petronas-0001-rt-1422-0004_b

PETRONAS RAPID PROJECTINCOMING DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION, NUMBERING and TRANSMITTAL

INCOMING DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION ATTRIBUTES ASSIGNED BY TECHNIP

Source Unit n° Doc. Type Eng./ Mat./ Work Code Serial n°

Reference PETRONAS 0001 RT 1422 0004Document Title

Revision Number BDoc. Revision Object INF Sheet creation: 04-Apr-12

Revision Date 14-Mar-12 rev. A

ARCHIVING CRITERIA Free Criteria (1 to 5)

Document Origin N/AArea PETRONASUnit By handDiscipline 28-Mar-12TECHNIP Eng./ Mat./ Work Code Rapid FEEDEquipment Reference

Department

DISTRIBUTION A = for Action, I = for Information

Discipline Directorate POC - Paris LOC - Lyon KLOC - KL Note

Project Management I I I IAdministration ManagementProject Control ManagementEngineering ManagementProject SecretaryDocument Control Management IProject Information ManagementCost ControlPlanning/ SchedulingRisk ManagementQuality ManagementHSE ManagementIT ManagementProcess/ Thermal Design/ WWTHSE DesignFired EquipmentPackaged EquipmentRotating EquipmentPressure VesselsPlant Layout I I I IPiping DesignPiping Materials/ CorrosionCivil/ Buildings I I I IGeotechnical A I I IHVACElectricalInstrumentation & Control SystemsAdvanced Automation SystemsProcurementInspectionHome Office Construction ISubcontractPrecomm./ Commissioning/ Start-upPaper Copy Archiving A

REMARKS, CLARIFICATIONS

PETRONAS-0001-RT-1422-0004-B

Final Geotechnical Interpretive Report

PETRONAS

Project (Rapid FEED/ PMC)

0001Discipline Arrival Date

1422

6098

7R-0

001-

FOR

-012

1_B

Received from

Transmitted by

INDEX

For attachments, refer to originals in PDB-REF (only technical report is part of PDF file).

Transmittal Ref.:N/A

SOIL & ROCK ENGINEERING Stability from Experience & Technology

Geotechnical risks managed cost-effectively

REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT (RAPID)

Geotechnical Interpretation

Report

Report Prepared for

Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd 2nd Floor, Menara Technip, 241, Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur Client

PETRONAS Level 73, Tower 2, Petronas Twin Tower, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088 Kuala Lumpur MARCH 2012

Mobile 019-3180656 Phone 03-92823855

Fax 03-92818289 Email [email protected]; [email protected]

No: 18-2 Jalan 1/76D Desa Pandan 55100 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Disk ref: c:\Soil & Rock Engineering Project: REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

(RAPID) Owner: PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS)Client: Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn BhdLocation: West PengerangSubject: Geotechnical Interpretation Report_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stability from Experience & Technology

Petronas Site is located in West south-east of the city of Johor Bahru The site has an area of approximatelycoarse grid (up to 250m spacing between test sites

300 boreholes; 98 Piezocone Penetration Tests; 40 test pits; 43 auger holes; 10 resistivity surveys; and associated laboratory testing.

The significant findings from this study are summarised below

1. Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground over the remainder. Rock ridges demarcate boundaries for different ground im

Soil & Rock Engineering\word2007\SRE20\GER3.doc (14Mar12)

REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd

Pengerang, Johor, Malaysia Geotechnical Interpretation Report

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Soil and Rock Engineering


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

West Pengerang, in the state of Johor, Malaysia, approximately 90 km Bahru.

an area of approximately 2607 hectares and has been investigated spacing between test sites) with.

98 Piezocone Penetration Tests;

10 resistivity surveys; and associated laboratory testing.

significant findings from this study are summarised below:

Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground over the remainder. Rock ridges and outcrops are present demarcate boundaries for different ground improvement zones.

REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT Page 2 of 102

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

, in the state of Johor, Malaysia, approximately 90 km

and has been investigated on a relatively

Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground and outcrops are present and generally




2. The site is to be cut and filled to a platform

27 and 28 show the extent of cut and fill 3. Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this report. It

appears that constructing the platform to +7.5m fill after allowance is made for compensating fill and (ii

4. The site has been divided into four (4)

following sub-zones: Table 10

Major Zones

Sub-

Zones

1

1A

1B

2

3

4

4A

4B





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The site is to be cut and filled to a platform specified at RL+7.5m MLSD. Figures show the extent of cut and fill respectively.

Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this report. It appears that constructing the platform to +7.5m MLSD will result in a short fall in fill after allowance is made for (i) Remove & Replace (R&R)

fill and (iii) surcharging.

The site has been divided into four (4) major ground improvement zoneszones:

Potential Cut and Fill

(Predominant soil type)

Types of

Ground improvement

Cut

(silty CLAY / clayey SILT)

None

Fill


Expected to be minor localised removal of soft material at subgrade level, minimal surcharging

Cut

(rock)

None – rock to be cut to stable slope.

Fill

(soft clays)

Preloading with PVDsStone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.

Fill

(Peaty organic soils over very soft clays)

Major improvement. Removal of peaty organic soils, replace with structural fill. Preloading with PVDs.Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.

Fill

(very soft clays)

Major improvement. Preloading with PVDs.Vacuum Consolidation (VC)Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

at RL+7.5m MLSD. Figures

Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this report. It will result in a short fall in

(i) Remove & Replace (R&R) (ii) settlement-

ground improvement zones with the

Types of

Ground improvement

Expected to be minor – ie localised removal of soft material at subgrade level, minimal

rock to be cut to stable

Preloading with PVDs Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.

Major improvement. Removal of peaty organic soils, replace with structural fill. Preloading with PVDs. VC Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.

Major improvement. Preloading with PVDs. Vacuum Consolidation (VC)

providing that residual acceptable.




5. The Zoning Plan is shown

from the site investigation grid which is typically are expected.

6. In Zones 1A and 1Bremoval of soft materials to filling.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The Zoning Plan is shown below. The zonal boundaries have been determined from the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations

Figure 17

A and 1B, no significant ground improvement is anticipated. Localised soft materials may be required as part of subgrade preparation


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

. The zonal boundaries have been determined 250m centres. Site variations

, no significant ground improvement is anticipated. Localised as part of subgrade preparation prior




7. In rock cuts (Zone 2), an over

recommended with backfilling of structural fill in the upper 2m in rock cuts construction of shallow foot

8. Ground improvement is

platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to the ground conditions investigatedand shallower compared with Zone 4.

9. The worst ground is

has been subdivided into

i. Zone 4A 14m but

ii. Zone 4B

enrichment 10. The peaty organic soils

5m and replaced with structural fill.

11. Ground improvements are required and Zone 4B to support the

12. Staged preloading with

consolidation are recommended to minimise residual settlements. It is recommended that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary consolidation.

13. Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable

the end user.

14. The required quantity of fill

(i) Removal and R(ii) Top soil stripping in other zones(iii) Filling from stripped subgrade to

plus (iv) Settlement(v) Long term secondary compression and self weight settlement of the fill;

plus (vi) Surcharge to

corridors.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



In rock cuts (Zone 2), an over-excavation of 2m (ie RL+5.5m MLSD) is recommended with backfilling using structural fill to the platform. of structural fill in the upper 2m in rock cuts is recommended to facilitate construction of shallow footings and trenching for services and drains.

Ground improvement is recommended in Zone 3. Under the weight of the platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to the ground conditions investigated. Generally the clays in Zoneand shallower compared with Zone 4.

The worst ground is located in Zone 4 over the western part of the site. has been subdivided into:

Zone 4A peaty organic soils and peats are present m but generally less than 5m; and

Zone 4B very soft ground to depths of 20m with some organic enrichment.

The peaty organic soils and peats in Zone 4A should be removed and replaced with structural fill.

round improvements are required for Zones 3, 4A (after removal of peaty soils) to support the weight of the platform.

Staged preloading with Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs) consolidation are recommended to minimise residual settlements. It is

that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary

Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable

quantity of fill can be estimated as the sum of following:

Removal and Replace (up to 5m in Zone 4A), plus Top soil stripping in other zones, plus Filling from stripped subgrade to the specified platform at +7.5m MLSD

Settlement-compensating fill; Long term secondary compression and self weight settlement of the fill;

Surcharge to minimise future settlements of roads, drains and service corridors.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

excavation of 2m (ie RL+5.5m MLSD) is to the platform. The placement is recommended to facilitate

ings and trenching for services and drains.

in Zone 3. Under the weight of the platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to 1m for

Generally the clays in Zone 3 are stronger

in Zone 4 over the western part of the site. This zone

present to depths of

with some organic

in Zone 4A should be removed to a depth of

for Zones 3, 4A (after removal of peaty soils)

ertical Drains (PVDs) and/or vacuum consolidation are recommended to minimise residual settlements. It is

that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary

Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable to

the sum of following:

specified platform at +7.5m MLSD,

Long term secondary compression and self weight settlement of the fill;

minimise future settlements of roads, drains and service




15. To provide an estimate of fill quantities, the following recommendations are made

Zone Top soil stripping

(m)

1A

-

1B

0.1

2

-

3

0.3

4A

-

4B

0.3

* based on upper bound estimates of fill settlement 16. In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing

pressures should not exceed • 100kPa in firm clays with SPT(N) values greater than 15• 200kPa in medium dense sandy soils and in stiff clays• 500kPa on rock

17. In filled areas, spun

spun piles are given in Table 18. Safe working loads for bored piles ranging in diameter from 5

are given in Table 28. 19. Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low.

assessment is required for design of

20. Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required after platform construction to mGeotechnical Models for the design of different facilities.

21. Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty

soils in Zone 4A.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



To provide an estimate of fill quantities, the following recommendations are made

Remove & Replace

(m)

Settlement -compensating

FILL* (m)

Secondary compression

(m)

-

-

-

-

0.2

0.1

2.0

(over-excavation in

rock cuts)

-

-

-

1.0

0.2

5.0 (peaty soils)

2.5

0.3

-

3.5

0.4

* based on upper bound estimates of fill settlement

In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing pressures should not exceed

100kPa in firm clays with SPT(N) values greater than 15 medium dense sandy soils and in stiff clays

500kPa on rock

spun piles driven to set are recommended. Safe working loads for spun piles are given in Table 27.

Safe working loads for bored piles ranging in diameter from 500mm to 1000mm given in Table 28.

Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. assessment is required for design of structures.

Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required after platform construction to measure post improvement strengths and to determine Geotechnical Models for the design of different facilities.

Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty soils in Zone 4A.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

To provide an estimate of fill quantities, the following recommendations are made

Surcharge on platform

at +7.5m MLSD -

1.0

-

3.0

5.0

5.0

In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing

driven to set are recommended. Safe working loads for

0mm to 1000mm

Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. Site hazard

Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required after easure post improvement strengths and to determine

Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty




Item Title Executive Summary

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives of Final Report

2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

3.0 SITE GEOLOGY

4.0 SEISMIC HAZARD

4.1 Tectonic Setting 4.2 Generalised Seismic Hazard4.3 Recent Earthquakes 4.4 Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia4.5 Influence of Site Conditions on Ground Acceleration4.6 Site Classification4.7 Recommendations for Site 5.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION

6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

6.1 Land Use Map 6.2 Topography 6.3 Generalised Ground Conditions6.3.1 Significant Strata 6.3.2 Peat and Organic Soils intersected by Boreholes6.3.3 Peat and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT Results6.3.4 Location of Organic Soils6.3.5 Ground water 6.3.6 Contour Thicknesses of Soft Clays 6.3.7 Contours of SPT(N)>50 6.3.8 Resistivity Surveys

7.0 GROUND IMPROVEMENT

7.1 Zoning 7.2 Geotechnical Models7.2.1 Zone 1A – Cut 7.2.2 Zone 1B – Fill





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Table of Contents

Volume 1 of 2 Page 1 of 4

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

Objectives of Final Report

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

SITE GEOLOGY

SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Generalised Seismic Hazard Recent Earthquakes Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia Influence of Site Conditions on Ground Acceleration Site Classifications Recommendations for Site-specific Seismic Hazard Assessment

SOIL INVESTIGATION SCOPE

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

Generalised Ground Conditions

and Organic Soils intersected by Boreholes Peat and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT Results Location of Organic Soils

Contour Thicknesses of Soft Clays Contours of SPT(N)>50

GROUND IMPROVEMENT

Geotechnical Models


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page

2 – 6

7 – 10

11

11 12

14

15

18

18 19 20 20 25 27 28

29

30

30 31 33 33 33 35 38 38 45 46 47 50

50 52 52 54




Item Title 7.2.3

Zone 3

7.2.4 Zone 4A – Peaty Organic Soils and Very Soft Clays7.2.5 Zone 4B – Very soft Clays 7.2.6 Fill Parameters 7.2.7 Fill Settlement 7.3 Zone 3 Analysis 7.3.1 Platform Settlements7.3.2 Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 3)7.4 Zone 4A Analysis 7.4.1 Platform Settlements7.4.2 Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4A)7.5 Zone 4B Analysis 7.5.1 Platform Settlements7.5.2 Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4B)

8.0 PROPOSED EARTHWORKS

8.1 Cut Areas 8.2 Fill Areas 8.3 Cut and Fill Quantities8.3.1 Bulking Factors 8.3.2 Remove and Replace 8.3.3 Settlement-compensating FILL8.3.4 Surcharging 8.3.5 Long term platform settlement8.4 Cut Materials 8.5 Fill Types 8.6 Fill Zoning 8.7 Fill Processing

9.0 FOUNDATIONS

9.1 Shallow Foundations in Cut Areas9.2 Piled Foundations in Filled Areas9.2.1 General 9.2.2 DRIVEN Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads9.2.3 BORED Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads9.2.4 DRIVEN Pile Toe Levels 9.2.5 BORED Pile Toe Levels 9.2.6 Pile Testing 9.3 Corrosion Protection 10.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

12.0 CLOSURE





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Table of Contents Volume 1 of 2

Page 2 of 4

Organic Soils and Very Soft Clays Very soft Clays – organic in places

Platform Settlements Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 3)

Platform Settlements Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4A)

Platform Settlements Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4B)

PROPOSED EARTHWORKS

Cut and Fill Quantities

Remove and Replace compensating FILL

Long term platform settlement

FOUNDATIONS

Shallow Foundations in Cut Areas Piled Foundations in Filled Areas

Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads BORED Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads DRIVEN Pile Toe Levels BORED Pile Toe Levels

Corrosion Protection

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page

56 58 60 62 62 63 63 68 71 71 74 75 75 78 83

83 84 85 85 86 86 86 86 87 87 88 89

90

90 90 90 91 92 93 93 93 94

95

100

101




List of Plates

Plate 1 Boreholes, Piezocone CPT and Testpit Locations (A1) Plate 2 Zoning Plot (Ground Improvement) Plate 3 Zoning Plot with location of Geotechnical Cross Sections 1 Plate 4 Longitudinal Cross Section 1 Plate 5 Longitudinal Cross Section 2 Plate 6 Transverse Cross Section 3 Plate 7 Surfer 3D Plot of Topo Levels Plate 8 Surfer 2D Plot of Topo Contour Levels Plate 9 Surfer Plot of SPT(N) >50 Levels Plate 10 Surfer Plot of soft ground from boreholes Plate 11 Surfer Plot of Borehole Termination Levels Plate 12 Surfer Plot of CPT Termination Levels Plate 13 Extent of CUT to RL+7.5m M Plate 14 Extent of FILL to RL+7.5m Plate 15 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+1.0m M Plate 16 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2.0m M Plate 17 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2.5m M Plate 18 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+7.5m M Plate 19 Surfer Plots of water level measured in from boreholes Plate 20 Distribution of organic soils Plate 21 Distribution of Palaeozoic rocks in East Johor (Reference 1) Plate 22 Pengerang Volcanics (Reference 1) Plate 23 Stratigraphic column for Eastern Johor





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Table of Contents


Boreholes, Piezocone CPT and Testpit Locations (A1)

Zoning Plot (Ground Improvement)

Zoning Plot with location of Geotechnical Cross Sections 1-1 to 4-4

Longitudinal Cross Section 1-1


Transverse Cross Section 3-3 & 4-4

Surfer 3D Plot of Topo Levels

Surfer 2D Plot of Topo Contour Levels

Surfer Plot of SPT(N) >50 Levels

Surfer Plot of soft ground from boreholes and CPTs – SPT(N)<4 & Qc<1MPa

Surfer Plot of Borehole Termination Levels

Surfer Plot of CPT Termination Levels

Extent of CUT to RL+7.5m MLSD (in non rock areas) and RL+5.5m MLSD (rock areas)

Extent of FILL to RL+7.5m MLSD

Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+1.0m MLSD




s of water level measured in from boreholes

Distribution of organic soils

Distribution of Palaeozoic rocks in East Johor (Reference 1)

Pengerang Volcanics (Reference 1)

Stratigraphic column for Eastern Johor (Reference 1)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

SPT(N)<4 & Qc<1MPa

(in non rock areas) and RL+5.5m MLSD (rock areas)




List of Appendices

Appendix A Borehole summaries

Appendix A1 Tabulated summary of Phase 1 boreholes (Geolab)Appendix A2 Tabulated summary of Phase 2 boreholes (Foundtest) Appendix A3 Tabulated summary of Phase 3 boreholes (Majumec) Appendix B CPT analyses

Appendix B1 Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Geolab)Appendix B2 Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Foundtest) Appendix B3 Cone resistance and sheaAppendix B4 Robertson el al (1986) Profiling Charts

Appendix B5 Eslami-Fellenius (1997) Profiling ChartsAppendix B6 Evaluation of Dissipation Tests Appendix C Geotechnical database

Appendix C1 Zone 1A – cut Appendix C2 Zone 1B - fill Appendix C3 Zone 2 - rock Appendix C4 Zone 3 – soft groundAppendix C5 Zone 4A – soft ground with peaty organic soilsAppendix C6 Zone 4B – soft ground Appendix D Platform settlements using sprea

Appendix D1 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D2 Platform settlements from CPT records Appendix D3 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D4 Platform settlements from CPT recordsAppendix D5 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D6 Platform settlements from CPT records Appendix E Platform settlements using PLAXIS

Appendix E1 Platform settlement Appendix E2 Platform settlement for BH830 (Zone 4)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Table of Contents


Borehole summaries

Tabulated summary of Phase 1 boreholes (Geolab) Tabulated summary of Phase 2 boreholes (Foundtest) Tabulated summary of Phase 3 boreholes (Majumec)

Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Geolab) Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Foundtest) Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Majumec) Robertson el al (1986) Profiling Charts

Volume 2 of 2

Fellenius (1997) Profiling Charts Evaluation of Dissipation Tests

Geotechnical database

soft ground soft ground with peaty organic soils soft ground - no peat intersected

Platform settlements using spreadsheets

Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 3 Platform settlements from CPT records – Zone 3 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 4A

lements from CPT records– Zone 4A Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 4B Platform settlements from CPT records– Zone 4B

Platform settlements using PLAXIS

Platform settlement for BH27 (Zone 3) Platform settlement for BH830 (Zone 4)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (Petrochemical Integrated Project east of Johor Bahru in Malaysia. The site has an area of approximately the southern boundary as shown below:

Figure 1

Petronas has commissioned Technip investigation survey. Technip has commissioned:

i. Geolab (M) Sdn Bhdcarry out the soil

ii. Ezam & Associates iii. Soil and Rock Engineering (





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



INTRODUCTION

ERHAD (PETRONAS) proposes to develop a roject (R.A.P.I.D.) on a site at West Pengerang about 90k

approximately 2607 hectares and extends to the South China Sea along the southern boundary as shown below:

Figure 1 – Proposed Site Location

Technip Geoproduction (M) Sdn Bhd (Technip ) to carry out the soil

Sdn Bhd, Foundtest (M) Sdn Bhd and Majumec Bina soil investigation in Phases 1, 2 and 3 respectively

Ezam & Associates to carry out the topographical survey.

Soil and Rock Engineering (SRE) as a Geotechnical Consultant.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

proposes to develop a Refinery And about 90km south-

extends to the South China Sea along

to carry out the soil

Bina Sdn Bhd to

.




1.2 Objectives of Final Report

The objectives of the Geotechnical Interpretation Report are

Ground conditions

i. Discuss site geology.

ii. Assess ground conditions and determine the soil and rock types that will be encountered in the construction of the working platforminclude: • Geotechnical Models with soil parameters• Suitability for fill

iii. Determine water levels and assess the corrosiveness of the environment

iv. Identify unsuitable materials (within the coarse investigation grid

be removed.

v. Identify soft soils that will require ground improvement

vi. Determine geotechnical parameters for design of ground improvementof slope stability

vii. Identify rock types that will need to be drilled and blast viii. Assess liquefaction potential.

Ground improvement

ix. Provide a Ground Improvement Zoning Plan. x. Recommend subgrade preparation measures in areas to be filled. xi. Recommend ground improvement in soft clay sites xii. Recommend ground improvement in loose cohesionless deposits (sands &

mixes) to prevent liquefaction.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



of Final Report

The objectives of the Geotechnical Interpretation Report are as follows:

conditions

Discuss site geology.

Assess ground conditions and determine the soil and rock types that will be encountered in the construction of the working platform to RL+7.5m MLSD.

Geotechnical Models with soil parameters for fill

Determine water levels and assess the corrosiveness of the environment

Identify unsuitable materials (within the coarse investigation grid

Identify soft soils that will require ground improvement prior to platform

Determine geotechnical parameters for design of ground improvement and foundations.

Identify rock types that will need to be drilled and blast.

Assess liquefaction potential.

round improvement

Ground Improvement Zoning Plan.

subgrade preparation measures in areas to be filled.

ground improvement in soft clay sites including dewatering measures.

Recommend ground improvement in loose cohesionless deposits (sands &mixes) to prevent liquefaction.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Assess ground conditions and determine the soil and rock types that will be to RL+7.5m MLSD. This will

Determine water levels and assess the corrosiveness of the environment

Identify unsuitable materials (within the coarse investigation grid ~250m centres) to

platform construction.

Determine geotechnical parameters for design of ground improvement, assessment

subgrade preparation measures in areas to be filled.

including dewatering measures.

