TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
1.1 General...........................................................................................................1
1.2 Objective 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 Condition.........................................................................................6

5.0 REVIEW ON GEOTECHNICAL DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN (DED)

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

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

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

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

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

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

i
 8.2 Pile Adequacy Assessment.......................................................................21
8.3 Sand Blanket and Drainage for Dissipation of Excess Pore Water.......22
8.4 Instrumentation Scheme, Monitoring and Interpretation........................22
8.5 Trial Embankment.......................................................................................23

9.0 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................23

TABLES
List of Tables
Tables

FIGURES
List of Figures
Figures

APPENDICES
List of Appendices
Appendix

ii
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. This report
presents the review on the ground treatment design for Package B1 prepared by DDC (KTA
(Sarawak) Sdn Bhd).

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.

Page 1 of 25
1.2 Objective 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 B1 (from CH 0+000 to CH
28+550), 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 concern from the review on the provided information,
including aspects to be considered in the ground treatment designs

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

1.3 Limitation on Use and Liability

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 25
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 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 the Sarawak Second Trunk
Road, Package B1: CH0+000-CH32+200 (Sebayau to Lingga Town Including Lingga
Bridge), dated January 2020 prepared by Geospec Sdn Bhd (Report No.:
GSI/2019/3107)

d) Soil Investigation Works for Proposed and Completion of the Sarawak Second Trunk
Road-Package B1: Sebayau to Lingga Town, dated 12th February 2020 prepared by
Fieldgeo Sdn Bhd (Report no: fgsb/SI/057/2019)

e) Proposed Construction of the Sarawak Second Trunk Road, Package B1

Geotechnical Design Report, dated on July 2020

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

g) 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

In Package B, the area is oriented parallel to the Batang Lupar River, and consists dominantly
of both coastal and riverine alluvia. The type of alluvial soils expected to be in gradually
transition between coastal alluvium at the NW area towards fluvial alluvium at the east.

Based on the Geological Map of Sarawak, Second Edition, published in 1992 by Director-
General, Geological Survey of Malaysia, the site location is underlain by Alluvium of
Pleistocene to Holocene age as shown in Figure 1. It is made up of coastal and riverine
alluvia, and terraces of clay, silt, sand and gravel with layers of peat.

Page 3 of 25
 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 soil of high
compressibility which are prone to consolidation compression and secondary creep
compression resulting in remarkable land subsidence.

ii. Chemical aggressiveness, like 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 25
 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. In addition, if the
ground (especially soft ground) is excessively stressed, 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 compliance of design submitted by the DDC.

4.0 REVIEW ON THE PROVIDED SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

Package B1 consists of new road embankment construction approximately 28.6 km (CH

0+000 – CH 28+550) of filled embankment with PVD treatment and piled embankment. The
provided Subsurface Investigation (SI) for Package B1 comprises of boreholes, Mackintosh
probes (MP), peat augers (PA) and vane shear tests (VST). There is total 10 nos. boreholes
within Package B1 alignment. Mackintosh probes, peat augers and vane shear test were
carried out between boreholes to acquire more subsoil information. The simplified SI borelogs
are shown Figure 2. All proposed boreholes along the alignment Package B1 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 (which are the predominant subsoil material in
this package) 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
and Direct Shear Box test on the mineral soils were not available in the SI report to
confirm the effective strength parameters of the subsoil for long term stability analyses.
These tests should be performed to obtain the effective strength design parameters for
engineering analysis.

