10.0 FGV - Submission Report of Geotechnical Modellling On Bund Stability Study

Your Ref :
Our Ref : UCSB/23-294/FGV-Serting(S/010)
26 June 2023 / 07 Zulhijjah 1444H
FGV PALM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Level 16 West, 50350, Wisma FGV,
Jalan Raja Laut, Kuala Lumpur.
Attn: Ir Ahmad Muzri bin Abdullah Satar
Dear Sir,
FGVPI-219/2023: PERKHIDMATAN JURUTERA PERUNDING BAGI CADANGAN KERJA

PENSTABILAN BENTENG KOLAM-KOLAM OLAHAN EFFLUEN SEDIA ADA DI KILANG SAWIT
TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR.
- Submission Report of Geotechnical Modelling and Water Seepage Study on Bund Stability
With reference to the above subject.
2. We are pleased to forward herewith one (1) copy of Report of Geotechnical Modelling and
Water Seepage Study on Bund Stability for the abovementioned project for your review and approval.
3. We hope all the above matters are in order. The trust and faith put upon our firm is highly
appreciated.
Thank you.
“INNOVATION*SUSTAINABLE*TRANSFORMATION”
Yours Sincerely,
UNITI CONSULTANTS SDN.BHD.
………………………………………….
Ir. AHMAD HILMI BIN ABD AZIZ.
Project Director
FGVPISB - 219/2023: PERKHIDMATAN JURUTERA PERUNDING BAGI
CADANGAN KERJA PENSTABILAN BENTENG KOLAM-KOLAM OLAHAN
EFFLUEN SEDIA ADA DI KILANG SAWIT TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL
MAKMUR
GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING
AND WATER SEEPAGE STUDY
ON BUND STABILITY REPORT
Client: Engineering Consultant (PMC):
UNITI CONSULTANTS SDN. BHD.

JABATAN KEJURUTERAAN Wisma UNITI, NO. 25, Jalan Bunga Raya 8,
FGV PALM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD Senawang Business Centre,
Level 16 (West), Wisma FGV, Jalan Raja Laut, Taman Tasik Jaya,
50350 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.
No. Tel : 03-2789 0000 No. Tel : 06-678 0203, 679 2037
No. Fax : 03-2789 0001 No. Fax : 06-679 2308, 679 2312
Website : www.fgvholdings.com Email : uniticonsult@gmail.com
Website : www.uniticonsult.com
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 BRIEF GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 2
3 SCOPE OF WORKS 4
4 GEOTECHNICAL SOIL PROFILE 5

4.1 Groundwater Level 8
4.2 Soil Parameters 8
4.3 Mackintosh Probe (MP) Result 8
5 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 9

5.1 Seepage Flow in Tementi Palm Oil Mill Slope 10
5.2 Stability Analysis 14
6 GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 20
7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT 21
LIST OF FIGURES 22
LIST OF TABLES 22
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
BLANK PAGE
Page | i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING AND WATER SEEPAGE

STUDY ON BUND STABILITY at Tementi Palm Oil Mill, approximately 17.9km from
Bandar Bera, Pahang. To cater the capacity of effluent from palm oil processing,
Tetuan FGV Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd. (FGV) provides facultative ponds,
algae ponds and several other ponds, which each is separated by a raised bund.
The slope bund of two ponds located at the fringe of the FGV boundary however
collapsed during rainy events that has raised concern to the management, as the
production had to be curtailed so that the pond will work at the reduced capacity.
The GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING AND WATER SEEPAGE STUDY ON BUND

STABILITY OF “CADANGAN KERJA PENSTABILAN BENTENG KOLAM-KOLAM
OLAHAN EFFLUEN SEDIA ADA DI KILANG SAWIT TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG
DARUL MAKMUR” contains facts obtained from available Soil Investigation Works
reports. The site works consists of sampling, testing and other means of investigation
where the facts are directly relevant only to the points in the ground where and when
they are obtained. The geotechnical interpretation and conclusion as well as
recommendation given in this report are opinions provided for Tetuan FGV Palm
Industries Sdn. Bhd. (FGV) sole use in accordance with the appointment, based on
supplied information, in-situ testing and investigation, as well as site visits and
inspections.
The conducted site investigation works on the unstable and failed slope area involves
gathering and assimilating limited facts about these characteristics and properties in
order to develop an understanding of the sub-ground and to predict the behavior of
ground on a particular site under certain conditions. This information, on which the fact
of this study was reported, believed to be accurate at the time of reporting. Any
interpretation or recommendation given in this report shall be understood and base on
judgement and experience and not on a greater knowledge of the facts than the
reported investigation would imply. They are provided for FGV's sole use and as such
do not necessarily address all aspects of ground behavior on the subject site. This
report may be disclosed to other professional advisers assisting the FGV in respect of
Page | 1
the project concerned only and should not be used for any litigation. It is not intended
for and should not be relied upon by any third party. No liability is taken for any third
party.
2.0 BRIEF GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION
In terms of geological background, the general area of the site is located in the
Southwest of Peninsular Malaysia at an elevation of between 34.69m to 54.16m above
sea level. Figure 1 shows a geological map of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang
that were deposits of mainly during Jurassic-aged that consist of thick, cross-bedded
sandstone with minor conglomerate, siltstone and volcanic rocks. The geological map
also shows that the study area was deposited during Quaternary-age, which consist
of silt with minor sand and gravel.
Figure 1 Geological map of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang
Page | 2
Figure 2 shows the google location of the site specifically on the location at 3°15'49"N
102°35'55"E. The original topography of the study consist of undulating fill
embankment and original ground platform underlain a sandstone as a bedrock. Figure
2 also shows the location of the effluent pond that slope bund failure. The failure has
caused the management of Tementi Palm Oil Mill to close the pond and reduce the
output capacity of the palm oil in order to reduce the effluent volume of the production.
Failed slope area
Figure 2 Location of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang
Page | 3
3.0 SCOPE OF WORKS
The Tetuan FGV Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd. (FGV) has appointed Uniti Consultant
Sdn. Bhd to carry out GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING AND WATER SEEPAGE
STUDY ON BUND STABILITY OF “CADANGAN KERJA PENSTABILAN
BENTENG KOLAM-KOLAM OLAHAN EFFLUEN SEDIA ADA DI KILANG SAWIT
TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR”.
The primary objective of this study is to conduct a slope stability assessment that
based on the existing geotechnical conditions including ensuring long-term stability
of existing bund and the pond within the Tementi Palm Oil Mill area.
The scope of works can be divided into two major components:
1. Interpretation of Soil Investigation Works:

Establishing the system for subsurface and groundwater within the site area.
2. Slope Stability and Seepage Analysis:

Determining existing slope stability and seepage flow for recommending
remedial measurement.
The Interpretation of Soil Investigation Works is conducted on provided Soil

Investigation Work reports prepared by Tetuan Preston Geocem Sdn. Bhd. and
Tetuan Pakatan Geo Services Sdn.Bhd. The reports are attached in APPENDIX 1:
SOIL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR CADANGAN KERJA PENGSTABILAN
BENTENG KOLAM-KOLAM OLAHAN EFFLUEN SEDIA ADA DI KILANG SAWIT
TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR and SOIL INVESTIGATION WORKS
FOR PROPOSED EXISTING FACULTATIVE POND REMEDIAL WORKS
AT TEMENTI PALM OIL MIL, BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR.
Also, the available geotechnical interpretation reported by previous geotechnical

engineer on soil investigation works conducted by Tetuan Preston Geocem Sdn. Bhd.
Page | 4
in May, 2022 is attached in APPENDIX 2: PROPOSAL SLOPE RECTIFICATION
WORK FOR ALGAE POND 2 AT FGV TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL
MAKMUR.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SOIL PROFILE
The modelling of Tementi Palm Oil Mill (Tementi) slope profile is constructed from
provided two reports of Soil Investigation Works conducted by appointed contractors
which included 3 nos. of preliminary boreholes (May, 2022), 3 nos. of new boreholes
(May, 2023) and 17 nos. of Mackintosh Probe (MP) – see Table 1 and Figure 3.
Figure 4 shows the soil profile that primarily consists of overburden soil underlain by
sedimentary rock of SANDSTONE formation. In general, the original soil stratum
thicknesses of first layer of Firm Sandy SILT (0m to 8m), second layer of Stiff Sandy
SILT (8m to 13m), third layer of Stiff to Very Stiff Sandy SILT (13m to 12m) and final
layer of Weathered SANDSTONE/Hard Sandy SILT. For note, the upper layer of Firm
Sandy SILT formed a Fill Embankment Slope as shown in Figure 4.
Table 1 Geotechnical inventory of Tementi Palm Oil Mill slope profile