Recommend ground improvement in loose cohesionless deposits (sands & silt




Filling

xiii. Provide compaction

xiv. Provide an estimate of self xv. Provide fill material acceptance criteria

These criteria will include: grading limits, Plasticity Indices, compaction and CBR requirements for different fill materials.

Cuts

xvi. Provide bulking factors

xvii. Recommend safe cut slopes xviii. Recommend use of rock in filling.

Foundations

xix. Recommend suitable foundations types

xx. Make recommendations on over excavations in rocky areas to accommodate shallow footings

xxi. Provide presumptive design parameters for

Contract.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



compaction factors for different soil types.

Provide an estimate of self-weight settlement for deep fills.

Provide fill material acceptance criteria for each type of fill for use in These criteria will include:

grading limits, Plasticity Indices, compaction and CBR requirements for different fill materials.

Provide bulking factors

Recommend safe cut slopes in soils, weathered rock and intact rock.

use of rock in filling.

Recommend suitable foundations types and bearing pressures.

Make recommendations on over excavations in rocky areas to accommodate shallow footings and to facilitate trenching for drains and services.

Provide presumptive design parameters for Front End Engineering Design


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

for each type of fill for use in earthworks.

in soils, weathered rock and intact rock.

Make recommendations on over excavations in rocky areas to accommodate services.

Front End Engineering Design




2.0 REFERENCE DOCUM

The following reports and advice

a. Factual Report (Package 1) b. Factual Report (Package 2 c. Factual Report (Package 3) d. Topographic Survey Drawings received e. Geological Map f. Land Use Map g. The site is to be filled to a Reduced Level of

Datum (ie RL+7.5m MLSD) h. Tidal levels are based on Sg Belungkor Port (+0.00MLSD = +2.11m CD)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

reports and advice was supplied and forms the basis of this report.

(Package 1) – 3 volumes - prepared by Geolab (M)

(Package 2) – 2 volumes - prepared by Foundtest

(Package 3) – 3 volumes - prepared by Majumec

opographic Survey Drawings received from Ezam and Associates.

The site is to be filled to a Reduced Level of +7.5m to Malaysian Datum (ie RL+7.5m MLSD).

Tidal levels are based on Sg Belungkor Port (+0.00MLSD = +2.11m CD)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Geolab (M) Sdn Bhd,

prepared by Foundtest (M) Sdn Bhd.

Majumec Bina Sdn Bhd.

rom Ezam and Associates.

+7.5m to Malaysian Land Survey

Tidal levels are based on Sg Belungkor Port (+0.00MLSD = +2.11m CD)




3.0 SITE GEOLOGY

The site is superimposed on the Geological Map below. The site has an area of hectares. The site spans four (4) different geological sequences, namely;

i. Recent deposits of Quaternary Age (last predominantly sand and clay alluvium with bauxite conglomerates. are present.

ii. Residual soils and volcanic rocks

volcanic rocks have been produced by several volcanic activities granitic intrusions, lava flows as well as pyroclastic flows. The clasts composed of lapili, lithic and reReference #1.

iii. Rhyolitic lavas with andesitic flows iv. Porphyritic granite

We estimate that residual soils and volcanic rock are present over about 70% of the site. Recent Quaternary alluvial deposits are present over the remainder.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



SITE GEOLOGY

superimposed on the Geological Map below. The site has an area of

) different geological sequences, namely;

Recent deposits of Quaternary Age (last 10,000+ years). They comprise predominantly sand and clay alluvium with bauxite conglomerates.

Residual soils and volcanic rocks - predominantly acidic tuffs. olcanic rocks have been produced by several volcanic activities

granitic intrusions, lava flows as well as pyroclastic flows. The clasts composed of lapili, lithic and re-sedimented pyroclastic rocks. Refer Plates 2

Rhyolitic lavas with andesitic flows.

Porphyritic granite (intrusion during Triassic Period).

We estimate that residual soils and volcanic rock are present over about 70% of the site. Recent Quaternary alluvial deposits are present over the remainder.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

superimposed on the Geological Map below. The site has an area of about 2607

years). They comprise predominantly sand and clay alluvium with bauxite conglomerates. Beach sands

The Pengerang olcanic rocks have been produced by several volcanic activities including

granitic intrusions, lava flows as well as pyroclastic flows. The clasts composed Refer Plates 21 to 23 and

We estimate that residual soils and volcanic rock are present over about 70% of the site. Recent




Figure 2 –





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



– Geological Map of the site and surrounds


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Figure





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 2A – Legend to Geological Map


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




4.0 SEISMIC HAZARD

4.1 Tectonic Setting

The Malaysian Peninsula is a stable intraplate landmass (Zone 4, Sunda Plate) which has a low to moderate seismic hazard. Figureand the proximity of the west coast of Malaysia to the more unstabl





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Tectonic Setting

The Malaysian Peninsula is a stable intraplate landmass (Zone 4, Sunda Plate) which has a low Figure 3 shows the seismicity recorded for the period 1964 to 2000

and the proximity of the west coast of Malaysia to the more unstable zones.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Malaysian Peninsula is a stable intraplate landmass (Zone 4, Sunda Plate) which has a low shows the seismicity recorded for the period 1964 to 2000




4.2 Generalised Seismic Hazard

The general seismic hazard determined by the USGS is shown below. The site is located within the 0.8 to 1.6m/sec2 (0.08 to 0.16





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Seismic Hazard

The general seismic hazard determined by the USGS is shown below. The site is located within 16g) hazard zone.

Figure 4 (After U.S. Geological Survey)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The general seismic hazard determined by the USGS is shown below. The site is located within




4.3 Recent Earthquakes

A search of the NEIC earthquake data base of earthquakes recorded within radii from the Pengerang (latitude Table 1

Distance from

Pengerang Radius (km)

(1)

Number of Recorded

Earthquakes(2)

100

0

200

1

300

4

400

22

500

307

600

1528

700

3500

4.4 Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia

Peterson (2004) developed maps showing seismic hazards at 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the southern Malaysian Peninsula. The contours of peak horizontal accelerations shown on these maps are bedrock accelerations. Actual peak ground accelerwill be greater and will depend on the magnification properties of the overburden soils.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Earthquakes

A search of the NEIC earthquake data base of earthquakes recorded within different (latitude 1.367N, longitude 104.117) gave the following results.

Number of Recorded

Earthquakes

Magnitude

mb

(3)

n/a

3.8

3.8 – 4.4

3.8 – 5.0

307

3.8 – 7.3

1528

3.4 – 7.6

3500

3.1 – 7.6

Seismic Hazards in Peninsular Malaysia

(2004) developed maps showing seismic hazards at 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the southern Malaysian Peninsula. The contours of peak horizontal accelerations shown on these maps are bedrock accelerations. Actual peak ground accelerwill be greater and will depend on the magnification properties of the overburden soils.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

different specified ) gave the following results.

(2004) developed maps showing seismic hazards at 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the southern Malaysian Peninsula. The contours of peak horizontal accelerations shown on these maps are bedrock accelerations. Actual peak ground accelerations will be greater and will depend on the magnification properties of the overburden soils.




Map showing 10% probability of exceedance in 50 yea rs

Peak horizontal acceleration





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 5 Map showing 10% probability of exceedance in 50 yea rs

(1 in 475 year return period) Peak horizontal acceleration in bedrock


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Map showing 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year s

Peak horizontal acceleration





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 6

Map showing 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year s ( I in 2,475 year return period)

Peak horizontal acceleration in bedrock


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




The rapid increase in seismic risk towards the Sunda trench is apparent from





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The rapid increase in seismic risk towards the Sunda trench is apparent from Figure


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 7.




Peterson points out that the predicted ground motions for the Malaysian Peninsula are probably higher than any that have occurred in the 19earthquakes in 1892 and 1909 produced Modified Mercalli intensities consistent with the projected levels of 0.05g. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that for the Pengerang site, peak horizontal accelerations at bedrock level may be:

i. 0.06g for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in 475 years).

ii. 0.11g for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in

10,000 years) Peterson makes two additional important observations:

1. The projected ground motions represent hazard levels that are appropriate for structural design standards in modern

2. The projected ground motions (Figures

the rock accelerations by the overburden soils. They can increase ground motions and must be considered in any sitecannot be used isite-specific magnification factors) but rather are intended to show regional hazard.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



the predicted ground motions for the Malaysian Peninsula are probably higher than any that have occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. The large Sumatran fault earthquakes in 1892 and 1909 produced Modified Mercalli intensities consistent with the

Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that for the Pengerang site, peak horizontal accelerations

10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in 475

2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in

important observations:

The projected ground motions represent hazard levels that are appropriate for structural design standards in modern codes.

The projected ground motions (Figures 5 & 6) do not consider the amplification of the rock accelerations by the overburden soils. They can increase ground motions and must be considered in any site-specific analyses. The above maps cannot be used in their current state for site-specific design (as they do not use

specific magnification factors) but rather are intended to show regional


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

the predicted ground motions for the Malaysian Peninsula are probably centuries. The large Sumatran fault

earthquakes in 1892 and 1909 produced Modified Mercalli intensities consistent with the

Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that for the Pengerang site, peak horizontal accelerations

10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in 475

2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (ie return period of 1 in

The projected ground motions represent hazard levels that are appropriate for

) do not consider the amplification of the rock accelerations by the overburden soils. They can increase ground

specific analyses. The above maps specific design (as they do not use

specific magnification factors) but rather are intended to show regional




4.5 Influence of Site Conditions

Local site conditions strongly influence the peak accelerationresponse spectra. The approximate relationship between bedrock acceleration and peak ground acceleration on soil sites is shown on

For a bedrock acceleration of say 0soft soils could be 0.13g (using the medi Local site conditions also influence the frequency content of surface motions and the response spectra that they produce. This is shown in For soft to medium clay and sand sites, it can be seen from acceleration (for SDOF structures subject to 5% damping) is about 2.4 times the peak ground acceleration. For a peak ground acceleration of 0.1spectral acceleration is 0.31g. For the very soft clays present in Zones 3 and 4 ground accelerations will be greater





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Influence of Site Conditions on Ground Acceleration

strongly influence the peak acceleration, amplitudes and the shapes of the response spectra. The approximate relationship between bedrock acceleration and peak ground acceleration on soil sites is shown on Figure 8 .

For a bedrock acceleration of say 0.045g (from Figure - Petersen curves), then the acceleration in using the median relationship in Figure 8).

Local site conditions also influence the frequency content of surface motions and the response This is shown in Figure 9 for different overburden conditions.

For soft to medium clay and sand sites, it can be seen from Figure 9 that the spectral acceleration (for SDOF structures subject to 5% damping) is about 2.4 times the peak ground acceleration. For a peak ground acceleration of 0.13g (median curve in Figure

in Zones 3 and 4 (Refer Section 6.0), it is possible that the peak greater than 0.13g.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

amplitudes and the shapes of the response spectra. The approximate relationship between bedrock acceleration and peak ground

Petersen curves), then the acceleration in

Local site conditions also influence the frequency content of surface motions and the response for different overburden conditions.

hat the spectral acceleration (for SDOF structures subject to 5% damping) is about 2.4 times the peak ground

Figure 8), then the

, it is possible that the peak




Our experience with very soft marine clays in accelerations in the order of 0.5g to It is therefore important that sitedetailed engineering phase. The Section 4.7.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 9

Our experience with very soft marine clays in Melaka and Lumut is that higher spectral 0.5g to 0.6g are possible.

It is therefore important that site-specific seismic hazard assessments be carried out during the detailed engineering phase. The proposed technical framework for these stud


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

is that higher spectral

specific seismic hazard assessments be carried out during the technical framework for these studies is given in




4.6 Site Classification

An alternative method of calculating site response is to first classify the site and then use codified methods to calculate the design response spectrum. Table 2 summarises site classifications in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) 97.

Site

Class

(1)

Soil

Profile Generalisation

(2)

SA

Hard Rock

SB

Rock

SC

Very dense soil and

soft rock

SD

Stiff soil

SE

Soft Soil

SF

Special Category

Metric units rounded

Site conditions vary from Special Category (Sections 7.2 and 7.3), it is expected that the S Testing after platform construction is recommended to quantify the improvement in the seismic site classification.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Site Classifications

An alternative method of calculating site response is to first classify the site and then use codified the design response spectrum.

classifications in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) 97.

Generalisation

Average

Shear Wave Velocity

Vs (m/sec) (3)

Average Standard

Penetration Resistance (N)

(4)

Shear Strength Su

Hard Rock

>1500

N.A.

750 – 1500

N.A.

Very dense soil and

370 – 750

N > 50

180 – 370

15< N < 50

Soft Soil

<180

N<15

Special Category

Any profile with more than 3m of soil having follow ing characteristics Plasticity Index > 20% Water content > 40% Undrained shear strength Su < 25kPa Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading (eg liquefiable soils, highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils) Peats or highly organic clays > 3m thick Very high plasticity clays (PI>75%) > 7.5m thick Soft or medium stiff clays > 37m thick

Special Category (SF) to hard rock (SA). After ground improvement

it is expected that the SF and SE classifications may improve to S

Testing after platform construction is recommended to quantify the improvement in the seismic


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

An alternative method of calculating site response is to first classify the site and then use codified

classifications in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) 97.

Average

Undrained Shear Strength Su

(kPa) (5)

N.A.

N.A.

100

50 < Su <100

Su < 50

Any profile with more than 3m of soil having follow ing

Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following

Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading (eg liquefiable soils, highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented

. After ground improvement improve to SD.

Testing after platform construction is recommended to quantify the improvement in the seismic




4.7 Recommendations for

A site-specific seismic hazard assessment detailed engineering phase to generate bedrock motionoverburden. Details of these study objectives are Table 3 Item Description

1 1) Review literature on available regional geological and tectonic

setting. 2) Identify regional earthquake activity.3) Prepare a seismic sources zone for

analyses

2 1) Develop Seismo-tectonic Model for the region surrounding the site.

2) Determine site-specific ground motion criteria

3 Select ground motion attenuation relationships appropriate for fault types

4 Determine seismic hazard parameters such as:• a-b value • slip rate • maximum magnitude that will be used in a Probabilistic

5 Carry out PSHA to determine the maximum ground acceleration and response spectra at bedrock level for different return period of earthquake loading.

6 Carry de-aggregation hazard analyses to determine the controllingearthquake and selection of ground motions from the deaggregation hazard analysis for input into a 1analysis.

7 Carry out site response analyses using 1theory to determine the peak ground acceleration and spectra at the ground surface.

8 Carry out liquefaction assessment SANDS (N<15 for clean sands and N<10 for silty & clayey SANDS with up to 30% fines).

9 Calculate the design response spectra (spectral acceleration for different periods) for the design return period of the earthquake

10 Provide recommendations of peak ground acceleration and design response spectra to IBC2000.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Recommendations for Site-specific Seismic Hazard Assessment

seismic hazard assessment and site response studies should be carried out to generate bedrock motions and amplifications through the

Details of these study objectives are summarised below.

Remarks

Review literature on available regional geological and tectonic

Identify regional earthquake activity. Prepare a seismic sources zone for use in seismic hazard

An alternative approach is to assume bedrock acceleration from a site zoning and then to select a “relevant” bedrock accelerationtime history from a PEER database. The selected accelerogram should have the same basic characteristics of the local earthquake. Probabilistic approach yield less conservative motions than deterministic analysis. Required to remove all fore& after-shocks from the database must be independent events for probabilistic analyses.

tectonic Model for the region surrounding the

specific ground motion criteria

Select ground motion attenuation relationships appropriate for fault

Determine seismic hazard parameters such as:

that will be used in a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)

Carry out PSHA to determine the maximum ground acceleration and response spectra at bedrock level for different return period of

aggregation hazard analyses to determine the controlling earthquake and selection of ground motions from the de-aggregation hazard analysis for input into a 1-D wave propagation

Carry out site response analyses using 1-D shear wave propagation theory to determine the peak ground acceleration and response spectra at the ground surface. Carry out liquefaction analyses

Software such as SHAKE 2000, ERA. NERA, Cyclicfor site response analyses Carry out in accordance with the recommendations of NCEER (1996). Check whether the amplifactors recommended by IBC2000 are appropriate to this site.

assessment in areas of loose to very loose for clean sands and N<10 for silty & clayey SANDS

response spectra (spectral acceleration for different periods) for the design return period of the earthquake.

Provide recommendations of peak ground acceleration and design response spectra to IBC2000.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

ssessment

should be carried out in the and amplifications through the

An alternative approach is to assume bedrock acceleration from

g and then to select a “relevant” bedrock acceleration–time history from a PEER database. The selected accelerogram should

basic characteristics of the local earthquake.

Probabilistic approach yield less conservative motions than the deterministic analysis.

Required to remove all fore-shocks shocks from the database –

must be independent events for probabilistic analyses.

Software such as SHAKE 2000, ERA. NERA, Cyclic v4 are available for site response analyses.

Carry out in accordance with the recommendations of NCEER

Check whether the amplifications factors recommended by IBC2000 are appropriate to this site.




5.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION

The soil investigation was carried out in three (3) Contractors:

Phase 1 – Geolab Phase 2 – Foundte Phase 3 - Majumec

Site supervision of the fieldwork was carried out by Technip’s geotechnical personnel.personnel visited the site and specified laboratory testing programmes. The scope of investigation for all three phases

300 boreholes with 14 standpipe piezometers; 98 Piezocone Cone Penetration Tests (PCPTs) 40 Test pits (TPs); 10 electrical resistivity surveys; 43 hand auger borings; associated laboratory testing.

The approximate locations of boreholes and PCPTs A summary of the significant borehole features is made to Factual Reports for descriptionwhich samples were taken and tests carried out. Plots of cone resistance, inferred undrained shear strengths presented in Appendix B . Reference should be made to Factual Reports for Penetration Test (PCPT) records giving:

Cone resistance; Sleeve friction; Friction ratio (sleeve friction / cone resistance expressed as %); Generated pore water pressure relative to hydrostatic; Inferred soil types Results of dissipation tests

Laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the main soilTests included:

i. Particle size distribution with hydrometer analyses to determine the amount of silt and clay;

ii. Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index);iii. Compaction tests;iv. Strength tests (unconfined compressive strength and p

rock fragments);v. Consolidation tests (oedometer); andvi. Chemical tests (pH, sulphates, chlorides,

Summaries of the test results and test certificates are geotechnical parameters in different ground improvement zones are presented in





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



INVESTIGATION SCOPE

was carried out in three (3) phases by the following specialist SI

Geolab (M) Sdn Bhd … (Geolab) ndtest (M) Sdn Bhd … (Foundtest)

Majumec Bina Sdn Bhd … (Majumec)

the fieldwork was carried out by Technip’s geotechnical personnel.personnel visited the site and specified laboratory testing programmes.

for all three phases comprised: with 14 standpipe piezometers;;

zocone Cone Penetration Tests (PCPTs); Test pits (TPs);

10 electrical resistivity surveys; 43 hand auger borings; and associated laboratory testing.

boreholes and PCPTs are shown on Plate 1 at the rear of

A summary of the significant borehole features is presented in Appendix A . Reference should be made to Factual Reports for descriptions of strata intersected by the boreholes and depths at which samples were taken and tests carried out.

inferred undrained shear strengths and analysis of dissipation tests . Reference should be made to Factual Reports for

) records giving: Cone resistance;

(sleeve friction / cone resistance expressed as %); Generated pore water pressure relative to hydrostatic; Inferred soil types; and Results of dissipation tests.

Laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the main soil

Particle size distribution with hydrometer analyses to determine the amount of silt

Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index); Compaction tests; Strength tests (unconfined compressive strength and point load index testing on rock fragments);

tests (oedometer); and Chemical tests (pH, sulphates, chlorides, organic contents and TDS).

test results and test certificates are presented in Factual Reports.geotechnical parameters in different ground improvement zones are presented in


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

by the following specialist SI

the fieldwork was carried out by Technip’s geotechnical personnel. SRE

rear of the text.

Reference should be of strata intersected by the boreholes and depths at

and analysis of dissipation tests are . Reference should be made to Factual Reports for PiezoCone

Laboratory tests were carried out to determine the engineering properties of the main soil types.

Particle size distribution with hydrometer analyses to determine the amount of silt

oint load index testing on

TDS).

presented in Factual Reports. Plots of geotechnical parameters in different ground improvement zones are presented in Appendix C .




6.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

6.1 Land Use Map

The site is partly developed with present. Land Use Map is shown in Figure





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

developed with kampong housing and small plantations. No natural swamps are se Map is shown in Figure 10.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

plantations. No natural swamps are




6.2 Topography

The site contains a series of ridges that trend northoutcrops. The elevations of the ridges vary to about +45m (MLSD). The highest +90m MLSD) is located on the western boundary. Sungai Pengerang flows through the site towards the sea. Its path is shown on the Geological Map (Figure 2). The ground adjacent to the ridges lower than +1.0m MLSD to +5m (MLSD). Figure 11 shows a 3D projection of the site developed from survey points imported into SURFER software.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



site contains a series of ridges that trend north-east to south-west across the site. The elevations of the ridges vary to about +45m (MLSD). The highest

located on the western boundary.

Sungai Pengerang flows through the site towards the sea. Its path is shown on the Geological

The ground adjacent to the ridges and outcrops is generally low lying with elevation+5m (MLSD).

projection of the site developed from survey points imported into SURFER


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

west across the site and rock . The elevations of the ridges vary to about +45m (MLSD). The highest outcrop (about

Sungai Pengerang flows through the site towards the sea. Its path is shown on the Geological

is generally low lying with elevations ranging from

projection of the site developed from survey points imported into SURFER




Ground level contours are shown in Figure

The majority of the site has an elevation lessachieve the platform specified at +7.5m MLSD. The areas of the site having ground (bracketed Plates):

Less than RL+1.0m MLSD Less than RL+2.0m MLSD Less than RL+2.5m MLSD Less than RL+7.5m MLSD





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground level contours are shown in Figure 12.

