Senior's Work

DISNEE CONSULTING SDN. BHD.
1, Jalan Venna P5/2, Precinct 5,

62200 Putrajaya,
Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya,
Malaysia.
Phone: 03-7777777
Email: disnee77@hw.ac.uk
Tender Document for Procurement of Works

Pavement and Geometric Design & Specification
of Maju Expressway
Issued on: 24 November 2022

Tendor No.: D7777
Client: PEEXAR Enterprise
Country: Malaysia
Table of Contents
COMPANY PROFILE ................................................................................................................. 5
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 8

1.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Route and topography information ....................................................................................... 8
SECTION 2 – TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 10

2.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Traffic flow ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Design traffic ....................................................................................................................... 11
SECTION 3 – FOUNDATION DESIGN .................................................................................. 14

3.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Foundation class .................................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Nominal layer thickness and material ................................................................................. 15
SECTION 4 – PAVEMENT DESIGN ...................................................................................... 18

4.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Materials for HBGM base ................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Thickness for flexible pavement with an HBGM base ....................................................... 18
SECTION 5 – GEOMETRIC DESIGN .................................................................................... 20

5.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Road classification and design standard .............................................................................. 21
5.2 Topography and land use .................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Design speed ....................................................................................................................... 21
5.4 Service volume and design level of service ........................................................................ 22
2
5.5 Elements of design .............................................................................................................. 22
5.5.1 Sight distance ........................................................................................................... 22
5.5.1.1 Stopping sight distance ............................................................................. 22
5.5.1.2 Decision sight distance ............................................................................. 23
5.5.1.3 Passing sight distance ............................................................................... 23
5.5.1.4 Criteria for measuring sight distance ........................................................ 23
5.5.2 Horizontal alignment ............................................................................................... 24
5.5.2.1 Superelevation rates .................................................................................. 24
5.5.2.2 Minimum radius ........................................................................................ 24
5.5.2.3 Transition design control .......................................................................... 24
5.5.2.4 Methods of attaining superelevation ......................................................... 25
5.5.2.5 Superelevation runoff with medians ......................................................... 25
5.5.2.6 Pavement widening on curves .................................................................. 25
5.5.2.7 Sight distance on horizontal curves .......................................................... 25
5.5.2.8 General controls for horizontal alignment ................................................ 25
5.6 Cross-section elements ........................................................................................................ 26
5.7 Other elements affecting geometric design ......................................................................... 27
5.7.1 Drainage ................................................................................................................... 27
5.7.2 Lighting .................................................................................................................... 27
5.7.3 Utilities..................................................................................................................... 27
5.7.4 Signages and markings ............................................................................................ 27
5.7.5 Traffic signals .......................................................................................................... 27
5.8 Concluded geometric design ............................................................................................... 28
SECTION 6 – BUDGET AND FINANCE ................................................................................ 29

6.0 Costing ................................................................................................................................ 29
6.1 Return on investment .......................................................................................................... 29
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 30
3
APPENDIX A – ROUTE INFORMATION ............................................................................. 31
APPENDIX B - ARCGIS ........................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX C – CALCULATIONS OF CURRENT DESIGN TRAFFIC FLOW .............. 35
APPENDIX D – CALCULATIONS OF DESIGN TRAFFIC IN 20 YEARS DESIGN LIFE .

........................................................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX E – SUBBASE THICKNESS................................................................................ 39
APPENDIX F – THICKNESS OF HBGM AND ASPHLAT AC40/60 ................................. 41
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 45
4
COMPANY PROFILE
About Us
Founded in 1977, Disnee Consulting Sdn. Bhd. sets out to be a leading consultant firm in the
construction industry. The company is registered under SSM with the registration number
196179770079 (051201-D). With more than 45 years of operating history, we have a proven track
record of more than 177 projects completed around Malaysia. We have upgraded our CIDB
registration to a grade of G7, which is the highest grade issued for registrations. Our main office
is in Putrajaya with several branches in Kepong, Selayang, Klang and Johor Bahru.
Our Mission
• Provide high-quality and top-standard consulting services in the construction industry.

• Develop a strong and flexible team via enhanced teamwork as well as communication.
• Establish credibility by completing projects within the specific timeline and gaining
approval from our client.
Our Vision
• To be the perfect choice of yours among all other consultant firms and create good returns
for our stakeholders.
Our Achievement
• Won OSKAR award for ‘Most Sustainable Klang Bridge’ in 2017.