BH ID Reference Groundwater Groundwater Remark
Level Level Level
(m) (Before) (After)
(m) (m)
EBHFGV1 52.680 1.74 3.91 Preliminary borehole

BH1 42.120 4.50 5.72 New borehole
BH2 54.160 2.50 3.54 New borehole
BH3 51.530 2.80 2.91 New borehole
Page | 5
Figure 3 Location borehole (BH) and Mackintosh Probe; and the Cross Section Mode
Page | 6
Toe End Middle End Crest End
80
70
60
Name: Firm Sandy SILT
Elevation (m)
50 Name: Stiff Sandy SILT
40
Name: Stiff to Very Stiff Sandy SILT
Name: Weathered SANDSTONE/Hard Sandy SILT

30
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
Figure 4 The generalized geotechnical of Tementi Palm Oil Mill slope profile and three ends
Page | 7
4.1 Groundwater Level
The static groundwater water level in each borehole was recorded while site drilling
was in progress and after the completion of the boreholes. The measurement was
taken before water (if any) was added to the borehole to stabilize it. The depth of the
borehole and the casing (if any) was also recorded. The groundwater level before and
after was measured for all boreholes as shown in Table 1. Also, the groundwater level
position is generated from numerical seepage analysis as shown in the
generalized geotechnical of Tementi slope profile (see Figure 4).
4.2 Soil Parameters

The Tementi soil slope can be characterized by large variability of engineering
properties due to different degrees of weathering process at various moisture content.
The soil parameters were derived from provided reports of soil investigation works, i.e.
the field testing and laboratory testing, also from engineering judgement. In deriving
the parameter values, engineering judgement is mostly used as the number of
laboratory were limited and samples extracted from site were heavily disturbed. As a
result, typical available correlation formulation, databank and equivalent parameters
have been deployed in analysis. The summary of shear strength parameters of
Tementi slope profile is tabulated in Table 2.
In addition, the advanced hydraulic properties of Soil Water Characteristic Curve

(SWCC) and hydraulic conductivity function for all soil layers, i.e. Sandy SILT, Silty
SAND/Boulder, Fill Embankment Slope and Upper Cut Slope are estimated from soil
classification and saturated permeability, ksat.
4.3 Mackintosh Probe (MP) Result

The Mackintosh Probe (MP) result of can be grouped into three, i.e. (1) MP3, MP16,
MP13 and MP15 – Cross Section Mode 3, (2) MP3, MP2 and MP1 – Cross section
Mode 4 and (3) MP6, MP5 and MP4 – Cross section Mode 5. In general, the MP No.
values show a good relationship with the SPT No. values (SPT No. value = 8.8 x MP
No. value). The average minimum and average maximum of MP No. value are 50 and
150, respectively that is approximately to SPT No. value of 6 to 17. This resulted
Page | 8
consistency represents the fill Firm Sandy SILT (0m to 8m) and Stiff Sandy SILT (8m
to 13m) in the geotechnical profile shown in Figure 4.
Table 2 Summary of soil parameters of Tementi slope profile

Soil Type Saturated Effective Effective Soil unit
permeability, cohesion, friction weight,
ksat c’ angle, γ
(m/s) (kPa) φ’ (kPa)
(o)
Firm Sandy SILT 7 x 10-6 5 26 15.0
Stiff Sandy SILT 6.8 x 10-8 0 30 16.5
Stiff to Very Stiff 1 x 10-10 0 32 13.5

Sandy SILT
Weathered 3.5 x 10-15 0 High 22

SANDSTONE/Hard Strength
Sandy SILT
5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
The Finite Element Method (FEM) and Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) were carried
out by using commercial software of Geostudio 2012 to simulate Tementi slope by
employing coupling seepage flow and slope stability analysis. Steady state numerical
seepage analysis was performed using commercial software SEEP/W and the
resulted porewater pressure distributions within the slope mass was incorporated into
SLOPE/W for slope stability analysis. However, no rainfall events was applied in this
study though it could have played a role in building up the mechanism of slope failure.
Page | 9
The generalized geotechnical soil profile in Figure 4 and the soil parameters tabulated
in Table 2 were used in the analysis. The proposed parameters used in the report
analysis were based from 6 nos. of borelog results and 17 nos. of MP results as well
as from engineering judgement and experience. In deriving the values, engineering
judgement is used mostly as no laboratory testing and soil sample extracted from site.
In certain cases typical available correlation formulation has been deployed.
5.1 Seepage Flow in Tementi Palm Oil Mill Slope

Steady state numerical seepage analysis was performed using SEEP/W for
generating porewater pressure distributions within the Tementi slope mass. The
seepage model comprised mesh elements and the quadrilateral elements for the
entire soil layers where limiting negative porewater of initial water table is specified
and as a no flow boundaries (Q = 0) above groundwater table. The groundwater level
was generated from reading measurement as shown in Table 1 by applying boundary
condition of head (m) on the slope model.
An initial condition was applied for each type of soils in the Figure 4 based on it is
realistic and achievable in actual site condition. The limiting highest suction of 150kPa
was chosen as the limiting values of the initial condition for the soil slope is
approximately identical to the minimum suction, ψmin corresponding to the residual
water content in the Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) of soil in the profile. The
estimated SWCC and hydraulic conductivity function for residual soils of Firm Sandy
SILT and Stiff Sandy SILT were used during numerical simulation.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the seepage flow process in the slope mass before (no water
in pond) and after (water in pond – without liner separator) by applying boundary
condition of pressure head of 1.2m for Cross Sections of Mode 3, Mode 4 and Mode
5. At the initial stage – no applied pressure head, the downward seepage flow in within
the slope of Mode 3, Mode 4 and Mode 5. The seepage regime is largely flowing within
the fill Firm Sandy SILT at the interface of Stiff Sandy SILT resulted in diversion flow
due to water is hindered to infiltrate deeper into the slope. The seepage flow at the
downward direction resulted in more water to accumulate near toe and simultaneously
increase the possibility of toe rotational failure at the Toe End of the slope.
Page | 10
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
CROSS SECTION MODE 3
(a)
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
(b)
Figure 5 The seepage flow process before (a) no water in pond and (b) water in pond
– without liner separator for Cross Section of Mode 3
Page | 11
80
70
60
ALGAE POND ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
CROSS-SECTION MODE 4
(a)
80
70
60
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
(b)
Page | 12
80
70

60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
(a)
80
70

60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
(b)
Page | 13
However, the seepage regime significantly altered after applying boundary condition
of pressure head (m) for all Cross Sections of Mode 3, Mode 4 and Mode 5. The
groundwater level increases that converging pressure head (m) of ponds resulted in
porewater pressures increased gradually over time at the Crest End, Middle End and
Toe End of the slopes. The slope failures could have mainly triggered along the slope
by the loss of matric suction or negative porewater pressure in the soil. It can be
concluded a liner should be installed on the pond to prevent water from infiltrating and
seeping through the soil within the Tementi slope.
5.2 Stability Analysis

The Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) was carried out by using commercial software
SLOPE/W to analyze slope stability by performing on constitute soil Mohr Coulomb
Model using soil properties as tabulated in Table 2. In the slope stability analysis, the
soil material strength was assigned to effective parameter values for effective stress
analysis (where c’≈ 0 kN/m2). Also, the slope stability analysis employed Morgenstern-
Price Analysis Type (Half-Sine Function) for each cross section as Bishop Simplified
is seldom use in predicting slope stability due to its reliability yielding higher FOS. A
total of 7 cross sections provided as shown in Figure 3. i.e. Cross Sections of Mode
1, Mode 2, Mode 3, Mode 4, Mode 5, Mode 6 and Mode 7. However, only 3 cross
sections of Cross Sections of Mode 3, Mode 4 and Mode 5 (since other cross sections
are identical) have been carried out stability analysis for determining Factor of Safety
in three ponding condition, i.e. (1) Initial (dry condition), (2) With Liner and (3) Without
Liner. In addition, the angle of frictional resistance due to the contribution of matric
suction, φb’ was assumed to be equal to 2/3 of φ’. Fundamentally in LEM, a slope is
considered stable if the FOS value > 1 and it reaches unity at the FOS = 1.
Figure 8 to Figure 12 show the location of critical slip surface and failure zone (the
trial slip surfaces have a factor of safety close to the critical value) for stability analysis
at Cross Sections of Mode 3, Mode 4 and Mode 5. The location of potential failure
occurrence distributes along at Middle End and Toe End of the cross sections with
mode of toe rotational failure. The initial condition of the slope has been determined
to be stable ranging from 2.02 to 3.51 (Middle End) and from 1.84 to 2.49 (Toe End).
The result of slope stability analysis is tabulated in Table 3.
Page | 14
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND 2.022
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
Initial
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND 2.189
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
With Liner
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND 1.175
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
Without Liner
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
Figure 8 FOS of Cross Section Mode 3 at Middle End under 3 ponding conditions
Page | 15
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND 1.838
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
Initial
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND 2.196
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
With Liner
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
80
70 ALGAE POND
ALGAE POND 1.337
60 ALGAE POND
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
Without Liner
20
32 52 72 92 112 132 152 172 192 212 232 252 272 292 312 332 352 372 392 412 432 452 472 492 512 532 552 572
Distance (m)
Figure 9 FOS of Cross Section Mode 3 at Toe End under 3 ponding conditions
Page | 16
80
70
2.248
60
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
Initial
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
80
70
2.118
60
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
With Liner
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
80
70
1.010
60
Elevation (m)
50
40
30
Without Liner
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
Page | 17
80
70
3.507
60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
Initial
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
80
70
3.360
60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
With Liner
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
80
70
1.144
60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
Without Liner
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
Figure 11 FOS of Cross Section Mode 5 at Middle End under 3 ponding conditions
Page | 18
80
70
2.492
60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
Initial
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
80
70
2.488
60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
With Liner
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
80
70
0.852
60
Elevation (m)
ALGAE POND
50
40
30
Without Liner
20
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270
Distance (m)
Page | 19
Table 3 The result of slope stability analysis
Cross Section ID Initial With Liner Without Liner
Mode 3 (Middle End) 2.02 2.19 1.18
Mode 5 (Middle End) 3.51 3.36 1.14
Mode 3 (Toe End) 1.84 2.20 1.34
Mode 4 (Toe End) 2.25 2.12 1.01
Mode 5 (Toe End) 2.49 2.49 0.85
Table 3 shows the Cross Section Mode with ponding condition of Without Liner gives
out lower of FOS to compare to Initial (dry condition) and With Liner. The loading due
ponding condition of With Liner shows minimal change of seepage regime to compare
to Without Liner condition resulted in higher FOS. It is also can be concluded location
of failure is most likely to be occurred at the Toe End of the slope since the seepage
is largely flowing at the downward direction due to diversion flow water accumulation
near toe and simultaneously increase the possibility of toe rotational failure mode.
6.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATION
The design of slope is usually based on the conventional technique of balancing cut
and fills with the slope gradient of 1V:1H to 1V:1.5H for the cut areas and 1:2 for the
fill areas. Slope Engineering Branch, Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR), Malaysia has
published Guidelines for Slope Design in January 2010 that include cut and fill slopes
in residual soils and in completely decomposed rock. All untreated slopes shall be
designed with minimum of 2m berm width and maximum 6m berm height with a Factor
of Safety greater than 1.3. The minimum global Factor of Safety for treated slopes
shall be 1.5.
Page | 20
It is generally recommended the coupling stabilization measure of regrading slope and
reinforcing with compacted rock fill/gabion can be implemented to stabilize the slope
on Tementi Palm Oil Mill site. However, alternative stabilization measures can be
considered when the design is inadequate which may include the following soil nailing
with slope surface protection and retaining walls. The detailed of designed slope can
be referred to Guidelines for Slope Design (Slope Engineering Branch JKR, 2010).
7.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
This GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING AND WATER SEEPAGE STUDY ON BUND

STABILITY OF “CADANGAN KERJA PENSTABILAN BENTENG KOLAM-KOLAM
OLAHAN EFFLUEN SEDIA ADA DI KILANG SAWIT TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG
DARUL MAKMUR” is presented and evaluated under similar circumstances and
understanding by Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar localities. The
carried out site Investigation works are believed to be representative of the entire area.
However, soils and geologic conditions may vary significantly within the area. If this
occurs, the change conditions may be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer and
design adjusted or alternative design recommended.
This report has not been prepared for the use by parties other than the client, the
owner and their respective consulting advisors. It may not contain sufficient
information for purposes of other parties or for other uses. It is recommended that any
report or amendments to the original plans and specifications be reviewed by us to
verify that the intent of our recommendations is properly reflected in the design. Whilst
to the best of our knowledge, information contained in this report is accurate at the
date of issues, subsurface conditions, including ground water levels can change in a
limited time. This shall be borne in mind if the report is used after a protracted delay.
Page | 21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Geological map of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang

Figure 2: Location of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang
Figure 3: Location borehole (BH) and Mackintosh Probe; and the Cross Section Mode
Figure 4: The generalized geotechnical of Tementi Palm Oil Mill slope profile and three
ends
Figure 5: The seepage flow process before (a) no water in pond and (2) water in pond
Figure 8: FOS of Cross Section Mode 3 at Middle End under 3 ponding conditions
Figure 9: FOS of Cross Section Mode 3 at Toe End under 3 ponding conditions
Figure 11: FOS of Cross Section Mode 5 at Middle End under 3 ponding conditions
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Geotechnical inventory of Tementi Palm Oil Mill slope profile

Table 2: Summary of soil parameters of Tementi slope profile
Table 3: The result of slope stability analysis
Page | 22
APPENDIX 1:
1) SOIL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR CADANGAN KERJA PENGSTABILAN

BENTENG KOLAM-KOLAM OLAHAN EFFLUEN SEDIA ADA DI KILANG
SAWIT TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
(Tetuan Pakatan Geo Services Sdn.Bhd.)
2) SOIL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR PROPOSED EXISTING

FACULTATIVE POND REMEDIAL WORKS AT TEMENTI PALM OIL MIL,
BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
(Tetuan Preston Geocem Sdn. Bhd.)
KZ,K>EK͗ ,ϭ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,
KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϭK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6
&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

/RFDWLRQ7(0(17,3$/02,/0,//%(5$3$+$1* 5HGXFHG/HYHOP 'DWH&RPSOHWHG
7\SHRI'ULOO<:('5 &RRUGLQDWHV&DVVLQL1(
)LQDO*URXQGZDWHU/HYHOPIURP*/
&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
/RJJHG%\0U0LRU 'ULOOHG%\0U.KDLUXO 3(QJ,U$IDQGL%LQ.RQWLQJ
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
637'HWDLOV6HDWLQJ 7HVW 637&+$57 5HPDUNV
54'
7&5
%ORZV
6379$/8(
PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

'

7RS6RLO

3
/RRVH'DUN%URZQ9HU\6LOW\*5$9(/ '

3

/RRVH5HGGLVK%URZQ9HU\6LOW\
'
*5$9(/

3
0HGLXP6WLII'DUN%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7 '
ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

3
/RRVH%URZQ9HU\6LOW\*5$9(/ZLWK
,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\ '

3
6WLII%URZQ6,/7ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\
'

3
6WLII5HGGLVK<HOORZ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK '
+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

/(*(1'6 &RKHVLYH6RLO1 ĞƌƚŝĨŝĞĚďǇ͗Ͳ

6WDQGDUG3HQHQWUDWLRQ7HVW3 3UHVVXUHPHWHU7HVW307
9V 6 06W 6W 96W +
'LVWXUEHG6DPSOH' 9DQH6KHDU7HVW9 1RQ&RKHVLYH6RLO1

8QGLVWULEXWHG6DPSOH8' 3HUPHDELOLW\7HVW3%7
9/ / 0' 9'
5RFN&RULQJ5& 3DFNHU7HVW3.7 ^;^ŽĨƚͿ͕^ƚ;^ƚŝĨĨͿ͕,;,ĂƌĚͿ͕>;>ŽŽƐĞͿ͕;ĞŶƐĞͿ (QJLQHHU
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,ϭ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,
KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϮK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZVFP
6379$/8(
1

PP PP PP PP PP PP

3
6WLII5HGGLVK%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK '

+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

3

9HU\6WLII%URZQLVK<HOORZ*UDYHOO\ '
6,/7ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

3
9HU\6WLII%URZQLVK<HOORZ6,/7ZLWK '

+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

3
+DUG'DUN%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK '
,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\

+DUG'DUN%URZQ6,/7ZLWK 3

,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\ ' PP

3
+DUG'DUN%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK
'
+LJK3ODVWLFLW\
PP

+DUG'DUN%URZQ6DQG\6,/7ZLWK 3

+LJK3ODVWLFLW\ ' PP

9V 6 06W 6W 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,ϭ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,
KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϯK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ /HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZVFP
6379$/8(

PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

3
' PP
+UDG%URZQ6,/7ZLWK,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\

3

' PP

+DUG%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK,QWHUPHGLDWH
3ODVWLFLW\

7HUPLQDWHG%+DWGHSWKP
*URXQGZDWHU/HYHO%HIRUHP

*URXQGZDWHU/HYHO$IWHUP


9V 6 06W 6 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
5RFN&RULQJ5& 3DFNHU7HVW3.7 ^;^ŽĨƚͿ͕ ^ƚ;^ƚŝĨĨͿ͕ ,;,ĂƌĚͿ͕ >;>ŽŽƐĞͿ͕;ĞŶƐĞͿ (QJLQHHU
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,Ϯ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,
KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϭK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHD 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZV
6379$/8(
PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

'

7RS6RLO

3
0HGLXP6WLII<HOORZLVK5HG6DQG\6,/7
ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\ '

0HGLXP/RRVH<HOORZLVK5HG9HU\6LOW\ 3

*5$9(/ZLWK,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\
'

3
/RRVH<HOORZLVK5HG9HU\6LOW\6$1'ZLWK
'
+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

3
6WLII<HOORZLVK5HG6DQG\6,/7ZLWK+LJK
3ODVWLFLW\ '

3
/RRVH<HOORZLVK5HG9HU\6LOW\*5$9(/
'

3
6WLII<HOORZLVK5HG*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK '
+LJK3ODVWLFLW\


9V 6 06W 6W 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,Ϯ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,

KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϮK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZVFP
6379$/8(

PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

3
9HU\6WLII<HOORZLVK5HG6DQG\6,/7


3


3


3

+DUG5HGGLVK<HOORZ*UDYHOO\6,/7 ' PP
ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

3

+DUG5HGGLVK<HOORZ*UDYHOO\6,/7
' PP
ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\

3
9HU\'HQVH5HGGLVK<HOORZ9HU\6LOW\
'
6$1'ZLWK,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\ PP

+DUG<HOORZ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK 3

,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\ ' PP

9V 6 06W 6W 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,Ϯ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,
KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϯK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZVFP
6379$/8(

PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

3
'
+DUG<HOORZ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK,QWHUPHGLDWH
3ODVWLFLW\




9V 6 06W 6 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
5RFN&RULQJ5& 3DFNHU7HVW3.7 ^;^ŽĨƚͿ͕ ^ƚ;^ƚŝĨĨͿ͕ ,;,ĂƌĚͿ͕ >;>ŽŽƐĞͿ͕;ĞŶƐĞͿ (QJLQHHU
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,ϯ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ, KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϭK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZV
6379$/8(
PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

'

7RS6RLO

9HU\6RIW5HGGLVK%URZQ6DQG\6,/7 3

ZLWK+LJK3ODVLFLW\ '

3

/RRVH'DUN%URZQ6LOW\*5$9(/ '

3
'
/RRVH'DUN%URZQ9HU\6LOW\*5$9(/

3
/RRVH'DUN*UH\9HU\6LOW\*5$9(/
'

0HGLXP6WLII5HGGLVK%URZQ6DQG\6,/7 3


3
0HGLXP6WLII5HGGLVK%URZQ6DQG\6,/7 '
ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\


9V 6 06W 6W 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,ϯ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,
KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϮK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
6377HVW5HVXOWV
*UDSKLF/RJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
RI6DPSOLQJ
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZVFP
6379$/8(

PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

3
6WLII5HGGLVK%URZQ6,/7ZLWK+LJK '
3ODVWLFLW\

3
9HU\6WLII/LJKW5HGGLVK%URZQ6,/7 '

ZLWK,QWHUPHGLDWH3ODVWLFLW\

3
9HU\6WLII%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK '

3
'
+DUG%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK

3

'
+DUG%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK PP

3
'
+DUG%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK

3

+DUGEURZQ6,/7ZLWK+LJK3ODVWLFLW\
'

9V 6 06W 6W 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
%
KZ,K>EK͗ ,ϯ
WZ^dKE'KDÊ,
KZ>K'ZKZ
^,dEK͗ ϯK&ϯ
3URMHFW62,/,19(67,*$7,21:25.6)25352326('(;,67,1*)$&8/7$7,9(321'5(0(',$/:25.6

&RRUGLQDWHV5621(
6DPSOHDQG7HVW
*UDSKLF/RJ
6377HVW5HVXOWV
RI6DPSOLQJ
9DQH6KHDU 5RFN
5HFRYHU\
6DPSOH,'
'HSWK
'HSWKP
6RLO'HVFULSWLRQ
/HJHQG
8QGLVWXUEHG
5HPRXOGHG
54'
7&5
%ORZVFP
6379$/8(

PP PP PP PP PP PP 1

3
' PP
+DUG%URZQ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK,QWHUPHGLDWH
3ODVWLFLW\




9V 6 06W 6 96W +

9/ / 0' 9'
%

$SSHQGL[&
¶/DERUDWRU\7HVW·

ʹ͵ǡ ͳȀ͵ͺǡǡǡͷʹͳͲͲǡǤ

ǡ

͵
͵

'(37+ ǡΨ ǡΨ
P Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǥ Ǥ
ʹ
̵
Ȁ
Ǥ
ȋΨȌ
ȋΨȌ
Ψ
̳

Ǥ
)520 72 ʹ
̳ʹ

ß

ǡǤ

ǡȀʹ
ǡȀ

ǡȀ
ǡȀ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ
ǡ̳
ǡδͲǤͲ͸Ǥ

ǡȀʹǦ͵ͺ

ǡ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡεʹǤ
Ǥ

̵

ǡͲǤͲ͸ǦʹǤ
ǡ
%+ 3 13 13 13
3 13 13 13
3
3
3
3
3
3

Ǧ Ǧ ͓ǦȋȌ ͓͓Ǧ ͓͓͓ǦȀ Ǧ
ǣ ͵ͳȀͲͷȀʹͲʹʹ ǣ
ǣ Ͳ͹ȀͲ͸ȀʹͲʹʹ
FRPSDQ\1R0
&,'%5HJ1R:3
ͳ

ǡ

͵
͵

'(37+ ǡΨ ǡΨ
P Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǥ Ǥ
ʹ
̵
Ȁ
Ǥ
ȋΨȌ
ȋΨȌ
Ψ
̳

Ǥ
)520 72 ʹ
̳ʹ

ß

ǡǤ

ǡȀʹ
ǡȀ

ǡȀ
ǡȀ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ
ǡ̳
ǡδͲǤͲ͸Ǥ

ǡȀʹǦ͵ͺ

ǡ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡεʹǤ
Ǥ

̵

ǡͲǤͲ͸ǦʹǤ
ǡ
%+ 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
:6

FRPSDQ\1R0
&,'%5HJ1R:3
ʹ

ǡ

͵
͵

'(37+ ǡΨ ǡΨ
P Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǥ Ǥ
ʹ
̵
Ȁ
Ǥ
ȋΨȌ
ȋΨȌ
Ψ
̳

Ǥ
)520 72 ʹ
̳ʹ

ß

ǡǤ

ǡȀʹ
ǡȀ

ǡȀ
ǡȀ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ
ǡ̳
ǡδͲǤͲ͸Ǥ

ǡȀʹǦ͵ͺ

ǡ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡεʹǤ
Ǥ

̵

ǡͲǤͲ͸ǦʹǤ
ǡ
%+ 3
3
3
3
3 13 13 13
3
3
3

FRPSDQ\1R0
&,'%5HJ1R:3
͵

ǡ

͵
͵

'(37+ ǡΨ ǡΨ
P Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǥ Ǥ
ʹ
̵
Ȁ
Ǥ
ȋΨȌ
ȋΨȌ
Ψ
̳

Ǥ
)520 72 ʹ
̳ʹ

ß

ǡǤ

ǡȀʹ
ǡȀ

ǡȀ
ǡȀ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ
ǡ̳
ǡδͲǤͲ͸Ǥ

ǡȀʹǦ͵ͺ

ǡ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡεʹǤ
Ǥ

̵

ǡͲǤͲ͸ǦʹǤ
ǡ
%+ 3
3
3
3
3
3
:6
FRPSDQ\1R0
&,'%5HJ1R:3
Ͷ

ǡ

͵
͵

'(37+ ǡΨ ǡΨ
P Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǥ Ǥ
ʹ
̵
Ȁ
Ǥ
ȋΨȌ
ȋΨȌ
Ψ
̳