The majority of the site has an elevation less than +5m MLSD. Significant filling will be required to achieve the platform specified at +7.5m MLSD.

ground levels less than the following levels are shown on the

RL+1.0m MLSD (Plate 15) RL+2.0m MLSD (Plate 16)

Less than RL+2.5m MLSD (Plate 17) Less than RL+7.5m MLSD (Plate 18)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Significant filling will be required to

less than the following levels are shown on the




6.3 Generalised Ground Conditions

6.3.1 Significant Strata

Significant ground conditions, in the context of platform construction 1. Ridges and rocky outcrops

borehole logs in Factual Reports for rock types and descriptions. 2. Ground conditions in the

soils and silty and than 20m. Significant strata are identified in the Geotechnical Models in Section 7.2.

3. Peaty organic soils and o

borehole logs as part of the site.

Idealised cross sections showing distributions of soil and rock types across the site are presented as Plates 4 to 7. 6.3.2 Peaty and Organic Soils

Organic soils intersected by boreholes are tabulated below: Table 4 Organic soils intersected by boreholes

Borehole

(0.0 = GL at time of

investigation)809 817 821

824 825 828 829 835 836 839 840 841 845 846





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Generalised Ground Conditions

Significant Strata

in the context of platform construction, include:

and rocky outcrops containing weathered volcanic rocks. Refer to borehole logs in Factual Reports for rock types and descriptions.

Ground conditions in the low lying areas comprise a mixture of very soft cohesive silty and clayey sands. In places, the very soft clays extend Significant strata are identified in the Geotechnical Models in Section

Peaty organic soils and organic-enriched soils (commonly described as peaty with decayed wood present) are present over the western

Idealised cross sections showing distributions of soil and rock types across the site are presented

Peaty and Organic Soils intersected by boreholes

oreholes are tabulated below:

Organic soils intersected by boreholes

Peaty Organic Soils

reported at following depths (m) From

(0.0 = GL at time of investigation)

To

5.8 8.8 2.8 5.8 0.0 8.8

11.8 13.4 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 7.4 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

weathered volcanic rocks. Refer to borehole logs in Factual Reports for rock types and descriptions.

comprise a mixture of very soft cohesive the very soft clays extend to more

Significant strata are identified in the Geotechnical Models in Section

described on the are present over the western

Idealised cross sections showing distributions of soil and rock types across the site are presented




Table 4 cont’d. Organic soils intersected by boreholes

Borehole

(0.0 = GL at time of

investigation)847 851 853 854 855 856 857 858

The results of pH and organic contentboreholes are summarised below: Table 5

Borehole Sample depth

pH

(m) (1) 2) (

809

6.0 7.5

6.4

821

3.0 6.69.0 7.2

12.0 6.5

829

1.5 6.64.5

6.5

835

1.5 6.73.0 6.84.5

6.4

851

1.5 6.83.0

856 1.5 6.74.5 6.67.5 6.59.0





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Organic soils intersected by boreholes

Peaty Organic Soils

reported at following depths (m) From

(0.0 = GL at time of investigation)

To

0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 8.8 0.0 2.8 1.4 5.6

pH and organic content tests carried out on samples taken in summarised below:

pH

Organic Contents

Classification (see note)

% (3) (4) (5)

59.3 O

6.4 68.0 PtO

6.6 25.1 O 7.2 2.6 CO 6.5

23.7 O

6.6 81.3 Pt 6.5 58.0 O

6.7 62.8 PtO 6.8 68.4 PtO 6.4 68.3 PtO

6.8 35.8 O 5.3 O

6.7 53.5 O 6.6 82.9 Pt 6.5 7.7 O

2.1 CO


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

tests carried out on samples taken in some Zone 4A




Note: The descriptions in Column (5proposed by Landva et al, 1983. In this classification:

• Peats (Pt) are defined as having organic content > 80%• Peaty Organic soils (PtO) are defined as having organic content between 60% and 80%• Organic soils (O) are defined as having organic content between 5% and • Soils with organic contents (MO, CO) are defined as having organic content between 1 and

5%.

6.3.3 Peaty and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT results

Organic soils can be inferred from methods of analyses were used.

i. Campanella & Robertson cone resistance Appendix B4.

ii. Eslami – Fellenius (1997)

resistance vs sleeve friction independent of each other.

The Campanella & Robertson plots plotting cone resistance (qc) against the inverse of itself (friction ratio = fdispose the plot to a hyperbolicallyabscissa values through to small ordinate values at large abscissa values. The resolution of data for fine grained soils is exaggerated as opposed to the resolution of the data for cosoils. Fellenius (2009) advises that plotting the cone resistance against the inverse of itself distorts the information. This approach is included as is a widely used practice. The Eslami-Fellenius plots cone stress against sleeve friction aoriginal Begemann (1965) plots.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



5) are based on the classification of peats and organic soils

Peats (Pt) are defined as having organic content > 80% Peaty Organic soils (PtO) are defined as having organic content between 60% and 80%

anic soils (O) are defined as having organic content between 5% and Soils with organic contents (MO, CO) are defined as having organic content between 1 and

Peaty and Organic Soils inferred from PCPT results

Organic soils can be inferred from the PiezoCone Penetration Test (PCPT) results. The following methods of analyses were used.

Robertson (1988) plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a cone resistance (qc) vs friction ratio (fs/qc) plot. These results are presented in

Fellenius (1997) plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a cone sleeve friction plot. This approach plots two parameters that are

independent of each other. These results are presented in Appendix

plots follow the trend of post Begemann (1965) ) against the inverse of itself (friction ratio = fs / q

a hyperbolically-shaped plot ranging from large ordinate values at small abscissa values through to small ordinate values at large abscissa values. The resolution of data for fine grained soils is exaggerated as opposed to the resolution of the data for cosoils. Fellenius (2009) advises that plotting the cone resistance against the inverse of itself distorts the information. This approach is included as is a widely used practice.

Fellenius plots cone stress against sleeve friction and is more of a throwback


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

and organic soils

Peaty Organic soils (PtO) are defined as having organic content between 60% and 80% anic soils (O) are defined as having organic content between 5% and 60%

Soils with organic contents (MO, CO) are defined as having organic content between 1 and

results. The following

plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a lot. These results are presented in

plots where the organic soils plot in Zone 2 of a cone This approach plots two parameters that are

These results are presented in Appendix B5.

post Begemann (1965) researchers of c). This will pre-

shaped plot ranging from large ordinate values at small abscissa values through to small ordinate values at large abscissa values. The resolution of data for fine grained soils is exaggerated as opposed to the resolution of the data for coarse grained soils. Fellenius (2009) advises that plotting the cone resistance against the inverse of itself

throwback to the








_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Fig 13

Profiling Chart for BH801 Campanella & Robertson (1986)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________








_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Fig 14

Profiling Chart for BH801 Eslami & Fellenius (1997)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




6.3.4 Locations of Organic soils

Plate 20 shows the boreholes where organic soils were intersected and the CPTs where they were inferred from the profiling charts.

6.3.5 Groundwater

Contours of water levels observed in the boreholes during drilling are plotted belowwere measured during of the boreholes and may be influenced by the wash boring operations. They are not established ground water levels. : Figure 15 Water level contours (measurements made during dril ling)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Locations of Organic soils

shows the boreholes where organic soils were intersected and the CPTs where they were inferred from the profiling charts.

Contours of water levels observed in the boreholes during drilling are plotted belowwere measured during of the boreholes and may be influenced by the wash boring operations. They are not established ground water levels.

Water level contours (measurements made during dril ling)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

shows the boreholes where organic soils were intersected and the CPTs where they

Contours of water levels observed in the boreholes during drilling are plotted below. These levels were measured during of the boreholes and may be influenced by the wash boring operations.




The water levels contoured in Figure summarised below. Boreholes where standpipes were installed are shown shaded. Table 6

Borehole Coords

Northing (1) (2)

BH 1 -77205.327 BH 2 -77009.302 BH 3 -76993.837 BH 4 -77009.302 BH 5 -76809.302 BH 6 -76809.302 BH 7 -76775.089 BH 8 -76809.302 BH 9 -76809.302 BH 10 -76807.517 BH 11 -76779.845 BH 12 -76609.302 BH 13 -76609.302 BH 14 -76609.302 BH 15 -76571.030 BH 16 -76631.432 BH 17 -76609.295 BH 18 -76609.302 BH 19 -76590.893 BH 20 -76602.117 BH 21 -76609.302 BH 22 -76609.302 BH 23 -76409.302 BH 24 -76409.302 BH 25 -76409.302 BH 26 -76409.302 BH 27 -76415.560 BH 28 -76409.302 BH 29 -76409.302 BH 30 -76377.346 BH 31 -76409.302 BH 32 -76409.302 BH 33 -76409.302 BH 34 -76417.332 BH 35 -76409.302 BH 36 -76411.342 BH 37 -76397.210 BH 38 -76209.302 BH 39 -76209.302 BH 40 -76209.302 BH 41 -76209.302 BH 42 -76209.302 BH 43 -76209.302 BH 44 -76209.302 BH 45 -76209.302





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



he water levels contoured in Figure 15 and observed during borehole drilling and are . Boreholes where standpipes were installed are shown shaded.

Ground Surface

Reported water level

Easting RL(m, LSD) RL(m. LSD) (3) (4) (5)

64701.710 3.010 -0.790 66916.939 3.988 2.238 64904.984 5.330 3.230 64516.939 4.043 0.643 67066.939 2.988 2.488 66716.939 4.120 4.120 66347.412 4.044 4.044 65916.939 4.451 3.951 65516.939 4.256 4.256 65150.700 3.056 2.556 64709.188 5.061 0.961 67316.939 3.366 2.616 66916.939 3.005 0.605 66516.939 2.365 0.265 66127.933 2.158 0.158 65708.908 4.106 2.906 65516.939 3.815 2.015 65316.939 2.963 1.163 65141.850 3.722 1.922 64889.212 3.432 1.332 64716.939 16.991 15.691 64516.939 7.214 3.214 67716.939 2.960 2.660 67516.939 2.553 2.553 67116.939 3.455 3.455 66916.939 2.373 2.373 66733.758 2.391 -0.409 66516.939 2.561 1.311 66316.939 2.117 0.817 66168.287 2.780 1.580 65916.939 2.497 0.097 65716.939 4.150 2.450 65516.939 4.389 2.289 65323.288 4.401 2.101 65116.939 3.296 3.296 64897.294 4.649 4.349 64716.265 6.200 5.900 68116.939 2.283 1.483 67716.939 2.110 0.310 67316.939 2.422 2.422 67116.939 3.353 3.353 66916.939 2.762 -0.238 66716.939 1.634 1.134 66516.939 3.111 2.461 66316.939 2.847 0.847


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

observed during borehole drilling and are . Boreholes where standpipes were installed are shown shaded.




Table 6 cont’d

Borehole Coords

Northing (1) (2)

BH 46 -76239.207 BH 47 -76247.344 BH 48 -76209.302 BH 49 -76209.302 BH 50 -76126.339 BH 51 -76209.302 BH 52 -76209.302 BH 53 -76009.302 BH 54 -76009.295 BH 55 -76009.302 BH 56 -75995.336 BH 57 -76009.302 BH 58 -76009.302 BH 59 -75992.344 BH 60 -76022.171 BH 61 -76009.302 BH 62 -76009.302 BH 63 -76007.186 BH 64 -76009.302 BH 65 -76005.349 BH 66 -76009.302 BH 67 -76009.302 BH 68 -76009.302 BH 69 -76045.495 BH 70 -76054.348 BH 71 -76009.302 BH 72 -75809.302 BH 73 -75809.302 BH 74 -75809.302 BH 75 -75809.302 BH 76 -75809.302 BH 77 -75809.302 BH 78 -75820.360 BH 79 -75852.170 BH 80 -75835.347 BH 81 -75809.302 BH 82 -75809.302 BH 83 -75809.302 BH 84 -75782.342 BH 85 -75809.302 BH 86 -75809.302 BH 87 -75772.352 BH 88 -75809.302 BH 89 -75809.302 BH 90 -75709.302 BH 91 -75609.302 BH 92 -75607.163 BH 93 -75609.302 BH 94 -75609.302





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground Surface



66165.263 1.856 -0.244 65896.221 2.372 2.372 65716.939 2.867 -0.233 65516.939 5.895 4.695 65218.354 9.871 9.871 64916.939 4.917 4.917 64516.939 8.211 8.211 68316.939 2.875 1.975 68116.939 2.803 0.703 67916.939 2.831 0.331 67737.245 0.917 -0.483 67516.939 2.709 0.209 67316.939 3.053 1.553 67090.138 1.597 0.397 66961.275 2.035 0.935 66716.939 1.798 1.348 66516.939 2.167 2.167 66272.259 1.776 -7.224 66116.939 1.995 1.995 65858.574 2.292 2.292 65716.939 2.224 0.724 65516.939 3.529 0.329 65316.939 4.516 3.016 65126.270 19.560 13.560 64922.560 3.140 1.140 64716.939 23.501 21.501 68516.939 4.894 3.794 68116.939 4.000 1.700 67916.939 2.912 2.612 67716.939 2.381 2.381 67516.939 2.223 1.023 67316.939 2.597 2.597 67128.107 1.495 -0.805 66903.216 1.991 1.991 66711.341 1.353 -4.647 66516.939 2.425 2.425 66316.939 2.135 0.135 66116.939 2.145 2.145 65884.257 1.312 -1.688 65716.939 1.941 -1.559 65516.939 2.312 1.012 65264.570 8.691 7.391 64916.939 12.505 9.005 64516.939 44.471 44.471 65116.939 33.612 32.612 68316.939 4.384 0.384 68164.246 4.537 1.337 67916.939 2.722 2.222 67716.939 1.099 -1.301


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 6 cont’d

Borehole Coords

Northing (1) (2)

BH 95 -75609.302 BH 96 -75609.302 BH 97 -75609.302 BH 98 -75609.302 BH 99 -75595.148

BH 100 -75609.302 BH 101 -75609.302 BH 102 -75609.302 BH 103 -75609.302 BH 104 -75609.302 BH 105 -75609.302 BH 106 -75609.302 BH 107 -75609.302 BH 108 -75409.302 BH 109 -75409.302 BH 110 -75409.302 BH 111 -75409.302 BH 112 -75409.302 BH 113 -75409.302 BH 114 -75409.302 BH 115 -75409.302 BH 116 -75413.174 BH 117 -75420.163 BH 118 -75409.302 BH 119 -75409.302 BH 120 -75409.302 BH 121 -75409.302 BH 122 -75409.302 BH 123 -75409.302 BH 124 -75409.302 BH 125 -75409.302 BH 126 -75409.302 BH 127 -75172.341 BH 128 -75209.302 BH 129 -75209.302 BH 130 -75209.302 BH 131 -75209.302 BH 132 -75209.302 BH 133 -75209.302 BH 134 -75178.186 BH 135 -75209.302 BH 136 -75209.302 BH 137 -75209.302 BH 138 -75209.302 BH 139 -75209.302 BH 140 -75209.302 BH 141 -75009.302 BH 142 -75009.302 BH 143 -75009.302





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground Surface



67516.939 2.467 1.797 67316.939 3.441 2.941 67116.939 1.770 1.020 66916.939 1.618 1.618 66702.261 2.234 0.934 66516.939 2.498 0.898 66316.939 2.554 0.754 66116.939 2.787 0.987 65916.939 3.989 3.789 65716.939 3.193 2.693 65516.939 4.099 -1.901 65316.939 11.551 8.551 64716.939 12.510 9.510 68516.939 5.871 5.871 68316.939 5.072 5.072 68116.939 4.314 1.514 67916.939 3.490 3.490 67716.939 2.486 2.236 67516.939 3.054 2.584 67316.939 5.498 4.248 67116.939 3.444 2.644 66871.228 1.633 0.833 66712.249 3.316 -0.184 66516.939 4.522 3.822 66316.939 2.895 2.795 66116.939 2.867 1.667 65916.939 2.882 2.882 65716.939 3.447 1.347 65316.939 3.381 0.681 65116.939 3.848 3.848 64916.939 9.941 9.941 64516.939 36.891 35.691 68310.155 5.566 4.816 68116.939 4.760 4.260 67916.939 2.724 1.924 67716.939 2.313 2.313 67516.939 2.518 2.068 67316.939 4.719 3.719 67116.939 12.729 8.229 66684.270 6.516 5.516 66316.939 3.735 3.735 66116.939 3.455 2.955 65916.939 3.209 3.209 65516.939 26.505 24.205 65116.939 4.681 4.681 64716.939 29.996 28.496 68516.939 9.492 7.992 68316.939 5.289 4.789 68116.939 3.766 3.766


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 6 cont’d

Borehole Coords

Northing (1) (2)

BH 144 -75009.302 BH 145 -75009.302 BH 146 -75009.302 BH 147 -75009.302 BH 148 -75009.302 BH 149 -75009.302 BH 150 -75009.302 BH 151 -75009.302 BH 152 -75009.302

BH153(A) -74928.200 BH153(D) -74920.339 BH153 (G) -74932.344

BH 154 -75009.302 BH 155 -74809.302 BH 156 -74809.302 BH 157 -74809.172 BH 158 -74795.194 BH 159 -74830.347 BH 160 -74809.302 BH 161 -74809.302 BH 162 -74809.302 BH 163 -74809.302 BH 164 -74809.302 BH 165 -74809.302 BH 166 -74809.302 BH 167 -74809.302 BH 168 -76209.172 BH 169 -75623.343 BH 170 -75152.340 BH 171 -77302.348 BH 172 -77209.302 BH 173 -76609.302 BH 174 -76409.302 BH 501 -74609.302 BH 502 -74609.302 BH 503 -74609.316 BH 504 -74609.331 BH 505 -74609.302 BH 506 -74609.302 BH 507 -74609.302 BH 508 -74609.302 BH 509 -74609.302 BH 510 -74409.302 BH 511 -74409.302 BH 512 -74409.302 BH 513 -74409.302 BH 514 -74409.302 BH 515 -74409.302 BH 516 -74409.302





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground Surface



67916.939 3.590 -1.310 67716.939 2.583 2.583 67516.939 2.771 -0.629 67316.939 4.308 3.608 66916.939 21.210 12.210 66516.939 36.121 33.421 66116.939 4.921 4.621 65716.939 20.916 20.116 65316.939 21.171 15.421 64939.251 17.910 16.41 64917.188 18.485 NE 64937.144 20.706 NE 64516.939 11.567 NE 68516.939 7.653 5.653 68316.939 13.561 11.561 68163.280 8.564 8.064 67684.213 3.378 3.378 67532.151 2.674 2.174 67316.939 2.838 0.688 67116.939 5.408 4.258 66716.939 36.999 31.699 66316.939 8.466 6.466 65916.939 26.561 24.561 65516.939 10.685 7.885 65116.939 6.615 6.115 64716.939 4.760 4.760 68767.296 4.906 3.706 68753.209 5.246 4.746 68737.228 11.308 10.508 66944.249 10.511 8.511 67116.939 5.759 4.469 68766.939 4.496 3.966 69169.621 3.826 3.266 68522.500 3.839 3.339 68116.939 3.560 3.060 67716.939 7.587 4.387 67316.939 2.159 0.659 66916.939 7.588 4.688 66516.939 16.411 14.111 66116.939 38.509 33.709 65716.939 23.966 20.466 65316.939 6.499 6.199 68316.939 6.002 5.302 67916.939 3.557 3.057 67516.939 12.105 8.605 67316.939 22.801 19.701 67116.939 4.547 2.147 66716.939 16.901 13.701 66316.939 10.011 8.611


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 6 cont’d

Borehole Coords

Northing (1) (2)






_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground Surface



65916.939 32.999 30.799 65516.939 8.146 7.346 65116.939 16.129 15.229 68516.939 6.409 5.609 68116.939 7.588 6.488 67716.939 2.714 1.914 67316.939 18.816 9.416 66916.939 1.572 1.172 66516.939 7.183 4.783 66116.939 21.710 17.110 65716.939 11.202 9.802 65316.939 7.532 5.732 68316.939 17.500 11.500 67916.939 3.581 2.481 67516.939 3.579 1.629 67116.939 6.799 4.749 66716.939 4.510 2.410 66316.939 10.251 7.851 65916.939 3.996 1.646 65516.939 2.973 2.373 65116.939 7.011 5.611 68516.939 23.843 17.543 68316.580 40.246 34.946 68116.939 9.464 5.664 67716.939 28.200 18.800 67316.939 11.674 7.174 66916.939 1.604 0.204 66516.939 3.833 3.433 66116.939 3.961 0.911 65716.939 1.612 0.762 65316.939 0.976 0.376 68516.939 36.028 32.228 68116.939 8.769 8.469 67916.939 13.397 8.297 67516.939 16.198 14.148 67116.939 5.701 3.751 66716.939 1.562 -0.538 66316.939 1.826 0.026 65916.939 6.176 4.876 65516.939 0.736 0.436 65116.939 0.763 0.163 68766.939 27.801 24.301 68595.376 42.270 36.270 68016.939 25.991 24.991 67316.739 1.950 1.450 66516.939 2.223 0.223 65716.939 3.324 3.274 64316.939 5.632 5.632 64017.298 6.877 5.527


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 6 cont’d

Borehole Coords

Northing (1) (2)






_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground Surface



64316.939 19.912 13.772 63916.939 24.462 18.722 64096.176 17.061 10.911 64316.261 48.501 41.351 63716.939 9.616 8.176 64176.248 39.273 32.423 63516.939 1.920 -1.270 64316.314 37.605 31.485 63971.289 46.405 45.115 63716.254 2.214 1.014 63316.315 1.540 0.640 62916.939 1.302 0.942 64146.261 11.076 10.006 63516.939 1.744 1.744 63116.939 1.304 0.864 62516.939 1.019 -3.231 64316.939 34.227 34.227 63916.263 3.138 2.048 63316.939 1.756 -3.794 62916.939 1.470 0.110 64116.939 15.219 14.749 63716.344 1.698 0.338 63116.939 1.556 0.456 62716.939 2.311 2.311 64295.344 5.465 3.815 63849.343 1.949 0.829 63316.939 2.640 -3.510 62916.939 2.216 1.176 62516.340 16.634 16.634 64716.331 17.510 16.300 64316.323 4.430 4.230 64168.322 4.423 3.273 63699.330 1.916 0.716 63088.320 2.760 1.610 64716.291 10.821 9.171 64316.939 5.330 4.180 63916.939 1.393 0.603 63316.939 2.555 1.305 62916.328 1.689 0.609 64916.939 9.055 8.035 64516.939 4.610 3.950 64116.339 0.973 -0.297 63716.939 1.656 0.246 64316.299 1.189 0.069 63916.939 1.166 1.166 64616.306 21.557 20.447 64716.279 12.015 10.775 64316.320 13.610 12.880 64716.333 0.613 -3.257


_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Table 6 cont’d

Borehole Coords

Northing (1) (2)

BH 852 -74685.353 BH 853 -74109.358 BH 854 -74009.124 BH 855 -73808.899 BH 856 -73809.356 BH 857 -73859.362 BH 858 -73609.302 BH 859 -73409.373 BH 860 -73453.361 BH 861 -77372.300 BH 862 -77009.406 BH 863 -76409.354

6.3.6 Contour Thicknesses of Soft Clays

Contours of thickness of very soft clay layers having are shown on Plate 10. The most significant deposits of very soft clays (N<4) site (Phase 3 investigation) in the valley formed by the outcrop the ridge separating Phases 1 and 3. are present in this area. (Table 4)

Soft clays are present in Phase 2 The compressibility properties of the soft clays in Phases 1 and 3 are respectively. The clays in the compared with the clays in the southern part





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground Surface



62234.325 60.257 56.107 62366.318 1.410 0.780 63317.354 1.797 1.357 63717.335 1.767 1.767 62916.339 2.069 1.109 62293.231 0.902 -1.548 64116.285 1.427 1.427 63316.939 1.493 0.073 62531.305 1.283 -0.007 64133.334 3.372 2.302 64116.323 5.573 3.103 63516.321 2.762 1.552

Contour Thicknesses of Soft Clays

Contours of thickness of very soft clay layers having SPT(N) < 4 and cone resistances

of very soft clays (N<4) are present towards the western end of the ) in the valley formed by the outcrop along the western boundary and

the ridge separating Phases 1 and 3. Thicknesses vary to greater than 20m. Peatare present in this area. (Table 4)

oft clays are present in Phase 2. Thicknesses vary to about 14m.

