1.

0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

G&P GEOTECHNICS SDN BHD (G&P) has been engaged by OPUS CONSULTANTS (M)
SDN BHD (OPUS) as the Geotechnical Specialist to assist in reviewing the ground treatment
designs submitted by the respective Detailed Design Consultants (DDC) for the Proposed
Construction and Completion of the Sarawak Second Trunk Road Project.

The Second Trunk Road project consists of 3 work packages (Package A, Package B and
Package C) as below (length shown are indicative and subjected to final alignment design):

1. Package A
 A1- Batang Samarahan to Batang Sadong (21.9km)
 A2- Batang Sadong to Batang Lupar (32.2km)
 A3- Batang Lupar to Batang Saribas (27.0km)
 A4- Batang Saribas Bridge (3km)
 A5- Batang Saribas Bridge to Roban Interchange (27.5km)

2. Package B
 B1- Sebuyau to Lingga (28.6km)
 B2- Lingga to Batang Lupar Bridge No.2 (36.8km)
 B3- Batang Lupar Bridge No.2 (0.9km)
 B4- Batang Lupar Bridge No.2 to Betong Interchange (27.5km)

3. Package C
 C1- Jalan Kelupu/jalan Tanjung Genting to Simpang Jalan Tulai (14km)
 C2- Simpang Jalan Tulai to Lanang Bridge (15.9km)

There are significant engineering challenges in dealing with the thick deposition of peaty soils and
peats along the entire alignment. As such, technical review of the proposed ground improvement
works by the package Detailed Design Consultant (DDC) and assessment on the expected
performance of road embankment complying with the stability and serviceability requirements are
required.

Page 1 of 25
1.2 Objectives and Scope

The main objectives of this geotechnical review report are to present and summarise the
outcome of the review on the ground treatment design for Package C2 (from CH 0 to CH
15000), which includes the followings:

i. Review the adequacy of SI information and interpreted subsoil parameters adopted by

the DDC in the ground treatment design.

ii. Review Geotechnical Design Report and ground treatment drawings submitted by the
DDC.

iii. Highlight potential issues and concerns from the review on the provided information,
including technical aspect to be considered in the ground treatment design.

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

1.3 Limitation on Use and Liability

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

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

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

based on judgement and experience and not on greater knowledge of the facts that the
reported investigations would imply. The responsibility of G&P Geotechnics Sdn. Bhd.
(G&P) is solely to its Client (OPUS CONSULTANTS (M) SDN BHD) and the Authorities
the report is submitted to on the design of permanent works reviewed by G&P in
accordance to the scope of works as appointed. This report may be disclosed to other
professional advisors assisting the Client in respect of the project concerned only. It is
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 (Volume 1 to 6) dated June 2018 prepared by Sri Datai
Construction (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd in Collaboration with CHEC Construction (M) Sdn
Bhd

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

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

e) Package C2: Proposed Upgrading of Jalan Kelupu/Jalan Tg. Genting from Simpang
Jalan Tulai to Lanang Bridge, Sibu: Geotechnical Design Report (revision 06) dated
7th September 2020.

f) Tender Drawings for Proposed Construction and Completion of the Second Trunk
Road – Package C2: Proposed Upgrading of Jalan Kelupu/Jalan Tg. Genting from
Simpang Jalan Tulai to Lanang Bridge, Sibu Division, Sarawak dated October 2020.
(List of Drawings refers to Appendix A)

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

h) 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

Page 3 of 25
2.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY

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
alluvium, and terraces of clay, silt, sand and gravel with layers of peat. This proposed
alignment is also underlain with Kapit Member of Belaga Formation with the age of
Palaeocene to Eocene. This formation is made up of shale, slate, phyllite, sandstone with
marlstone, calcareous sandstone, conglomerate and limestone lenses and weak regional
metamorphism.

Besides that, it is also made up of Pelagus Member of Belaga Formation with the age of
Eocene. This formation on the other hand comprises of hard, sandstone interbedded with
siltstone or shale and has undergone weak regional metamorphism.

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

background are as follows:

i. Soft compressible alluvium of mostly fine soils and peats/peaty soils of high
compressibility which are prone to consolidation compression and secondary creep
compression resulting in remarkable land subsidence.