Ǥ
)520 72 ʹ
̳ʹ

ß

ǡǤ

ǡȀʹ
ǡȀ

ǡȀ
ǡȀ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ
ǡ̳
ǡδͲǤͲ͸Ǥ

ǡȀʹǦ͵ͺ

ǡ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡεʹǤ
Ǥ

̵

ǡͲǤͲ͸ǦʹǤ
ǡ
%+ 3
3 13 13 13
3 13 13 13
3 13 13 13
3
3
3
3

FRPSDQ\1R0
&,'%5HJ1R:3
ͷ

ǡ

͵
͵

'(37+ ǡΨ ǡΨ
P Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǧ͵ͺ
Ǥ Ǥ
ʹ
̵
Ȁ
Ǥ
ȋΨȌ
ȋΨȌ
Ψ
̳

Ǥ
)520 72 ʹ
̳ʹ

ß

ǡǤ

ǡȀʹ
ǡȀ

ǡȀ
ǡȀ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ

ǡ
ǡ̳
ǡδͲǤͲ͸Ǥ

ǡȀʹǦ͵ͺ

ǡ
ǡ
ǡ

ǡεʹǤ
Ǥ

̵

ǡͲǤͲ͸ǦʹǤ
ǡ
%+ 3
3
3
3
3
3
:6
FRPSDQ\1R0
&,'%5HJ1R:3
͸
APPENDIX 2:
PROPOSAL SLOPE RECTIFICATION WORK FOR ALGAE POND 2 AT FGV

TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR
PROPOSAL SLOPE RECTIFICATION WORK FOR ALGAE POND 2
AT FGV TEMENTI, BERA, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR.
TABLES OF CONTENTS
TITLES PAGES
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Objective 2
3.0 Soil Investigation 2
3.1 Soil Profile 3
4.0 Geotechnical Engineering Parameters 7
5.0 Slope Analysis 9
5.1 Sliding failure of wall 9
5.2 Stability Assessment Results 11
6.0 Rectification Proposal 13
6.1 Earthwork and Gabion Wall 13
6.2 Earth work and Crib Wall 14
6.3 Earth work and Sheet Pile Wall. 16
7.0 Cost Implication 18
8.0 Conclusion 19
9.0 References 21
APPENDIX A SITE PLAN

APPENDIX B SI RESULTS
APPENDIX C DESIGN
APPENDIX D MEETING ATTACHMENT
1
Proposal Slope Rectification Work for Algae Pond 2 at
FGV Tementi, Bera, Pahang Darul Makmur.
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present the slope rectification proposal for Algae
Pond 2 at Kilang sawit Tementi. Kilang sawit Tementi is located at 1510,
Sebertak, 28300 Triang, Pahang. The main production is palm oil which was
supply by the local plantation surrounding Bera District in Pahang. The GPS
location is 3°15'49"N 102°35'55"E with the output of palm oil production total
capacity of 40 Mt/hour. To cater the capacity of effluent from palm oil
processing, FGV provided one number of facultative ponds, Two numbers of
algae pond and several other ponds related prior to these ponds. Algae Pond
1 and 2 was located at the fringe of the FGV boundary. During rainy seasons,
the slope has collapse causing the malfunction of the algae pond 2. This has
raised concern to the management as the production had to be curtailed so that
the pond will work at the reduced capacity. The FGV at Kilang Sawit Tementi
intends to carry out the project for "Rectification of Slope Failure at Algae Pond
2". A rectification proposal has been put forward by Uniti Consultant Sdn Bhd.
It is concluded that slope repair using a combination of gabion wall and crib wall
give a better option in term of cost and simple construction to overcome
constraint of boundary problems.
1.0 Introduction
Kilang sawit Tementi which is located at 3°15'49"N 102°35'55"E in Tementi,
Bera Pahang. Figure 1.0 shows the google location of the site specifically on
the location of Algae Pond 2. Due to a heavy rain season, part of the algae pond
2 bunds has collapse causing a disruption of palm oil production. The bund
height of approximately 4m was build at the boundary of Kilang Sawit Tementi
which located a slope of almost 12m from the top of the bund. Figure 1 shows
the location of the effluent pond which consist of one facultative pond, and two
algae ponds. It was a concern that, the bund for algae pond 2 has collapsed
which brought down part of the slope within the vicinity of Algae Pond 2 as show
in Figure 1. The failure has caused the management of Kilang Sawit to close
the pond and reduce the output capacity of the palm oil in order to reduce the
effluent volume of the production. Uniti Consultant Sdn. Bhd has been offered
to propose rectification for the slope to solve the issue immediately. Detail of
site plan is as shown in Appendix A.
1
copy
Figure 1 Location of Effluent Ponds at Kilang Sawit Tementi.
2.0 Objective
The primary objective of this report is to present the rectification and design
slope at the vicinity of Algae Pond 2 which requires a slope stability assessment
of the site to determine whether the slope will be stable on the existing
geotechnical conditions. This includes ensuring long term stability for the
rectification works associated with earthwork, retaining structures, road access
and drainage.
3.0 Soil Investigation

A site investigation was conducted by PRESTON GEOCEM SDN BHD in June
2022, prior to the failure of Bund in Algae Pond 2. Three numbers of boreholes
have been sunk as shown in Figure 2. However, BH3 was the closest within the
vicinity of the failure zone. Appendix B show the Site Investigation Report.
2
FacultaƟve Pond
Algae Pond 2 Algae Pond 1
Figure 2 Borehole location on site.
3.1 Soil Profile

Figure 3 shows a geological map of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera,
Pahang which were deposits of mainly during Jurassic-aged that
consist of thick, cross-bedded sandstone with minor
conglomerate, siltstone and volcanic rocks. The geological map
shows that the study area was deposited during Quaternary-age,
which consist of silt with minor sand and gravel that was
consistent throughout Borehole 1 to Borehole 3.
All boreholes were terminated at 21.45m depth except for
Borehole 1 which was at 22.95m. The sub profile for Borehole 1
consists of layer of loose very Silty GRAVEL at depth 1.50m to
3.45m from the topsoil. A thin layer of medium stiff Gravelly SILT
with high plasticity and a thin layer of loose very Silty GRAVEL
with intermediate plasticity was found at 4.50m to 4.95m and
6.00m to 6.45m respectively. Followed by layer of stiff SILT with
high plasticity at 7.50m to 7.95m depth. From 9.00m to 12.45
meters depth, thick layers of stiff to very stiff (only at 12.00m to
12.45m) Gravelly SILT with high plasticity were obtained. Very stiff
SILT with high plasticity layer was found after at depth 13.50m to
13.95m which accompanied by a thin layer of hard SILT. Gravelly
3
SILT with intermediate plasticity at 15.00m to 15.45 meters. At
16.50m to 16.95 meters, a thin layer of hard SILT
Figure 3 Geological map of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera,