The compressibility properties of the soft clays in Phases 1 and 3 are presented the western end of the site are more compressible and thicker

the southern part of the proposed site.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

and cone resistances < 1MPa

present towards the western end of the along the western boundary and

Peaty organic soils

presented in Appendix C western end of the site are more compressible and thicker




6.3.7 Contours of SPT(N) > 50

SPT N values greater than 50 are significant

(i) They indicate very hard clays and very dense sand(ii) Strata with N>50 may require ripping in cuts to increase production rates.(iii) Piled foundations will refuse at relatively shallow penetrations into N>50 strata.

Contours of N>50 levels are shown in

The deepest N>50 strata (to RL-located in the valley between the high outcrop along the western boundary and the between Phases 1 and 3. Piles driven to set in this area may





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Contours of SPT(N) > 50

SPT N values greater than 50 are significant for the following reasons:

indicate very hard clays and very dense sandy soils. Strata with N>50 may require ripping in cuts to increase production rates.Piled foundations will refuse at relatively shallow penetrations into N>50 strata.

50 levels are shown in Figure 16.

-35m MLSD) are present over the western part of the site and is located in the valley between the high outcrop along the western boundary and the

in this area may penetrate more than 45m.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Strata with N>50 may require ripping in cuts to increase production rates. Piled foundations will refuse at relatively shallow penetrations into N>50 strata.

35m MLSD) are present over the western part of the site and is located in the valley between the high outcrop along the western boundary and the rocky ridges




6.3.8 Resistivity Surveys

Ten (10) resistivity surveys were carried out Layered resistivity profiles are tabulated below. They have been extracted from the Geolab report (Reference 2a.) Table 7

Resistivity Survey

From (m)ERT-1 GL

0.54 1.35 3.13 7.58 10.2

ERT-2 GL 1.84 5.81 12.52 18.38

ERT-3 GL 1.09 1.47 1.90 5.69 9.16 11.28

ERT-4 GL 0.55 0.95 3.40 6.18 16.96

ERT-5 GL 0.5 1.33 3.31 4.26 23.6





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Resistivity Surveys

Ten (10) resistivity surveys were carried out using the Wenner 4-pin method.

Layered resistivity profiles are tabulated below. They have been extracted from the Geolab report

Layer Resistivity (ohm-metres)

(m) To (m) 0.64 308 1.35 998 3.13 490 7.58 607

10.20 411 39.6 236

1.84 367 5.81 144

12.52 57 18.38 28 39.6 50

1.09 887 1.47 335 1.90 62 2.20 28 9.16 54

11.28 33 39.6 1830

0.55 215 0.95 70 3.40 40 6.18 30

16.96 387 38.6 100

0.5 169

1.33 32 3.31 30 4.26 74 23.6 345 39.6 357


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Layered resistivity profiles are tabulated below. They have been extracted from the Geolab report




Table 7 cont’d

Resistivity Survey

From ERT-6 GL

0.57 2.39 4.62 5.39 17.64

ERT-501 GL 0.78 1.62 4.86 7.34 7.75

ERT-502 GL 0.59 1.62 5.00 11.17 18.75

ERT-801 GL 0.67 1.55 2.25 5.45 15.16

ERT-802 GL 0.44 1.23 7.98 14.7 24.01

Factors that affect resistivity are

i. Type of earth (eg, clay, loam, sandstone, granite). ii. Stratification – different layers of soiliii. Moisture content

however value of about 20% the rate of decrease is much less. iv. Chemical composition and concentration of dissolved salt. v. Presence of metal and concrete pipes, tanks, large slabsvi. Topography - rugged topography has a similar effect on resistivity measur

as local surface resistivity variation caused by weathering and moisture.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Layer Resistivity (ohm-metres)

to 0.57 1028 2.39 296 4.62 367 5.39 341

17.64 76 39.6 342

0.78 84 1.62 54 4.86 17 7.34 34 7.75 1003

39.60 1535

0.59 23 1.03 17 5.00 28

11.17 27 18.75 38 39.6 2626

0.67 134 1.55 39 2.25 10 5.45 1.5

15.16 2.1 39.60 44

0.44 13 1.23 21 7.98 16 14.7 16

24.01 14 39.60 72

are as follows:

Type of earth (eg, clay, loam, sandstone, granite). different layers of soil.

Moisture content - resistivity may fall rapidly as the moisture content however value of about 20% the rate of decrease is much less. Chemical composition and concentration of dissolved salt. Presence of metal and concrete pipes, tanks, large slabs.

rugged topography has a similar effect on resistivity measuras local surface resistivity variation caused by weathering and moisture.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

resistivity may fall rapidly as the moisture content increases,

rugged topography has a similar effect on resistivity measurement as local surface resistivity variation caused by weathering and moisture.




Typical values of resistivity are given below: Table 8 Typical Resistivities for Soil and Water (Source: Earthing Techniques)

Type of Soil & Water

Typical Resistivity

Clay Clay & sand mixtures

Shale, slate and sandstone

Peat loam and mud Sand

Ridge gravel Solid granite

Seawater

Lake water Resistivity values for clays and sand mixtureindicated below. Table 9 Effect of moisture content on Resistivities for sand s and clays (Source: Earthing Techniques)

Moisture content

(% by weight)

0 2.5 5

10 15 20 30





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Typical values of resistivity are given below:

Typical Resistivities for Soil and Water (Source: Earthing Techniques)

Typical Resistivity (Ωm)

Typical Range (Ωm)

40 8 to 70 100 4 to 300 120 10 to 100

150 5 to 250 2000 200 to 3000

15000 3000 to 30000 25000 10000 to 50000

2 0.1 to 10 250 100 to 400

for clays and sand mixtures are very dependent on the moisture content

Effect of moisture content on Resistivities for sand s and clays (Source: Earthing Techniques)

Typical Resistivity

(Ωm)

Clay mixed with sand Silica sands

>100000 1500 >100000430 50000185 2100105 63063 29042


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conductors

Good

Bad

on the moisture content as

Silica sands -

>100000 50000 2100 630 290

-




7.0 GROUND IMPROVEMENT

7.1 Zoning

Based on the results of the investigation, extent of ground improvement required to Table 10

Major Zones

Sub-

Zones

1

1A

1B

2

3

4

4A

4B

The Zoning Plan is shown in Figure the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations are expected.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



GROUND IMPROVEMENT

Based on the results of the investigation, four (4) major zones have been identifiedextent of ground improvement required to construct the platform to RL+7.5m, MLSD



Types of

Ground improvement

Cut


None

Fill



Cut

(rock)


Fill

(soft clays)


Fill



Fill

(very soft clays)


The Zoning Plan is shown in Figure 17 below. The zonal boundaries have been determined from the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations are expected.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

zones have been identified relating to the construct the platform to RL+7.5m, MLSD:

Types of

Ground improvement





Major improvement. Preloading with PVDs. Vacuum Consolidation (VC) Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.

below. The zonal boundaries have been determined from the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations are expected.




Map of

Geotechnical Models are given below for For each zone, a scatter plot of N values with depth is provided. Lower bound N values Geotechnical Model are provided for preliminary The purpose of these Geotechnical Models is more detailed site investigation (typically Geotechnical Models to be used for detailed design.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 17 Map of Ground Improvement Zones

Geotechnical Models are given below for soil zones.

For each zone, a scatter plot of N values with depth is provided. Lower bound N values preliminary design.

The purpose of these Geotechnical Models is to carry out preliminary design studies only. A typically on a 50m to 100m grid) is required to develop

Geotechnical Models to be used for detailed design.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

For each zone, a scatter plot of N values with depth is provided. Lower bound N values and

preliminary design studies only. A on a 50m to 100m grid) is required to develop




7.2 Geotechnical Models

7.2.1 Zone 1A - Cut

A scatter plot of N values with elevation is given below. Lower bound SPT(N) values are superimposed and are proposed for preliminary design.

-40.0

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.00 4 8 12 16

RL

(m)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



al Models


Figure 18

Proposed

Platform Level

RL7.50m

Hard

CLAY/SILT

Very stiff

CLAY/SILT

Stiff CLAY/SILT

Firm CLAY /SILT

16 20 24 28 32 36 40

RAPID - Zone 1A - Cut

(Ground Level > +7.50m MLSD)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

A scatter plot of N values with elevation is given below. Lower bound SPT(N) values are

Proposed

Platform Level

RL7.50m

Hard

Stiff CLAY/SILT

/SILT

44 48 52

SPT "N"

BH21BH50BH52BH69BH71BH87BH88BH89BH90BH106BH107BH125BH133BH138BH141BH148BH149BH151BH152BH153BH155BH156BH157BH162BH163BH164BH165BH170BH171BH506BH507BH508BH512BH513BH515BH516BH517BH518BH519BH523BH526BH527BH529BH534BH538BH539BH540BH541BH542BH548BH549BH550BH551BH558




A Geotechnical Model based on

Table 11

Strata Generalised

Description of Soil Strata

Assumed Elevation

RL (m)

Depth below GL

(m)(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Firm

CLAY/SILT

7.50 0.006.50 1.005.50 2.004.50 3.00

2 Sti ff

CLAY/SILT

4.00 3.502.00 5.500.00 7.50-2.00 9.50

3 Very Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-3.00 10.50-4.00 11.50-5.50 13.00-7.50 15.00

4 Hard

CLAY/SILT

-8.50 16.00-9.50 17.00

-12.00 19.50-14.50 22.00-19.50 27.00-24.50 32.00-30.00 37.50

Key (5) Based on the DESIGN SPT(N) Profile superimposed on the measles plot.

value of N is 50. (6) Cu denotes undrained cohesion, C

Butler range. (7) Φu denotes undrained angle of internal friction. (8) Eu denotes undrained elastic Modulus.

Eu = 200 x cu for very soft clays & siltsEu = 350 x cu for firm clays & siltsEu = 400 x cu for stiff clays & siltsEu = 450 x cu for very stiff clays & siltsEu = 500 x cu for hard clays & silts

(9) c’ denotes effective cohesion to be used in effective stress analysis. (10) Φ’ denotes effective angle of internal friction to be used in effecti (11) E’ denotes drained modulus of Elasticity. E‘= 0.87 x E (12) γ denotes saturated unit weight





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



A Geotechnical Model based on the lower bound N values is given below

Depth below GL

(m)

SPT(N) Nmax=50

Parameters for preliminary designCu

(kPa) φφφφu

(deg) Eu

(kPa) c'

(kPa) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

0.00 7 35 0 12250 2

1.00 7 35 0 12250 2

2.00 8 40 0 14000 2

3.00 8 40 0 14000 2

3.50 9 45 0 18000 3

5.50 10 50 0 20000 3

7.50 13 65 0 26000 3

9.50 16 80 0 32000 3

10.50 18 90 0 40500 5

11.50 20 100 0 45000 5

13.00 23 115 0 51750 5

15.00 30 150 0 67500 5

16.00 36 180 0 90000 10

17.00 45 225 0 112500 10

19.50 50 250 0 125000 10

22.00 50 250 0 125000 10

27.00 50 250 0 125000 10

32.00 50 250 0 125000 10

37.50 50 250 0 125000 10

Based on the DESIGN SPT(N) Profile superimposed on the measles plot. Maximum assumed

denotes undrained cohesion, Cu = 5xN kPa has been used. This is the average of Stroud &

denotes undrained angle of internal friction. Φu = 0 has been assigned to clays and silts.

denotes undrained elastic Modulus. clays & silts

for firm clays & silts for stiff clays & silts for very stiff clays & silts for hard clays & silts

c’ denotes effective cohesion to be used in effective stress analysis.

’ denotes effective angle of internal friction to be used in effective stress analysis.

E’ denotes drained modulus of Elasticity. E‘= 0.87 x Eu for Poisson’s ratio = 0.3.

denotes saturated unit weight


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

for preliminary design

(kPa) φφφφ'

(deg) E'

(kPa) γγγγ

(kN/m 3) (10) (11) (12)

24 10535 17

24 10535 17

24 12040 17

24 12040 17

26 15480 18

26 17200 18

26 22360 18

26 27520 18

28 34830 19

28 38700 19

28 44505 19

28 58050 19

35 77400 20

35 96750 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

Maximum assumed

= 5xN kPa has been used. This is the average of Stroud &




7.2.2 Zone 1B - Fill


-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.00 4 8 12 16

RL

(m)

RAPID

(Ground Level < 7.50m)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Figure 19

Firm CLAY/SILT

Stiff CLAY/SILT

Very stiff

CLAY/SILT

Hard CLAY/SILT

16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

SPT "N"

RAPID - Zone 1B - Fill

(Ground Level < 7.50m)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


48 52

SPT "N" BH1 BH2BH3 BH4BH5 BH6BH8 BH9BH10 BH11BH12 BH13BH15 BH16BH17 BH19BH20 BH22BH23 BH24BH25 BH26BH32 BH33BH34 BH35BH36 BH37BH38 BH39BH40 BH41BH42 BH49BH51 BH53BH54 BH55BH56 BH57BH58 BH59BH60 BH68BH70 BH72BH73 BH74BH75 BH77BH78 BH91BH92 BH93BH94 BH95BH96 BH105BH108 BH109BH110 BH111BH112 BH113BH114 BH117BH118 BH127BH128 BH129BH130 BH131BH132 BH134BH139 BH142BH143 BH144BH145 BH146BH147 BH158BH159 BH160BH161 BH166BH167 BH168BH169 BH501BH502 BH503BH504 BH505BH509 BH510BH511 BH514BH520 BH521BH522 BH525BH530 BH531BH532 BH533BH535 BH536BH537 BH544BH545 BH546BH547 BH552BH553 BH554BH555 BH561BH562 BH563BH801 BH802BH812 BH820BH827 BH834BH838 BH843Design





Table 12

Strata Generalised


Assumed Elevation

RL (m)

Depth below GL

(m) (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Firm

CLAY/SILT

7.00 0.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 -1.50 8.50 -4.00 11.00 -6.50 13.50 -9.00 16.00

2 Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-10.00 17.00 -11.50 18.50 -13.00 20.00 -14.50 21.50

3 Very Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-15.50 22.50 -17.00 24.00 -19.00 26.00 -21.00 28.00

4 Hard

CLAY/SILT

-22.00 29.00 -23.00 30.00 -28.00 35.00 -34.00 41.00 -40.00 47.00

Key (5) Based on the DESIGN SPT(N) Profile superimposed on the measles plot. Maximum assumed




(9) c’ denotes effective cohesion to be used in effective stress analysis. (10) Φ’ denotes effective angle of internal friction to be used in effective stress analysis. (11) E’ denotes drained modulus of Elasticity. E‘= 0.87 x E (12) γ denotes saturated unit weight





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




below GL SPT(N) Nmax=50


(kPa) φφφφu

(deg) Eu

(kPa) c'

(kPa) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

5 25 0 8750 2

5 25 0 8750 2

5 25 0 8750 2

5 25 0 8750 2

5 25 0 8750 2

6 30 0 10500 2

7 35 0 12250 2

8 40 0 14000 2

9 45 0 18000 3

11 55 0 22000 3

13 65 0 26000 3

15 75 0 30000 3

17 85 0 38250 5

20 100 0 45000 5

25 125 0 56250 5

32 160 0 72000 5

37 185 0 92500 10

50 250 0 125000 10

50 250 0 125000 10

50 250 0 125000 10

50 250 0 125000 10




denotes undrained elastic Modulus. for very soft clays & silts for firm clays & silts for stiff clays & silts for very stiff clays & silts for hard clays & silts






_________________________________________________________________________________________________

for preliminary design φφφφ'

(deg) E'

(kPa) γγγγ

(kN/m 3) (10) (11) (12)

24 7525 17

24 7525 17

24 7525 17

24 7525 17

24 7525 17

24 9030 17

24 10535 17

24 12040 17

26 15480 18

26 18920 18

26 22360 18

26 25800 18

28 32895 19

28 38700 19

28 48375 19

28 61920 19

35 79550 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20






7.2.3 Zone 3


-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.00 4 8 12 16

RL

(m)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Figure 20

Very soft

to

soft CLAY

Firm CLAY/SILT

Stiff CLAY/SILT

Very stiff

CLAY/SILT

Hard CLAY/SILT

20 24 28 32 36 40 44

RAPID - Zone 3


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


44 48 52SPT "N"

BH7BH14BH18BH27BH28BH29BH30BH31BH43BH44BH45BH46BH47BH48BH61BH62BH63BH64BH65BH66BH67BH76BH79BH80BH81BH82BH83BH84BH85BH86BH97BH98BH99BH100BH101BH102BH103BH104BH116BH119BH120BH121BH122BH123BH124BH135BH136BH137BH150BH159Design





Table 13

Strata Generalised


Assumed Elevation

RL (m)

Depth below GL

(m)(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Very Soft to

Soft CLAY/SILT

3.00 0.001.00 2.00-1.00 4.00-3.00 6.00-5.00 8.00-6.50 9.50-8.00 11.00

2 Firm

CLAY/SILT

-9.00 12.00-11.00 14.00-13.00 16.00

3 Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-14.00 17.00-16.00 19.00-18.00 21.00

4 Very Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-19.00 22.00-21.00 24.00-23.00 26.00-25.00 28.00

5 Hard

CLAY/SILT

-26.00 29.00-28.00 31.00-30.00 33.00-35.00 38.00-40.00 43.00










_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Depth below GL

(m)

SPT(N) Nmax=50


(kPa) φφφφu

(deg) Eu

(kPa) c'

(kPa)(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

0.00 2 10 0 2000 1

2.00 2 10 0 2000 1

4.00 2 10 0 2000 1

6.00 2 10 0 2000 1

8.00 3 15 0 3000 1

9.50 4 20 0 4000 1

11.00 4 20 0 4000 1

12.00 5 25 0 8750 2

14.00 6 30 0 10500 2

16.00 8 40 0 14000 2

17.00 10 50 0 20000 3

19.00 12 60 0 24000 3

21.00 16 80 0 32000 3

22.00 17 85 0 38250 5

24.00 21 105 0 47250 5

26.00 25 125 0 56250 5

28.00 30 150 0 67500 5

29.00 50 250 0 125000 10

31.00 50 250 0 125000 10

33.00 50 250 0 125000 10

38.00 50 250 0 125000 10

43.00 50 250 0 125000 10






ve angle of internal friction to be used in effective stress analysis.




_________________________________________________________________________________________________

for preliminary design c'

(kPa) φφφφ'

(deg) E'

(kPa) γγγγ

(kN/m 3) (10) (11) (12)

22 1720 16

22 1720 16

22 1720 16

22 1720 16

22 2580 16

22 3440 16

22 3440 16

24 7525 17

24 9030 17

24 12040 17

26 17200 18

26 20640 18

26 27520 18

28 32895 19

28 40635 19

28 48375 19

28 58050 19

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20






7.2.4 Zone 4A - Peaty Organic Soils and Very Soft Clays


PEAT ORGANIC

SOILS

average

thickness 5m

-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.00 4 8 12 16

RL

(m)

RAPID -





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Peaty Organic Soils and Very Soft Clays


Figure 21

Firm

CLAY/SILT

Stiff

CLAY/SILT

PEAT ORGANIC

(To be removed if area is to be developed)

lowest PEAT level investigated

Hard CLAY/SILT

Very soft

to

soft CLAY

average

thickness 5m

16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Zone 4A (PEAT ORGANIC SOILS)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


developed)

investigated

44 48 52SPT "N"

BH809

BH817

BH821

BH824

BH825

BH828

BH829

BH835

BH836

BH839

BH840

BH841

BH845

BH846

BH847

BH851

BH853

BH854

BH855

BH856

BH857

BH858

Design





Table 14

Strata Generalised


Assumed Elevation

RL (m)

Depth below GL

(m)(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 PEATY

ORGANIC MATERIALS

1.50 0.00-1.00 2.50-3.50 5.00-4.00 5.50

2 Very Soft to

Soft CLAY/SILT

-4.50 6.00-6.00 7.50-8.00 9.50

-10.00 11.50-12.00 13.50-14.00 15.50-16.00 17.50

3 Firm

CLAY/SILT

-18.00 19.50-20.00 21.50-22.00 23.50

4 Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-23.50 25.00-26.00 27.50-28.50 30.00

5 Hard

CLAY/SILT

-29.00 30.50-32.00 33.50-35.00 36.50-38.00 39.50










_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Depth below GL

(m)

SPT(N) Nmax=50


(kPa) φφφφu

(deg) Eu

(kPa) c'

(kPa)(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

0.00

PEAT - Average thickness 5m, lowest level investigated RL(To be removed if area is to be developed)

2.50

5.00

5.50

6.00 1 5 0 1000 1

7.50 1 5 0 1000 1

9.50 1 5 0 1000 1

11.50 1 5 0 1000 1

13.50 2 10 0 2000 1

15.50 3 15 0 3000 1

17.50 4 20 0 4000 1

19.50 5 25 0 8750 2

21.50 7 35 0 12250 2

23.50 9 45 0 15750 2

25.00 10 50 0 20000 3

27.50 12 60 0 24000 3

30.00 15 75 0 30000 3

30.50 50 250 0 125000 10

33.50 50 250 0 125000 10

36.50 50 250 0 125000 10

39.50 50 250 0 125000 10







denotes drained modulus of Elasticity. E‘= 0.87 x Eu for Poisson’s ratio = 0.3.