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

3.0 GROUND TREATMENT 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)
Ground Post-construction settlement:
Settlement (i) Embankment on clay Post-construction total settlement <
250mm for the first 5 years of service

Page 4 of 25
 Post-construction total settlement <
(ii) Embankment on peat
500mm for the first 7 years of service
< 100mm differential settlement from
(iii) Area within 50m from
bridge abutment or piled
structures approach
embankment with pile to set.
< 150mm differential settlement from
(iv) 50m < Area ≤ 100m from
the area between 50m to 100m from
structures approach
structures approach.
Achieve 90% degree of primary
(v) Degree of consolidation consolidation during construction,
unless otherwise agreed by JKR

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

Road embankment shall be designed to satisfy both stability and settlement criteria. When
settlement occurs, invariably there shall be some differential settlement, which could cause
serviceability problems, distresses and damages to the road embankment, and degrading the
riding comfort and compromising safety. In addition, if the ground (especially soft ground) is
excessively stressed by the overlying embankment, it may cause instability (e.g. failure of
embankment). Hence, settlement (both total and differential) and stability are the two main
technical issues in the road embankment design. As such, the ground treatment design
criteria established for this project as stated in the above table shall be used during the review
for design compliance submitted by the DDC.

4.0 REVIEW ON THE PROVIDED SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

Package C2 consists of upgrading works approximately 15.9 km (CH0 to CH15900). The

provided Subsurface Investigation (SI) for Package C2 comprises of boreholes (BH),
Mackintosh Probe (MP), peat auger (PA) and Vane Shear Test (VST). There are total 26 nos.
of boreholes throughout the entire alignment and are generally located at about 400m
intervals. Mackintosh Probe, Peat Auger and Vane Shear Test were carried out between
these boreholes to acquire more subsoil information. The SI Layout plan is shown in Appendix
B and the available SI is tabulated in Table 1. All proposed boreholes along the alignment
Package C2 were completed with the subsoil conditions interpreted for ground treatment
design.

Page 5 of 25
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 for 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) Only three (3) boreholes were executed near to the existing embankment [one (1)
borehole (BH41), which is believed located on top of the existing embankment (but the
reduced level of the borehole commencement ground level implies that it is possibly
located at the toe of existing embankment) and another two (2) boreholes near and at the
toe of existing embankment (BH42 and BH43). Undisturbed soil samples were not
collected in these three (3) boreholes for laboratory tests and therefore, strength
parameters of the subsoil underneath the existing embankment were not available. As this
package consists significant extent of existing embankment with widening works, carrying
out more SI and obtain undisturbed soil samples for better understanding on the subsoil
conditions and strength parameters underneath existing embankment would be an
advantage for embankment widening analyses and ground treatment design.

c) From the Plasticity Chart shown in Figure 2, the Liquid Limit (LL) of the collected and
tested soil samples generally range from 35% to 70% indicating that samples are of
intermediate to high plasticity. Majority of the samples are scattered above the ‘A’- Line
with fine components of primarily CLAY for the subsoils below the surficial peats. Soil
classification based on the particle size distribution and Atterberg Limit tests on the
assigned soil samples show that the subsoil type stated in the provided borelogs in SI
factual report were not updated according to the soil type classification.

d) Based on the water level monitored in the boreholes during SI works, the groundwater
level ranges from 0m to 3m below ground level. Long term groundwater monitoring using
open standpipes shows the groundwater level ranging from 0m to 1.5m below ground
level. 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.

Page 6 of 25
 e) Other miscellaneous discrepancies observed from the Factual SI report has been
highlighted and summarised in the Document Review Request (DRR) sheets as shown in
Appendix C. (issued on 20th March 2020)

4.1 Subsoil Conditions

Based on the available subsurface investigation and laboratory test results, the subsoil
generally consists of 2m to 19m thick of very soft to soft SILT/CLAY layer. Besides, some
boreholes also showed presence of top PEAT layer with generally 2m to 7m thick, followed by
about 3m to 5m thick very soft to soft SILT/CLAY. Firm to stiff sandy SILT/CLAY is underlain
below the soft layer at depth of approximately 12m to 20m below ground level. The subsoil
layers obtained from boreholes are presented in the simplified borelogs as shown in Figure 3a
to 3c.

