Guo Yeang Yang
Mohd Nazri
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
MONITORING OF EMBANKMENT
FOR MINIMAL SETTLEMENT
2
SCOPE OF PRESENTATION
• Introduction
• Design Criteria
• Design Concept
• Ground Condition
• Design Parameters
• Construction and Monitoring Records
• Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
4
Introduction
9+
000.
10+000.
11+000.
12+000. 13+000. 14+000.
15+
000.
16+
000.
0.
1+000. 2+000.
3+000. 4+000. 5+000. 6
+000.
7+
000.
8+
000.
17+
000.
18+
000.
19+
000.
20+
000.
21+000.
22+000.
23+000.
PACKAGE 3A
BATU MAUNG
INTERCHANGE
PACKAGE 3C
BATU KAWAN
TRUMPET
INTERCHANGE
BATU KAWAN
EXPRESSSWAY
PULAU
AMAN
MAIN LAND
(BATU KAWAN)
P292
P0
MAIN NAVIGATIONAL
SPAN
P24-P27
PULAU
JEREJAK
PENANG ISLAND
(BATU MAUNG)
LAND PACKAGES
6
PACKAGE 3A: BATU MAUNG INTERCHANGE
3 TIERS
DIRECTIONAL
RAMPS
7
PACKAGE 3B: BATU KAWAN EXPRESSWAY
CLOVERLEAF INTERCHANGE
8
PACKAGE 3C: BATU KAWAN TRUMPET INTERCHANGE
AT MAINLAND
(BATU KAWAN)
LINKING NSE AT
KM154.8
2 TIERS
TRUMPET
INTERCHANGE
9
PACKAGE 3D: TOLL PLAZA, ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING & RELATED WORKS
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
SECOND PENANG
BRIDGE TOLL
PLAZA
PLUS TOLL PLAZA
PROPOSED GROUND
TREATMENTS
11
CLOVERLEAF
INTERCHANGE
PB2X TOLL
LAND
BRIDGE
PLUS TOLL
SG. TENGAH
BRIDGE
BRIDGE OVER CANAL
AND ARCH CULVERT
12
LAND BRIDGE
13
PB2X TOLL
14
CLOVER LEAF INTERCHANGE
15
PLUS TOLL
16
SG. TENGAH BRIDGE
17
BRIDGE OVER CANAL AND ARCH CULVERT
DESIGN CRITERIA
19
DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN CHECK MAIN DESIGN CRITERIA
Year 2007 2008 2009 2011
Stability (short-term during construction)
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Settlement
90% consolidation
settlement during
construction
400mm post-
construction
settlement for the
first 7 years
90% consolidation
settlement during
construction
250mm post-
construction
settlement for the
first 5 years
100% consolidation
settlement during
construction (under
the permanent load)
50mm post-
construction
settlement for the
first 2 years
100mm post-
construction
settlement for the
first 5 years
Main Carriageway
100% consolidation
settlement during
construction (under the
permanent load)
50mm post-construction
settlement for the first 20
years
Other areas
100% consolidation
settlement during
construction (under the
permanent load)
50mm post-construction
settlement for the first 2
years
100mm post-construction
settlement for the first 5
years
DESIGN CONCEPT
21
DESIGN CONCEPT
Effects of surcharging on secondary compression (Ladd, 1971)
22
DESIGN CONCEPT
C’/C vs. AAOS % (Saye et. al, 2001)
23
DESIGN CONCEPT
The reduction in rate of secondary compression proposed by Ladd (1971)
24
DESIGN CONCEPT
GROUND CONDITION
26
GROUND CONDITION
27
GROUND CONDITION
28
GROUND CONDITION
29
GROUND CONDITION
30
GROUND CONDITION
31
GROUND CONDITION
32
GROUND CONDITION
Typical Piezocone Result
Moisture Content
Atterberg Limit
Plasticity Index
Liquidity Index
Bulk Density
Preconsolidation Pressure
Overconsolidation Ratio
Void Ratio
Compression Index
Compression Ratio
Coefficient of Consolidation (Cv)
Coefficient of Consolidation (Ch)
Corrected Peak Strength
Corrected Remolded Strength
Sensitivity of Soft Clay
Cu/v’
Cu/Pc’
33
TYPICAL PIEZOCONE RESULT
(NEAR PDC CLOVERLEAF
INTERCHANGE)
34
TYPICAL PIEZOCONE RESULT
(NEAR LAND BRIDGE)
35
MOISTURE CONTENT
36
ATTERBERG LIMIT
37
PLASTICITY INDEX
38
LIQUIDITY INDEX
39
BULK DENSITY
40
PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE
41
OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO
42
VOID RATIO
43
COMPRESSION INDEX
44
COMPRESSION RATIO
45
COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION
(CV)
46
COEFFICIENT OF CONSOLIDATION
(Ch)
47
CORRECTED PEAK STRENGTH
48
CORRECTED REMOLDED STRENGTH
49
SENSITIVITY OF SOFT CLAY
50
Cu/v’
51
Cu/Pc’
DESIGN PARAMETERS
53
DESIGN PARAMETERS
Properties Symbol Unit Upper CLAY Lower CLAY
Bulk unit weight gb kN/m3 15.0 16.0
Undrained shear strength
Cu kPa 5 + 1.5z * 24.5 + 0.4z*
Friction angle f’ degrees 2.5 2.5
Effective cohesion c’ kPa 21 23
Pre-overburden pressure
Pc’ – svo’ kPa 20 20
Initial voids ratio eo - 2.5 1.8
Compression index Cc - 1.0 0.6
Re-compression index
Cr - 0.10 0.06
Compression ratio Cce = Cc/(1+eo) - 0.286 0.214
Re-compression ratio
Cre = Cr/(1+eo) - 0.029 0.021
Coeff. of vertical consolidation
Cv m2/year 1.5 1.5
Coeff. of horizontal consolidation
Ch m2/year 5 5
Secondary compression index
Ca - 0.035 0.021
GEOTECHNICAL
DESIGN
55
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Scheme Ref.