_________________________________________________________________________________________________

for preliminary design c'

(kPa) φφφφ'

(deg) E'

(kPa) γγγγ

(kN/m 3) (10) (11) (12)

Average thickness 5m, lowest level investigated RL -11.65m (To be removed if area is to be developed)

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 1720 15

20 2580 15

20 3440 15

24 7525 17

24 10535 17

24 13545 17

26 17200 18

26 20640 18

26 25800 18

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20






7.2.5 Zone 4B – Very soft Clays


-40.0

-35.0

-30.0

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.00 4 8 12 16

RL

(m)

RAPID





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Very soft Clays – organic in places


Figure 22

Very soft

to

soft CLAY

Firm

CLAY/SILT

Stiff

CLAY/SILT

Very stiff

CLAY/SILT

Hard

CLAY/SILT

16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

RAPID - Zone 4B


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


44 48 52SPT "N"

BH813

BH814

BH816

BH818

BH822

BH826

BH830

BH844

BH859

BH860

Design





Table 15

Strata Generalised


Assumed Elevation

RL (m)

Depth below GL

(m)(1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Very Soft to

Soft CLAY/SILT

1.50 0.00-0.50 2.00-3.00 4.50-5.50 7.00-8.00 9.50

-10.50 12.00-13.00 14.50-15.50 17.00-18.00 19.50

2 Firm

CLAY/SILT

-19.00 20.50-21.00 22.50-23.00 24.50

3 Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-23.50 25.00-26.00 27.50-28.50 30.00

4 Very Stiff

CLAY/SILT

-29.00 30.50-30.50 32.00-32.00 33.50

5 Hard

CLAY/SILT

-32.50 34.00-35.00 36.50-37.50 39.00-40.00 41.50





(9) c’ denotes effective cohesion to be used in effective stress analysis.(10) Φ’ denotes effective angle of internal friction to be used in effective stress analysis.(11) E’ denotes drained modulus of Elasticity. E‘= 0.87 x E(12) γ denotes saturated unit weight





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Depth below GL

(m)

SPT(N) Nmax=50


(kPa) φφφφu

(deg) Eu

(kPa) c'

(kPa)(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

0.00 1 5 0 1000 1

2.00 1 5 0 1000 1

4.50 1 5 0 1000 1

7.00 1 5 0 1000 1

9.50 1 5 0 1000 1

12.00 1 5 0 1000 1

14.50 2 10 0 2000 1

17.00 3 15 0 3000 1

19.50 4 20 0 4000 1

20.50 5 25 0 8750 2

22.50 7 35 0 12250 2

24.50 8 40 0 14000 2

25.00 9 45 0 18000 3

27.50 12 60 0 24000 3

30.00 15 75 0 30000 3

30.50 16 80 0 36000 5

32.00 18 90 0 40500 5

33.50 20 100 0 45000 5

34.00 50 250 0 125000 10

36.50 50 250 0 125000 10

39.00 50 250 0 125000 10

41.50 50 250 0 125000 10





c’ denotes effective cohesion to be used in effective stress analysis. e angle of internal friction to be used in effective stress analysis.

E’ denotes drained modulus of Elasticity. E‘= 0.87 x Eu for Poisson’s ratio = 0.3. denotes saturated unit weight


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Parameters for preliminary design c'

(kPa) φφφφ'

(deg) E'

(kPa) γγγγ

(kN/m 3) (10) (11) (12)

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 860 15

20 1720 15

20 2580 15

20 3440 15

24 7525 17

24 10535 17

24 12040 17

26 15480 18

26 20640 18

26 25800 18

28 30960 19

28 34830 19

28 38700 19

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20

35 107500 20






7.2.6 Fill Parameters

Fill materials comprise Type A, B and C fill (refer Section installation. The fill parameters should be determined from laboratory testing on from the compacted fill. For preliminary design, the following fill p Table 16 Fill parameters

Fill

Material (1)

Compacted earth FILL (Types A and B, Section 8.5)

Uncompacted earth FILL (Type C, Section 8.5)

Free draining sand layer (for PVD installation)

7.2.7 Fill Settlement

The fill will undergo self-weight settlement with time. Tomlinson (2001) reports on selfbeen measured over a 10 year research period It is possible that the compacted fill may settle in excess of 2% of the fill In areas of deep filling (eg Zone 4of filling and surcharging), then 100mm. This is in addition to the settlement of the soft





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Type A, B and C fill (refer Section 8.5) and free draining sand fill for PVD

should be determined from laboratory testing on undisturbed samples

For preliminary design, the following fill parameters are proposed:

C’

(kPa) (2)

ΦΦΦΦ’

(deg) (3)

E’

(MPa) (4)

5

28

25

0.1

25

10

0.1

28

15

weight settlement with time.

) reports on self-weight settlement of compacted and uncompacted fills that have research period in the UK.

It is possible that the compacted fill may settle 0.5% of its height whereas the uncompacted fill the fill height.

(eg Zone 4A) where the fill height may exceed 12m (ie 5m of R&R and 7m of filling and surcharging), then self-weight fill settlements may be in the order of 50mm to 100mm. This is in addition to the settlement of the soft clays loaded by the fill.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

) and free draining sand fill for PVD

undisturbed samples taken

γγγγ

(kN/m 3) (5)

18.0

16.5

17.0

weight settlement of compacted and uncompacted fills that have

settle 0.5% of its height whereas the uncompacted fill

) where the fill height may exceed 12m (ie 5m of R&R and 7m fill settlements may be in the order of 50mm to




7.3 Zone 3 Analysis

7.3.1 Platform Settlements

(i) Immediate and Consolidation Settlement

Platform settlements have been

a) First principle primary 43, 67 and 76 with testing. Refer Appendix D1

Elastic settlement analyses applied to PCPTcalculate settlemesettlements. Refer Appendix D2

Method 1 calculates settlement using

i. Sc = Σ mii. mv = 1/Miii. M = α x q

Method 2 calculates settlements using

iv. Sc = Σ ug

v. mv = 1/Evi. E = 100 x vii. su = (qc –

where ug = mv = coefficient of volume decrease (m dσ = change in stress causing settlement (kPa) H = thickness of E = elastic soil modulus M = constrained modulus α = ratio of constrained modulus to cone resistance (assume 3) su = undrained shear strength (kPa) qc = cone resistance (kPa) σ’vo = effective vertical stress (kPa) Nk = b) Plaxis 2D finite element analysis of BH27 to obtain settlement vs time

relationship. Refer Appendix c) Calculation of Unit Settlement Factor (USF) for each spreadsheet calculation.

USF is calculated as the total settlement divided by the thickness of very soft clay (Tdefined as soils having SPT(N)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Analysis

Settlements

Immediate and Consolidation Settlement

Platform settlements have been calculated using the following modus operandi:

primary consolidation analyses applied to boreholes with average compressibility parameters derived from laboratory

Refer Appendix D1

Elastic settlement analyses applied to PCPT 12, 16, 29, 33, 35, 40 & 42 calculate settlements using two different methods and taking an average of

Refer Appendix D2

Method 1 calculates settlement using the following relationships mv x dσ x H M x qc

Method 2 calculates settlements using the following relationships g x mv x dσ x H

E 00 x su

– σ’vo) / Nk

= geological factor (assume 1.25) = coefficient of volume decrease (m2 / MN) = change in stress causing settlement (kPa) = thickness of compressible stratum = elastic soil modulus = constrained modulus = ratio of constrained modulus to cone resistance (assume 3)= undrained shear strength (kPa) = cone resistance (kPa) = effective vertical stress (kPa) = cone factor (17.5 assumed)

Plaxis 2D finite element analysis of BH27 to obtain settlement vs time . Refer Appendix E1.

Calculation of Unit Settlement Factor (USF) for each spreadsheet calculation. USF is calculated as the total settlement divided by the platform height (Hdivided by the thickness of very soft clay (Tsoft clay). In this context, soft clay is defined as soils having SPT(N) < 4 and cone resistance < 0.6MPa.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

consolidation analyses applied to boreholes BH8, 27, 29, compressibility parameters derived from laboratory

12, 16, 29, 33, 35, 40 & 42 to and taking an average of these

relationships

= ratio of constrained modulus to cone resistance (assume 3)

Plaxis 2D finite element analysis of BH27 to obtain settlement vs time

Calculation of Unit Settlement Factor (USF) for each spreadsheet calculation. divided by the platform height (Hplatform)

). In this context, soft clay is MPa.




d) Calculation of consolidation settlements (S

intersected by boreholes Sc = USF x Hplatform

Our experience in Malaysia is that the USF can vary from 10mm to 30mm for each metre of fill placed and for each metre of highly compressible The results of borehole analyses are tabulated below: Table 17

BH Ground Level

Thickness of soft

clay

RL (m) (m)

(1) (2) (3)

BH 8 4.45 4.5

BH 27 2.39 16.5

BH 29 2.12 7.5

BH 43 1.63 6.0

BH 67 3.53 12.0

BH 76 2.22 10.5





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Calculation of consolidation settlements (Sc) different ground conditions intersected by boreholes using the following approximate relationship:

platform x Tsoft clay

Our experience in Malaysia is that the USF can vary from 10mm to 30mm for each metre of fill highly compressible, non-organic, cohesive soils.

The results of borehole analyses are tabulated below:

Thickness of soft

clay Platform

thickness Estimated Settlement

Unit Settlement

Factor (m) (m) (mm) mm/m/m (3) (4) (5) (6)

4.5 8.0 735 20 .5 8.0 1985 15

7.5 8.0 1060 18

6.0 8.0 1850 18 .0 8.0 1575 16

10.5 8.0 1420 17

Average 17


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

t ground conditions using the following approximate relationship:

Our experience in Malaysia is that the USF can vary from 10mm to 30mm for each metre of fill




The results of PCPT analyses are tabulated below: Table 18

CPT

Settlement Settlement

Method 1 (m)

Method 2 (m)

(1) (2) (3)

12 1.64 1.32

16 1.55 1.32

29 0.79 0.63

33 1.67 1.40

35 1.01 0.82

40 1.04 0.86

42 0.79 0.67

Plaxis analysis was carried out for 8m thick represented by BH27. The results are presented in Appendix Plate E1/4. The results of the 2D finite element analyses are summarised below:

i. Estimated consolidation BH27).

ii. Unit Settlement Factor =

iii. Time to achieve 90% consolidation without PVDs is approximately

assumes a relatively low estimated from back-analysis of dissipation tests)

iv. Time to achieve 90% consolidation without PVDs at days. In reality, we would expect a faster consolidation time.

In summary

i. From the borehole analyses, ii. From the CPT analyses, iii. From the Plaxis analysis (BH27),





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The results of PCPT analyses are tabulated below:

Settlement Average

Settlement

Thickness of soft Clay

Fill Thickness Unit

Settlement Factor (USF)

mm/m/mMethod 2

(m) (m)

(m) (m)

(3) (4) (5) (6)

1.32 1.48

14.0

10.0

1.32 1.43 9.0 10.0

0.63 0.71 8.0 10.0

1.40 1.54 9.0 10.0

0.82 0.91 6.0 10.0

0.86 0.95 9.0 10.0

0.67 0.73 6.0 10.0

Average

Plaxis analysis was carried out for 8m thick platform fill placed over ground conditions represented by BH27. The results are presented in Appendix E1. Input parameters are given on

element analyses are summarised below:

consolidation settlement (Sc) = 2.0m (same as spreadsheet analysis for

Unit Settlement Factor = 2.0 / 8m fill / 16.5m of very soft clay = 0.015m/m/m

0% consolidation without PVDs is approximately 6000 relatively low coefficient of permeability (Kv) of 1.25x10-9 m/sec which was

analysis of dissipation tests).

Time to achieve 90% consolidation without PVDs at 1.2m centers is approximately 250 In reality, we would expect a faster consolidation time.

From the borehole analyses, Sc = 0.017 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay From the CPT analyses, Sc = 0.013 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay From the Plaxis analysis (BH27), Sc = 0.015 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Unit Settlement

Factor (USF)

mm/m/m

(7)

11

16

9

17

15

11

12

13

fill placed over ground conditions . Input parameters are given on

(same as spreadsheet analysis for

m/m/m.

6000 days. This m/sec which was

1.2m centers is approximately 250




Upper and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were analysed for the soft ground in Zone 3 using the following generalised relationship: Sc = 0.010 to 0.020 x H platform x T Upper and Lower Bound settlement estimates for platform loading of soft clays in Zone 3 summarised in Table 19 below:

Borehole Ground

Elevation

Highly compressible strata

(N (m) From

(1) (2) (3)

2.988 2.0 5 8 4.451 3.0 9 4.256 3.0 18 2.963 0.0 27 2.391 0.0 29 2.117 0.0 43 1.634 0.0 62 2.167 0.0 67 3.529 3.0 76 2.223 0.0 79 1.991 0.0 85 1.941 3.0 86 2.312 0.0 97 1.770 0.0 98 1.618 0.0 99 2.234 0.0

102 2.787 0.0 103 3.989 0.0 104 3.193 0.0 112 2.486 7.5 115 3.444 0.0 116 1.633 0.0 119 2.895 0.0 120 2.867 3.0 121 2.882 3.0 122 3.447 0.0 123 3.381 0.0 124 3.848 0.0 135 3.735 0.0 136 3.455 0.0 137 3.209 0.0





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Upper and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were analysed for the soft ground in Zone 3 using the following generalised relationship:

x Tsoft clay .... (settlement in metres).

Upper and Lower Bound settlement estimates for platform loading of soft clays in Zone 3


(N<4)

Thickness of soft

clay Tsoft clay

Filling required

Fill + surcharge

Hplatform To (m) (m) (m)

(4) (5) (6) (7)

6.0 4.0 4.51 7.01 4.5 1.5 3.05 5.55 6.0 3.0 3.24 5.74 3.0 3.0 4.54 7.04

16.5 16.5 5.11 7.61 7.5 7.5 5.38 7.88 6.0 6.0 5.87 8.37 9.0 9.0 5.33 7.83

12.0 9.0 3.97 6.47 10.5 10.5 5.28 7.78 10.5 10.5 5.51 8.01 9.0 6.0 5.56 8.06 6.0 6.0 5.19 7.69 6.0 6.0 5.73 8.23

10.5 10.5 5.88 8.38 9.0 9.0 5.27 7.77

15.0 15.0 4.71 7.21 10.5 10.5 3.51 6.01 9.0 9.0 4.31 6.81

10.5 3.0 5.01 7.51 3.0 3.0 4.06 6.56

10.5 10.5 5.87 8.37 9.0 9.0 4.61 7.11

10.5 7.5 4.63 7.13 11.0 8.0 4.62 7.12 10.5 10.5 4.05 6.55 4.5 4.5 4.12 6.62 7.5 7.5 3.65 6.15 6.0 6.0 3.77 6.27 7.5 7.5 4.05 6.55 6.0 6.0 4.29 6.79


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Upper and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were analysed for the soft ground in Zone 3

Upper and Lower Bound settlement estimates for platform loading of soft clays in Zone 3 are

Estimated LOWER Bound

Settlement

Estimated UPPER Bound

Settlement USF=0.010 USF=0.020

(m) (m) (8) (9)

0.28 0.56 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.34 0.21 0.42 1.26 2.51 0.59 1.18 0.50 1.00 0.70 1.41 0.58 1.16 0.82 1.63 0.84 1.68 0.48 0.97 0.46 0.92 0.49 0.99 0.88 1.76 0.70 1.40 1.08 2.16 0.63 1.26 0.61 1.23 0.23 0.45 0.20 0.39 0.88 1.76 0.64 1.28 0.53 1.07 0.57 1.14 0.69 1.38 0.30 0.60 0.46 0.92 0.38 0.75 0.49 0.98 0.41 0.81




Borehole Ground

Elevation


(N (m) From

(1) (2) (3) 150 4.921 0.0 159 2.674 0.0 524 1.570 0.0 543 1.604 0.0 556 0.736 0.0 557 0.763 0.0

For the ground conditions analysed, consolidation settlements generated by platform loading are estimated to range from about 0.5m to 1. (ii) Secondary Compression

The secondary compression index

∆∆∆∆Hs = Hf*Cαααα/(1+ef)*log(t 2/t1)

where ∆Hs = secondary compression settlementHf = thickness of soft clay after primary consolidationCα = coefficient of secondary consolidation (ef = void ratio after primary consolidationt2 / t1 = 30

The secondary compression estimated from the analyses of the Zone 3 boreholes range from less than 50mm to about 250mm.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




(N<4)

Thickness of soft

clay Tsoft clay

Filling required

Fill + surcharge

Hplatform To (m) (m) (m)

(4) (5) (6) (7) 3.0 3.0 2.58 5.08 6.0 6.0 4.83 7.33 6.0 6.0 5.93 8.43 3.0 3.0 5.90 8.40 3.0 3.0 6.76 9.26 2.0 2.0 6.74 9.24

Min Max

Average

For the ground conditions analysed, consolidation settlements generated by platform loading are to range from about 0.5m to 1.0m.

Secondary Compression

index was estimated using the following 1st principle

= secondary compression settlement = thickness of soft clay after primary consolidation = coefficient of secondary consolidation (assumed 0.024) = void ratio after primary consolidation

estimated from the analyses of the Zone 3 boreholes range from less than 50mm to about 250mm.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


Settlement


Settlement USF=0.010 USF=0.020

(m) (m) (8) (9)

0.15 0.30 0.44 0.88 0.51 1.01 0.25 0.50 0.28 0.56 0.18 0.37

0.08 0.17 1.26 2.51 0.51 1.02

For the ground conditions analysed, consolidation settlements generated by platform loading are

principle relationship

estimated from the analyses of the Zone 3 boreholes range from




7.3.2 Ground Improvement Methods

In Zone 3, soft cohesive soils range in thickness to 17m and constructing a platform. Methods of improvement include:

(i) Preloading in stages with surcharging. PVDs are used to expedite settlement.(ii) Combination of preloading and vacuum consolidation.(iii) Stone columns

The design of ground improvement systems will depend on the permissible postsettlement criteria for the platform which will be determined in the FEED stage.

Methods (i) and (ii) can be designed 100% of platform consolidation settlement.generated by secondary compressionheight as a first approximation). Method (iii) has higher residual settlements.assessed on receipt of permissible platform settlement criteria. To demonstrate the philosophy behind preloadingthe ground conditions represented by BH27. Two fill cases were analysed and tgenerated. They are shown in Figure 23. Curve A is the settlement vs time curve for primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 1.66m and will occur over a period of about 500 days. The fill elevation after settlement is about RL+7.5m (ie ground level of RL2.5m + 6.7m of fill – 1.66m of settlement). Curve B is the settlement vs time curve for primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 1.95m and will occur over a period of about 500 days. To achieve a settlement of 1.66m (target platform settlement), then this will be achieved by maintaining the 8.0m for a period of about 170 days. The corresponding % consolidation of the surcharge is about 85%. Adding additional surcharge can accelerate the platform The Plaxis generated settlement of 1.lower bound analyses of BH27 (Table 19)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 3)

range in thickness to 17m and will need to be improved prior to

Methods of improvement include:

Preloading in stages with surcharging. PVDs are used to expedite settlement.Combination of preloading and vacuum consolidation.

improvement systems will depend on the permissible postsettlement criteria for the platform which will be determined in the FEED stage.

designed to minimise future settlements by surcharging to achieve 100% of platform consolidation settlement. Future settlements are then (a) creep settlements

secondary compression and (b) self weight settlement of the fill (about 0.5% of fill

hod (iii) has higher residual settlements. The suitability of stone columns will need to be assessed on receipt of permissible platform settlement criteria.

philosophy behind preloading, Plaxis 2D analyses have been carried out ground conditions represented by BH27. Refer shaded borehole in Table 19.

Two fill cases were analysed and theoretical settlement vs time curves A and B . They are shown in Figure 23.

is the settlement vs time curve for 6.7m of fill added to a ground level of RL+2.5m. The primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 1.66m and will occur over a period of about 500 days. The fill elevation after settlement is about RL+7.5m (ie ground level of RL2.5m +

1.66m of settlement).

is the settlement vs time curve for 8.0m of fill added to a ground level of RL+2.5m. The primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 1.95m and will occur over a period of

settlement of 1.66m (target platform settlement), then this will be achieved by maintaining the 8.0m for a period of about 170 days. The corresponding % consolidation of the surcharge is about 85%.

Adding additional surcharge can accelerate the platform settlement.

The Plaxis generated settlement of 1.7m falls within the range of 1.3m to 2.5m from s of BH27 (Table 19).


