01 0.94 with design
(Stage 2)
surcharge level is requirement)
maintained throughout
the treatment period

Drained Long-term condition 2.21 2.02 > 1.3, OK

Independent analyses for ground treatment Type A3 revealed that global stability of the main
embankment in short-term (Stage 1 and Stage 2) are less than the required factor of safety
(FOS) of 1.2, which does not comply with the design requirement. However, the FOS for long-
term analyses is greater than 1.3 and complies with the design requirement.

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

i. Based on the nearest boreholes A1-BH2 and A1-BH9 at this ground treatment Type
A3 location, the subsoil underneath PEATS consist CLAY/SILT with SPT-N value
between 0 and 1. The undrained shear strength (Su) of 18kPa adopted by DDC is on
the high side. Further verification on the subsoil undrained shear strength is needed.

Page 20 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

The undrained shear strength obtained from boreholes A1-BH2 and A1-BH9 are much
lower as shown in Figure 12.

ii. 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.

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.

8.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Differential Settlement at Piled Embankment

The provided extent of piled embankment (about 20m) is relatively short and no piles with
reducing length along the transition zone of the short stretch piled embankment. Approximate
24m pile length is stated in the drawing titled ‘Bridge Over Drain Diversion Typ. Embankment
Layout & Section’ (Drawing no. 2TR/SRI/2018/A01/ST/BR0101-301, Rev. 0), which is not
consistent with the 36m length of piles adopted in the design calculation of pile geotechnical
capacity and pile group settlement. Comparing with the nearby boreholes information against
the provided pile length, the pile toe terminated within soft layer, in which the soft soil
underneath is subjected to comparatively higher consolidation settlement. Therefore, DDC
needs to re-assess the adequacy of the provided pile length in the piled embankment with
consideration on the potential settlement to comply with the differential settlement criteria.

Page 21 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

Piled 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 reduce consolidation settlement to the piled to
length embankment particularly if there is substantial of soft clay underneath the piles. It is
necessary to consider the consolidation settlement of piled embankment if pile toe terminated
within soft layer at transition zone and to check the differential settlement between the
embankment on treated ground with pile embankment to comply with the serviceability
requirement. This is to prevent a drastic change of settlement between embankment on the
treated ground and piled embankment, and also the piled embankment segments on different
pile lengths for smooth transition profile if there are piles with different cluster of penetration
lengths.

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. It is also
recommended to collect undisturbed soil samples below 18mbgl so that necessary design
parameters (i.e. compressibility parameters and undrained shear strength) can be obtained
from laboratory test for more representative design and analysis.

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 piles due to 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 immediately beneath the piled embankment settles
due to consolidation under the working fill platform left 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 in the longitudinal direction 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 in the longitudinal direction.

Page 22 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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.

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 dissipation of excess
pore water flow as shown in Figure 13. This strip of the granular fill drainage has to be
maintained (top up with granular material) simultaneously 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 discontinuity of drainage path
due to contraction 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 14. Alternatively, pump sump can be provided at the middle of
embankment as shown in Figure 15 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 16.

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

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 23 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\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 17) 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 Groundwater 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 6.5m 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
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.

8.6 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

Page 24 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

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.

8.7 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:

a) It is recommended to re-assess the adequacy of the provided pile length in the piled
embankment with consideration on the potential settlement profile to comply with the
differential settlement criteria. Additional SI is suggested to confirm the compressibility
and strength parameters of the subsoil deeper than 18mbgl 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) The independent settlement analyses by G&P show that the total post-construction
settlement in first 7 years of service complies with the design requirement. However, the

Page 25 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

undrained shear strength (Su) of 18kPa adopted by DDC throughout the entire road
alignment can be potentially inappropriate as it may overestimate the S u of subsoils for
certain areas. The Su of 18kPa adopted by DDC for embankment stability check for 9m
thick PEAT as discussed in Section 7.2 with reference boreholes of A1-BH2 and A1-
BH9 is at the high side. Based on the independent analyses by G&P, the embankment
stability in short-term is less than the required FOS of 1.2. As such, it is recommended
that DDC shall re-visit the Su and reinterpret the appropriate design value based on the
nearest borehole for more representative design.

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) To ensure that the intended mobilised strength of the basal reinforcement is achievable,
it is recommended to arrange sample of compacted fill material for laboratory test to
verify the strain to achieve the corresponding peak strength and allow construction
instrumentation/monitoring to validate the strain of geotextile and lateral displacement of
subsoil to verify the mobilized strain in geotextile with respect to the strain of supporting
subsoil.

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

Page 26 of 27
OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD
REVIEW OF GROUND TREATMENT DESIGN FOR PACKAGE A1
20E1497\RW0-0080\20\LSS\LYC

h) Other than the views and suggestions mentioned above and also stated in the DRR for
the consideration of the DDC, the design concept and methodology by DDC have
adopted acceptable engineering practices generally.

i) It is advisable to re-visit the undrained shear strength adopted in the stability analyses
at different chainages and locations with the available SI results, especially at the
locations where undrained shear strength from SI is lesser than 18kPa, which requires
further verification on the soil strength to ensure reflective subsoil design strength value
from SI is adopted and the embankment stability FOS complies with the design
requirement.

Page 27 of 27