Page 5 of 25
 c) Out of total 10 nos. boreholes available along Package B1 alignment, six (6) nos.
boreholes are located along road embankment. Meanwhile, four (4) nos. boreholes are
located at bridge area within Sungai Ligi and Sungai Parit. The provided boreholes are
reasonably sufficient for interpreting the subsoil condition for ground treatment design, but
collection of undisturbed soil samples for laboratory test beyond 25m below ground is
recommended to establish the subsoil parameters for analysis.

d) From the Plasticity Chart shown in Figure 3, the Liquid Limit (LL) of the tested soil
samples generally range from 31% to 120%. Majority samples are scattered below the ‘A’-
Line with fine components, which are SILT with high plasticity to extremely high plasticity
in nature for the subsoils below the peat. 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 borelog in the SI factual report were not updated according to the soil
type classification.

e) Based on the water level monitored in the boreholes during SI works, the groundwater
level ranges from 0m to 6.3m below ground level. Long term groundwater monitoring
using open standpipe is not available. DDC adopted full groundwater level in stability and
settlement. 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) Other miscellaneous discrepancies observed from the Factual SI report has been
highlighted in the Document Review Request (DRR) sheet as shown in Appendix B.
(Latest comment dated on 6/5/2020)

4.1 Subsoil Condition

Based on the available subsurface investigation and laboratory test results, the subsoil
generally consists of deep very soft to soft SILT/CLAY. About 53.5m deep soft soil is
encountered in borehole BH BS9C, which is located near to the piled embankment at Sungai
Parit. Boreholes and peat augers indicated up to 6.2m thick of peat. The subsoil layers
obtained from boreholes and peat augers are presented in the simplified borelog as shown in
Figure 2.

DDC has considered the ground treatment design according to three (3) different range of
PEAT thickness (which are PEAT less than 3m thick, between 3m to 5m thick and between
5m to 7m thick) and underlain with very soft/soft SILT/CLAY. This approach is reasonable and

Page 6 of 25
 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 12.1N/m3 to 16.6kN/m3. Figure 4
shows the plotted profile of bulk density of very soft and soft SILT/CLAY against depth. The
bulk density of 17kN/m3 for very soft and soft SILT/CLAY adopted by DDC seems to be on
high side based on typical range for very soft to soft deposits in Malaysia. This could possibly
over-estimate the stabilising force and FOS in the embankment stability analysis, which
should be used with care. As undisturbed soil sample of PEATS is not available for the
boreholes in Package B1, bulk density of PEATS and Peaty Soils are cross referred to the
laboratory test results in Packages A and C that ranges between 9kN/m3 to 12kN/m3. The
adopted bulk density of 12kN/m3 adopted by DDC is slightly on high side but is still
acceptable. Review on the adopted bulk density has been highlighted in DRR (ref no: STR-
G&P-B1&B2-DRR-002, dated on 10/8/2020), attached in Appendix B.

The moisture content of SILT/CLAY ranges from 22% to 449% whereas the PEAT has
relatively high moisture content up to 1977%. Moisture content of soil against depth are
plotted in Figure 5a & Figure 5b. Moisture content can be used to establish design parameters
with the correlation charts from published literatures as a design guide, which are available in
Guidelines for Construction on Peat and Organic Soils in Malaysia by Construction Research
Institute of Malaysia (CREAM). Nevertheless, site specific design parameters obtained from
field and laboratory tests on the collected soil samples are always preferred for more
representative design.

Page 7 of 25
 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 precaution and measure to prevent
any detrimental effects to the concrete or steel structures coming in contact with the subsoils.
The results of chemical tests are presented in Table 1.

Very limited Sulphate Content test, Chloride Content test, Organic Matter test and pH value
test were available in the SI factual report for both PEAT and mineral soils (Predominant
CLAY, SILT and SAND). More chemical tests are recommended in order to confirming
aggressiveness of the subsoil to assess its impact to reinforced concrete (RC) structure (e.g.
pile, RC slab, RC wall, RC culvert and etc).

5.1.3 Undrained Shear Strength Parameters

The undrained shear strength (Su) of the subsoil (PEATS and mineral soils) is obtained from
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) and Field Vane Shear Tests (VST) for embankment stability
analyses. The profiles of Su across the subsoil depth for fine mineral soils is shown in Figure
6a & Figure 6d, whereby the subsoil Su values for PEATS and very soft to soft CLAY/SILT are
concentrated in the range of 0.5kPa to 30kPa and 2kPa to 45kPa respectively. The undrained
shear strength parameters of PEAT and CLAY adopted by DDC are within acceptable range.