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

need to be improved prior to

Preloading in stages with surcharging. PVDs are used to expedite settlement.

improvement systems will depend on the permissible post-handover

by surcharging to achieve creep settlements

and (b) self weight settlement of the fill (about 0.5% of fill

The suitability of stone columns will need to be

have been carried out for

heoretical settlement vs time curves A and B have been

f fill added to a ground level of RL+2.5m. The primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 1.66m and will occur over a period of about 500 days. The fill elevation after settlement is about RL+7.5m (ie ground level of RL2.5m +

8.0m of fill added to a ground level of RL+2.5m. The primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 1.95m and will occur over a period of

settlement of 1.66m (target platform settlement), then this will be achieved by maintaining the 8.0m for a period of about 170 days. The corresponding %

1.3m to 2.5m from upper and




85%

170 days

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

0 100 200

Est

imat

ed S

ettle

men

t (m

m)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 23

Settlement vs Time Curves Zone 3 – BH27

170 days

300 400 500 600 700

Curve A - 6.8m fill Curve B - 8.0m fill


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

800 900 1000

Time (days)

A

B




Preloading with PVDs

Modus operandi for preloading and surcharging include:

a) Strip 300mm over the subgraderequired to facilitate dewatering.

b) Place geotextile c) Add 1m of earth fill over

Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs). In very soft subgradeto achieve high compaction levels in this material

d) Place 0.5m of free draining sand. e) Install PVDs at 1.2m centres o

the underside of the soft clay. f) Install Settlement Markers on a 50m grid over the area to be filled. g) Carry out a baseline level survey of all Settlement Markers. h) Place and compact fill at the rate not

height of 2m. i) Monitor Settlement Markers every 2 days. Record settlements and plot

settlement vs time for each marker. j) Allow 1 month to consolidate. k) Repeat activities h) to j) until +7.5m MLSD. l) Fill placed above the

compacted to achieve a dry density ratio greater than 93% of Modified Proctor. m) Fill placed from RL+6.0m to 7.5m MLSD should be compacted to achieve a dry

density ratio greater than 95% of Modified Proctor. n) Add 3m of additional fill above RL+7.5m for surcharging. o) Maintain the surcharge until at least 90% of the primary consolidation has been

achieved using Asaoka (1978) or Tan (1992) or equivalent interpolation method.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



operandi for preloading and surcharging include:

mm over the subgrade to be preloaded. Cut drainage channels as required to facilitate dewatering.

Place geotextile over the stripped subgrade to facilitate trafficking

Add 1m of earth fill over the geotextile to form a stable surfacePrefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs). In very soft subgrade, it will not be possible to achieve high compaction levels in this material.

Place 0.5m of free draining sand.

at 1.2m centres on an equilateral triangular grid. PVDs to extend to the underside of the soft clay.

Install Settlement Markers on a 50m grid over the area to be filled.

Carry out a baseline level survey of all Settlement Markers.

Place and compact fill at the rate not exceeding 0.5m per week to a maximum

Monitor Settlement Markers every 2 days. Record settlements and plot settlement vs time for each marker.

Allow 1 month to consolidate.

Repeat activities h) to j) until +7.5m MLSD.

Fill placed above the sand drainage layer to RL+6.0m MLSD should be compacted to achieve a dry density ratio greater than 93% of Modified Proctor.

Fill placed from RL+6.0m to 7.5m MLSD should be compacted to achieve a dry density ratio greater than 95% of Modified Proctor.

of additional fill above RL+7.5m for surcharging.

Maintain the surcharge until at least 90% of the primary consolidation has been achieved using Asaoka (1978) or Tan (1992) or equivalent interpolation method.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

to be preloaded. Cut drainage channels as

to facilitate trafficking.

the geotextile to form a stable surface to install it will not be possible

n an equilateral triangular grid. PVDs to extend to


exceeding 0.5m per week to a maximum

Monitor Settlement Markers every 2 days. Record settlements and plot

sand drainage layer to RL+6.0m MLSD should be compacted to achieve a dry density ratio greater than 93% of Modified Proctor.

Fill placed from RL+6.0m to 7.5m MLSD should be compacted to achieve a dry





7.4 Zone 4A Analysis



Zone 4A contains peaty organic soils. assumed that the depth of Remove and Replace (R&R) is limited to 5m (for practical reasons).


a) First principle boreholes BH829, 835, 836, 847, 856, 858 parameters derived from

b) Elastic settlement analyses applied to

810, 811, 812, 814 approaches and taking an average of the

c) Plaxis 2D finite element analysis of BH

relationship. Refer Appendix E2. d) Calculation of Unit

USF is calculated as the total settlement divided by the divided by the thickness of very soft claydefined as soils having SPT(N)

e) Calculation of consolidation settlements (S

the following approximate relationship:

Sc = USF x Hplatform

The results of borehole analyses are tabulated below: Table 20

BH Ground Level

Remove & Replace

RL (m)

(1) (2) (3)

BH 829 2.64

5.0BH 835 1.92 5.0

BH 836 2.76 2.8

BH 847 1.17 2.8

BH 856 2.07 5.0

BH 858 1.43 5.0





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Analysis

Settlements


Zone 4A contains peaty organic soils. In the calculation of platform settlements, we have assumed that the depth of Remove and Replace (R&R) is limited to 5m (for practical reasons).


First principle primary consolidation settlement (Sc) analyses applied to BH829, 835, 836, 847, 856, 858 with average

parameters derived from laboratory testing. Refer Appendix D3.

Elastic settlement analyses applied to cone resistances measured in 810, 811, 812, 814 and 817 to calculate settlements using approaches and taking an average of these settlements. Refer Appe


Unit Settlement Factor (USF) for each spreadsheet calculation. is calculated as the total settlement divided by the platform height

divided by the thickness of very soft clay (Tsoft clay). In this context, soft clay is defined as soils having SPT(N) < 4 and cone resistance < 0.6MPa

Calculation of consolidation settlements (Sc) for different ground conditions the following approximate relationship:



Remove & Replace

Thickness of soft

clay Platform +

SURCHARGE Estimated Settlement

Settlement

(m) (m) (mm) (3) (4) (5) (6)

5.0 4.0 10.0 2068 5.0 2.5 10.0 1299 2.8 12.2 10.0 3133 2.8 7.7 10.0 2318 5.0 4.5 10.0 2433 5.0 8.5 10.0 2770

Average


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the calculation of platform settlements, we have assumed that the depth of Remove and Replace (R&R) is limited to 5m (for practical reasons).

analyses applied to average compressibility

cone resistances measured in PCPT 807, using two different

settlements. Refer Appendix D4.

to obtain settlement vs time

for each spreadsheet calculation. orm height (Hplatform)

). In this context, soft clay is 0.6MPa.

) for different ground conditions using

Unit Settlement

Factor mm/m/m

(7)

52 52 26 30 54 33

41





CPT Ground Level

Removal & Replacement

(m) RL (m)

(1) (2) (3)

807 1.33 5.0

810 1.52 5.0

811 1.61 5.0

812 2.05 5.0

814 2.34 5.0

817 2.42 5.0

In summary

i. From the borehole analyses, ii. From the CPT analyses,





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Removal & Replacement

Thickness of soft

clay Platform

thickness

Estimated Settlement Method 1


(m) (m) (m) (m)(4) (5) (6) (7)

6.0 10.0 1.74 1.7211.0 10.0 2.75 2.726.0 10.0 2.42 2.958.0 10.0 2.36 2.404.0 10.0 1.53 1.918.0 10.0 2.28 2.53

From the borehole analyses, Sc = 0.041 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay From the CPT analyses, Sc = 0.034 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


Average Settlement Methods

1 & 2

Unit Settlement

Factor (m) (m) mm/m/m

) (8) (9)

1.72 1.73 29 2.72 2.74 25 2.95 2.69 45 2.40 2.38 30 1.91 1.72 43 2.53 2.41 30

Average 34




Upper and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were using the following generalised relationship: Sc = 0.030 to 0.050 x H platform x T Upper and Lower Bound settlement estimates for platform loading of soft clays in Zone 3 are summarised below:

Table 22

Borehole Ground

Elevation Highly compressible

strata (N< 4) (m) From To

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1.920 1.5 11.5 809 817 1.304 0.0 10.0 821 1.756 0.0 16.5 824 1.698 0.0 9.0 825 1.556 0.0 13.5 828 1.949 0.0 6.5 829 2.640 0.0 9.0 835 1.916 0.0 7.5 836 2.760 0.0 15.0 839 1.393 0.0 7.5 840 2.555 0.0 9.0 841 1.689 0.0 12.0 845 1.656 0.0 6.0 846 1.189 0.0 6.0 847 1.166 0.0 10.5 851 0.613 0.0 6.0 853 1.410 0.0 6.0 854 1.797 0.0 9.0 855 1.767 0.0 12.0 856 2.069 0.0 9.5 857 0.902 0.0 4.5 858 1.427 0.0 13.5





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Upper and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were analysed for the soft ground in Zone 3 using the following generalised relationship:

x Tsoft clay .... (settlement in metres).


Thickness of peaty organic material

Thickness of R & R

Thickness of soft clay

Tsoft clay Filling

required surcharge

(m) (m) (m) (m)

(5) (6) (7) (8)

8.5 5.58 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 6.20

10.4 5.0 11.5 5.74 5.8 5.0 4.0 5.80 5.8 5.0 8.5 5.94 5.8 5.0 1.5 5.55 7.4 5.0 4.0 4.86 5.8 5.0 2.5 5.58 2.8 2.8 12.2 4.74 0.5 0.5 7.0 6.11 2.8 2.8 6.2 4.95 2.8 2.8 9.2 5.81 2.8 2.8 3.2 5.84 2.8 2.8 3.2 6.31 2.8 2.8 7.7 6.33 2.8 2.8 3.2 6.89 2.8 2.8 3.2 6.09 1.5 1.5 7.5 5.70 1.5 1.5 10.5 5.73 8.8 5.0 4.5 5.43 2.8 2.8 1.7 6.60 4.2 4.2 9.3 6.07

Average


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

analysed for the soft ground in Zone 3


Fill + surcharge

Hplatform


Settlement


Settlement (m) USF=0.030 USF=0.050

(m) (m) (9) (9) (10)

8.08 2.06 3.43 8.70 1.83 3.04 8.24 2.84 4.74 8.30 1.00 1.66 8.44 2.15 3.59 8.05 0.36 0.60 7.36 0.88 1.47 8.08 0.61 1.01 7.24 2.65 4.42 8.61 1.81 3.01 7.45 1.38 2.31 8.31 2.29 3.82 8.34 0.80 1.34 8.81 0.85 1.41 8.83 2.04 3.40 9.39 0.90 1.50 8.59 0.82 1.37 8.20 1.85 3.08 8.23 2.59 4.32 7.93 1.07 1.78 9.10 0.46 0.77 8.57 2.39 3.99

Min 0.36 0.60 Max 2.84 4.74

Average 1.53 2.55




(ii) Secondary Compression

The secondary compression index ∆∆∆∆Hs = Hf*Cαααα/(1+ef)*log(t 2/t1)


The secondary compression estimated from the analyses of the Zone 4A boreholes range from less than 50mm to about 200mm.


Ground improvement methods for Zone 4A

i. Dewater and remove peaty organic soils to a ii. Place geotextile iii. Place and compact fill to subgrade level. iv. Construct platform in stages as per Section v. Add 5m of surcharge vi. Maintain surcharge until 90% of consolidation settlement has





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




index was estimated using the following 1st principle relationship

secondary compression settlement = thickness of soft clay after primary consolidation = coefficient of secondary consolidation (assumed 0.038) = void ratio after primary consolidation

estimated from the analyses of the Zone 4A boreholes range from less than 50mm to about 200mm.

Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4A)

Ground improvement methods for Zone 4A comprise:

emove peaty organic soils to a maximum depth of 5m.

Place geotextile over the stripped subgrade to facilitate trafficking.

Place and compact fill to subgrade level.

Construct platform in stages as per Section 7.3.2.

of surcharge.

Maintain surcharge until 90% of consolidation settlement has occurred.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


estimated from the analyses of the Zone 4A boreholes range from

depth of 5m.

over the stripped subgrade to facilitate trafficking.

occurred.




7.5 Zone 4B Analysis



Platform settlements have been calculated using the following

f) First principle boreholes BH81parameters derived from laboratory testing.

g) Elastic settlement analyses applied to

822, 826, 828, and 834and taking an average of the

h) Plaxis 2D finite element analysis of BH

relationship. Refer Appendix i) Calculation of Unit

USF is calculated as the total settlement divided by the divided by the thickness of very soft claydefined as soils having SPT

j) Calculation of consolidation

the following approximate relationship:

Sc = USF x Hplatform

The results of borehole analyses are tabulated below: Table 22

BH Ground Level

Thickness of soft

clay

RL (m) (m)

(1) (2) (3)

BH 813 1.54 12.0BH 814 1.30 17.0BH 816 1.74 18.0BH 818 1.02 13.5BH 830 2.22 21.0BH 859 1.49 15.0





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Analysis

Platform Settlements



First principle primary consolidation settlement (Sc) analyses applied to 13, 814, 816, 818, 830, 859 with average

parameters derived from laboratory testing. Refer Appendix D5.

Elastic settlement analyses applied to cone resistances measured in and 834 to calculate settlements using two different

and taking an average of these settlements. Refer Appendix D6.


Unit Settlement Factor (USF) for each spreadsheet calculation. is calculated as the total settlement divided by the platform height

divided by the thickness of very soft clay (Tsoft clay). In this context, soft clay is defined as soils having SPT(N) < 4 and cone resistance < 0.6MPa

consolidation settlements (Sc) for different ground conditions using the following approximate relationship:



Thickness of soft

clay Platform +

SURCHARGE Estimated Settlement

Unit Settlement

Factor (m) (m) (mm) mm/m/m (3) (4) (5) (6)

.0 12.0 3538 25

.0 12.0 4387 22 8.0 12.0 4574 21

.5 12.0 3789 23 21.0 12.0 4975 20 15.0 12.0 4053 23

Average 22


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

analyses applied to average compressibility

cone resistances measured in PCPT 815, two different approaches

to obtain settlement vs time

for each spreadsheet calculation. latform height (Hplatform)

). In this context, soft clay is MPa.

for different ground conditions using





CPT Ground Level

Thickness of soft

clayRL (m) (m)

(1) (2) (3)

815 2.63 13.0822 0.95 4.5826 1.35 7.0828 0.89 13.0834 2.41 8.0

* Low USF of 11 not included in average calculation

Plaxis analysis was carried out for a 1BH830. The results are presented in Appendix The results of the 2D finite element analyses are summarised below:

1. Estimated settlement = 4.98m derived from the spreadsheet analysis for BH830.

2. Unit Settlement Factor = 3. Time to achieve 90% consolidation without PVDs is

based on a relatively low coefficient of permeability (K) of 1.25x 10was estimated from a back

4. Time to achieve 90% consolidation with PVDs at 1.2m c/c is about

reality, we would expect a faster construction time. In summary

iii. From the borehole analyses, iv. From the CPT analyses, v. From the Plaxis analysis





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Thickness of soft

clay Platform

thickness




1 & 2 (m) (m) (m) (m) (3) (4) (5) (6)

.0 10.0 2.60 2.53 2.54.5 10.0 1.18 1.05 1.127.0 10.0 1.97 1.85 1.91

13.0 10.0 2.38 2.52 2.458.0 10.0 0.93 0.78 0.85

Average* Low USF of 11 not included in average calculation

was carried out for a 12m thick fill placed over ground conditions represented by

The results are presented in Appendix E2. Input parameters are given on Plate E2/

The results of the 2D finite element analyses are summarised below:

Estimated settlement = 5.72m. This compares with an estimated settlement of 8m derived from the spreadsheet analysis for BH830.

Unit Settlement Factor = 5.72m / 12m fill / 21m of very soft clay = 0.02

Time to achieve 90% consolidation without PVDs is greater than 10 years. This ibased on a relatively low coefficient of permeability (K) of 1.25x 10was estimated from a back-analysis of the PCPT dissipation test results.

Time to achieve 90% consolidation with PVDs at 1.2m c/c is about d expect a faster construction time.

From the borehole analyses, Sc = 0.022 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay From the CPT analyses, Sc = 0.023 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay From the Plaxis analysis (BH830), Sc = 0.023 x Hplatform x Tsoft clay


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


1 & 2

Unit Settlement

Factor (m) mm/m/m (7) (8)

2.57 20 1.12 25 1.91 27 2.45 19 0.85 11

Average 23*

fill placed over ground conditions represented by

E2/5.

compares with an estimated settlement of

m fill / 21m of very soft clay = 0.023m/m/m

greater than 10 years. This is based on a relatively low coefficient of permeability (K) of 1.25x 10-9 m/sec. This

analysis of the PCPT dissipation test results.

Time to achieve 90% consolidation with PVDs at 1.2m c/c is about 420 days. In




Upper and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were analysed for the soft ground in Zone 4 using the following generalised relationship: Sc = 0.020 to 0.030 x H platform x T The results are summarised in Table

Borehole Ground

Elevation


(N

(m) From

(1) (2) (3)

1.540 0.0 813

814 1.302 0.0

816 1.744 0.0

818 1.019 0.0

822 1.470 0.0

826 2.311 0.0

830 2.216 0.0

844 0.973 0.0

859 1.493 0.0

860 1.283 0.0





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were analysed for the soft ground in Zone 4 using the following generalised relationship:

x Tsoft clay .... (settlement in metres)

summarised in Table 24 below:


(N<4)

Thickness of soft

clay Tsoft clay

Filling required

Fill + surcharge

Hplatform

To (m) (m) (m)

(4) (5) (6) (7)

12.0 12.0 5.96 8.46

17.0 17.0 6.20 8.70

18.0 18.0 5.76 8.26

13.5 13.5 6.48 8.98

14.0 14.0 6.03 8.53

13.5 13.5 5.19 7.69

20.0 20.0 5.28 7.78

4.5 4.5 6.53 9.03

15.0 15.0 6.01 8.51

12.0 12.0 6.22 8.72

Min

Max

Average


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

and Lower Bound consolidation settlements were analysed for the soft ground in Zone 4


Settlement


Settlement

USF=0.020 USF=0.030

(m) (m)

(8) (9)

2.03 3.05

2.96 4.44

2.97 4.46

2.42 3.64

2.39 3.58

2.08 3.11

3.11 4.67

0.81 1.22

2.55 3.83

2.09 3.14

0.81 1.22

3.11 4.67

2.34 3.51




(ii) Secondary Compression

The secondary compression index ∆∆∆∆Hs = Hf*Cαααα/(1+ef)*log(t 2/t1)


The secondary compression estimated from the analyses of the Zone 4B boreholes range from less than 50mm to about 400mm.


In Zone 4B, soft cohesive soils constructing a platform. Methods of improvement include:

(i) Preloading in stages with surcharging. PVDs are used to expedite settlement.(ii) Combination of preloading and vacuum consolidation. (iii) Stone columns

To demonstrate the philosophy behind preloading, Plthe ground conditions represented by BH27. Refer shaded borehole in Table 19. Two fill cases were analysed and theoretical settlement vs time curves A and B have been generated. They are shown in Figure 23. Curve A is the settlement vs time curve forThe primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be about 800 days (no PVDs modelled)ground level of RL2.0m + 10.5m Curve B is the settlement vs time curve for The primary consolidation settlemof about 800 days. To achieve a settlement of achieved by maintaining the 12.5consolidation of the surcharge is about 85%.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




index was estimated using the following 1st principle relationship

= secondary compression settlement = thickness of soft clay after primary consolidation = coefficient of secondary consolidation (assumed 0.053) = void ratio after primary consolidation

estimated from the analyses of the Zone 4B boreholes range from less than 50mm to about 400mm.

Ground Improvement Methods (Zone 4B)

soft cohesive soils range in thickness to 18m and will need to be improved prior to

Methods of improvement include:

Preloading in stages with surcharging. PVDs are used to expedite settlement.Combination of preloading and vacuum consolidation.

To demonstrate the philosophy behind preloading, Plaxis 2D analyses have been carried out for the ground conditions represented by BH27. Refer shaded borehole in Table 19.

Two fill cases were analysed and theoretical settlement vs time curves A and B have been generated. They are shown in Figure 23.

is the settlement vs time curve for 10.5m of fill added to a ground level of RL+2.The primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 5m and will occur over a period of

(no PVDs modelled). The fill elevation after settlement is about RL+7.5m (ie of fill – 5m of settlement). This equates to the platform level.

is the settlement vs time curve for 12.5m of fill added to a ground level of RL+2.The primary consolidation settlement (100%) is estimated to be 5.9m and will occur over a period

00 days. To achieve a settlement of 5m (target platform settlement), then this will be 12.5m for a period of about 330 days. The corresponding %

tion of the surcharge is about 85%.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


estimated from the analyses of the Zone 4B boreholes range from

will need to be improved prior to

Preloading in stages with surcharging. PVDs are used to expedite settlement.

axis 2D analyses have been carried out for

Two fill cases were analysed and theoretical settlement vs time curves A and B have been

m of fill added to a ground level of RL+2.0m. and will occur over a period of

settlement is about RL+7.5m (ie m of settlement). This equates to the platform level.

m of fill added to a ground level of RL+2.0m. m and will occur over a period

m (target platform settlement), then this will be days. The corresponding %




85%

-7000

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

0 100 200

Est

ima

ted

Se

ttle

me

nt

(mm

)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Figure 24

Settlement vs Time Curves Zone 4B – BH830

332 days

200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (days)

Curve A - 10.5m fill Curve B - 12.5m fill


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

800 900 1000

12.5m fill

A

B




(i) Preloading with PVDs

Methods (i) and (ii) should be used should be carried out to at least 90% of the primary consolidation settlement Modus operandi for preloading and surcharging

a. Strip 300mm over the subgradeto facilitate dewatering

b. Place geotextile

c. Add 1m of earth fill over the geotextile to form a stable surface

Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs)achieve high compaction levels in th

d. Place 0.5m of free draining sand.

e. Install PVDs at 1.2m centres on an equilateral triangular grid. PVDs to extend to the

underside of the soft clay.

f. Install Settlement Markers on a 50m grid over the area to be filled.

g. Carry out a baseline

h. Place and compact fill at the rate not exceeding 0.5m per week to a maximum height of 2m.

i. Monitor Settlement Markers every 2 days. Record settlements and plot settlement

vs time for each marker.

j. Allow 1 month to c

k. Repeat activities

l. Fill placed above the sand drainage layer to RL+6.0m MLSD should be compacted to achieve a dry density ratio greater than 93% of Modified Proctor.

m. Fill placed from RL+6.0m to 7.5m MLSD should be

density ratio greater than 95% of Modified Proctor.

n. Add 5m of additional fill above RL+7.5m for surcharging.

o. Maintain the surcharge until at least 90% of the primary consolidation has been achieved using Asaoka (1978) or Tan (1992) or equivalent interpolation method.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Preloading with PVDs

be used to minimise future settlements. Preloading with surcharging 90% of the primary consolidation settlement.

preloading and surcharging include:

mm over the subgrade to be preloaded. Cut drainage channels as requiredto facilitate dewatering.