• 2nd runner up for ‘Most Economical City Building Event’ under FIABSI in 2007.
5
Board of Directors
To ensure a higher quality work, the roles and responsibilities of geometry design for this project
are necessary among the engineers.
1. Road designer – Ir. Fang
Ir. Fang is responsible to generate road designs in accordance with guidelines and best engineering
practices while adhering to road safety standards, accounting for the influence of traffic, the
environment, and social factors on the neighbourhood, and taking into account the client's financial
obligations.
2. Design Checker – Ir. Liaw
Ir. Liaw ensures that the road design complies with the guidelines and best engineering practices,
taking into account the traffic, environmental, and social implications on the neighbourhood.
3. Independent Checker – Ho Sdn. Bhd.
Ho Sdn. Bhd. is a third-party company to ensure the road design complies with the guidelines and
best engineering practices, including the necessary standards for road safety.
4. Road Safety Auditor – Ir. Yau
Ir. Yau needs to make sure that the road design considers the requirements for road safety and
incorporates the necessary mitigation measures owing to conditions that may compromise some
design elements due to certain constraints.
6
ABSTRACT
The pavement design includes the foundation design for 5 interchanges according to Design
Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB). In this manual, CD 225 and CD 226 were used as a standard
for the design of road pavement and foundation. The materials and thickness of each layer in
pavement including subbase and capping were also defined according to this design manual. The
detailed material specification of each material used was referred to Manual of Contract
Documents for Highway Works Volume 1(MCHW1) Series 0600 to Series 1000. To produce the
optimum design for pavement, traffic assessment has been conducted according to CD 224 to
ensure that the produced design is durable under the 2% of annual traffic growth rate after 20 years.
The economic factor and environmental factor are considered during the design of pavement,
foundation and geometric. As layout constraint is one of the elements that is considered in the
design, the geometric design was done by referring to ATJ 8/86 (Pindaan 2015) A guide on
Geometric Design of Roads. In relation to that, a suggested improvement between the Interchange
2 and Interchange 3 has been proposed by our engineers according to professional judgement.
7
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.0 Project description

This document defines the pavement, foundation and geometric designs and specifications of the
Maju Expressway. A full pavement design is to be carried out for a three-lane dual carriageway of
26km long, which is known as the Maju Expressway (MEX) E20. This expressway links the Kuala
Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) with the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA), acting as the
shortest and direct route option to travel from the capital of Malaysia to the new Malaysian
Government Administrative Centre, the Special Economic Zone and the high-technology business
district, Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) and the biggest international airport and aviation hub
in Malaysia. There are a total of 5 interchanges along the MEX highway in the following areas:
Kampung Pandan, Salak South, Kuchai Lama, Bukit Jalil and Putrajaya. With the implementation
of the MEX carriageway, it is expected to shorten the travelling time from KL and Putrajaya to
KLIA as it provides the shortest direct link to and from KL, Cyberjaya, Putrajaya and KLIA. It
also enables road users to reach their destination safer due to its extended concrete parapets wall
design of 2 meters in height across certain populated areas to prevent any precarious mishaps. With
the concern of any disturbances done towards the residential areas around the MEX carriageway,
sound barriers are widely used across the highway itself to contain vehicle noises. MEX is designed
for an approximately 20 years design life with an expected annual growth of 2%.
1.1 Route and topography information

The total of 5 interchanges are shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: The 5 Interchanges in MEX Expressway.

8
The first interchange as the north end interchange is located at Kampung Pandan. There
are 2 main entries and 2 exit roads connected to MEX. The entry is from Jalan Tun Razak and
Jalan Kampung Pandan whereas the exit points are EXIT2001A and EXIT2001B which can access
Jalan Tun Razak, Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) with Jalan Ampang and Kampung Pandan
Roundabout respectively. At Salak South Interchange, there is an entry ramp connected to Federal
Highway.
The Kuchai Lama Interchange is linked with 2 entrances connecting Kuala Lumpur-
Seremban Expressway (E37) with New Pantai Expressway (E10) and Salak South Interchange
with MEX Expressway. The junction which is linked with the New Pantai Expressway (E10) is
one of the entrance options for travelling from Subang, Kelang Lama and Bangsar to Putrajaya or
KLIA. The exit in this interchange will be EXIT 2003 which can lead to Kuala Lumpur Seremban
Expressway (E37), reaching Subang Jaya, Bangsar and Cheras.
In the Bukit Jalil Interchange, there is an exit ramp (EXIT 2004) which leads to Cheras,
Ampang and Bukit Jalil National Sports Complex. There is also an entry ramp at KESAS
Expressway (E5) which provides an alternative route from Puchong, Kinrara, Shah Alam and
Klang to Putrajaya and KLIA.
In the south end of MEX, the Putrajaya Interchange consists of a trumpet configuration
(EXIT2005) that connects Cyberjaya, Dengkil, Putrajaya and KLIA. The connected highway in
this EXIT 2006 is Elite Highway (E6).
In relation to the terrains data, the data of topography in ARCGIS across MEX reflects a
mildly to moderately steep terrain from flat ground level. The elevation of the highway is in the
range of 6° to 20°. This simply means that not much excavation and earthworks are to be done.
Despite that, maintenance of the highway across the expressway should still be carried out as these
degrees of slope are intended to undergo slope failure.
9
SECTION 2 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
2.0 Introduction
The traffic assessment includes the everyday traffic flow and the design traffic over 20 years of
design life. The information used in traffic assessment affects the pavement design and material to
be used.
2.1 Traffic flow
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of commercial vehicles stands for 15% for the Mex Carriageway
and 10% for the other interchanges. The ADT for mixed commercial vehicles in one direction is
shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Mixed commercial vehicle flow and categories.
Traffic Flow (F) (cv/day)