5.0 REVIEW ON GEOTECHNICAL DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN (DED) REPORT

5.1 Subsoil Parameters

As the embankment is located on alluvial deposit, 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 SILT/CLAY samples from boreholes for One-Dimensional (1-
D) Consolidation test ranges from 13.8kN/m3 to 19.4kN/m3. Figure 4 shows the plotted profile
of bulk density of SILT/CLAY from 1-D Consolidation test samples. The bulk density of
17kN/m3 for soft SILT/CLAY adopted by DDCseems to be on high side based on typical range
for very soft to soft deposits in Malaysia. Laboratory test results in Package C for bulk density
on predominant CLAY, SILT, SAND and PEAT materials were also available. Undisturbed
samples for PEATS is not available, hence density test using disturbed samples for PEATS
was taken as reference. The plotted bulk density against depth for the PEATS are shown in
Figure 5, which ranges between 10kN/m3 to 12kN/m3. Test results with much higher bulk
density are likely consists of peaty soil that mixed with mineral soil materials. The adopted
bulk density of 12kN/m3 for PEATS by DDC is within the acceptable range.

Page 7 of 25
 The moisture content of SILT and CLAY ranges from 8% to 200% and 10% to 50%
respectively, SAND ranges from 10% to 30%, whereas PEATS in Packages C2 have relatively
high moisture content ranging from 150% to 980%. Moisture content of each soil material
against depth are plotted as shown in Figures 6a to 6d. 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.

5.1.2 Chemical Properties

The chemical properties of the subsoil determined from the laboratory tests mainly comprise
of organic content, pH value, chloride content, and total sulphate content. The determination
of the chemical content is essential to ensure necessary measures taken to reduce any
detrimental effects to the concrete structures or steel materials coming in contact with the
subsoils. The results of chemical tests are presented in Table 2.

The subsoil with pH value ranges from 5.8 to 6.35. The organic content presented in the soil
samples for PEATS and DECAYED WOOD ranges from 35% to 100%, whereas for CLAY,
SILY and SAND, it ranges from 0% to 81%. This indicates that tested samples are of very
organic nature according to Section 6, clause 41.4.6, BS5930:1999. Mass loss of ignition for
PEATS and DECAYED WOOD ranges from 68% to 100%, whereas for CLAY, SILT and
SAND ranges from 5% to 71%.

The chemical test results for chloride content are less than 0.001% for PEATS and DECAYED
WOOD, whereas CLAY, SILT AND SAND have chloride content lesser than 0.002%, which is
insignificant based on equivalent sulphate content as per recommendations of BRE Special
Digest 1:2005.

The sulphate content (SO3) of all soil samples is less than 0.035% for PEATS and DECAYED
WOOD, and less than 0.088% for CLAY, SILT and SAND. The 0.035% SO 3 corresponds to
0.04% SO4. With reference to BRE Special Digest 1: 2005, Table C1, 0.04% SO 4 falls within
the range of <0.24% which is categorised under design sulphate class of DS-1. The
Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) class for the site is categorised under
AC-1 since the pH values of samples are generally more than 5.5 and under mobile water
condition. The Design Chemical Classes (DC Class) for AC-1 category is DC-1 in which all
cement and combination group of cements are allowed for use in all concrete elements in
contact with the subsoils as recommended by BRE Special Digest 1: 2005, Table D1.

Page 8 of 25
 In summary, no special treatment and design consideration other than normal concrete cover
is required in the concrete in contact with the subsoil.

5.1.3 Undrained Shear Strength Parameters

The undrained shear strength (Su) of the subsoils (mineral soils) is obtained from Vane Shear
Tests and Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) Tests for embankment construction stability
analyses. The profiles of Su across the subsoil depth for fine mineral soils is shown in Figure
7, whereby the Su values vary from 5kPa to 48kPa. The undrained shear strength parameters
of subsoil adopted by DDC are summarised in Table 3.

5.1.4 Effective Shear Strength Parameters

Based on the available Consolidated Drained (CD) Triaxial Test and Consolidated Isotropically
Undrained (CIU) Triaxial Test, the interpreted effective shear strength parameters of the
subsoil (mineral soils) are presented in Figures 8a and 8b. The effective shear strength
parameters of subsoil adopted by DDC are summarised in Table 4.

5.1.5 Compressibility Parameters

Compressibility parameters of subsoils (mineral soils) are interpreted from the One-
Dimensional (1-D) Consolidation Test. Figure 9a shows the profile of over-consolidation ratio
(OCR) interpreted from the 1-D Consolidation Test. DDC has assumed the OCR to be 1.0 for
all materials, this approach is considered acceptable despite it may be conservative to ignore
the top desiccated layer.

The compression ratio (CR) and recompression ratio (RR) profiles of compressible subsoils
are shown in Figure 9b and Figure 9c respectively. The adopted CR and RR of compressible
subsoils by DDC is 0.15 and 0.015 which are also within the interpreted range and, hence
considered reasonably acceptable.