Pahang
with intermediate plasticity was located followed by hard Gravelly
SILT with high plasticity layer at 18.00m to 18.45m. A thin layer of
hard Sandy SILT with high plasticity was then found at 19.50m to
19.95m. Hard SILT with intermediate plasticity and hard Gravelly
SILT with intermediate plasticity were located at 21.00m to
21.45m and 22.50m to terminated depth which is 22.95m
respectively. It is also noted that the groundwater level was
observed to be at 1.74 meter and increased to 3.91 meters after
the initial observations.
The sub profile of Borehole 2 consists of a thin layer of medium
stiff Sandy SILT with high plasticity from the topsoil to 1.95m. At
3.00m to 3.45m, there was a layer of medium loose very Silty
GRAVEL with intermediate plasticity to be found. Loose very Silty
SAND with high plasticity and stiff Sandy SILT with high plasticity
were located at 4.50m to 4.95m and 6.00m and 6.45m
respectively. Loose very Silty GRAVEL was situated at depth of
4
7.50m to 7.95m. At 15.50m to 10.95m, there was a thin layer of
very stiff Sandy SILT with high plasticity that interbedded between
layers of stiff to very stiff Gravelly SILT with high plasticity at 9.00m
to 9.45m and 12.00m to 13.95m respectively. Followed by thick
layers of hard Gravelly SILT with high plasticity at 15.00m to
16.95m. A thin layer of very dense Silty SAND with intermediate
plasticity was then found at 18.00m to 18.45m depth
accompanied by thick layers of hard Gravelly SILT with
intermediate plasticity from 19.50m to the terminated depth,
21.45m. It is also noted that the groundwater level was observed
to be at 4.81 meter and rose to 6.84 meters after the initial
observations.
The sub profile of Borehole 3 consists of very soft Sandy SILT
with high plasticity from the topsoil to 1.95m. Loose Silty GRAVEL
layer was found at 3.00m to 3.45m and later loose Very Silty
GRAVEL layers located at 4.50m to 6.45m depth. From 7.50m to
9.45- meter, layer of medium stiff Sandy SILT with high plasticity
was located. Stiff SILT with high plasticity and very stiff SILT with
intermediate plasticity were obtained at 10.50m to 10.95m and
12.00m to 12.45m respectively. Followed by a thin layer of very
stiff Gravelly SILT with intermediate plasticity at 13.50m to
13.95m. A thin layer of hard SILT with high plasticity at 21.00m to
21.45m was found interbedding with thick layers of hard Gravelly
SILT with intermediate plasticity from 15.00m to 21.45m, where
the borehole was terminated. It is also noted that the groundwater
level was first observed to be at 4.12 meters and increased to
4.82 meters after the initial observations.
All boreholes were terminated at 21.45m depth except for
Borehole 1 which was at 22.95m. Gravelly SILT dominates the
sub-profile of Borehole 1, 2 and 3. There are minor presence of
Silty GRAVEL and Sandy SILT in all boreholes which in Boreholes
2 and 3 were at a shallower depth (6.00m and 7.50m respectively)
in exception of Borehole 1; at 13.50m. In general, the common
soil profile in this area consists of Gravelly SILT with few layers of
SILT, Sandy SILT and Silty Gravel spread all over the site area.
Figure 4 show the soil profile interpreted from the bore log
provided by the SI contractor.
5
Figure 4 Soil profile base from BH1 – BH3
6
The water level in each borehole was recorded while drilling was
in progress and after the completion of the boreholes. The
measurement was taken before water (if any) was added to the
borehole to stabilize it. The depth of the borehole and the casing
(if any) was also recorded. The ground water level after was
measured on 26/05/2022 for all boreholes; BH1, BH2 and BH3.
Table 1 show the final water table in BH1 to BH3.
Table 1 Final Water Table.
Borehole Groundwater Groundwater
Level (m) (Before) Level (m) (After)
BH1 1.74 3.91
BH2 4.81 6.84
BH3 4.12 4.82
4.0 Geotechnical Engineering Parameters
The underlying subsoil geotechnical properties at site are derived from soil
investigation results and subsequent laboratory testing. Table 2 below shows
summary of soil parameters which are extracted from the site investigation
report. These parameters are to be used as a basis for deriving the parameter
that is appropriate in slope design modelling and analysis. Details of Site
investigation summary results are as shown in Appendix B.
Table 2 Soil Characteristic and Shear Strength Parameters

Effective Undrained
Bulk Unit Weight
Materials Type Parameters
c’ kPa I' kN/m3
Fill Materials 5 32 16
Loose Sandy
0 27 16.5
Gravel
Stiff Sandy SILT 0 30 17.5
Very Stiff to hard
0 34 22
Gravelly SILT
Concrete High Strength Material 24
Gabion High Strength Materials 24
Table 2 provides parameters to be used in the design. However, the effective

undrain parameters for long term evaluation are an approximate typical value.
Thus, the strength parameters to be used shall be derived from typical
published values and suitable correlation that can be found in various
references such as textbooks and suggested values from previous researchers.
7
All strength parameters used at this site are extracted from Table 2.1 to table
2.3 as a guide for the selection.
Table 2.1 Empirical value for unit weight of granular soils base from SPT
(Ref: Bowles, Foundation Analysis)
SPT, N values blow/foot J(kN/m3)
0-4 11 – 16
4 – 10 14 – 18
10 – 30 17 – 20
30 - 50 17 – 21
>50 20 – 24
Table 2.2 Empirical value for I, of granular soil based on SPT. (Ref: Bowles,
Foundation Analysis)
SPT, N values blow/foot I (degree)
0 25 – 30
4 27 – 32
10 30 – 35
30 35 – 40
50 38 – 43
Table 2.3 Guide for Consistency of Fined-Grained Soil (Ref: NAVFAC

7.02)
SPT, N values blow/foot Estimated Consistency Suc (kPa)
<2 Very Soft <24
2–4 Soft 24 – 48
4–8 Medium 48 – 96
8 – 15 Stiff 96 - 192
15 - 30 Very Stiff 192 - 383
>30 Hard >383
suc is unconfined compression strength, kPa

c = suc/2, kPa
These values are selected based on judgement and conservative approach as

per Table 2.1 to 2.3 for the design purposes.
8
5.0 Slope Analysis
Slope stability of fill areas are very important in this study especially at places
where high bund slopes have been constructed. Stability of the slopes shall be
governed by the stability of the manmade bund against slip failure, against
sliding and against overturning. In this case, it can be generally said that
stability against sliding and overturning will be the secondary factor as
compared to slip circle failure. Slope stability analysis against slip failures is
normally calculated using one of the famous software available in the market
Slope-W, Geo5, Stable etc. In our analysis, Slope -W software from Geosolve
has been used. Criteria or Factor of Safety Guidelines for slope design shall be
based on the Guidelines from Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia (JKR) as shown in
Table 3. In our case, the guideline is referred to Guideline No 1 under
Unreinforced Slopes where global and local Factor of Safety require is 1.3.
Stability of bund slopes shall be carried out to determine current stability the
slope, alert stability, critical stability, and failure stability with respect to
movement of ground water level.
5.1 Sliding failure of wall
Possible mode for non-cohesive soils. Wall moves outwards with

passive failure of soil in front of foundation and active failure of soil
behind wall. If necessary, a key can be added beneath the foundation to
improve sliding resistance. Design will be base from Load Resistance
Design Factor (LRFD). Load and Resistance Factor Design, is a scheme
of designing the structural components which is different from the
traditionally used allowable stress format, as can be seen by comparing
the following two inequalities:
ோ೙
ிௌ
൒ σ௜ଵ ܳ௡௜ (1)
‫ܴ׎‬௡ ൒ σ௜ଵ ߛ௜ ܳ௡௜ (2)
The first of these inequalities represents the allowable stress case, while
the second represents the LRFD design criterion. The left side in each
case is the design strength, and the right is the required strength. The
term Rn defines the normal strength as given by an equation in a
specification, and Qni is the load effect (i.e., a computed stress or a force
such as bending moment, shear force axial force, etc.) determined by
structural analysis for the loads acting on the structure (e.g., live load,
dead load, wind load, etc.). The term FS represents the Factor of Safety,
‫ ׎‬is termed the resistance factor, and the Ji's are the load factors
associated with each load effect Qi. The fundamental difference between
LRFD and the allowable stress design method is, providing more
consistency, simply because it uses more than one factor.
9
Table 3.0 JKR Guidelines for Slope Design (2010, 2017)
10
5.2 Slope Stability Assessment Results
Figure 5 showed the cross section for slope and bund at Area CH 40
with height of 12.0m. Borehole BH 3 was drilled at this location. Using
this cross section, a set of slope stability analyses are analysed using
Slope W software. Initial slope stability analyses prior to failure with
ground water levels has been modelled based on water level at below
the top of bund and at centre location as recorded in the borehole BH3.
Soil properties are based on those stated in paragraph above. From the
analysis, a factor of safety (FOS) of 0.67 is obtained. This result is the
factor of safety condition at the time the borehole was carried out. The
Guidelines for Slope Design by JKR (2017) specified that factor of safety
must be more than or equal to 1.3. Thus, the bund is not stable under
the condition which has been modelled. By assuming the bund to be
under fully saturated condition or in other words water level is at the top
of the bund, failure is expected to occur especially during wet season.
Figure 5 Slope Stability Analysis prior to failure.
Figure 6 show slope analysis after proposed rectification. A slope of 1:1.75