Mixed
ADT (Vehicles
Location Commercial PSV + OGV 1 OGV 2
per day)
Vehicles
MEX Carriageway 35455 5319 1596 3724
Interchange 1 road 16373 1638 492 1147
The commercial vehicle flow is classified into 2 categories, which are PSV + OGV 1 and OGV 2.
PSV is the public service vehicle while OGV is other goods vehicle. 70% of the total commercial
vehicles is assumed as OGV 2 category and the remaining 30% is categorized as PSV + OGV1
category.
10
With the given annual growth rate (R) of 2%, the traffic flow (F)for the future 20 years can be
assumed by the Equation 2.14 in CD224 as shown below.
𝐹𝑖 = 𝐹 × (^1 + 𝑅 𝑖 ）
The calculated commercial vehicle flows of PSV + OGV1 and OGV2 for MEX Carriageway and
the 5 interchanges after 20 years are concluded in Table 2.2 respectively.
Table 2.2: The Commercial Vehicles Flow after 20 Years.
Traffic Flow after 20 years (F20) (cv/day)

Location PSV + OGV 1 OGV 2
MEX Carriageway 2372 5534
Interchange 1 road 732 1705
2.2 Design traffic
The design traffic will only focus on the commercial vehicle (cv) which has over a minimum of
3.5 tons of gross vehicle weight as it is considered as the vehicle that causes the largest load impact
to pavement structure among other types of vehicles.
One of the factors that are used in calculating design traffic is the Wear Factor (W). As the
project requires the design of a new pavement, the new Wear Factor (WN) is selected. According
to Table 2.18 in CD 224, the new Wear Factor (WN) is 1.9 and 4.9 for OGV1 + PSV and OGV 2
respectively.
11
Since the project pavement is designed for a design life of 20 years, the Growth Factor (G)
is considered in assuming the future traffic load. Growth Factors (G) can be defined from Table
2.12 in CD 224. For the 20 years of design period, the commercial vehicle category OGV1+ PSV
has 1.11 of Growth Factors (G) while the OGV 2 category has 1.23 of Growth Factors (G).
The percentage of the proportion of commercial vehicles in the heaviest loaded lane (P) is
also one of the factors that need to be considered in calculating the Design Traffic (T). According
to Table 2.21, MEX Carriageway has 3 lanes in one direction and its traffic flow is between 5000
to 25000 commercial vehicles in a day. Each of the 5 interchanges has up to 5000 commercial
vehicles flow with each containing 3 lanes. The proportions of commercial vehicles are found by
using the Equation from Table 2.21 in CD224 as shown below.
𝑃 = 100 − (0.0036 × 𝐹)
𝑃 = 89 − (0.0014 × F)
To find out the Design Traffic (T), a weighted annual traffic (Tc) is calculated by using the
Equation 2.23a.
𝑇𝑐 = 365 × 𝐹 × 𝐺 × 𝑊 × 10−6
Finally, the Design Traffic (T) can be found out by using Equation 2.23b.
𝑇 = ∑ 𝑇𝑐 × 𝑌 × 𝑃
The design traffic for 5 interchanges are concluded in Table 2.3 with the completed calculations
shown in Appendix C – Calculations of current design traffic flow.
12
Table 2.3: Summary of the current Traffic Flow (F) and Design Traffic (T) and assumed flows
after 20 years.
Traffic Flow (F), cv/day Design Traffic (T), msa

Current After 20 years Current After 20 years
MEX Carriageway 5319 7906 154 219
13
SECTION 3 FOUNDATION DESIGN
3.0 Introduction
The pavement foundation is usually unbound, with the purpose to protect the subgrade by reducing
the stresses due to vehicle loads. The structure of the pavement foundation is made up of a capping
layer and a subbase layer which is usually made up of aggregate material.
The pavement foundation is determined by two designs, which are restricted design and
performance design. In our case, the restricted design is selected. The restricted foundation design
has a limited selection of materials, but it does not require verifying the performance testing of the
foundation. It could also offer assurance of the performance of the designed foundation. This may
help to reduce the construction time and minimize the cost.
3.1 Foundation class
In pavement foundation design, the subgrade surface modulus is an important element to identify
the minimum layer thickness and the layer material. The surface modulus represents the surface
stiffness. The subgrade surface modulus, E can be calculated by using the following equation.
𝐸 = 17.6(𝐶𝐵𝑅)0.64
Where;
E = Estimated Subgrade Surface Modulus (MPa)
CBR = California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the subgrade
14
With the given mean CBR of MEX carriageway and 5 interchanges, the estimated subgrade
surface modulus, E is found as shown in Table 3.1. The foundation class selected from Table 3.7
in CD225 according to the calculated E value has also been concluded in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: The subgrade surface modulus and its foundation class.
Location Mean CBR (%) E (MPa) Foundation Class

MEX Carriageway 18 111.91 3
Interchange 1 12 86.34 2
Interchange 4 10.5 79.26 3
Interchange 5 18.5 113.89 3
Even though the class 2 foundation is suitable for the subgrade with more than 100 surface
modulus, the different foundation classes are still considered as the class 2 foundation can only
withstand 80 msa of design traffic, contradicting with the design traffic in the MEX Carriageway
and Interchange 1 and 5 which had exceeded 80msa. According to the CD225, all the roads that
had more than 30 MPa of design subgrade surface modulus are able to withstand the construction
of pavement foundation. Hence, all the interchange roads are suitable to proceed to the next stage
design.
3.2 Nominal layer thickness and material
The subbase is usually made up of aggregate materials. This is to define the requirements for
aggregates used and their respective thicknesses. Since the restricted foundation design is selected
for 5 interchanges and MEX Carriageway, the layer thickness of subbase and material scope are
identified from Figure 3.18 in CD225. The subbase layer thickness and material for Interchange
2, 3 and 4 are concluded in Table 3.2. Detailed calculations are shown in Appendix E – Subbase
thickness.
15
Table 3.2: Materials and layer thickness for interchange.
Layer Thickness for Restricted Foundation (mm)