5.1.4 Compressibility Parameters

Compressibility parameters of subsoils (mineral soils) are interpreted from the One-
Dimensional (1-D) Consolidation Test. Figure 7a shows the profile of over-consolidation ratio
(OCR) interpreted from the 1-D Consolidation Test. DDC has assumed the OCR to be 1.0 for
all materials, this approach is considered acceptable despite it might be conservative to ignore
the top desiccated layer.

The compression ratio (CR) profile of compressible subsoils is shown in Figure 7b. The
adopted CR of compressible subsoils by DDC is 0.25, which are also within the interpreted
range and, hence considered reasonably acceptable.

The void ratio (e0) versus depth is plotted as shown in Figure 7c, in which it ranges from 1.06
to 2.03. The adopted e0 = 2.0 by DDC is acceptable. The Coefficient of Consolidation (C v)
versus depth is shown in Figure 7d ranging from 0.83m2/year to 7.95 m2/year. The adopted Cv
of 1.2m2/year by DDC is within the reasonable range.

Page 8 of 25
 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 and is
limited to 0.6.

5.2 Review on the Ground Treatment Design

5.2.1 Ground Treatment Type

Based on the provided Geotechnical Detailed Engineering Design (DED) Report, the adopted
ground treatments are classified into eight (8) types (i.e. P1a, P2a, P3a, P5a, P6a, P9a, P10a,
piled embankment as stated in DED report prepared by DDC), depending on the embankment
net fill height for different category range of peat thickness as summarised in the tabulation
below:
Ground
Net Fill Depth of
Treatment Description
Height Peat (m)
Type
<1.5m <3m P1a  1 layer 85kN/m geotextile + 1 layer 400kN/m
geotextile.
 Stabilizing berm 5m x 1m
 0.8m surcharge on top of fill height with PVD for 12
months (exclusive of 3 months rest period after
PVD installation)
3-5m P2a  1 layer 85kN/m geotextile + 1 layer 400kN/m
geotextile.
 Stabilizing berm 9m x 1m
 0.8m surcharge on top of fill height with PVD for 15
months (exclusive of 3 months rest period after
PVD installation)
5-7m P3a  1 layer 85kN/m geotextile + 1 layer 400kN/m
geotextile.
 Stabilizing berm 10m x 1m
 0.8m surcharge on top of fill height with PVD for 15
months (exclusive of 6 months rest period after
PVD installation)
1.5-2.5m <3m P5a  1 layer 85kN/m geotextile + 1 layer 400kN/m
geotextile.
 Stabilizing berm 10m x 1m

Page 9 of 25
  0.8m surcharge on top of fill height with PVD for 15
months (exclusive of 6 months rest period after
PVD installation)
3-5m P6a  1 layer 85kN/m geotextile + 1 layer 600kN/m
geotextile.
 Stabilizing berm 14m x 1.5m (6mx1.5m & 8mx1m)
 0.8m surcharge on top of fill height with PVD for 15
months (exclusive of 6 months rest period after
PVD installation)
2.5-3.5m <3m P9a  1 layer 85kN/m geotextile + 1 layer 600kN/m
geotextile.
 Stabilizing berm 14m x 1.5m (8mx1.5m & 6mx1m)
 0.8m surcharge on top of fill height with PVD for 15
months (exclusive of 6 months rest period after
PVD installation)
3-5m P10a  1 layer 85kN/m geotextile + 2 layer 600kN/m
geotextile.
 Stabilizing berm 16m x 1.5m (11mx1.5m & 5mx1m)
 0.8m surcharge on top of fill height with PVD for 15
months (exclusive of 6 months rest period after
PVD installation)

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.

DDC has highlighted in the GDR that R&R will be carried out where the depth of the soft soils
is shallow, but the depth requirement for R&R is not clearly defined. Nevertheless, there is no
R&R shown in the treatment schedule drawing. If there is any alteration from the design during
construction stage where R&R is needed, DDC is recommended to update the GDR with the
relevant analysis & design, and include the details into the construction drawing for site
reference.