gradient was introduced to make the slope gentler while berm is constructed
11
halfway towards down slope. Counterweight in a form of gravity wall structures
is introduced to counteract slope movement at the toe.
Figure 6 Slope analysis after rectification work
With the liner install at the perimeter of the bund, it was expected that no water
will seep through the bund which will fully saturate the soil and causing Factor
of Safety to decrease. Analysis shows that the FOS is 1.56 with the
configuration as suggested in Figure 6. Thus, it shows that three components
need to be considered during the design of the bund. Firstly, the slope surface
needs to be gentle and provide berm. Secondly, water from the pond need to
be prevented from seeping into the slope since for a long term it will reduce the
Factor of Safety of the slope and lastly, water infiltration needs to be control by
using cut of drain and installed good drainage system. Many failures show that,
fully saturated soil will cause an increase in pore water pressure which develop
at the toe of the slope and cause bulging prior to the failure. An increase of
water infiltration will cause the soil shear strength to reduce and make the toe
collapse thus retrogressively failed the slope.
12
6.0 Rectification Proposal
Three rectification proposal has been put forward. These three proposals will
be chosen separately or with combination to suit the site topography and
boundary. The main priority is to put counterweight at the toe of the slope in
terms of gravity action. Other than gravity action an interception of failure plan
is also put into recommendation for remedial work. However, the cost will be
the main priority in recommending the proposal.
6.1 Earthwork and Gabion Wall
Figure 7 Option 1 Earthwork and Gabion
The first option put forward is using a gabion wall at the toe of the
slope as shown in Figure 7. Gabion wall of height 3m will be install.
The depth of embedded gabion including footing will be 1m (0.5m
footing and 0.5m gabion). This will act as a key to the footing which
will resist the sliding action due to active pressure behind the wall.
The design of a gabion wall involves several key aspects, including
the choice of materials, basket specifications, foundation, and
drainage system. The element overview of each aspect:
1. Materials: The primary materials used in gabion walls are
wire mesh baskets and fill materials. The wire mesh
baskets are typically made of galvanized steel or PVC-
coated steel wire, which provides strength and corrosion
resistance. The fill materials can include various types of
rocks, stones, or recycled concrete.
13
2. Basket Specifications: The wire mesh baskets, also known
as gabion baskets or gabion cages, are rectangular or
square in shape and are interconnected to form a cohesive
wall structure. The mesh openings in the baskets allow for
the passage of water while retaining the fill material. The
wire diameter and mesh size are selected based on the
required strength and the size of the fill material.
3. Foundation: A stable foundation is crucial for the stability

and longevity of the gabion wall. The foundation should be
properly prepared, levelled, and compacted to ensure
uniform support. Depending on the soil conditions and wall
height, additional measures such as geotextiles or
geogrids may be used to improve stability.
4. Drainage: Adequate drainage is essential to prevent the

build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, which
could lead to wall failure. This is achieved by incorporating
suitable drainage materials, such as crushed stone or
gravel, at the base and backfill of the wall. Additionally, the
design may include weep holes or perforated pipes to
allow water to escape.
Factors such as the wall's height, soil conditions, expected
loads, and site-specific requirements are considered to
determine the appropriate design specifications.
6.2 Earth work and Crib Wall

Figure 8 shows the arrangement of using alternative gravity wall
namely crib wall. The crib wall has an advantage where boundary
constrained encounter on site. Due to its almost verticality, the
gradient of the slope can be increase as high as 90o from horizontal
line. A crib wall is a type of retaining wall constructed by stacking
interlocking precast concrete units, known as crib units or cribbage
blocks, to form a stable structure. It is commonly used to retain soil
and provide structural support. Crib walls are known for their
flexibility, ease of installation, and ability to accommodate irregular
wall alignments and curves.
14
Figure 8 Option 2 Earthwork and Crib wall
The design of a crib wall involves several key considerations,

including the choice of materials, wall geometry, reinforcement,
foundation, and drainage. An overview of each aspect is:
1. Materials: Crib walls can be constructed using either precast
concrete units or timber units. Precast concrete crib units are
typically made of high-strength concrete and have interlocking
features that allow them to stack together securely. Timber crib
units are made of treated timber and are designed to interlock,
providing stability.
2. Wall Geometry: The crib units are assembled in a step-like

configuration, creating a series of horizontal layers. The wall
can be designed as either a gravity wall, relying on its weight
to resist soil pressure, or a reinforced wall, where the crib units
are interconnected and reinforced with steel bars or geogrids
for additional strength.
3. Reinforcement: In cases where additional strength is

required, crib walls can be reinforced with steel bars or
geogrids. Steel bars are inserted through pre-drilled holes in
the crib units and extend into the backfill soil, providing
increased stability. Geogrids are placed between the crib
layers and extend into the backfill, creating an interaction
between the units and the soil.
15
4. Foundation: The foundation for a crib wall should be prepared
according to the site-specific soil conditions. Typically, a level
and compacted base is prepared to support the weight of the
crib units and resist the soil pressure. The foundation design
should consider factors such as soil type, groundwater
conditions, and any required drainage provisions.
5. Drainage: Adequate drainage is essential to prevent the build-

up of hydrostatic pressure behind the crib wall. The design
may include drainage materials, such as crushed stone or
gravel, placed behind the wall to allow water to escape.
Additionally, weep holes or perforated pipes may be
incorporated to facilitate water drainage.
Factors such as soil properties, anticipated loads, and site-specific

conditions need to be considered to ensure a safe and effective
design. It is important to ensure the stability, longevity, and safety
of the crib wall for its intended purpose.
6.3 Earth work and Sheet Pile Wall.
Figure 9 Option 3 Earthwork and sheet pile
The main purpose of sheet pile is to intercept failure plane of the

slope. The arrangement of the sheet pile is as shown in Figure 9.
It was suggested that 5m expose surface will be incorporated with
13m embedment depth to obtain the stability. A sheet pile wall use
as a retaining wall is made of interlocking steel, that are driven
16
into the ground to intercept failure plane for slope stability. They
provide structural support, prevent slope movement, and control
water flow.
The design of a sheet pile wall involves several key aspects,
including the selection of materials, sheet pile type, wall
configuration, embedment depth, and structural considerations.
An overview of each aspect is as shown below.
1. Materials: Sheet pile walls can be made of various materials,

including steel, vinyl, or concrete. Steel sheet piles are the
most used due to their strength, durability, and versatility.
Vinyl sheet piles are lightweight and corrosion-resistant,
suitable for temporary or environmentally sensitive
applications. Concrete sheet piles provide high strength and
can be used for permanent structures.
2. Sheet Pile Type: There are several types of sheet pile

profiles available, such as U-shaped, Z-shaped, or straight
web. The selection of the sheet pile type depends on factors
such as soil conditions, required strength, and the presence
of water. The shape and size of the sheet pile influence its
ability to withstand bending moments and soil pressures.
3. Wall Configuration: The design of the sheet pile wall can be

either a cantilever wall or an anchored wall. Cantilever walls
rely on the stiffness of the sheet piles to resist soil pressures
and typically require a larger embedment depth. Anchored
walls use additional supports, such as tiebacks or ground
anchors, to provide stability and reduce the required
embedment depth.
4. Embedment Depth: The depth at which the sheet piles are

driven into the ground, known as the embedment depth, is a
critical design parameter. It depends on the soil properties,
groundwater conditions, and the required stability.
Geotechnical investigations are conducted to assess the soil
conditions and determine the appropriate embedment
depth.
5. Structural Considerations: The design of the sheet pile wall

needs to consider the loads it will experience, including soil
17
pressures, water pressure, and any additional surcharge
loads. Structural calculations are performed to ensure the
sheet piles and their connections can withstand the applied
loads and maintain stability.
Factors such as soil conditions, anticipated loads, water table,

and local regulations need to be considered to ensure a safe and
effective design for its intended purposes.
Other criteria needed is when filling is to be carried over existing ground, the
surface of the natural material should be benched so that the fill can be ‘keyed’
into the slope, allowing for a good bonding interface between structural fill and
the natural. The maximum height of the step suggest is 1.5m or less, and the
benching must be sloped to ensure free drainage. Cut-off drainage, berm and
toe drainage shall be constructed to reduce any surface runoff to infiltrate into
the ground as this is the main factors that cause the slope to fail.
7.0 Cost Implication

When undertaking any construction or engineering project, one of the key
considerations is the cost implication. Understanding and comparing the costs
associated with different work options is essential for effective decision-making
and budget planning. Cost comparison involves evaluating the expenses
associated with various alternatives to determine the most economically viable
option. The cost implication for all three options is as shown in Table 4.1 to Table
4.3.
Table 4.1 Combination of Gabion and Crib wall. (Option 1 and 2)
No. Bund Repair Items Unit Quantity Rate Cost
1 General & Preliminaries LS RM70,000.00