Subbase MCHW 1 803, 804, 806, Subbase MCHW 1 821, 822 or
Location
807 (Class 2) 840 (Class 3)
MEX Carriageway - 200
Interchange 1 - 200
Interchange 2 220 -
Interchange 3 200 -
Interchange 4 220 -
Interchange 5 - 200
The material specification for Interchange 2,3 and 4 is referred to MCHW Volume 1 Series
0800. In defining the requirement of aggregates, Clauses 803, 804, 806, 807 are considered for
Interchange 2,3, and 4 while Clauses 821, 822, and 840 are used in Interchange 1 and 5.
For Interchange 2, 3, and 4, clause 803 is preferred. Clause 803 is also classified as Type
1 unbound mixture. The type 1 unbound mixture is usually made up of crushed rock, crushed slag,
or well-burnt non-plastic shale. One of the materials is recycled aggregate which is known to have
a great use in reducing carbon footprint and minimizing the harmful effects on the environment.
Moreover, the construction cost can be highly reduced as the material preparation process is much
simpler. Hence, the type 1 unbound mixture is more environment friendly compared to other types
such as type 4 which uses traditional asphalt arisings as the main material (C.Sangiorgi et al, 2020).
In addition, the type 1 mixture does not require sand or gravel, being more suitable for all weathers
especially Malaysia that has a high average annual rainfall. Type 2 mixture is out of consideration
as it shows a bad performance under construction in wet weather due to its low material
specifications and characteristics (M. Bhatti, 2019).
16
The aggregate specifications for MEX Carriageway and Interchange 1 and 5 are referred
to MCHW Volume 1 Series 0800, Clauses 821, 822 or 840. According to Clause 821, cement-
bound granular mixture 5 (CBGM) is selected. It provides relatively high durability performance
while reducing the material cost by using HBM instead of other base course asphalt and unbound
subbase layers. It is estimated that up to 30% of the cost could be reduced (Hydraulically Bound
Mixtures – CBGM, 2022). The aggregates used in CBGM include crushed rock, sand, or some
recycled aggregates. The CBGM is also made up of recycled materials which are considered as a
sustainable way of construction.
To prevent failure modes such as rutting occurring on the pavement, a capping layer with granular
material is designed to provide protection to subgrade. The thickness of the capping layer is gained
from Figure 3.20 in CD 225 as recorded in Table 3.3. Full calculations are shown in Appendix E
– Subbase thickness.
Table 3.3: Thickness of MCHW1 613 capping layer.
Layer Thickness for Restricted Foundation (mm)

Location Capping MCHW1 613 (Class 2) Capping MCHW1 613 (Class 3)
Mex Carriageway - 150
Interchange 1 - 180
Interchange 2 200 -
Interchange 3 150 -
Interchange 4 119 -
Interchange 5 - 150
According to Table 6/1 in MCHW1 Volume 1 Series 0600, the material of the capping
layer is referred to class 6F3. It is made up of selected granular material which is not less than 50%
of mixed recycled aggregates (A4) such as bituminous plannings and granulated asphalt. The other
materials include tar, tar-bitumen binders, unburnt colliery spoil and argillaceous rock.
17
SECTION 4 PAVEMENT DESIGN
4.0 Introduction
The two main pavement types include flexible and rigid pavement. In flexible pavement, the base
layer can be made up of asphalt or hydraulically bound granular mixture (HBGM). In our design,
the HBGM is selected as it is made from recycled materials or secondary materials, avoiding the
extraction of primary aggregates (Department for Transport UK, 2014). In relation to that, traffic
between primary materials sources and sites is highly reduced as excavated materials are reused,
giving a lower cost and being more eco-friendly. Moreover, it shows improved and long-term
performances (Department for Transport UK, 2014).
4.1 Materials for HBGM base
For the HBGM base, slag bound granular mixture (SBGM) is selected as the hydraulically bound
base layer as it can substitute 50% of the cement content, resulting in a lower carbon footprint and
lower cost compared to fly ash bound granular mixture (FABGM). According to MCHW Volume
1 Series 0800, the trafficking for SBGM is adequate for design traffic until 80 msa whereas cement
bound granular mixture (CBGM) is not adequate. Hence, SBGM 1 C15/20 is chosen, which is
under gravel coarse aggregate in HBGM Category C. In regard to the asphalt base and binder
course material, the material type is chosen as AC 40/60 with base AC 32 HDM base 40/60 des.
4.2 Thickness for flexible pavement with an HBGM base
The thickness of asphalt for flexible pavements with HBM base can be found from Equation 2.24
in CD 226 as shown as follows.
𝐻 = −16.05(𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇)2 + 101𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇 + 45.8
where,
H = total thickness of asphalt (mm) and T = Design Traffic (msa)
18
Table 4.1: Calculated asphalt thickness from Equation 2.24 in CD226
Location Asphalt Thickness (mm)

