1.

0 INTRODUCTION

G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD (G&P) has been engaged by OPUS CONSULTANTS (M)
SDN BHD 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. This brief is intended to compile
and summarise the geotechnical review carried out to date for Package C1 on the following
documents:

i) Geotechnical Detailed Engineering Design (DED) Report for Package C1 dated

November 2019 prepared by DDC Consulting Engineers (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd.

ii) 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.

iii) Soil Investigation Work for Proposed Sarawak Second Trunk Road – Package C
Jalan Kelupu / Jalan TG Genting to Lanang Bridge, SIBU (DED Phase) dated May
2019 prepared by Geospec Sdn Bhd (Report No: GSO/2019/3080)

iv) Soil Investigation Work for Proposed Sarawak Second Trunk Road – Package C
Jalan Kelupu / Jalan TG Genting to Lanang Bridge, SIBU (DED Phase) dated
November 2018 prepared by Geospec Sdn Bhd (Report No: GSO/2018/2998)

Road under package C1 starts from Jalan Kelupu/Jalan Tg. Genting from the Bintangor
Interchange (at Pan Borneo Highway) up to Simpang Jalan Tulai, Sarikei Division which spans
about 15km (CH0 – CH15000).

2.0 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 brief, 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.

Page 1 of 7
 Any interpretations or recommendations given in this report shall be understood to be
based on judgement and experience and not on greater knowledge of the facts that the
reported investigations would imply. The responsibility of G&P Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd.
(G&P) is solely to its Client (OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD) and the Authorities
the report is submitted to on the design of permanent works reviewed by G&P in
accordance to the scope of works as appointed. This report may be disclosed to other
professional advisors assisting the Client in respect of the project concerned only. It is
not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party. No liability is
undertaken to any third party.

3.0 REVIEW OF SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT

The road alignment along Package C1 is underlain with Alluvium of Pleistocene to Holocene
age. It is made up of both coastal and riverine alluvium, and terraces of clay, silt, sand and
gravel with layers of peats. Subsoil information based on the available boreholes, Mackintosh
Probing and hand augering results from the soil investigation report is shown in Appendix A
and summarized in Table 1.

Several highlights regarding the provided soil investigation reports are as follow:

 Very limited laboratory test results were available for Package C1. There is only one
borehole (BH7) having consolidation test and CIU test throughout the entire Package
C1. Based on DDC’s response on the issued DRR, additional subsurface investigation
and laboratory tests will be carried out during construction stage.

 Standpipe piezometers were mentioned in the GDR, however no standpipes readings

were available in the provided SI reports.

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

 Comparison between the subsoil parameters adopted by DDC and the interpreted
subsoil parameter by G&P are presented in table below:

Page 2 of 7
 Parameters adopted by
DDC
Soft Clay = 16 kN/m3
Firm Clay = 18 kN/m3
Stiff Clay = 18 kN/m3
Bulk Density
Very Stiff Clay = 18 kN/m3
Hard Clay = 18 kN/m3
Peat = 12 kN/m3
Soft Clay = 15 kPa
Firm Clay = 30 kPa
Stiff Clay = 48 kPa
Very Stiff Clay = 60 kPa
Undrained
Hard Clay = 120 - 200 kPa
Shear
Peat = 5 kPa
Strength, Su
An average of 4.8 x SPTN
value is adopted for Su
Correlation
Soft Clay: c’=0, φ’=22o
Firm Clay: c’=5kPa, φ’=28o
Effective Stiff Clay: c’=5kPa, φ’=28o
Strength Very Stiff Clay: c’=10kPa,
Parameters φ’=28o
Hard Clay: c’=15-20kPa,
φ’=28o
Compressibility
Parameters Standard Parameters
adopted by DDC:
CR = 0.206
Page 3 of 7
Parameters interpreted
Comment by G&P
by G&P
Refer to interpreted SI
Soft Silt = 15.3 kN/m3 result in Figure 1, overall
(from BH7 UD) density adopted by DDC
are within range
Correlation for Su up to 5
x SPTN is achievable, as
per literature published by
Stroud & Butler (1975)
and subsequently
updated by F. White, P,
Laboratory test is not Ingram and M, Betru,
available
For soft clay with SPTN
value 0 and 1, Su of
15kPa adopted by DDC is
at the high side and site
verification is therefore
needed.
Only one test available
for Package C1.
Referring to the
laboratory test data from
Package C2 as shown in
Figure 2a and 2b, the
adopted effective strength
parameters by DDC are
Soft Silt: c’=0, φ’=21.5o
within acceptable range.
(from BH7 UD)
Effective strength
parameters for peats are
not available. However,
the design approach is to
remove all peats
encountered and hence,
peat parameter is
irrelevant.
From BH7 UD: Only one (1)
CR = 0.22 consolidation test is
RR = 0.029 available for Package C1.
 Referring to the available
test results from Package
C2 as shown in Figure 3a
to 3e, all compressibility
parameters adopted by
DDC are at the safe side
as compared to the
RR = 0.027 available data.
OCR = 2.35
OCR = 1
Cv = 1.2 m2/yr
Cv = 0.91 m2/yr Compressibility
eo = 1.8
eo = 2.014 parameters for peats are
not available. However,
the design approach is to
remove all peats
encountered and hence,
peat parameter is
irrelevant.