Fill Height, H (m)
PVD Spacing (m c/c)
Surcharge Height (m)
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Basal Reinforcement (kN)
Max. Fill
Height (m)
Filling Rate
(m/wk)
Rest Period (mth)
Max. Fill
Height (m)
Filling Rate
(m/wk)
Rest Period (mth)
Max. Fill
Height (m)
Filling Rate
(m/wk)
Rest Period (mth)
1 H 2.5 1.4 1.5 2.0 0.5 2 4.0 0.5 6 - - - HS Geotextile 200/50
2 2.5 < H 3.5 1.2 2.0 3.5 1.25 2 4.5 1.0 2 5.5 0.5 6 HS Geotextile 200/50
3 3.5 < H 4.5 1.2 2.2 3.5 1.25 2 4.5 1.0 2 6.7 0.5 6 HS Geotextile 400/50
SUMMARY OF EMBANKMENT STAGED CONSTRUCTION ON PVD
TREATED GROUND
Scheme Ref.
Fill Height, H (m)
SC Spacing (m c/c)
Surcharge Height
(m)
Stage 1 Stage 2
Basal Reinforcement (kN) Under Main
Carriageway
Under Side Slope
Max. Fill
Height (m)
Filling Rate
(m/wk)
Rest Period (mth)
Max. Fill
Height (m)
Filling Rate
(m/wk)
Rest Period (mth)
A 4.5 < H 6.5 2.5 2.3 1.5 4.0 1.0 - 8.0 0.5 3.0 HS Geotextile 400/50
B 6.5 < H 8.5 2.4 2.1 2.0 4.0 1.0 - 10.5 0.5 2.5 HS Geotextile 400/50
C 8.5 < H 9.5 2.1 1.8 2.0 4.0 1.0 - 11.5 0.5 2.5 Geogrid 400/100
D 9.5 < H
10.0 1.8 1.8 2.2 4.0 1.0 - 12.2 0.5 2.5 Geogrid 400/100
SUMMARY OF EMBANKMENT CONTROLLED FILLING ON SC
TREATED GROUND
CONSTRUCTION AND
MONITORING RESULTS
57
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION
Instruments Approx. Spacing Quantities Remarks
Rod Settlement Gauges (RSG) 100m intervals 131 nos.
Closer spacing at interface between different treatment methods
3 nos. of RSGs provided at every 200m intervals, i.e. at centreline, RHS and LHS.
Ground Surface Markers 100m to 150m
intervals 151 nos.
Closer spacing at interface between different treatment methods Inclinometers 200m intervals 47 nos.
Pneumatic Piezometers 200m intervals 39 nos.
Deep Levelling Datum - 3 nos. Reference datum
Hydrostatic Profile Gauge - 5 nos. Settlement profile across the embankment
58
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT
59
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT
PB2X TOLL
60 CLOVERLEAF INTERCHANGE
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT
61 PLUS TOLL PLAZA
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT
62 SUNGAI TENGAH BRIDGE
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT
63 BRIDGE OVER CANAL AND ARCH CULVERT
GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT
64
TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT OF INSTRUMENTS
PVD AND STONE COLUMNS
65 PVD AND STONE COLUMN
TYPICAL DETAILS AT INTERFACE BETWEEN TREATMENTS
66
RSG-108 (PVD)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Short Term)
67
RSG-108 (PVD)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Short Term)
68
RSG-108 (PVD)
Asaoka Plot
69
RSG-108 (PVD)
Creep Settlement Plot
70
RSG-110 (PVD)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Short Term)
71
RSG-110 (SC)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Long Term)
72
RSG-110 (SC)
Asaoka Plot
73
RSG-110 (SC)
Creep Settlement Plot
74
RSG-114 (SC)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Short Term)
75
RSG-114 (SC)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Long Term)
76
RSG-114 (SC)
Asaoka Plot
77
RSG-114 (SC)
Creep Settlement Plot
78
INCLINOMETER NEARBY
RSG-114 (SC)
Inclinometer Plot (Face A-A)
79 Inclinometer Plot (Face B-B)
INCLINOMETER NEARBY
RSG-114 (SC)
80
RSG-117 (SC)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Short Term)
81
RSG-117 (SC)
Reduced Level and Settlement Plot (Long Term)
82
RSG-117 (SC)
Asaoka Plot
83
RSG-117 (SC)
Creep Settlement Plot
CONCLUSION
85
CONCLUSION
In order to fulfill the minimum settlement design
criteria, the following steps were employed:-
1) Higher surcharge
2) Longer surcharge period
3) Pumping from well points to remove trapped
water
4) Proper drainage to ensure that water can be freely
discharged from sand blanket
5) Sufficient testing and instrumentation