MEX Carriageway 194.26
Interchange 1 road 180.72
However, according to CD 226, the total thickness of asphalt should be in the range of
100mm to 180mm. In our case of MEX Carriageway, Interchange 1 and Interchange 5 have more
than 80 msa of design traffic, so their total thickness will be capped at 180mm.
Then, the design thickness of the HBGM base and AC 40/60 asphalt base can be
determined from Figure 2.20 in CD 226 by using the information found under HBGM Category C
and the found design traffic. The full calculations are shown in Appendix F – Thickness of HBGM
and asphalt AC 40/60.
Table 4.2: Thickness of HBGM and asphalt AC 40/60 in pavement.
Location HBGM Thickness (mm) Asphalt AC 40/60 (mm)
MEX Carriageway 169 320
19
SECTION 5 GEOMETRIC DESIGN
5.0 Introduction
The geometric design of roads is focused on placing the actual components of the route in
accordance with standards and limitations. With the fundamental goals to maximise effectiveness
and safety while limiting expenditures and harm to the environment, the geometric design of the
routes and the interchanges of Maju Expressway is based on ATJ8/86 (Pindaan 2015) – A Guide
on Geometric Design of Roads produced by the Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia.
In this project, Interchanges 2 to 3 are selected for the alternative geometric design, which
is the interchange from Salak South to Kuchai Lama. The current interchange of Salak South
connects the Federal Highway and the MEX Highway with an entrance and an exit to Cheras. An
alternative interchange is proposed to alter the Salak South Interchange on the intersection of
MRR1 and Federal Highway as shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Proposed location of alteration for Interchange 2.
According to the traffic information, the traffic flow from Interchange 2 is relatively low.
This shows an insufficient usage of the interchange. Alternating the position of the interchange to
the intersection point of two major highways helps to bring a higher traffic flow into the
interchange, maximising its economical usage.
20
5.1 Road classification and design standards
Road design can be categorised into 2 applications which include urban and rural roads. In our
design, Interchanges 2 and 3 fall under the category of Urban Expressway. The design standard
for Interchanges 2 and 3 is according to Standard U6 which provides the highest geometric design
standards that is applicable to urban expressway. Long-distance travel is typically accommodated
on roads in this category with high travel speeds of 90km/h or more. To promote comfort and
safety, it is designed with divided lanes and complete access control.
According to the general guides for the selection of degree of access control in Table 2.3B
of ATJ 8/86, Interchanges 2 and 3 fall under category U6-F, which gives full control of access.
The access connections with public roads vary in the spacing between them from 2 km in the
highly developed central business areas to 8 km or more in the sparsely developed urban fringes.
5.2 Topography and land use
According to the information from ArcGIS, Interchanges 2 and 3 have a topography of flat terrain.
In a flat landscape, the natural ground cross slopes are taken as 3%. According to our design,
Interchanges 2 and 3 are urban expressways.
5.3 Design speed
The design speed for Interchanges 2 and 3 is referred to Table 3.2B in ATJ 8/86. With a design
standard of U6, the area is taken as area type I with a 100 km/h design speed. Area type I has a
relatively free in-road location with very few problems as regards land acquisition, affected
buildings or other socially sensitive areas.
21
5.4 Service volume and design level of service
The service volume of Interchanges 2 and 3 is designed according to Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 in
ATJ 8/86. The level of service is taken as LOS E which shows unstable flow, with poor levels of
comfort and convenience, at or near capacity. This level denotes operation at a slower operating
speed with a volume close to the roadways' capacity. According to Table 3.4B in ATJ 8/86, the
optimum design level of service for urban expressways is classified as D.
5.5 Elements of design
All designs are referenced with ATJ 8/86.
5.5.1 Sight distance
5.5.1.1 Stopping sight distance
The parameters for stopping sight distance are determined as shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Parameters for stopping sight distance

Parameters Design values References
Perception time = 1.5s
(a) Perception and brake
Brake reaction time = 1.0s
reaction time
Total reaction time = 2.5s
(b) Braking distance Deceleration threshold = 3.4 m/s2
(c) Design values Minimum stopping sight distance = 185m Table 4.1
Minimum stopping sight distance: Table 4.2
(d) Effect of grades on
Upgrade = 167m
stopping sight distance (Slope = 6%)
Downgrade = 207m
Horizontal sight restriction occurs on downgrades where truck
(e) Effect of horizontal speeds exceed normal passenger cars. Hence, a value that
sight restriction on truck exceeds the minimum value is required in order to minimize
possible risks.
The final minimum stopping sight distance is taken as 190m and 220m for upgrade and
downgrade respectively. Both values exceed the minimum design value while providing adequate
capacity for effects on grades and horizontal sight restrictions.
22
5.5.1.2 Decision sight distance
Decision sight distance is the distance for the driver to process the information on roads such as
the sudden detection of an object or hazard. As the interchange is designed as an urban road, the
decision sight distance for avoidance maneuver is taken as 370m and 400m under Category B and
Category D respectively with 100 kph design speed (ATJ 8/86 Table 4.3).
5.5.1.3 Passing sight distance
The parameters for passing sight distance are determined as shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Parameters for passing sight distance