The void ratio (e0) versus depth is plotted as shown in Figure 9d, in which it ranges from 0.7 to
1.95. The adopted e0 ranging from 0.74 to 2.30 by DDC is acceptable. The Coefficient of
Consolidation (Cv) versus depth is shown in Figure 9e ranging from 1m2/year to 11.4 m2/year.
The adopted Cv of 1m2/year to 2m2/year by DDC in settlement analysis is within the
reasonable range.

Page 9 of 25
 Due to the laboratory testing of PEATS sample is not available, the CR of PEATS was made
reference to the back analyses of consolidation compression at Batang Rajang Bridge (refer to
Figure 10) and is limited to 0.6 for the independent analysis.

5.2 Review on the Ground Treatment Design

5.2.1 Ground Treatment Type

Based on the submitted Geotechnical Detailed Engineering Design (DED) Report, the ground
treatment proposed by DDC comprises combination of one or more techniques at different
locations depending on soil conditions and embankment net fill thickness. The adopted ground
treatment techniques are listed as follows.

- Prefabricated vertical drains (PVD)

- Counterweight Berm (CWB)

- Stage Construction

- Surcharging

- Basal Reinforcement

- Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) and Shallow Soil Mixing (SSM)

Prefabricated vertical drains (PVD) are generally provided in patterns of triangular spacing
with the most efficient drainage radius arrangement in very soft to soft clay layer to expedite
the consolidation settlement. The PVD spacing provided are generally 1.5m with length
ranging from 6m to 15m depending on the depth of soft clay.

Counterweight berms (CWB) are provided whenever the stability check justifies the need,
provided that there is sufficient space within the Right of Way (R.O.W) to accommodate the
required CWB. CWB are proposed to widen the base of an embankment for necessary
counter balancing action to the destabilising effect from the main embankment, thus
increasing the factor of safety against failure of the supporting soft soils. The proposed CWB
by DDC are generally in the range of 6.0m to 18.0 width and 0.9m 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 especially at locations where the underlying subsoils
beneath the embankment comprise of soft soil such as peats or very soft clay. Embankment is

Page 10 of 25
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. The most critical chainages of ground
treatment require up to total four (4) filling stages, namely CH7250 – CH7950, CH7950 –
CH9000 and CH11325 – CH11875, with 3.0m net fill thickness and total resting period of 11
months. Based on the nearest boreholes and peat augers available within the above-
mentioned chainages, the subsoils generally contain 5.5m to 7.5m thick of peat layer
underlain with 6m to 10m of soft clay.

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 1.5m. 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
typically 400kN/m.

Deep soil mixing (DSM) and shallow soil mixing (SSM) are treatment methods, in which the
supporting ground is mechanically mixed in place and in depth by an auger or cutter machine
fracturing the soil and at the same times cement is being injected to form solidified mass. After
hardening of soil-cement mixture, pattern of cylindrical soil-cement columns are formed in the
ground. DSM and SSM are proposed from chainage CH13325 to CH15150 due to insufficient
space within R.O.W for the construction of counterweight berms. The proposed DSM
treatment are up to 14.5m depth, whereas SSM is 7m in depth with width ranging from 10m to
17m, depending on the width of embankment to be widened.

Page 11 of 25
 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 D.

5.2.2 Embankment Stability Analyses

The stability of the embankment is analysed to determine the safe configuration of fill slope
gradients, total fill thickness and the required ground treatments to support the embankment
during construction. Generally, the stability of the embankment is assessed using limit
equilibrium analysis. It is very important to check for the stability of the embankment with
consideration for differential potential failure modes, namely for circular bearing failure,
translational wedge failure, lateral spreading of embankment with plastic squeezing extrusion
failure of underlying soils.

The stability of the embankment is most critical when the embankment reaches the maximum
fill thickness during construction (including the surcharge fill in short term for preloading
treatment) and the consolidating subsoils will gain in strength with time when the excess pore
pressure dissipates. Therefore, critical review on stability analyses generally emphasises on
short term stability of the embankment. The analyses are based on the undrained shear
strength, Su of the subsoils at the time where the strength gain is estimated. In addition, 10kPa
surcharge is conventionally applied to simulate the temporary construction machinery loading
on 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 and fill slope of 1V:1H is adopted for surcharge fill (on top of fill embankment).
Local stability check of the 1V:1H surcharge fill gradient is not available in the GDR submitted
by the DDC, which shall be included.