Page 10 of 25
Prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) are generally provided in triangular patterns with the most
efficient drainage radius arrangement into very soft to soft soil layer to expedite the
consolidation settlement.

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 CWB proposed
by DDC is in the range of 5m to 16m in width and 1m to 1.5m in height above ground level.
Top level of counterweight berm will be maintained by having periodic topping up during the
ground treatment period as adopted by the DDC.

Stage construction is also adopted for Package B1 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 be 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
treatment. The thickness of surcharge preloading fill adopted by DDC are generally 0.8m. Top
of the surcharge fill level will be maintained by having periodic topping up.

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

Page 11 of 25
typically 400kN/m or 600kN/m. Tensile reduction factor and FoS dependent has been applied
to basal reinforcement by DDC in the stability analyses.

Design treatment types indicated in treatment schedule are generally acceptable.

Embankment height and peat depth were checked against available subsoil information and
embankment height. Reviews and recommendation for the design parameters and analyses
will be further discussed in next chapters.

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 considerations and impact for embankment can refer to
Appendix C.

5.2.2 Settlement Analyses

Construction of embankments over soft compressible soils will cause consolidation 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 subsoils 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.

The concerns have been highlighted in DRRs to confirm the DDC design approach. Reviews
and recommendation for the design parameter and analyses will be further discussed in next
chapters.

Page 12 of 25
Assumptions included in the settlement analyses carried out by DDC are summarised as
follows:
1) Using commercial computer software, Settle 3D from Rocscience.
2) Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD) at 1.5m spacing in triangular pattern.
3) 3 or 6 months of first resting period after 0.5m PVD drainage blanket built up.
4) Estimated length for the PVD is about 15 to 25m for ground treatment. OCR for all
soil material is conservatively assumed as 1.0. The benefit of possible lower
compressibility at top desiccated subsoils is excluded with this assumption.
5) Temporary surcharge of 0.8m with second resting period of 12 or 15 months.
6) Water table was assumed at ground level. (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.)

Based on the review on the settlement analyses computed by DDC, it is observed that the
additional fill thickness from periodical topping up to maintain the designated fill level during
construction stage to compensate the settlement below OGL were not considered in design
analyses as per the design intent stated in the GDR and drawing.

5.2.3 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 the widen embankment and 20kPa surcharge is applied to simulate as permanent traffic
loading on top of the existing embankment (in accordance to the assumptions adopted in the
GDR submitted by DDC for comparison). The gradient of fill slope of 1V:2H is adopted for the
fill embankment until top of surcharge fill level (on top of fill embankment).

Page 13 of 25
 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 0.8m surcharge fill is placed on top of the initial embankment and the
top level of this embankment / surcharge fill will be maintained by having periodic topping up
during ground treatment period.

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

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

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. Submission of G&P’s review on design reports, subsurface investigation reports
and drawings in the form of DRR are summarized in table below:
Submission
DRR Documents under review Status
date
1 6/5/2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Design KTA has replied the DRR but
Report and Subsurface there are unclosed issues. Refer
Investigation Reports for Packages to attached DRR for details.
B1 and B2
2 6/6/2020 Supplemental Analyses 4-Higher KTA has replied the DRR but
Cc/(1+e0) and Cost Comparison there are unclosed issues. Refer
for P3 and P4 to attached DRR for details.
3 10/8/2020 Revised Geotechnical Design KTA has not replied the DRR
Report and Tender Drawing for
Package B1 (ref no: STR-G&P-
B1&B2-DRR-002)

Page 14 of 25
 The detailed comments on geotechnical ground treatment drawings are shown in DRR sheet
in Appendix B. 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 3a (7m PEAT with 15m length of PVD)
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 construction
sequence adopted in PLAXIS 2D for the ground treatment Type 3a as stated DDC’s
construction drawings are as follows:
1) Filling with sand until sand blanket level at 0.5m above original ground level (OGL)
and Install prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs). Lay sand drainage layer (for PVD),
sand fill layer (for installation of basal reinforcement) or suitable fills (if PVD and basal
reinforcement are not required).
2) Fill up to 1m above OGL with filling rate of 0.3m per week with 2 weeks rest period.
3) Rest for 6 months and allow topping up to maintain the level.
4) Continue to fill up to surcharge level (2.3m above OGL) with filling rate of 0.3m per
week with 2 weeks rest period. Periodic topping up of the stabilising berm shall be
carried out on to designated level as well.
5) Surcharge rest period for 15 months. Topping up is allowed to maintain the surcharge
level.
6) Upon maturity of the surcharge period, trim the embankment to road formation level at
1.5m above OGL.