2 Site Clearing Hac 0.54 RM12,390.00 RM6,690.60
3 Cut existing bund and stockpile for re-use m3 6350 RM6.00 RM38,100.00
4 Fill to proposed bund profile with compaction m3 6350 RM10.00 RM63,500.00
5 Lay HDPE liner 1.3mm thickness m2 3750 RM30.00 RM112,500.00
6 Lay non-woven Geotextile TS30 m2 3130 RM8.00 RM25,040.00
7 Construct Gabion wall fill with 75-100mm rock m3 300 RM487.00 RM146,100.00
8 Construct Cribwall height 6.0 to 7.5m m3 203 RM700.00 RM142,100.00
9 Construct V-shape berm drain 300mm depth m 70 RM250.00 RM17,500.00
10 Construct Toe drain m 120 RM325.00 RM39,000.00
11 Construct cascade drain 900mm width m 57 RM350.00 RM19,950.00
12 Hydroseeding including with ECB m2 1600 RM5.00 RM8,000.00
13 Contigency LS RM50,000.00
GRAND TOTAL RM738,480.60
18
Combination of gabion and crib wall need to be done as the boundary of the
area encroaches the pond.
Table 4.2 Crib wall only (Option 2)

7 Construct Cribwall height 6.0 to 6.5m m2 455 RM700.00 RM318,500.00
GRAND TOTAL RM752,448.60
Table 4.3 Sheet pile only (Option 3)


7 Install sheetpile 18m length m2 1260 RM700.00 RM882,000.00
GRAND TOTAL RM1,315,948.60
Based on the cost comparison, a combination of option 1 and 2 gave the lowest
cost of RM 740,000.00 which is viable for the slope repair work in Algae Pond
2. However, the cost is subjected to price fluctuation if the project is deemed
delay in embarking.
8.0 Conclusion
Slope strength is traditionally gauged by the resulting factor of safety (FS). Due
to the inherent nature of landfill-type material, engineering judgement was
considered throughout the project. Due to the high variability of the unit weight
19
and the internal friction angle inherent to waste materials, it is likely that
localized failure will occur in some location sometime in the future. The high
temperatures near the bottom of the landfill indicate that degradation is
occurring. Factors of safety will decrease with time as the organic material
degrades and weakens due to weathering effects. The slope rectification works
shows that, the FOS is more than 1.3 as suggested by JKR. Further to these
parameters, in consideration for retaining structures, it is important to enable
good drainage behind the structure itself to prevent excessive hydrostatic
pressure. It is recommended to utilise clean granular backfill behind the wall
itself and drainpipes at the base of the structure to release any water. The
design should also allow for water pressure acting on the retaining structure to
at-least one third the wall height to ensure stability in an elevated water level
situation. In addition, material directly behind the structure should not be heavily
compacted, otherwise adverse effects from increased earth pressures may
affect the in-service use of the structure. Compaction by hand-held equipment
is recommended when placing these layers. Through careful assessment,
planning, and execution, slope repair work aims to restore the integrity and
stability of slopes while minimizing environmental impact and ensuring long-
term effectiveness. Different repair techniques as been put forward, such as
gabion, crib and sheet pile walls, erosion control measures, and vegetation
plantation at slope surface, are employed based on the specific conditions and
requirements of the slope. The cost implications of slope repair work are an
important consideration. The evaluation of initial investment, life cycle costs,
and long-term benefits helps in making informed decisions regarding the most
viable and sustainable repair strategies. Additionally, the potential risks and
contingencies associated with slope repair work should be carefully assessed
to mitigate unforeseen circumstances and minimize financial impacts. It was
concluded that a combination of gabion and crib wall gives a better option for
the repair work.
20
9.0 References
1. Burt L (2007). Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables,

Taylor and Francis Group, London.
2. British Standard Code of Practice BS 1377: 1990 “Method of test for soils for
Civil Engineering Purpose”
3. British Standard Code of Practice BS 5930: 1999 “Site Investigation”.
4. Geostudio 2012 Slope W
5. Guidelines for Slope Design (2010), JKR Slope Division, Document No: JKR
21500-0011-10
6. JKR Malaysia (2017), Geotechnical Design Requirement Appendix A5,
Revision 1/2017
7. Joseph E. Bowles (1996), Foundation Analysis and Design 5th. Edition, The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
8. K. Terzaghi, R.B. Peck and G. Desri (1967), Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, John Wiley & Sons
9. Meyerhof (1976), Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations,
Journal ASCE.
10. MS 1056: 2005 “Method of test for soils for Civil Engineering Purpose”
21

10.0 FGV - Submission Report of Geotechnical Modellling On Bund Stability Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.0 FGV - Submission Report of Geotechnical Modellling On Bund Stability Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Your Ref :

Our Ref : UCSB/23-294/FGV-Serting(S/010)

26 June 2023 / 07 Zulhijjah 1444H

FGV PALM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

FGVPI-219/2023: PERKHIDMATAN JURUTERA PERUNDING BAGI CADANGAN KERJA

With reference to the above subject.

UNITI CONSULTANTS SDN.BHD.

Client: Engineering Consultant (PMC):

UNITI CONSULTANTS SDN. BHD.

2 BRIEF GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 2

4 GEOTECHNICAL SOIL PROFILE 5

5 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 9

This report presents the GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING AND WATER SEEPAGE

The GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING AND WATER SEEPAGE STUDY ON BUND

2.0 BRIEF GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION

Figure 1 Geological map of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang

Failed slope area

Figure 2 Location of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang

The scope of works can be divided into two major components:

1. Interpretation of Soil Investigation Works:

2. Slope Stability and Seepage Analysis:

The Interpretation of Soil Investigation Works is conducted on provided Soil

Also, the available geotechnical interpretation reported by previous geotechnical

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SOIL PROFILE

Table 1 Geotechnical inventory of Tementi Palm Oil Mill slope profile

EBHFGV1 52.680 1.74 3.91 Preliminary borehole

50 Name: Stiff Sandy SILT

Name: Weathered SANDSTONE/Hard Sandy SILT

4.2 Soil Parameters

In addition, the advanced hydraulic properties of Soil Water Characteristic Curve

4.3 Mackintosh Probe (MP) Result

Table 2 Summary of soil parameters of Tementi slope profile

Firm Sandy SILT 7 x 10-6 5 26 15.0

Stiff Sandy SILT 6.8 x 10-8 0 30 16.5

Stiff to Very Stiff 1 x 10-10 0 32 13.5

Weathered 3.5 x 10-15 0 High 22

5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

5.1 Seepage Flow in Tementi Palm Oil Mill Slope

ALGAE POND ALGAE POND

ALGAE POND ALGAE POND

5.2 Stability Analysis

Mode 3 (Middle End) 2.02 2.19 1.18

Mode 5 (Middle End) 3.51 3.36 1.14

Mode 3 (Toe End) 1.84 2.20 1.34

Mode 4 (Toe End) 2.25 2.12 1.01

Mode 5 (Toe End) 2.49 2.49 0.85

6.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATION

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

This GEOTECHNICAL MODELLING AND WATER SEEPAGE STUDY ON BUND

Figure 1: Geological map of Tementi Palm Oil Mill, Bera, Pahang

Table 1: Geotechnical inventory of Tementi Palm Oil Mill slope profile

1) SOIL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR CADANGAN KERJA PENGSTABILAN

2) SOIL INVESTIGATION WORKS FOR PROPOSED EXISTING

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

+DUG'DUN%URZQ6,/7ZLWK 3         

+DUG'DUN%URZQ6DQG\6,/7ZLWK 3    

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

3        

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

3         

+DUG<HOORZ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK 3         

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

+DUG'DUN%URZQ6,/7ZLWK 3

+DUG'DUN%URZQ6DQG\6,/7ZLWK 3

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

3

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

3

+DUG<HOORZ*UDYHOO\6,/7ZLWK 3

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

9HU\6RIW5HGGLVK%URZQ6DQG\6,/7 3

0HGLXP6WLII5HGGLVK%URZQ6DQG\6,/7 3

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

9HU\6WLII/LJKW5HGGLVK%URZQ6,/7 '

3

3

&OLHQW)*93$/02,/,1'8675,(6.8$/$/80385 &RQVXOWDQW 'DWH6WDUWHG

ǡ

%+ 3 13 13 13

3 13 13 13

3

3

3

3

3

3

ǣ ͵ͳȀͲͷȀʹͲʹʹ ǣ

ǡ

%+ 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

:6

ǣ ͵ͳȀͲͷȀʹͲʹʹ ǣ

ǡ

%+ 3

3

3

3

3 13 13 13

3

3

3

ǣ ͵ͳȀͲͷȀʹͲʹʹ ǣ

ǡ

%+ 3

3

3

3

3

3

:6

Ǧ Ǧ ͓ǦȋȌ ͓͓Ǧ ͓͓͓ǦȀ Ǧ

ǣ ͵ͳȀͲͷȀʹͲʹʹ ǣ

ǡ

%+ 3

3 13 13 13

3 13 13 13

3 13 13 13

3

3

3

3

ǣ ͵ͳȀͲͷȀʹͲʹʹ ǣ