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 1.5m surcharge fill is placed on top of the initial embankment and the
top level of this embankment / surcharge fill will be maintained by having periodic topping up
during ground treatment period.

Page 12 of 25
 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

All stability analyses shall achieve the minimum required factor of safety (FOS) of 1.2 for short
term stability and 1.3 for long term stability as specified in the Design Brief provided by OPUS.

As this package involves widening of existing embankment, the construction and ground
treatment works, particularly on the surcharging preloading for widened embankment and
existing embankment cannot be carried out at the same time in order to maintain
uninterrupted traffic operation during the construction period. First stage of ground treatment
works involves necessary ground improvement works and surcharge preloading within the
width of the proposed widen embankment. While, existing road embankment is maintained for
traffic operation. Second stage involves diverting the traffic to the proposed widen
embankment, then filling works is to commence within the existing embankment with minimum
1m thick surcharge for precautionary preloading for compatible settlement performance with
the proposed widen embankment. The concept of the embankment stability analyses adopted
by the DDC is in line with the criteria elaborated above but DDC had only carried out stability
check on the first stage treatment works with surcharge preloading on the proposed widen
embankment. It is recommended to also include stability for Second Stage with necessary
extra fill on top of existing embankment (if there is any rising of designated road level),
surcharge preloading to be filled at site on the existing embankment and traffic load in placed
on the proposed widen embankment to ensure safety and compliances to the required FOS.

5.2.3 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 with 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

Page 13 of 25
 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.

Computer software, GGU-Consolidate is adopted by the DDC to compute the settlement

analyses and surcharge preloading design. Assumptions included in the settlement analyses
carried out by DDC are summarised as follows:
1) Using Terzaghi’s 1D Consolidation theory with consideration of stress reduction with
depth (Boussinesq Equation).
2) Temporary surcharge of 1m with resting period varying at different chainages.
Periodical topping up of fill to maintain the fill level during construction.
3) Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVD) at 1.5m spacing in triangular pattern.
4) Design length for the PVD ranges between 6m to 15m. OCR for all soil material are
conservatively assumed as 1.0. The benefit of possible lower compressibility at top
desiccated subsoils is excluded with this assumption.
5) 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.
6) Unit weight of water is assumed to be 10kN/m3, whereas unit weight of compacted fill
material is assumed to be 18kN/m3. It is advisable to review the actual fill bulk density
during construction for the stability review of embankment construction.

Clarification from DDC on the submitted settlement analyses calculation using GGU-
Consolidation is needed for better understanding to facilitate the review as stated in the DRR.
Nevertheless, independent analysis is carried out using Plaxis-2D for the selected cross
section at CH11500 for comparison as elaborated in Section 7.1.

6.0 REVIEW ON THE GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DRAWINGS

The provided geotechnical ground treatment drawings have been reviewed and the suggested
amendments have been made by the DDC upon the acceptance of DDC on the review
comments. The detailed comments on geotechnical ground treatment drawings have been
recorded in DRR sheets prepared by OPUS and G&P as shown in Appendix E. It is important
for the DDC to ensure the technical design requirements and issues involving site control

Page 14 of 25
 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 had been carried out using PLAXIS 2D for CH 11500, which
consists of thickest peat layer of about 7m based on the subsoil layer from the nearest
borehole, BH25, to compute the total settlement at removal of surcharge and post-
construction settlement. However, due to the insufficient subsoil information below the existing
embankment, post-construction differential settlement between new widen embankment and
existing embankment is not feasible to be checked. The periodical topping up of fill to maintain
the fill level at designated level during construction has been considered as per DDC’s design
assumption.

The soil parameters of SILT and soft CLAY underneath the embankment is based on the SI
interpretation from laboratory test results in Package C2. Soil parameters for PEATS are
based on SI results extracted from Packages A and B (as there is no laboratory test on
PEATS for Package C2) except compression ratio (CR) is referred to back analyses of
settlement performance data from Batang Rajang Bridge project. The soil parameters adopted
in PLAXIS 2D and settlement analysis are shown in Appendix F.

Results of independent analysis and DDC’s design are summarised as below and presented
in graph as shown in Figure 11.