Place geotextile over the stripped subgrade to facilitate trafficking

Add 1m of earth fill over the geotextile to form a stable surfacePrefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs). In very soft subgrade, it will not be possible to achieve high compaction levels in this material.

Place 0.5m of free draining sand.

at 1.2m centres on an equilateral triangular grid. PVDs to extend to the underside of the soft clay.


Carry out a baseline level survey of all Settlement Markers.


Monitor Settlement Markers every 2 days. Record settlements and plot settlement vs time for each marker.

Allow 1 month to consolidate.

Repeat activities h) to j) until +7.5m MLSD.


Fill placed from RL+6.0m to 7.5m MLSD should be compacted to achieve a dry density ratio greater than 95% of Modified Proctor.

of additional fill above RL+7.5m for surcharging.



_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Preloading with surcharging

to be preloaded. Cut drainage channels as required

to facilitate trafficking.

Add 1m of earth fill over the geotextile to form a stable surface to install it will not be possible to

at 1.2m centres on an equilateral triangular grid. PVDs to extend to the



Monitor Settlement Markers every 2 days. Record settlements and plot settlement


compacted to achieve a dry





(ii) Stone Columns

In very soft clays in Malaysia, stone columns are about 1.2m in the soft clay) and typically installed on a 2m ratio is about 23%. Using the following design curves concentration factor of say 5 (ie stress in stone column is 5 times greater than the stress in the surrounding ground), then the improvement factor is about 2. This means that the settlement of the ground treated with stone columns





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



In very soft clays in Malaysia, stone columns are normally about 1m (nominal)and typically installed on a 2m triangular grid. The area replacement

Using the following design curves developed by US Transportation FHAconcentration factor of say 5 (ie stress in stone column is 5 times greater than the stress in the surrounding ground), then the improvement factor is about 2. This means that the settlement of

treated with stone columns is 50% of the settlement of the untreated ground.

Figure 25


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

about 1m (nominal) dia (bulging to grid. The area replacement

US Transportation FHA and a stress concentration factor of say 5 (ie stress in stone column is 5 times greater than the stress in the surrounding ground), then the improvement factor is about 2. This means that the settlement of

the settlement of the untreated ground.




The Priebe Method is also used to determine the Improvement Factor. Priebe design curves are shown below. The equilibrium curves developed by FHA are superimposed for comparison.

For a friction angle of say 40o

settlement of the treated ground is 42% of the settlement of the untreated ground. Note that the US Department of Transportation (FHA) concludes that the therefore appear, based on a comparison with the equilibrium method and limited field data, to over predict the beneficial effects of stone columns in reducing settlement”. In Zone 4B, the expected range in consolidation Residual settlements are therefore

1.2m to 1.8m using US transportation FHA recommendation

1m to 1.5m using Priebe Method.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________




Figure 26

o, the improvement factor is about 2.35. This means that the settlement of the treated ground is 42% of the settlement of the untreated ground.

US Department of Transportation (FHA) concludes that the “curves of Priebe therefore appear, based on a comparison with the equilibrium method and limited field data, to over predict the beneficial effects of stone columns in reducing settlement”.

range in consolidation settlement for untreated ground is are therefore estimated to be:

m using US transportation FHA recommendation; and

m using Priebe Method.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________


This means that the

settlement of the treated ground is 42% of the settlement of the untreated ground.

“curves of Priebe therefore appear, based on a comparison with the equilibrium method and limited field data, to

for untreated ground is 2.3 to 3.5m.




8.0 PROPOSED EARTHWORKS

8.1 Cut Areas

We understand that it is proposed to construct a platform to RL+7.5m MLSD. In rock areas, it is recommended that the cut extendlevel. The 2m over-excavation in the rock areas is to facilitate construction of shallow footings and trenching for drains and services. The extent of the proposed cutting is shown Areas shown in yellow indicate the extent of cuts to +7.5m MLSD. Areas shown in khakiindicate the extent of cuts to +5.5m MLSD.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



PROPOSED EARTHWORKS

t is proposed to construct a platform to RL+7.5m MLSD.

In rock areas, it is recommended that the cut extends to +5.5m MLSD – ie 2m below platform excavation in the rock areas is to facilitate construction of shallow footings and

services.

cutting is shown below.

te the extent of cuts to +7.5m MLSD. Areas shown in khakiindicate the extent of cuts to +5.5m MLSD.

Figure 27


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

ie 2m below platform excavation in the rock areas is to facilitate construction of shallow footings and

te the extent of cuts to +7.5m MLSD. Areas shown in khaki-green




8.2 Fill Areas

The extent of the areas to be filled to the proposed platform of +7.5m MLSD is shown in Figure28 below:

Most of the site requires filling to achieve the +7.5m platform.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The extent of the areas to be filled to the proposed platform of +7.5m MLSD is shown in Figure

to achieve the +7.5m platform.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The extent of the areas to be filled to the proposed platform of +7.5m MLSD is shown in Figure




8.3 Parameters to Estimate Earthwork Quantities

Calculation of cut and fill volumes is outside of the terms of reference of this report. In calculating cut volumes, consideration should be given to:

i. Bulking factors ii. Over-excavation by 2m in hard rock areas.iii. Cut slopes of 1V:1.5H (soils), 1:1 (weathered rock) and 2V:1H (in solid rock

rock with favourable geological structures In calculating fill volumes, consideration should be given to the following:

i. shrinkage factorsii. Provision of settlementiii. Provision of additional surcharge to reduce future settlements.

The volume of fill = volume of R&R + compensating fill + allowance for surcharging It is anticipated that there will be a significant shortfall in fillto +7.5m MLSD. 8.3.1 Bulking Factors

For the purpose of estimating quantities, suggested bulking and shrinkage factors for different site materials are tabulated below Table 25

Soil and

Rock Type

(1)

SuggestedBulking Factor

Soils

Weathered Rock

It is recommended that these factors be measured by joint survey on site to provide a basis for payment.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Parameters to Estimate Earthwork Quantities

Calculation of cut and fill volumes is outside of the terms of reference of this report.

consideration should be given to:

excavation by 2m in hard rock areas. Cut slopes of 1V:1.5H (soils), 1:1 (weathered rock) and 2V:1H (in solid rockrock with favourable geological structures ie non-daylighting planes

lculating fill volumes, consideration should be given to the following: shrinkage factors Provision of settlement-compensating fill. Provision of additional surcharge to reduce future settlements.

volume of R&R + volume to fill to platform level + allowance for settlementallowance for surcharging + allowance for secondary compression

It is anticipated that there will be a significant shortfall in fill quantities if the platform is constructe

Factors

For the purpose of estimating quantities, suggested bulking and shrinkage factors for different site

Suggested Bulking Factor

(2)

1.2

1.3

It is recommended that these factors be measured by joint survey on site to provide a basis for


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Calculation of cut and fill volumes is outside of the terms of reference of this report.

Cut slopes of 1V:1.5H (soils), 1:1 (weathered rock) and 2V:1H (in solid rock or in daylighting planes).

allowance for settlement-+ allowance for secondary compression.

if the platform is constructed

For the purpose of estimating quantities, suggested bulking and shrinkage factors for different site

It is recommended that these factors be measured by joint survey on site to provide a basis for




8.3.2 Remove and Replace

In Zone 1B, it is recommended that allowance be made for stripping of be developed. In Zones 3 and 4B, it is recommended that allowance be made for stripping of 300mm over the area to be developed. In Zone 4B where the peaty organic soils are present, allow for removal of the upper 5m of the organic-enriched soils and replacement with structural fill.

8.3.3 Settlement- compensating FILL

For estimating purposes, we recommend that allowance for:

1m of settlement 2.5m of settlement 3.5m of settlement

8.3.4 Surcharging


1m of surcharge in Zone 1B 3m of surcharge 5m of surcharge

8.3.5 Long term platform settlement

For estimating purposes, we recommend that allowance be made for long term settlement due to secondary compression and self weight settlement of the compacted fill:

0.1m in Zone 1B 0.2m in Zone 3. 0.3m in Zone 4A 0.4m in Zone 4B





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Remove and Replace

In Zone 1B, it is recommended that allowance be made for stripping of 100mm over the

In Zones 3 and 4B, it is recommended that allowance be made for stripping of 300mm over the

where the peaty organic soils are present, allow for removal of the upper 5m of the and replacement with structural fill.

compensating FILL


1m of settlement-compensating fill in Zone 3. m of settlement-compensating fill in Zone 4A.

settlement-compensating fill in Zone 4B.


1m of surcharge in Zone 1B surcharge in Zone 3. surcharge in Zones 4A and 4B.

Long term platform settlement

estimating purposes, we recommend that allowance be made for long term settlement due to secondary compression and self weight settlement of the compacted fill:

0.1m in Zone 1B

A 0.4m in Zone 4B.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

00mm over the area to

In Zones 3 and 4B, it is recommended that allowance be made for stripping of 300mm over the

where the peaty organic soils are present, allow for removal of the upper 5m of the

estimating purposes, we recommend that allowance be made for long term settlement due to




8.4 Cut Materials

There are three (3) main classes of materials to be excavated: Class 1... Common - Soil which can be excavated Class 2... Weathered Rock

conventional plant but will probably require Class 3... Rock - Moderately weathered and better

dozers if the rock productivity.

Estimates of the quantities of the different classes of report. 8.5 Fill Types

Optimum utilisation of fill materials may require zoning with inferior soils being critical areas. We have identified the following fill types for Class 1 Fill:

Type A Type B Type C

Table 26 Limiting properties for engineering fill Parameter Type A

Best quality Common Fill

Sieve Size Fine Coarse(mm)

50 100 100 20 100 60 10 75 40

1.18 40 15 0.6 30 10

0.425 25 8 0.212 17.5 5 0.15 15 3

0.075 10 0





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



classes of materials to be excavated:

which can be excavated using conventional earthmoving plant.

Weathered Rock [typically SPT(N) > 50] – may be able to be excavated with conventional plant but will probably require ripping to increase productivity

Moderately weathered and better – may be able to be ripped with D11 the rock fractured but will probably require drill and blasting

the different classes of materials are outside the scope of this

Optimum utilisation of fill materials may require zoning with inferior soils being

the following fill types for Class 1 Fill:

Best quality common fill Intermediate Poor quality Fill

Limiting properties for engineering fill

Type B Type C Intermediate Poor quality

Common FILL Common FILL Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Coarse

100 100 100 100 100 60 100 60 80 40 100 40 50 15 75 15 40 10 65 10

35 8 60 8 30 5 50 5 25 3 45 3 20 0 35 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

using conventional earthmoving plant.

may be able to be excavated with productivity.

may be able to be ripped with D11 drill and blasting to increase

materials are outside the scope of this

Optimum utilisation of fill materials may require zoning with inferior soils being placed in less

Coarse




Table 26 Limiting properties for

Parameter Type A Best quality Common Fill

Max Liquid Limit

25

(%) Max

Plasticity Index (%)

10

Organic content

nil

(%) 8.6 Fill Zoning

A typical Zoning Plan for the fill is indicated below:

Platform level

Upper 1.5m

Remainder

of FILL

Bottom

1.5m

* In non-peaty areas, remove facilitate trafficking.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Limiting properties for engineering fill

Type B Type C Intermediate Poor quality

Common FILL Common FILL

35

45

15

20

<2

<5

fill is indicated below:

Figure 29 Platform level - +7.5m MLSD

Type A

Type A

and/or

Type B

Type C

Very soft subgrade*

peaty areas, remove 300mm and place geotextile over stripped very soft subgrade to


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

and place geotextile over stripped very soft subgrade to




8.7 Fill Processing

The following processing is required bef Class 1 - Common

A Performance Specification is suitable The moisture content of the clayey soils will need to be measured to determine its proximity to Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) for efficient compaction. Where the moisture content is outside of OMC + 3%, then the soils should be stockpallow proper curing of the soils. Clayey fill should be placed in compacted to achieve a minimum dry density ratio of 93%RL+6.0m MLSD. The fill in the upper 1.5m (from RL+6.0m to +7.5m MLSD) should be compacted to achieve a minimum dry density ratio of 9 We anticipate that the compaction in the bottom metre soft. Class 2 - Weathered Rock (SPT(N) > 50.

A Method Specification is suitable for this material. The weathered rock should be broken down to achieve a maximum particle size of 150mm. It is anticipated that after ripping, a grid roachieve a 150mm minus material. Loose layer thickness should not exceed 500mm unless it can be demonstrated that the Contractor’s compaction plant is capable of compacting thicker lifts. A trial should be carried out to determine the most efficient plant and number of passes to achieve a stable fill. Large diameter plate load tests should be carried out for quality control purposes. If the weathered rock is not processed and large boulders are prwith piling and excavation for foundations. Class 3 - Drill & Blast Rock

Rock types, such as sandstone, siltstone and tuffaceous siltstones concrete aggregates and for asphaltic mixesmaterial that can be used as a hardstand. Rock types such as granite that are suitable for use in concrete and asphaltic mixes should be crushed to produce a suitable grading.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



rocessing

The following processing is required before these materials can be used as structural fill.

is suitable for this material.

The moisture content of the clayey soils will need to be measured to determine its proximity to Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) for efficient compaction. Where the moisture content is outside

3%, then the soils should be stockpiled and water added / removed as required

Clayey fill should be placed in layers (generally not exceeding 200mm loose thicknesscompacted to achieve a minimum dry density ratio of 93% of modified compaction belowRL+6.0m MLSD. The fill in the upper 1.5m (from RL+6.0m to +7.5m MLSD) should be compacted to achieve a minimum dry density ratio of 95% of modified compaction below RL+6.0m MLSD.

cipate that the compaction in the bottom metre will be low where the subgrade is very

(SPT(N) > 50.

is suitable for this material.

ock should be broken down to achieve a maximum particle size of 150mm. It is anticipated that after ripping, a grid roller would be used to break down the coarse fraction to achieve a 150mm minus material.

Loose layer thickness should not exceed 500mm unless it can be demonstrated that the plant is capable of compacting thicker lifts.

should be carried out to determine the most efficient plant and number of passes to achieve a stable fill. Large diameter plate load tests should be carried out for quality control

If the weathered rock is not processed and large boulders are present then they may interfere with piling and excavation for foundations.

such as sandstone, siltstone and tuffaceous siltstones that are not suitable for for asphaltic mixes, should be crushed to provide a 150mm minus

hardstand.

Rock types such as granite that are suitable for use in concrete and asphaltic mixes should be suitable grading.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

ore these materials can be used as structural fill.

The moisture content of the clayey soils will need to be measured to determine its proximity to Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) for efficient compaction. Where the moisture content is outside

and water added / removed as required to

loose thickness) and of modified compaction below

RL+6.0m MLSD. The fill in the upper 1.5m (from RL+6.0m to +7.5m MLSD) should be compacted % of modified compaction below RL+6.0m MLSD.

the subgrade is very

ock should be broken down to achieve a maximum particle size of 150mm. It is ller would be used to break down the coarse fraction to

Loose layer thickness should not exceed 500mm unless it can be demonstrated that the

should be carried out to determine the most efficient plant and number of passes to achieve a stable fill. Large diameter plate load tests should be carried out for quality control

esent then they may interfere

that are not suitable for ushed to provide a 150mm minus

Rock types such as granite that are suitable for use in concrete and asphaltic mixes should be




9.0 FOUNDATIONS

9.1 Shallow Foundations

Shallow foundations can be used in For preliminary design, shallow foundations can be designed for exceeding

• 100kPa in firm clays with SPT(N) values greater than 15• 200kPa in medium dense sandy soils• 500kPa on rock

The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure For detailed design, site investigation should be carried out on a 50m to 150m grid after platform construction to confirm the above bearinas part of confirmation testing. Settlement analyses can be carried out when foundation loads are known. expected to be less than 25mm for pad footing sizes up to 3m x 3m pressure not exceeding 100kPa.detailed engineering phase. All other plant and strictures (to be determined during FEED or detailed engineering phase) that can be supported on shallow foundations should be piled.

9.2 Piled Foundation

9.2.1 General

It is recommended that all major to refusal. Piles driven to set are preferred to bored piles because they (i) Compact the ground during their installation;(ii) have higher safe working loads; (iii) are cost effective. Pre-tensioned high strength spun concrete piles (i) are robust (due to their construction process); and (ii) can sustain higher driving stresses without damage. All piles should be driven to set with sufficient not to overstress the piles. Stress wave testing should be carried out as part of test piling programme to determine suitable hammer sizes and drops acceptable levels.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



FOUNDATIONS

Shallow Foundations in Cut Areas

Shallow foundations can be used in Cut Areas.

foundations can be designed for allowable bearing pressures not

in firm clays with SPT(N) values greater than 15 200kPa in medium dense sandy soils and in stiff clays 500kPa on rock

The factor of safety against bearing capacity failure must be greater than 3.

For detailed design, site investigation should be carried out on a 50m to 150m grid after platform construction to confirm the above bearing pressures. Plate load bearing test should be carried out

be carried out when foundation loads are known. Total sexpected to be less than 25mm for pad footing sizes up to 3m x 3m and designed for bearing pressure not exceeding 100kPa. Differential settlement analyses should be carried out in the

All other plant and strictures (to be determined during FEED or detailed engineering phase) that ed on shallow foundations should be piled.

Foundations in Filled Areas

major and settlement-sensitive structures are supported on piles driven

Piles driven to set are preferred to bored piles because they ground during their installation;

ve higher safe working loads; and are cost effective.

tensioned high strength spun concrete piles are preferred to precast RC piles becausare robust (due to their construction process); and can sustain higher driving stresses without damage.

All piles should be driven to set with sufficient energy to mobilise their full structural capacity but not to overstress the piles. Stress wave testing should be carried out as part of test piling programme to determine suitable hammer sizes and drops so to keep dynamic stresses to


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

allowable bearing pressures not

For detailed design, site investigation should be carried out on a 50m to 150m grid after platform g pressures. Plate load bearing test should be carried out

Total settlements are designed for bearing

Differential settlement analyses should be carried out in the

All other plant and strictures (to be determined during FEED or detailed engineering phase) that

are supported on piles driven

are preferred to precast RC piles because they

to mobilise their full structural capacity but not to overstress the piles. Stress wave testing should be carried out as part of test piling

so to keep dynamic stresses to within




9.2.2 DRIVEN Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads

Spun pile with Outside Diameters (minimum effective prestress should be 5N/mm Piles in Zones 3 and 4 will experience negative friction due to settling the platform fill. This will mobilise drag loads on the piles that will reduce their effective safe working loads. The magnitude of drag loads can approach 30% of the maximum permissible structural loads and it is recommended thathe maximum permissible structural load. Design safe working loads are summarised below for spun pile from 300 to 600mm. Table 27 Safe working loads for spun piles Minimum concrete strength = 78.5N/mm Minimum effective prestress = 5N/mm

Spun Pile OD

(mm) (1)

Pile Wall

thickness (mm)

(2)

300

60

400

80

500

90

600

100

Key (3) calculated as 0.25 x (F cu – Fpe

(4) calculated as 70% of max structural load with geotechnical rou ndingSafe working loads must be confirmed by pile load t esting.

The following minimum factors of safety should be applied to the ultimate geotechnical capacityspun piles driven to set:

i. FOS = 2.0 applied to ii. FOS = 2.5 applied to the ultimate shaft resistance (tension); and iii. FOS = 2.0 applied to





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Pile Sizes and Safe Working Loads

with Outside Diameters (OD) ranging from 300mm to 600mm can be used. The prestress should be 5N/mm2.

will experience negative friction due to settling ground under the weight of . This will mobilise drag loads on the piles that will reduce their effective safe

working loads. The magnitude of drag loads can approach 30% of the maximum permissible structural loads and it is recommended that their safe working loads be not greater than the maximum permissible structural load.

Design safe working loads are summarised below for spun pile Outside Diameters

Safe working loads for spun piles DRIVEN to set Minimum concrete strength = 78.5N/mm 2 Minimum effective prestress = 5N/mm 2

Maximum Structural

Safe Working Load (kN) (3)

Recommended Geotechnical


840

500

1500

1000

2170

1500

2930

2000

pe ) x A. F cu = 78.5N/mm 2. Fpe = 5N/mm 2. A = cross section area of concrete.as 70% of max structural load with geotechnical rou nding .

Safe working loads must be confirmed by pile load t esting.

factors of safety should be applied to the ultimate geotechnical capacity

FOS = 2.0 applied to the ultimate shaft resistance (compression);FOS = 2.5 applied to the ultimate shaft resistance (tension); and FOS = 2.0 applied to the ultimate toe resistance.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

00mm can be used. The

under the weight of . This will mobilise drag loads on the piles that will reduce their effective safe

working loads. The magnitude of drag loads can approach 30% of the maximum permissible not greater than 70% of

iameters (OD) ranging

. A = cross section area of concrete.

factors of safety should be applied to the ultimate geotechnical capacity of

;




9.2.3 BORED Piles Sizes and Safe Working Loads

Design safe working loads are summarised below for BORED pile having diameters ranging from 500mm to 1000mm Table 28 Safe working loads for BORED piles Minimum concrete strength = 40N/mm

BORED

Pile Diameter

(mm) (1)

MaximumStructural


500

1963

600

2827

700

3848

800

5027

900

6362

1000

1963

Key (3) calculated as 0.25 x F cu x A where A = cross section area. F(4) calculated as 70% of max structural load with geotechnical rou nding


The following minimum factors of safety should be applied to the ultimate geotechnical capacity of B0RED piles:

i. FOS = 2.0 applied to the ultimate shaft resistanceii. FOS = 2.5 applied to the ultimate shaft resistanceiii. FOS = 3.0 applied to the ultimate toe resistance.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Sizes and Safe Working Loads

loads are summarised below for BORED pile having diameters ranging from

Safe working loads for BORED piles Minimum concrete strength = 40N/mm 2

imum Structural Working Load

Recommended Geotechnical


1350

2000

2700

3500

4500

1350

x A where A = cross section area. F cu = 40N/mm 2 as 70% of max structural load with geotechnical rou nding .