The subsoil design parameters of very soft to soft CLAY underneath the embankment is
interpreted based on available laboratory test results in Package B1. Soil parameters for
PEAT are based on SI results in Package A5 as there is no laboratory test on PEAT in
Package B1. The adopted compression ratio (Cr) of PEAT is back-analysed from the Batang
Rajang Bridge project by DDC. The soil parameters adopted in PLAXIS 2D and settlement
analysis are shown in Appendix E.

Page 15 of 25
The settlement results from independent analysis and DDC are presented in graph as shown
in Figure 8. Settlement of embankment when reaching surcharge level, surcharge removal
and post-construction at the first 7 years of service are summarised below:

Reach Surcharge Post-

7 years after
Surcharge Removal Construction
Construction Stage Surcharge
Level (2.3m (1.5m above Settlement at
Removal (mm)
above OGL) OGL) the First 7 Years
of Service
Settlement of
Embankment by 6230 6221 6577 356
G&P (mm)
Settlement of
Embankment by 4622 5374 5359 15
DDC (mm)
Difference in
Predicted 1608 847 1218 341
Settlement (mm)

The modelling of the effect of PVDs in two-dimensional PLAXIS 2D refers to the methodology
presented in the published literature by Safiye Feyza Cinicioglu, C.C Hird etc (2011)
“Modelling the effect of vertical drains in two-dimensional finite element analyses of
embankments on soft ground.”

Generally, the embankment settlement predicted by G&P throughout the entire construction
period and post-construction settlement within the first 7 years are larger than the respective
settlements predicted by DDC. The reasons on the larger settlement of embankment predicted
by G&P are explained below:

i. Due to the high permeability and high void ratio of PEAT, substantial amount of initial
settlement is expected to happen rapidly during the initial sand filling until the required
sand blanket level emerged above existing ground (i.e. 0.5m above existing ground
level). From G&P’s settlement analysis, about 3.6m thick sand fill is required to
compensate the rapid settlement below the original ground level until the intended
sand blanket level emerged 0.5m above ground level. However, DDC did not consider
this rapid settlement below the original ground level in their settlement analysis and
assumed only 0.5m fill is required to reach the sand blanket level. Therefore, the
thickness and self-weight of sand fill used in the settlement calculation is much lesser.

Page 16 of 25
 ii. Periodic topping up to maintain the designated embankment fill level (either surcharge
preloading top level or intermediate filling level for embankment with multiple stage of
filling with certain resting period) is stated in the GDR and drawings but the effect of
periodic topping up was not captured in DDC’s settlement calculation. Thus, a lighter
embankment gross fill self-weight is used in settlement analysis and resulting under-
estimation on the total settlement and gross fill thickness (volume of the required fill
material would also be under-estimated).

iii. The construction time required to reach surcharge level adopted in DDC’s analysis
could be underestimated if the filling rate of 0.3m over 2 weeks is applied to the initial
sand filling as the time required for topping up of fill to reach sand blanket level is not
considered as explained in the above. Larger magnitude of settlement is expected if
the actual filling rate is applied in the settlement analysis.

As construction time is an important factor in the consolidation settlement analysis, the output
of settlement magnitude, gross fill thickness, degree of consolidation and achievable gain-in
strength (GIS) of the subsoil (PEAT & CLAY) adopted by DDC, including the subsequent
stability analyses would be affected.

In order to reduce the differences of initial sand filling time as much as possible compared to
the assumption made by DDC, G&P assumed construction time of 60 days for the initial 3.6m
thick sand filling (about 900mm fill over 2 weeks) to reach intended sand blanket level in
settlement analysis.