(a) Design values Total passing sight distance = 670m Table 4.4
(b) Effect on grade on passing The effect of grade on passing sight distance is not considered
sight distance as the effect is compensated in the upgrade or downgrade.
As the interchange is a flat terrain, the percentage of length of

(c) Frequency and length of
road with sight distance greater than the passing minimum
passing sections
should be computed to be about 60%.
5.5.1.4 Criteria for measuring sight distance
The parameters for criteria of measuring sight distance are determined as shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Parameters for criteria of measuring sight distance
Parameters Design values

The eyes of the average driver in a passenger vehicle are taken
(i) Height of driver’s eyes
as 1050mm above the road surface.
Height of object:
Measuring stopping sight distance = 200mm
Passing sight distance = 1330m
(ii) Height of object
The horizontal and longitudinal profiles have both been
checked.
23
5.5.2 Horizontal alignment
5.5.2.1 Superelevation rates
According to ATJ 8/86, the superelevation rate is taken between 6% to 10%. As the roads are
usually slippery due to climatic conditions, vehicles tend to slow down, resulting in a
superelevation rate not more than 8%. Hence, the superelevation rate is taken as 8%.
5.5.2.2 Minimum radius
According to Table 4.5 in ATJ 8/86, the minimum radius is taken as 395m under a superelevation
rate of 8% and a design speed of 100 kph.
5.5.2.3 Transition design control
The parameters for stopping sight distance are determined as shown in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Parameters for stopping sight distance
The spiral curve transition is taken as the same value as the length
(i) Spiral curve
required for superelevation runoff.
transition
(ii) Minimum Maximum relative gradient and equivalent

length of maximum relative slopes for profiles between the
Table 4.6
superelevation run- edge of two-lane travelled way and the centerline
off = 0.44%
(iii) Desirable
Desirable length of spiral curve transition = 56m Table 4.8
length of spiral
24
5.5.2.4 Methods of attaining superelevation
Method (a) is used as given in Section 4.2.5 in ATJ 8/86 where the pavement section revolved
about the centerline profile.
5.5.2.5 Superelevation runoff with medians
The diagrammatic profile control is taken similarly to Method (a) in methods of attaining
superelevation, except that the two median edges appear as profiles slightly removed from the
centerline.
5.5.2.6 Pavement widening on curves
According to Table 4.9 in ATJ 8/86, the pavement widening on open road curves is taken as 6.5m
with a minimum radius of more than 520m.
5.5.2.7 Sight distance on horizontal curves
According to Figure 4.6A and Figure 4.6B in ATJ 8/86, the SSD criteria for horizontal sight line
offset (HSO) is satisfied for horizontal curve of various radii.
5.5.2.8 General controls for horizontal alignment
The maximum length of a straight section is limited to 2 minutes of travelling time. Where the
design speed is taken as 100 kph, the straight section is about 3.5km.
25
5.6 Cross-section elements
The design standard is taken as U6 with area type I according to ATJ 8/86. The parameters for the
cross-section elements are determined as shown in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Parameters for cross-section elements.
(a) Pavement surface type Specialty mix Table 5.1
(b) Lane width and marginal strip 0.50m Table 5.2
Shoulder
Width of shoulders 3.0m Table 5.3B

(c)
Paved shoulder width 2.5m Table 5.4
Cross slope 6% 5.3.4, 5.3.5
(d) Kerb type Type SM1 Figure 5.3A
(e) Width of strip for sidewalk 2.0m 5.5
Medians
(f) Median type B Figure 5.5B
Median width 9.0m Table 5.4
(g) Service road width 9.25m Figure 5.5B
Motorcycle lanes
Types of roads Expressways
(h)
Exclusive motorcycle
Types of facilities
lane
Minimum width of paved shoulder 2.5m
26
5.7 Other elements affecting geometric design
5.7.1 Drainage
Road drainage facilities are provided with the references of ATJ 15/97, JPS MSMA Rev.2.0.
5.7.2 Lighting
The need for lightings on urban roads is relatively higher, especially at interchanges. The design
is referenced with JKR/SPJ/2011-S7-Standard Specification for Road Works Section 7: Road
Lighting.
5.7.3 Utilities
Utilities designed involved sewer pipelines, water supply pipelines, drainage and irrigation lines,
oil and gas pipelines, telecommunication lines and electric cables with reference of ATJ 4/85
(Pind. 1997) – Installation of Public Utility in Road Reserve and ATJ 3/2011 – Garis Panduan
Memproses Permohonan Pembangunan Tepi Jalan Persekutuan.
5.7.4 Signages and markings
Signages and markings are designed following standards from Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 2A, 2B, 2C
and 2D and REAM – GL 8/2004: (Guidelines on Traffic Control and Devices, Part 4: Pavement
Marking and Delineation).
5.7.5 Traffic signals
Traffic signals ae designed in urban roads. To obtain optimum operational efficiency, Arahan
Teknik (Jalan) 13/87 A Guide to the Design of Traffic Signals is followed.
27
5.8 Concluded geometric design
The concluded geometric design is referred to ATJ 8/86 with a design speed of 100kph. The
parameters for the concluded geometric design are determined as shown in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Parameters for the concluded geometric design.
Design control criteria
Design standard U6
Access control Full
Area type F (I)
Design speed 100 km/hr
Cross-section control elements
Lane width 3.65m
Shoulder width 3.0m
Median width 9.0m
Marginal strip width 0.50m
Reserve width 70m
Elements of design
Stopping sight distance 190m for upgrade; 220m for downgrade
Passing sight distance 1330m
Radius 435m
Length of spiral 48m
Superelevation 0.08
Maximum grade 3%
Crest vertical curve 78K
Sag vertical curve 45K
28
SECTION 6 BUDGET AND FINANCE
6.0 Costing
The cost is estimated as shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Estimated cost for the building and maintenance of MEX and interchanges.
Materials Percentage-based (%)
Type 1 unbound mixture 15%
Type 2 mixture 15%
Cement bound granular mixture 5 (CBGM) 10%
Hydraulically bound granular mixture