The following minimum factors of safety should be applied to the ultimate geotechnical capacity of

2.0 applied to the ultimate shaft resistance (compression);applied to the ultimate shaft resistance (tension); and

FOS = 3.0 applied to the ultimate toe resistance.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

loads are summarised below for BORED pile having diameters ranging from

The following minimum factors of safety should be applied to the ultimate geotechnical capacity of

;




9.2.4 DRIVEN Pile Toe Levels

All piles should be driven to set which into N>50 strata. Figure 50 presents levels of N>50 strata as determined from the existing boreholes. 9.2.5 BORED Pile Toe Levels

Bored piles should be founded into bedrock, whichever is encountered first, 9.2.6 Pile Testing

Allowance should be made for a Stage I Design Verification Testing For DRIVEN piles, this stage comprises

Driveability studies Stress wave monitoring of all test piles. Maintained Load

load cycle test to geotechnical failure. High strain PDA tests at E

days Maintained Load Testing in tension Lateral load tests

For BORED piles, this stage comprises

Maintained Load load cycle test to ge

Maintained Load Testing in tension Sonic logging to check integrity Lateral load tests

Stage II Quality Assurance Testing (QAT) For DRIVEN and BORED piles, th

MLTs to resolve any anomalies high strain PDA tests with CAPWAP analyses on about 5% of the working piles

driven to set; and high strain PDA tests with CAPWAP analyses on about and 10% of working piles

driven to length.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Pile Toe Levels

All piles should be driven to set which is anticipated to occur before a penetration of about 3m into N>50 strata. Figure 50 presents levels of N>50 strata as determined from the existing

BORED Pile Toe Levels

Bored piles should be founded at least eight (8) diameters into N>50, or socketed 2 diameters bedrock, whichever is encountered first, to generate their recommended safe working loads.

Allowance should be made for a two (2) stage pile testing programme.

Design Verification Testing (DVT)

stage comprises

Driveability studies Stress wave monitoring of all test piles.

oad Test (MLTs) in compression on each pile size. Carry out three load cycle test to geotechnical failure. High strain PDA tests at End of Initial Drive and Restrike tests after 7, 14 and 28

Maintained Load Testing in tension Lateral load tests

stage comprises

oad Test (MLTs) in compression on each pile size. Carry out three load cycle test to geotechnical failure. Maintained Load Testing in tension Sonic logging to check integrity Lateral load tests

Quality Assurance Testing (QAT)

For DRIVEN and BORED piles, this stage comprises:

MLTs to resolve any anomalies; high strain PDA tests with CAPWAP analyses on about 5% of the working piles driven to set; and high strain PDA tests with CAPWAP analyses on about and 10% of working piles


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

is anticipated to occur before a penetration of about 3m into N>50 strata. Figure 50 presents levels of N>50 strata as determined from the existing

socketed 2 diameters safe working loads.

. Carry out three

nd of Initial Drive and Restrike tests after 7, 14 and 28

. Carry out three

high strain PDA tests with CAPWAP analyses on about 5% of the working piles

high strain PDA tests with CAPWAP analyses on about and 10% of working piles




9.3 Corrosion Protection

The results of chemical tests carried Table 29

Contractor Number of water samples

Majumec

(CHEMLAB)

41

(BHs 801 – 851)

Foundtest

(GEOSOIL)

34

(BHs 501 – 5

The results of chemical tests carried out on soil samples are summarised below: Table 30

Contractor Number of water samples

Geolab

(in-house)

10

Geolab

(SOILPRO)

7

It is concluded that there is a significant variation in results of chemical tests undertaken by the different Contractors. Based on the foregoing, the following recommendations are made:

1. Design Sulphate Class DS1:2005) – BRE Construction Division.

2. Concrete composition to comply with

3. Concrete should have low permeability to chloride ions. The amount of charged passed

in a 6 hour Rapid Chloride Penetration Tests (RPCT) should be less than 1000 Coulombs.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Corrosion Protection

The results of chemical tests carried out on water samples are summarised below:

Number of water samples

Range in test results (average)

pH CL- ppm

851)

2.8 – 6.8

(5.2)

4 to 409

(56) Not detected

549)

6.2 – 6.9

(6.6)

<100

The results of chemical tests carried out on soil samples are summarised below:

Number of water samples

Range in test results (average)

pH CL- ppm

3.0 – 6.5

(4.8)

100 to 2600

(1130)

2.8 – 5.9

(4.1)

<100

is a significant variation in results of chemical tests undertaken by the

Based on the foregoing, the following recommendations are made:

Design Sulphate Class DS-3 (Table C1 of Concrete in aggressive ground (Special Digest BRE Construction Division.

Concrete composition to comply with the recommendations in Special Digest 1:2005

Concrete should have low permeability to chloride ions. The amount of charged passed in a 6 hour Rapid Chloride Penetration Tests (RPCT) should be less than 1000


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

out on water samples are summarised below:

SO4=

ppm

Not detected – 267 (53)

<100

SO4=

ppm

100 - 1100 (380)

100 – 800

(343)

is a significant variation in results of chemical tests undertaken by the

Table C1 of Concrete in aggressive ground (Special Digest

in Special Digest 1:2005.

Concrete should have low permeability to chloride ions. The amount of charged passed in a 6 hour Rapid Chloride Penetration Tests (RPCT) should be less than 1000




10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the following conclusions have been reached and recommendations made:

Petronas Site is located in West south-east of the city of Johor Bahru. The site has an area of approximatelycoarse grid (up to 250m spacing between test sites) with.

300 boreholes; 98 Piezocone Penetration Tests; 40 test pits; 43 auger holes; 10 resistivity surveys; and associated laborator

The significant findings from this study are summarised below:

1. Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground over the remainder. Rock ridges and outcrops are present and generally demarcate boundaries for different ground improvement zones.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the following conclusions have been reached and recommendations

West Pengerang, in the state of Johor, Malaysia, approximately 90 km east of the city of Johor Bahru.

approximately 2607 hectares and has been investigated on a relatively coarse grid (up to 250m spacing between test sites) with.

98 Piezocone Penetration Tests;

10 resistivity surveys; and associated laboratory testing.

The significant findings from this study are summarised below:

Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground over the remainder. Rock ridges and outcrops are present and generally demarcate

different ground improvement zones.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Based on the foregoing, the following conclusions have been reached and recommendations

Pengerang, in the state of Johor, Malaysia, approximately 90 km

2607 hectares and has been investigated on a relatively

Volcanic rocks and soils are present over about 70% of the site with soft ground over the remainder. Rock ridges and outcrops are present and generally demarcate




2. The site is to be cut and filled to a platform specified at RL+7.5m MLSD. Figures 2

and 28 show the extent of cut and fill respectively. 3. Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this repor

that constructing the platform to +7.5m MLSD will result in a short fall in fill after allowance is made for (i) Remove & Replace (R&R) (ii) settlementand (iii) surcharging.

4. The site has been divided into four (4) major gr

following sub-zones: Table 10

Major Zones

Sub-

Zones

1

1A

1B

2

3

4

4A

4B





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The site is to be cut and filled to a platform specified at RL+7.5m MLSD. Figures 2show the extent of cut and fill respectively.

Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this reporthat constructing the platform to +7.5m MLSD will result in a short fall in fill after allowance is made for (i) Remove & Replace (R&R) (ii) settlementand (iii) surcharging.

The site has been divided into four (4) major ground improvement zones with the zones:



Types of

Ground improvement

Cut


None

Fill



Cut

(rock)


Fill

(soft clays)


Fill



Fill

(very soft clays)



_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The site is to be cut and filled to a platform specified at RL+7.5m MLSD. Figures 27

Calculation of cut and fill quantities are outside of the scope of this report. It appears that constructing the platform to +7.5m MLSD will result in a short fall in fill after allowance is made for (i) Remove & Replace (R&R) (ii) settlement-compensating fill

ound improvement zones with the

Types of

Ground improvement




Major improvement. Removal of peaty organic soils, replace with structural fill. Preloading with PVDs. VC Stone columns providing that residual

acceptable.

Major improvement. Preloading with PVDs. Vacuum Consolidation (VC) Stone columns providing that residual settlements are acceptable.




5. The Zoning Plan is shown below. The zonal boundaries have been determined

the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations are expected.

6. In Zones 1A and 1B, no significant ground improvement is anticipated. Localised removal of soft materials may be required as part of subgrade preparation prior to filling.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The Zoning Plan is shown below. The zonal boundaries have been determined the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations are

Figure 17

In Zones 1A and 1B, no significant ground improvement is anticipated. Localised removal of soft materials may be required as part of subgrade preparation prior to


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Zoning Plan is shown below. The zonal boundaries have been determined from the site investigation grid which is typically at 250m centres. Site variations are

In Zones 1A and 1B, no significant ground improvement is anticipated. Localised removal of soft materials may be required as part of subgrade preparation prior to




7. In rock cuts (Zone 2), an over

recommended with backfilling using structural fill to the platform. The placement of structural fill in the upper 2m in rock cuts is recommended to facilitate construction of shallow footings and trenching for services and drains.

8. Ground improvement is recommende

consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to 1m for the ground conditions investigated. Generally the clays in Zone 3 are stronger and shallower compared with Zone 4.

9. The worst ground is loc

has been subdivided into:

i. Zone 4A 14m but generally less than 5m; and

ii. Zone 4B

enrichment. 10. The peaty organic soils and peats in Zone 4A should be removed to a depth of 5m

and replaced with structural fill.

11. Ground improvements are required for Zones 3, 4A (after removal of peaty soils) and Zone 4B to support the weight of the platform.

12. Staged preloading with Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs) and/or vacuum

consolidation are recommended to minimise residuarecommended that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary consolidation.

13. Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable to the

end user.

14. The required quantity of fill can be estimated as the

i. Removal and Replace (up to 5m in Zone 4A), plusii. Top soil stripping in other zones, plusiii. Filling from stripped subgrade to the specified platform at +7.5m MLSD, plusiv. Settlementv. Long term secondary compression and selfvi. Surcharge to minimise future settlements of roads, drains and service

corridors.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



In rock cuts (Zone 2), an over-excavation of 2m (ie RL+5.5m MLSD) is ded with backfilling using structural fill to the platform. The placement of

structural fill in the upper 2m in rock cuts is recommended to facilitate construction of shallow footings and trenching for services and drains.

Ground improvement is recommended in Zone 3. Under the weight of the platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to 1m for the ground conditions investigated. Generally the clays in Zone 3 are stronger and shallower compared with Zone 4.

The worst ground is located in Zone 4 over the western part of the site. This zone has been subdivided into:

Zone 4A peaty organic soils and peats are present to depths of 14m but generally less than 5m; and

Zone 4B very soft ground to depths of 20m with some organic enrichment.

The peaty organic soils and peats in Zone 4A should be removed to a depth of 5m and replaced with structural fill.

Ground improvements are required for Zones 3, 4A (after removal of peaty soils) and Zone 4B to support the weight of the platform.

Staged preloading with Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs) and/or vacuum consolidation are recommended to minimise residual settlements. It is recommended that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary

Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable to the

The required quantity of fill can be estimated as the sum of following:

Removal and Replace (up to 5m in Zone 4A), plus Top soil stripping in other zones, plus Filling from stripped subgrade to the specified platform at +7.5m MLSD, plusSettlement-compensating fill; Long term secondary compression and self weight settlement of the fill; plusSurcharge to minimise future settlements of roads, drains and service corridors.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

excavation of 2m (ie RL+5.5m MLSD) is ded with backfilling using structural fill to the platform. The placement of

structural fill in the upper 2m in rock cuts is recommended to facilitate construction

d in Zone 3. Under the weight of the platform, consolidation settlements are estimated to range from 0.5m to 1m for the ground conditions investigated. Generally the clays in Zone 3 are stronger and shallower

ated in Zone 4 over the western part of the site. This zone

peaty organic soils and peats are present to depths of

very soft ground to depths of 20m with some organic

The peaty organic soils and peats in Zone 4A should be removed to a depth of 5m

Ground improvements are required for Zones 3, 4A (after removal of peaty soils)

Staged preloading with Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs) and/or vacuum l settlements. It is

recommended that the ground be consolidated to at least 90% of primary

Stone columns can be used providing the residual settlements are acceptable to the

sum of following:

Filling from stripped subgrade to the specified platform at +7.5m MLSD, plus

weight settlement of the fill; plus Surcharge to minimise future settlements of roads, drains and service




15. To enable fill quantities

Zone Top soil stripping

(m)

1A

-

1B

0.1

2

-

3

0.3

4A

-

4B

0.3

* based on upper bound estimates of fill settlement 16. In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing

pressures should not exceed • 100kPa in firm clays with SPT(N) values• 200kPa in medium dense sandy soils and in stiff clays• 500kPa on rock

17. In filled areas, spun piles driven to set are recommended. Safe working loads for

spun piles are given in Table 27. 18. Safe working loads for bored piles ranging in

given in Table 28. 19. Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. Site hazard

assessment is required for design of structures. 20. Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required

construction to measure post improvement strengths and to determine Geotechnical Models for the design of different facilities.

21. Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty

soils in Zone 4A.





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



fill quantities to be estimated, the following recommendations are made

Remove & Replace

(m)

Settlement -compensating

FILL* (m)

Secondary compression

(m)

-

-

-

-

0.2

0.1

2.0

(over-excavation in

rock cuts)

-

-

-

1.0

0.2

5.0 (peaty soils)

2.5

0.3

-

3.5

0.4

* based on upper bound estimates of fill settlement

In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing pressures should not exceed

100kPa in firm clays with SPT(N) values greater than 15 200kPa in medium dense sandy soils and in stiff clays 500kPa on rock

In filled areas, spun piles driven to set are recommended. Safe working loads for spun piles are given in Table 27.

Safe working loads for bored piles ranging in diameter from 500mm to 1000mm are given in Table 28.

Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. Site hazard assessment is required for design of structures.

Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is requiredconstruction to measure post improvement strengths and to determine Geotechnical Models for the design of different facilities.

Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty soils in Zone 4A.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________ , the following recommendations are made

Surcharge on platform

at +7.5m MLSD -

1.0

-

3.0

5.0

5.0

In cut areas, shallow foundations can be used. Recommended allowable bearing

In filled areas, spun piles driven to set are recommended. Safe working loads for

diameter from 500mm to 1000mm are

Liquefaction potential after ground improvement is deemed to be low. Site hazard

Additional site investigation on a finer grid (50m to 100m) is required after platform construction to measure post improvement strengths and to determine Geotechnical

Additional investigation is required to calculate the quantities of unsuitable peaty




11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following references were used in the compilation of this report:

1. Sugeng Surjono, Mohd Shafeea Leman, Che Aziz Ali & Kamal Roslan Mohamed review of Palaeozolic Lithostratigraphy of East Johor, Malaysia

2. Petersen M D, Dewey J,

“Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Sumatra, Indonesia and across the southern Malaysian Peninsula” Tectonics 390 (2004) pp 141

3. Braja M Das (1983)

4. Robert W Day (2006)

5. NCEER (1996) –

Earthquake Engineering Research”. 6. Bowles J E (1996) 7. Tomlinson ( M J 20 8. Poulos & Davis (1980) 9. Fleming WGK, Weltman AJ, Randolph MF and Elson WK (1986)

10. Randolph (2003)

11. Fellenius (2006) –

12. Petronas Technical Standards

– PTS 34.11.00.10 November 2009

13. Earthquake Engineering Handbook

14. Campanella and Robertson (1988)

15. Eslami & Fellenius (1997)

16. Concrete in aggressive Division





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following references were used in the compilation of this report:

Sugeng Surjono, Mohd Shafeea Leman, Che Aziz Ali & Kamal Roslan Mohamed review of Palaeozolic Lithostratigraphy of East Johor, Malaysia

Petersen M D, Dewey J, Hartzell S, Mueller C, Harmsen S, Frankel A and Rukstales K “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Sumatra, Indonesia and across the southern Malaysian Peninsula” Tectonics 390 (2004) pp 141-158.

Braja M Das (1983) - “Fundamentals of Soil Dynamics”.

Robert W Day (2006) – “Foundation Engineering Handbook”

– “Summary Report of Workshop Conducted by National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research”.

Bowles J E (1996) – “Foundation Analysis & Design” (5th edition)

Tomlinson ( M J 2001) – “Foundation Design and Construction” (7th edition)

Poulos & Davis (1980) – “Foundation Analysis and Design”.

Fleming WGK, Weltman AJ, Randolph MF and Elson WK (1986) – “Piling Engineering”.

– Little Red Book

Petronas Technical Standards – Design and Engineering Practice – Site Investigations PTS 34.11.00.10 November 2009

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

Campanella and Robertson (1988)

Eslami & Fellenius (1997)

Concrete in aggressive ground – Special digest 1:2005 (3rd edition) –


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sugeng Surjono, Mohd Shafeea Leman, Che Aziz Ali & Kamal Roslan Mohamed – “A

Hartzell S, Mueller C, Harmsen S, Frankel A and Rukstales K – “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Sumatra, Indonesia and across the southern

“Summary Report of Workshop Conducted by National Centre for

edition)

“Piling Engineering”.

Site Investigations

BRE Construction




12.0 CLOSURE

The following attachments complete this report: List of Plates

Plate 1 Boreholes, Piezocone CPT and Testpit Locations (A1) Plate 2 Zoning Plot (Ground Plate 3 Zoning Plot with location of Geotechnical Cross Sections 1 Plate 4 Longitudinal Cross Section 1 Plate 5 Longitudinal Cross Section 2 Plate 6 Transverse Cross Section 3 Plate 7 Surfer 3D Plot of Topo Levels Plate 8 Surfer 2D Plot of Topo Contour Levels Plate 9 Surfer Plot of SPT(N) >50 Levels Plate 10 Surfer Plot of soft ground from boreholes and CPTs Plate 11 Surfer Plot of Borehole Termination Levels Plate 12 Surfer Plot of CPT Plate 13 Extent of CUT to RL+7.5m MSLD (in non rock areas) and RL+5.5m MLSD (rock areas) Plate 14 Extent of FILL to RL+7.5m MSLD Plate 15 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+1.0m M Plate 16 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2 Plate 17 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+2.5m M Plate 18 Surfer Plot showing site levels < RL+7.5m M Plate 19 Surfer Plots of water level Plate 20 Distribution of organic soils Plate 21 Distribution of Palaeozoic rocks in East Johor (Reference 1) Plate 22 Pengerang Volcanics (Reference 1) Plate 23 Stratigraphic column for Eastern Johor (Reference 1)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



The following attachments complete this report:

Boreholes, Piezocone CPT and Testpit Locations (A1)

Zoning Plot (Ground Improvement)

Zoning Plot with location of Geotechnical Cross Sections 1-1 to 4-4



Transverse Cross Section 3-3 & 4-4

Surfer 3D Plot of Topo Levels

Surfer 2D Plot of Topo Contour Levels

Surfer Plot of SPT(N) >50 Levels

Surfer Plot of soft ground from boreholes and CPTs – SPT(N)<4 & Qc<1MPa

Surfer Plot of Borehole Termination Levels

Surfer Plot of CPT Termination Levels

Extent of CUT to RL+7.5m MSLD (in non rock areas) and RL+5.5m MLSD (rock areas)

Extent of FILL to RL+7.5m MSLD





Surfer Plots of water level measured in from boreholes

Distribution of organic soils in Zone 4B

Distribution of Palaeozoic rocks in East Johor (Reference 1)

Pengerang Volcanics (Reference 1)

Stratigraphic column for Eastern Johor (Reference 1)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

SPT(N)<4 & Qc<1MPa

Extent of CUT to RL+7.5m MSLD (in non rock areas) and RL+5.5m MLSD (rock areas)




List of Appendices

Appendix A Borehole summaries

Appendix A1 Tabulated summary of Appendix A2 Tabulated summary of Phase 2 boreholes (Foundtest) Appendix A3 Tabulated summary of Phase 3 boreholes (Majumec) Appendix B CPT analyses

Appendix B1 Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Geolab)Appendix B2 Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Foundtest) Appendix B3 Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Majumec)Appendix B4 Robertson el al (1986) Profiling Charts

Appendix B5 Eslami-Fellenius (1997) Profiling ChAppendix B6 Evaluation of Dissipation Tests Appendix C Geotechnical database

Appendix C1 Zone 1A – cut Appendix C2 Zone 1B - fill Appendix C3 Zone 2 - rock Appendix C4 Zone 3 – soft groundAppendix C5 Zone 4A – soft ground with peaty organic Appendix C6 Zone 4B – soft ground Appendix D Platform settlements using spreadsheets

Appendix D1 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D2 Platform settlements from CPT records Appendix D3 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D4 Platform settlements from CPT recordsAppendix D5 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing Appendix D6 Platform settlements from Appendix E Platform settlements using PLAXIS

Appendix E1 Platform settlement for BH27 (Zone 3)Appendix E2 Platform settlement for BH830 (Zone 4)





_________________________________________________________________________________________________



Borehole summaries

Tabulated summary of Phase 1 boreholes (Geolab) Tabulated summary of Phase 2 boreholes (Foundtest) Tabulated summary of Phase 3 boreholes (Majumec)

Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Geolab) Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Foundtest) Cone resistance and shear strength summary plots (Majumec) Robertson el al (1986) Profiling Charts

Volume 2 of 2

Fellenius (1997) Profiling Charts Evaluation of Dissipation Tests

Geotechnical database

soft ground soft ground with peaty organic soils soft ground - no peat intersected

Platform settlements using spreadsheets

Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 3 Platform settlements from CPT records – Zone 3 Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 4A Platform settlements from CPT records– Zone 4A Platform settlements from borehole data & lab testing – Zone 4B Platform settlements from CPT records– Zone 4B

Platform settlements using PLAXIS

Platform settlement for BH27 (Zone 3) Platform settlement for BH830 (Zone 4)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

petronas-0001-rt-1422-0004_b

Documents

technip geoproduction

kuala lumpur city centre

petronas twin tower

rock ridges

technical report

menara technip

kuala lumpur malaysia

soil rock engineering