Construction Independent Analysis DDC’s Design

Remarks
Stage (PLAXIS 2D) (GGU Software)

Independent analysis
4760mm (Peat+Clay)
Surcharge 3568mm indicates that total
Removal (Peat only) settlement is more than
4164mm (Peat only)
DDC’s design
Post-construction total
Post-Construction
settlement (7 years) <
Total Settlement at
17mm 110.6mm 500mm for
First 7 Years of
embankment on
Service
PEATS.

Page 15 of 25
Finite element software, PLAXIS 2D is adopted to carry out settlement analysis, whereas DDC
is using engineering software namely GGU-Consolidate. PLAXIS 2D is used to simulate the
construction sequence, including the prefabricated vertical drain (PVD) to expedite the
dissipation of excess pore water pressure and to compute the resulting consolidation
settlement. The modelling of the effect of PVDs in two-dimensional finite element analyses
refers to the methodology presented in the published literature by Safiye Feyza Cinicioglu,
C.C Hird etc (2011) “Modelling the effect of vertical drains in two-dimensional finite element
analyses of embankments on soft ground.” Rate of topping and filling in the analysis is similar
to DDC’s design, which is 300mm per every 2 weeks period for embankment and
counterweight berm.

Based on the Plaxis 2D analysis results, the predicted total settlement (at center of the main
embankment) is about 4760mm at the end of ground treatment. While, the magnitude of
settlement predicted by DDC is about 3568mm. The main factor resulting in higher magnitude
of predicted settlement from independent analysis is due to different thickness of soft soil
adopted in the settlement analysis is 11.5m (7m PEATS + 4.5m underlying CLAY), whereas
DDC considered only 7m PEATS in the settlement analysis. Nevertheless, the difference in
the settlement prediction is reduced substantially when settlement underlying CLAY is
excluded. Total settlement of Peat layer predicted from Plaxis 2D is 4760mm as compared to
the DDC’s prediction of 3568mm. With the limited subsoil consolidation parameters available
from SI, CLAY layer underlying PEATS is modelled in Plaxis 2D to obtain the total settlement
and performance of ground treatment.

As larger magnitude of consolidation settlement is predicted from Plaxis 2D, slightly longer
duration would be needed to achieve the final filling level based on the filling rate of 300mm
per every 2 weeks for the incremental filling. Both settlement analysis performed by G&P and
DDC can comply with requirement of post construction settlement of less than 500mm for first
7 years.

It is observed that the thickness of compensating fill due to consolidation settlement in order to
maintain the top elevation of the surcharge preloading level has been considered in the
settlement analysis by DDC, but certain compensating fill thickness provided in the calculation
is lesser than the magnitude of the settlement occurred. Hence, the magnitude of total
settlement predicted by DDC is likely under-estimated.

Page 16 of 25
7.2 Embankment Stability Analysis

Independent stability analysis for embankment has been carried out using Geostudio Slope/W
for ground treatment at the following selected chainages:

 CH 11500: Embankment net fill thickness = 2.6m (ground treatment using

prefabricated vertical drain, counterweight berm and surcharge). The subsoil layers
are based on the nearest borehole BH25.

 CH 13975: Embankment net fill thickness = 2.2m (ground treatment with Deep Soil
Mixing). The subsoil layers are based on the nearest borehole BH27.

It should be noted that the width of embankment widening varies at different location and
inconsistent at each side of the existing embankment. As such, stability check at both Left
Hand Side (LHS) and Right-Hand Side (RHS) of the embankment are required to capture the
safety of the unsymmetrical embankment configuration.

Referring to the available SI information, the available undrained shear strength results from
the field vane shear / undrained unconsolidated tests are concentrated at the subsoil within
4.5m depth and very limited result up to 7m deep. In the absence of the required soil strength
parameter, the undrained shear strength of cohesive soils underneath the PEATS is
calculated using Su = 5 x SPT-N based on the correlation published by Stroud & Butler (1975)
and subsequently updated by F. White, P. Ingram and M. Betru (2019).

The change of effective vertical stresses in each construction stage has been extracted from
Plaxis 2D to compute the estimated Gained-in Strength (GIS) with the following formula as
shown in Appendix F:

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

K = 0.4 for PEATS 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 whereas half GIS magnitude will be adopted under
sloping areas without full ground treatment. It is necessary to allow for verification on the
achievable gain-in strength at different stages of filling, filling thickness and necessary rest
period during construction to confirm reasonableness of the design assumptions before
proceeding to next stage of filling to higher embankment level.

Page 17 of 25
 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
encountered at site, especially during PVD installation as it governs the achievable GIS that
affects the embankment stability.