Nevertheless, the independent settlement analysis by G&P shows that the post-construction
settlement within the first 7 years (refer to the criteria for embankment in PEATS) after
removal of surcharge is 356mm which is still less than the maximum allowable settlement of
500mm stated in the Design Brief.

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 3a (7m PEAT with 15m 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 E.

Page 17 of 25
 Gained-In Strength (kPa) = Constant (K) x Change of Effective Vertical Stress

Where 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.

Both undrained (during construction) and drained (long-term condition) analyses were carried
out as shown in Appendix D.

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

Earth fill/Surcharge 18 5 28

Sand Fill 18 0 28

Predicted Settlement* 18 5 28

Peat 11 5 -

Very Soft Clay 15 8 -

Soft Clay 15.5 29 -

* denotes the filling materials that settled below OGL which has been modelled by DDC in the
stability analyses.
Soil Parameters for Undrained Stability Analysis

Material Unit Weight Design Parameters

Page 18 of 25
 (kN/m3) Effective Frictional
Effective Cohesion, c’ (kPa)
Angle, ’ ( ̊)

Earthfill/Surcharge 18 5 28

Sand Fill 18 0 28

Predicted Settlement* 18 5 28

Peat 11 0 30

Very Soft Clay 15 0 23

Soft Clay 15.5 2 24

* denotes the filling materials that settled below OGL which has been modelled by DDC in the
stability analyses.
Soil Parameters for Drained Stability Analysis

Note: The unit weights for embankment fill and sand fill materials are based on the values
adopted by DDC as stated in GDR (despite the bulk unit weight of compacted fill appears to
be slightly underestimated). Besides, the effective friction angle for sand fill adopted by DDC is
on the low side compared to the embankment fill material. Effective frictional angle for earthfill
has been reduced from 30 degrees to 28 degrees in the independent analyses for consistency
with the values adopted for sand fill and filling material that has settled below OGL (Predicted
Settlement layer). This is also in line with the parameters used by the respective DDCs in
Packages A and C.

The analyses results are summarised as follows:

Drained/Undrained Description FOS Remarks

0.5m fill height and installation of

Undrained 1.27 ≥ 1.2, OK!
PVDs

Undrained (Stage 2) Fill to 1m above original ground level 1.30 ≥ 1.2, OK!

Reach surcharge level at 2.3m above

Undrained (Stage 3) 1.20 ≥ 1.2, OK!
original ground level

1.5m above original ground level after

Undrained (Stage 4) 1.48 ≥ 1.2, OK!
Surcharge Removal

Drained Long-term condition 2.01 ≥ 1.3, OK!

Page 19 of 25
Independent analyses for treatment Type 3a revealed that the main embankment and
counterweight berm have global stability and local stability factor of safety (FOS) greater than
1.2 and 1.3 for both short-term and long-term analyses respectively.

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

i. Unit weight of embankment fill materials governs the embankment stability, lower unit
weight of fill material adopted in the analysis reduces the slope destabilising force
thus generating higher FOS. Predicted settlement layer in DDC’s analysis which
comprises of sand fill that was used to compensate the settlement below original
ground level, which adopted unit weight of 17kN/m³. Since the layer of material settled
below existing ground within the embankment is part of the sand fill/embankment
suitable fill material, G&P adopted consistent bulk unit weight of 18kN/m³ (despite the
bulk unit weight of compacted suitable fill and sand should practically achieve higher
than 18kN/m³)

ii. The settlement of embankment analyzed by DDC is underestimated as explained in

Section 7.1 and a thicker embankment fill settle below existing ground within the
embankment has been adopted by G&P in the stability analyses. Despite the larger
destabilising force due to thicker settlement layer, the FOS computed by G&P for all
cases (both undrained and drained) are still higher than able to achieve the required
FOS.

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.