10%
(HBGM)
Asphalt 25%
Utilities 5%
Maintenance 20%
Lump sum: Rm 20,004,600.00
6.1 Return on investment
It is estimated to get an average number of 16,500 cars on MEX per day. With the toll fee of a
RM3 rate commencing from the Kampung Pandan to Putrajaya, the total fare collected in a year
will be RM17.8 million. Hence, the project will get its return by 1.5 years. In the long run of 20
years, an approximate of RM356 million return is to be expected. As for the stakeholders, 30% of
the gross profit will be split and evenly distributed.
29
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the MEX Carriageway is a diligent project contributing to the network of the country
as well as connecting people across major cities mainly Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur. With its
brilliant foundation design which is compositely made up of cement bound granular mixture and
Type 1 unbound mixture as they bring little to no harm to the environment at the same time obeying
the standards stated in CD225. In contrast to that, the pavement design proposed uses hydraulically
bound granular mixture instead of the typical asphalt due to its environmental-friendly
characteristics which indirectly contributes to a more sustainable carraigeway. With the
implementation of ATJ 8/86, the design speed limit is set with its categorization under ‘Urban
Expressway' in fulfilling the geometric design. In order to allow investors to have faith in us, the
lump-sum of this MEX project will be not more than RM21 million. Hence, balancing within the
profit obtained of about 30% back to the stakeholders with the costing proposed, we hope that an
agreement can be reached.
30
APPENDIX A – ROUTE INFORMATION
Figure A1: Interchange 1- Kampung Pandan Interchange
Figure A2: Interchange 2 - Salak South Interchange
31
Figure A3: Interchange 3 – Kuchai Lama
Figure A4: Interchange 4 – Bukit Jalil
32
Figure A5: Interchange 5 – Putrajaya
Figure A6: The Route of MEX and 5 Interchanges.
33
APPENDIX B – ARCGIS
Figure B1: Terrains steepness of MEX.
34
APPENDIX C –CALCULATIONS OF CURRENT DESIGN TRAFFIC FLOW
Table C1: Current design traffic flow of MEX.
Commercial Vehicle AADF Growth Wear Weighted Annual
Category (F) Factor (G) Factor (W) Traffic (Tc)
OGV1 + PSV 1596 1.11 1.9 1.23
OGV2 3724 1.23 4.9 8.19
Total Daily Flow Total Weighted Annual
5320 9.42
(cv/day) Traffic (∑Tc)
Percentage of vehicles in
heaviest loaded lane (P), 81.55%
%
Design Period (Y), year 20
Design Traffic (T), msa 154
Table C2: Current design traffic flow of Interchange 1.

OGV1 + PSV 492 1.11 1.9 0.38
OGV2 1147 1.23 4.9 2.52
1639 2.90
(cv/day) Traffic (∑Tc )
%

OGV1 + PSV 357 1.11 1.9 0.27
OGV2 831 1.23 4.9 1.83
1188 2.10
(cv/day) Traffic(∑Tc )
%
35

OGV1 + PSV 399 1.11 1.9 0.31
OGV2 930 1.23 4.9 2.05
1329 2.35
%

OGV1 + PSV 402 1.11 1.9 0.31
OGV2 936 1.23 4.9 2.06
1338 2.37
%

OGV1 + PSV 495 1.11 1.9 0.38
OGV2 1155 1.23 4.9 2.54
1650 2.92
%
36
APPENDIX D - CALCULATIONS OF DESIGN TRAFFIC IN 20 YEARS DESIGN LIFE
Table D1: Current design traffic in 20 years of MEX.

OGV1 + PSV 2372 1.11 1.9 1.83
OGV2 5534 1.23 4.9 12.17
Total Daily Flow 7906 Total Weighted Annual
14.00
heaviest loaded lane (P), % 77.93%

Table D2: Current design traffic in 20 years of Interchange 1.