7.2.1 Independent Analysis for CH11500

The subsoil parameters adopted in the independent analysis for cross section at CH11500 is
tabulated below:

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

PEATS 11 5 -

Stiff CLAY 16 45 -

Loose SAND 18.5 30 0

Firm CLAY 15.5 30 -

Very Stiff CLAY 17.5 125 -

Hard CLAY 19 250 -

Design Parameters for Undrained Analysis (CH 11500)

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

PEATS 11 0 30

Stiff CLAY 16 4 28

Loose SAND 18.5 0 30

Firm CLAY 15.5 3 26

Very Stiff CLAY 17.5 5 29

Hard CLAY 19 8 30

Design Parameters for Drained Analysis (CH 11500)

Note: The unit weight for embankment fill stated in the drawing is 18±0.5kN/m 3. Therefore, unit
weight of 18.5kN/m3 is adopted for the embankment fill material in the independent analysis,
whereas DDC adopted 18kN/m3. The strength parameters for embankment fill materials are
based on the values adopted by DDC as stated in drawing (despite the bulk unit weight of

Page 18 of 25
 compacted fill appears to be slightly underestimated as mention in Section 9.0 and effective
frictional angle for sand fill might also likely be underestimated).

Independent analyses for CH11500 revealed that the main embankment and counterweight
berm has global stability and local stability safety factor (FOS) greater than 1.2 and 1.3 for
both short term and long-term analyses respectively for all four (4) stages of the filling works in
circular slip check, except wedge analysis for local stability at LHS counterweight berm shows
FOS slightly less than 1.2 at certain stage of filling. Summary of the independent stability
analysis for cross section at CH11500 is presented in Table 5a. It was noticed that the
counterweight berm height modelled in slope stability by DDC for CH11500 seems to be
lesser than the designed 1.5m height, which results in a much greater FOS.

7.2.2 Independent Analysis for CH13975

The subsoil parameters adopted in the independent analysis for cross section at CH13975 is
tabulated below:
Undrained Parameters
Unit Weight
Material Undrained Shear Effective Frictional
(kN/m3)
Strength, Su (kPa) Angle, ’ ( ̊)

PEATS 11 5 -

Very Soft CLAY (SPTN = 0) 14.5 5 -

Very Soft CLAY (SPTN < 2) 14.5 15 -

Firm CLAY 15.5 30 -

Hard CLAY 19 250 -

Design Parameters for Undrained Analysis (CH 13975)

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

PEATS 11 0 30

Very Soft CLAY (SPTN = 0) 14.5 0 23

Very Soft CLAY (SPTN < 2) 14.5 0 23

Firm CLAY 15.5 3 26

Hard CLAY 19 8 30

Design Parameters for Drained Analysis (CH 13975)

Page 19 of 25
For CH 13975, independent analysis revealed that the embankment short term global FOS is
generally lesser than the required FOS of 1.2. Global FOS at RHS of embankment is 1.06 and
1.09 at LHS for circular analysis. While, wedge analysis shows stability FOS of 0.99 (RHS)
and 1.03 (LHS). Nevertheless, the required FOS in long-term analysis are more than the
required 1.30.

Summary of the independent stability analysis for cross section at CH13975 is presented in
Table 5b. Both short term (during construction) and long term (serviceability stage) analyses
were carried out as shown in Appendix G.

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

i. Unit weight of backfilled materials is governing the embankment stability. DDC

adopted unit weight of 18.0kN/m3 (c’ = 5kPa, φ’ = 28o) for the embankment fill material
in the stability analyses. Nevertheless, unit weight of 18.5kN/m3 (c’ = 5kPa, φ’ = 28o)
was adopted for independent analysis after considering 0.5 kN/m3 tolerance stated in
the drawing prepared by DDC.

ii. The GIS adopted by G&P extracted from PLAXIS 2D is generally higher than GIS
adopted by DDC in the design report for undrained analyses (short term) for CH
11500 and CH 13975. Referring to the design calculation in Geotechnical Design
Report, DDC adopts net fill thickness for the calculation of GIS, which the stresses
from extra embankment fill due to consolidation settlement and progressive topping
up to maintain the embankment top level is not taken into consideration. Therefore,
the estimated GIS magnitude from DDC is generally lower than the independent
analysis. Nevertheless, verification on the subsoil gain-in strength is recommended
during construction stage to ensure the design assumption is achieved before
subsequent stage of filling works.