Independent geotechnical review of the provided soil investigation report has been carried out
and inquiries arising from the review have been record in a Document Review Request (DRR)
as shown in Appendix B. There is no reply from DDC on the DRR as of the time of preparing
this report.

4.0 REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Independent geotechnical review of the provided geotechnical design report has been carried
out and inquiries arisen from the review have been documented in a Document Review
Request (DRR) as shown in Appendix C.

Several recommendations and highlights regarding the provided geotechnical design report
and drawings are as follow:

- According to DDC’s reply in DRR, chainages are not shown in the ground treatment
schedule (E.g. CH295 – CH1950, CH2025 – CH2800, CH2950 – CH4375, CH5900 –
CH6075, CH8225 – CH10800) with the view that ground treatment is not expected. If
adverse subsoil condition is observed during construction stage as compared to SI
information or site condition is different from the assumptions made in the design
assessment, the stability of the embankment and settlement should be re-assessed.

- Due to relatively thin peats detected in SI, the peat encountered at site is targeted to
be removed completely during construction stage as informed by the DDC. If thick
peat is encountered at site, the design will have to be re-assessed for necessary
treatment before proceeding to the construction.

Page 4 of 7
- 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.

- In order to confirm the effectiveness of the ground treatment works, timing of

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

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

- It was noticed that DDC did not carry out local stability check for counterweight berms.
It is recommended that the local stability check for counterweight berm shall be
carried out with due consideration of surcharge from construction machinery load,
especially when the counterweight berm would be used as construction access and
stability of the counterweight berm has direct impact to the main embankment’s
stability.

- It is necessary to allow for verification on the achievable gain-in strength at different

stages of filling, fill thickness and necessary rest period during construction to confirm
reasonableness of the design assumption before proceeding to next stage of filling to
higher embankment level.

- Re-assessment of the design is recommended during construction stage if there is

any need to alter the design PVD length or spacing 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 5 of 7
- Embankment fill that settled below existing ground level will increase the destabilising
force, which could reduce the stability FOS. Therefore, this anticipated settlement
should be reasonably considered in the stability analyses to reflect the actual site
scenario.

- Bulk density of 18kN/m3 adopted by DDC for embankment fill material in the
embankment stability analyses could be on the low side for properly compacted fill
material. High bulk density of the embankment fill material will result in higher
destabilising force, which could reduce the stability FOS. Therefore, it is
recommended to verify bulk density of the fill materials from borrow sources during
construction stage using Proctor tests specified in the contract and re-visit the
embankment stability if the obtained bulk density is higher than design assumption,

- The undrained shear strength (Su) adopted by the DDC for subsoil layer with SPTN <
2 appears to be on the high side. Additional site investigation shall be considered
during construction stage to confirm that the adopted undrained soil strength is
achievable before constructing the embankment. Additional SI is recommended to
verify and establish the correlation between undrained shear strength and SPT-N
value, which is used to predict the undrained shear strength of the subsoil for stability
analyses.

- Attention shall be drawn to the differential settlement between the existing

embankment in service and the proposed widen embankment, especially when as it
affects riding safety and pavement surface drainage. Actions such as additional site
investigation (SI) works, settlement monitoring on widen road and existing
embankment, adequate coverage extent of surcharge, PVD, DSM/SSM or installation
of unextendible geogrid reinforcement, whichever appropriate can be implemented at
site to overcome/reduce the adverse impact due to differential settlement. Details of
this recommendations can be referred in the DRR for the consideration of the DDC.

- The overall stability of pile supported RC, piled embankment and pile at sloping areas
should be checked and comply to the ultimate limit state requirements stated in
BS8002. Adequacy of the provided piles to withstand induced forces (axial, lateral,
bending moment and shear force) should be checked, including geotechnical aspect
of the pile design. It is common to observe that the soft layer beneath piled
embankment to settle with time and resulting a gap beneath the piled embankment
slab, which would cause unfavourable lateral stability due to reduced lateral
resistance of the piles with free standing length. This occurred due to consolidation of
the existing ground after having filling over the existing ground either temporary fill for

Page 6 of 7
 access/working platform or permanent fill until piled embankment slab level that is
higher than existing ground level. Therefore, overburden pressure imposed onto the
existing ground should be avoided/minimised during construction stage. Any
overburden pressure imposed should be removed by designing the piled embankment
slab level adequately lower than existing ground level. Consolidation settlement of soft
layer imposes down-drag force to the piles. Hence, adequacy of the piles in structural
and geotechnical aspect has to be taken into consideration in the pile supported
structure.

It is important for the DDC to ensure the technical design requirements and issues involving
site control discussed in the DRR/GDR included in the construction drawings and
implemented at site.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

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

- Limited subsoil strength parameters are available from the S.I. Therefore, additional
S.I. is recommended during construction stage to obtain more subsoil parameters,
particularly soil strength parameters and compressibility parameters for further
confirmation on the design assumptions.

- Post construction settlement for independent analysis by DDC complies with the
design requirement of less than 250mm within 5 years post construction settlement.

- The stability analysis submitted by DDC revealed that the main embankment has
global stability safety factor (FOS) greater than 1.2 and 1.3 for both short term and
long-term analyses respectively. However, additional SI and trial embankment as
mentioned above are recommended to confirm the design parameters and
performance verification.

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

Page 7 of 7