OGV1 + PSV 732 1.11 1.9 0.56
OGV2 1705 1.23 4.9 3.75
4.31

OGV1 + PSV 531 1.11 1.9 0.41
OGV2 1235 1.23 4.9 2.72
3.13
37
Commercial Vehicle AADF Growth Wear Factor Weighted Annual

Category (F) Factor (G) (W) Traffic (Tc)
OGV1 + PSV 593 1.11 1.9 0.46
OGV2 1382 1.23 4.9 3.04
3.50

OGV1 + PSV 598 1.11 1.9 0.46
OGV2 1391 1.23 4.9 3.06
3.52

OGV1 + PSV 736 1.11 1.9 0.57
OGV2 1717 1.23 4.9 3.78
4.34
38
APPENDIX E – SUBBASE THICKNESS
Table E1: Restricted design option – Class 2 subbase only.
Location Restricted Design Option - Class 2 subbase
Interchange 2
Interchange 3
Interchange 4
39
Table E2: Restricted design option – Class 3 subbase only.
Location Restricted Design Option - Class 3subbase
MEX
Carriageway
Interchange 1
Interchange 5
40
Table E3: Restricted design options: Class 2 subbase on capping.
Location Restricted Design Option - Class 2 subbase on capping
Interchange 2
Interchange 3
Interchange 4
41
Table E4: Restricted design options: Class 3 subbase on capping.
Location Restricted Design Option - Class 3 subbase on capping
MEX
Carriageway
Interchange 1
Interchange 5
42
APPENDIX F -THICKNESS OF HBGM AND ASPHALT AC 40/60
Table F1: Nomograph for determining the design thickness for flexible pavement
Location Nomograph
Mex
Interchange
Interchange 1
Interchange 2
43
Interchange 3
Interchange 4
Interchange 5
44
REFERENCE
C. Sangiorgi, S.Pourkhorshidi, D. Torregginani and P. Tassinari (2020) Using Recycled

Aggregates from Construction and Demolition Waste in Unbound Layers of Pavements.
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering (DICAM),
University of Bologna. (Accessed: 20 November 2022).
Department for Transport UK (2014) Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/14 November 2014 – Using
hydraulic bound materials at road works. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/463531/150921_TAL_3-14_Hydraulically_bound_mixtures.pdf (Accessed: 10
November 2022).
Hydraulically Bound Mixtures – CBGM (2022) Available at: https://www.daygroup.co.uk/wp-

content/uploads/HBM-Brochure.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2022).
M. Bhatti (2019) UK Specifications for Recycled Materials in Pavement Structural Layers.

Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uk-specifications-recycled-materials-
pavement-layers-muhammad-bhatti (Accessed: 20 November 2022).
45

Senior&#39;s Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Senior&#39;s Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISNEE CONSULTING SDN. BHD.

1, Jalan Venna P5/2, Precinct 5,

Tender Document for Procurement of Works

Issued on: 24 November 2022

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 8

SECTION 2 – TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 10

SECTION 3 – FOUNDATION DESIGN .................................................................................. 14

SECTION 4 – PAVEMENT DESIGN ...................................................................................... 18

SECTION 5 – GEOMETRIC DESIGN .................................................................................... 20

SECTION 6 – BUDGET AND FINANCE ................................................................................ 29

APPENDIX B - ARCGIS ........................................................................................................... 34

APPENDIX C – CALCULATIONS OF CURRENT DESIGN TRAFFIC FLOW .............. 35

APPENDIX D – CALCULATIONS OF DESIGN TRAFFIC IN 20 YEARS DESIGN LIFE .

APPENDIX E – SUBBASE THICKNESS................................................................................ 39

APPENDIX F – THICKNESS OF HBGM AND ASPHLAT AC40/60 ................................. 41

• Provide high-quality and top-standard consulting services in the construction industry.

• Won OSKAR award for ‘Most Sustainable Klang Bridge’ in 2017.

1. Road designer – Ir. Fang

2. Design Checker – Ir. Liaw

3. Independent Checker – Ho Sdn. Bhd.

4. Road Safety Auditor – Ir. Yau

1.0 Project description

1.1 Route and topography information

Figure 1.1: The 5 Interchanges in MEX Expressway.

2.1 Traffic flow

Table 2.1: Mixed commercial vehicle flow and categories.

Traffic Flow (F) (cv/day)

Table 2.2: The Commercial Vehicles Flow after 20 Years.

Traffic Flow after 20 years (F20) (cv/day)

2.2 Design traffic

Traffic Flow (F), cv/day Design Traffic (T), msa

3.1 Foundation class

E = Estimated Subgrade Surface Modulus (MPa)

CBR = California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the subgrade

Location Mean CBR (%) E (MPa) Foundation Class

3.2 Nominal layer thickness and material

Layer Thickness for Restricted Foundation (mm)

Table 3.3: Thickness of MCHW1 613 capping layer.

Layer Thickness for Restricted Foundation (mm)

4.1 Materials for HBGM base

4.2 Thickness for flexible pavement with an HBGM base

𝐻 = −16.05(𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇)2 + 101𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇 + 45.8

H = total thickness of asphalt (mm) and T = Design Traffic (msa)

Location Asphalt Thickness (mm)

Table 4.2: Thickness of HBGM and asphalt AC 40/60 in pavement.

Location HBGM Thickness (mm) Asphalt AC 40/60 (mm)

MEX Carriageway 169 320

Interchange 1 road 170 328

Interchange 2 road 176 340

Interchange 3 road 180 350

Interchange 4 road 180 350

Interchange 5 road 181 360

Figure 5.1: Proposed location of alteration for Interchange 2.

5.2 Topography and land use

5.3 Design speed

5.5 Elements of design

All designs are referenced with ATJ 8/86.

5.5.1 Sight distance

5.5.1.1 Stopping sight distance

Table 5.1: Parameters for stopping sight distance

5.5.1.3 Passing sight distance

Table 5.2: Parameters for passing sight distance

Parameters Design values References

Senior's Work

Senior's Work