iii. Considering the slow filling rate and high permeability of the peat layer, substantial
settlement is expected during the progressive embankment filling works. Settlement
induced from the gross fill (total thickness of net fill above existing ground and
embankment fill that settles below existing ground) predicted from Plaxis 2D is taken
into consideration in the modelling of independent stability analyses to reflect the
actual scenario of settlement anticipated at site. This layer of embankment fill settled
below existing ground was not captured in the stability analyses by DDC. As a result,
the FOS presented in the GDR prepared by DDC could be over-estimated as the thick
layer of fill settled below existing ground tends to increase destabilising forces and

Page 20 of 25
 cause lower FOS. However, as the information of existing embankment is not
available, half thickness of the peat layer underneath the existing settlement is
assumed consists of embankment fill material due to the existing road has been
service for many years.

iv. The undrained shear strength (Su) adopted by the DDC for certain soil layer appears
to be on the higher side as compared to the SPT-N value of the reference borehole
used in the stability analysis (SPT-N is used to establish Su value due to result from
vane shear test and laboratory tests are not available). For instances, average SPT-N
value is 9 for firm CLAY layer (7m to 10m below ground) based on the reference
borehole BH25 adopted in CH11500 stability analyses. Undrained shear strength of
75kPa was adopted by DDC in this soil layer that results higher FOS in the stability
analysis. Additional site investigation is needed during construction stage to confirm
adopted soil strength is achievable before constructing the embankment.

8.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

8.2 Piled Embankment and Retaining Wall on Piles

Earth retaining structure of RC wall on pile was adopted at CH 62.5. The overall stability of
pile supported RC wall should be checked and comply to the ultimate limit state requirements
stated in BS8002. Adequacy of the provided raked piles and vertical piles to withstand induced
forces (axial, lateral, bending moment and shear force) should be checked, including
geotechnical aspect of the pile design. Details of the review can be referred in the DRR.

Page 21 of 25
 It is common to observe that the soft layer beneath piled embankment to settle with time and
resulting a gap beneath the piled embankment slab, which would cause unfavourable lateral
stability due to reduced lateral resistance of the piles with free standing length. This occurred
due to consolidation of the existing ground after having filling over the existing ground either
temporary fill for access/working platform or permanent fill until piled embankment slab level
that is higher than existing ground level. Therefore, overburden pressure imposed onto the
existing ground should be avoided/minimised during construction stage. The piled
embankment slab soffit level is advisable to place below existing ground level to mitigate extra
overburden pressure imposed over existing ground.

Consolidation settlement of soft layer imposes down-drag force to the piles. Hence, adequacy
of the piles in structural and geotechnical aspect has to be taken into consideration in the pile
supported structure.

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 excess pore water flow
as shown in Figure 12. This strip of the granular fill drainage has to be maintained (top up with
granular material) 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
contraction of drainage path due to 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 13. Alternatively, pump sump can be provided at the middle of
embankment as shown in Figure 14 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 15.

Page 22 of 25
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
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.

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 independent settlement analysis using PLAXIS 2D for CH 11500 show that the
gained-in strength magnitude adopted by the DDC is achievable. Nevertheless,
verification on the designed subsoil gain-in strength is recommended before subsequent
stage of filling works, particularly on embankment to be filled in stages. The predicted
total settlement from Plaxis 2D is larger than DDC’s prediction. However, post
construction settlement for independent analysis and DDC is still complying with the
design requirement of less than 500mm within 7 service years.

Page 23 of 25
b) The independent stability analysis based on cross section at CH13975 shows the
embankment is unable to achieve the required safety factor of 1.20 in short term
stability, which is conflicting with the stability results submitted by DDC mainly due to
the differences of the adopted subsoil undrained shear strength. Additional SI is
recommended during construction stage to obtain adequate subsoil strength parameter
for further assessment.

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,

d) Embankment fill that settled below existing ground level increases the destabilising
force, which could reduce the stability FOS. Therefore, this anticipated settlement
should be reasonably considered in the stability analyses to reflect the actual site
scenario.

e) For Reinforced Concrete (RC) wall supported by piles (e.g. CH 62.5), the pile element is
very crucial for the wall stability, stresses induced in the piles (axial, lateral, bending
moment, shear force) and the connection between wall and piles shall be checked
against capacities (geotechnical and structural). Overall stability of the piles supported
wall shall be checked and comply to the ultimate limit state requirements stated in
BS8002.

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

Page 24 of 25
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