The gain-in strength in PEAT and CLAY layers vary with treatment time. As such, stability
check for different filling stages of embankment with the respective GIS in PEAT and CLAY
layers shall be carried out to ensure that the embankment is stable for subsequent stage of
filling. Additional stability checks for embankment with different filling stages i.e. fill to 0.5m
above OGL, 1.0m above OGL have been carried out by G&P and the analyses show that the
embankment has sufficient FOS during these construction stages.

Page 20 of 25
8.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Differential Settlement at Piled Embankment

Design calculation of the piled embankment has not been provided in the GDR for review on
the pile design. Nevertheless, from the piled embankment drawings provided by DDC,
inconsistency on the pile design approaches were observed. It is stated in the drawing notes
of Bridge Approach Piled Embankment Treatment that all the piles shall be driven to firm set.
However, Bridge General Arrangement drawing states that the piles to be installed to length
(pile length varies from 18m to 24m). This has been highlighted in the DRR (ref no: STR-G&P-
B1&B2-DRR-002, dated on 10/8/2020) and requires clarification from DDC.

Pile to length embankment foundation transmitted the load from the filled embankment over
the RC slab to greater depth below the ground. This pressure bulb developed in the group
piles at greater depth below the ground surface can cause less magnitude of consolidation
settlement to the piled to length embankment particularly as the underlying soft clay
underneath the piles is much reduced.

From the pile length stated in DDC’s drawing, it is observed that the piles with different
clusters of penetration lengths are provided within piled embankment. Comparing with the
nearby boreholes information (BH-BS1B, BH-BS1C, BH-BS9B, BH-BS9C), the pile toe
terminates within very soft/soft layer, in which the soft soil layer underneath the pile toe is still
subjected to comparable higher consolidation compression. Thus, it is necessary to reconsider
the consolidation settlement of piled embankment at different pile length transition zone and
check the differential settlement between the bridge abutment, pile embankment and the
embankment on treated ground to comply with the serviceability requirements. 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.

8.2 Pile Adequacy Assessment

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 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.

Page 21 of 25
 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.

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 9. 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 10. Alternatively, pump sumps can be provided at the middle of
embankment as shown in Figure 11 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 12.

8.4 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

Page 22 of 25
 such as deep settlement gauges, displacement markers, inclinometers and vibrating wire
piezometers are recommended to be used to monitor the embankment performance during
construction stage.

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

8.5 Trial Embankment

Trial embankment with properly planned instrumentation is recommended to ascertain the

actual behaviour of the embankment and performance of the embankment fill to enable back-
analyses and to establish the site-specific design parameters for subsequent ground treatment
design for the proposed embankment construction. 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.

8.6 Soil Parameters of Fill Material

Assumption on soil parameters i.e. unit weight and shear strength properties of fill materials
made in design stage shall be verified with laboratory tests once the borrow source has been
confirmed and approved by DDC. Subsequently, the validity of embankment settlement and
stability analyses shall be revisited based on the laboratory test results of fill materials.
Requirement on the fill material properties (e.g. Unit weight, strength, etc) adopted in design
shall be stated in tender/construction drawings so that the contractor aware on the
requirement of fill material during sourcing.

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) The proposed ground treatment types by DDC as shown in Geotechnical Detailed

Engineering Design (DED) Report are satisfactory and generally comply with the design

Page 23 of 25
 requirements as per Design Brief. DDC has fulfilled the design criteria on 7 years post-
construction settlement less than 500mm.

b) The independent analyses for stability by G&P show that the ground treatment in line
with the design method adopted by the DDC can attain the expected design
performance.

c) 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. On
the other hand, the bulk density of the very soft and soft CLAY/SILT adopted in the
stability analysis by the DDC is on the high side, which could overestimate the
embankment stability FOS. Appropriate selection on the subsoil and embankment fill
bulk density is important obtain representative embankment stability FOS.

d) Design calculation for piled embankment is not provided in the GDR for review.
Nevertheless, important design considerations are stated in the tabulated shown in
Appendix C and Section 8.1 and 8.2 for DDC’s reference.

e) 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.

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

Page 24 of 25
 indicate the necessary precaution control and determine timing for implementation of
contingency actions as required.

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

Page 25 of 25