Bukit Gasing Geotechnical Report

CADANGAN MEMBINA RUMAH SESEBUAH 2 TINGKAT DI ATAS SEBAHAGIAN
LOT 559, JALAN 5/66, SEKSYEN 5, PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN
UNTUK TETUAN LAUREN NOMINEES SDN BHD.
 Geotechnical Interpretative Report
1. SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
TETUAN LAUREN NOMINIEES SDN BHD intends to construct 1 unit of 2 storey bungalow at
part of Lot 559, Jalan 5/66, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan. A layout plan of the proposed
development showing the proposed finished levels and building layout are presented in Figure
1.
The civil and structural consultant is LYS Consult Sdn Bhd and the geotechnical consultant is
GL Konsult Sdn Bhd. This geotechnical assessment report form part of the submission to
IKRAM.
The scope of works covered in this report includes the following:

i. Site reconnaissance and desk study of all available information.
ii. Discussion on the geology of the site.
iii. Review results of soil investigation and produce subsurface soil profile.
iv. Develop relevant cross sections traversing the slopes of the study area and assign
geotechnical parameters to the various strata intersected.
v. Carry out slope stability analysis for the cut slopes.
vi. Geotechnical assessment on the proposed building foundation, road and infra-structural
facilities.
vii. Discussion on the proposed development at the site.
2. BACKGROUND OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed one unit of 2 storey bungalow is located on a sloping ground as shown in layout
plan (Figure 1). A typical cross-section of the original and proposed ground profiles as well as
the proposed bungalow are illustrated in Figure 2.
The building platform levels and the roads are planned to have minimal impact onto the
environment with the following considerations:
 Minimal filling/cutting.
 No rock excavation.
 House to be built on structural systems.
 Natural slopes to be left intact as much as possible.
3. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The geology map of Kuala Lumpur Area (Figure 3) indicates that the proposed site at Bukit
Gasing is generally underlain by sedimentary rocks of Kenny Hill Formation (comprising
sandstone with shale bedding).
The weathering profile of the interbedded sandstone and shale consists of a relatively thin soft
or loose residual soil cover varying from 1m to 5m thick, and a weathered rock zone, which may
extend up to 30 metres thick. The top soil profile may contain clayey SILT. The soil has medium
plasticity. The resultant soil is gritty and has low cohesion.
1 / 15
4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
4.1 Site Reconnaissance and Desk Study
The topographical survey drawing showing the original ground level of the proposed site is
presented in Figure 1. The site is located at a hilly terrain with existing ground levels varying
from approximately +89mRL to +107mRL within the proposed site. The site topography slope
down towards north direction.
A cross-section showing the original ground level, the proposed earthworks and the structure is
presented in Figure 2. There is an existing three tiers reinforced earth (RE) wall at the bottom of
the existing slope. The total height of the RE walls is about 5.5. The existing slope consists of
two individual slopes separated by a 3m wide berm. The heights of slope are 5.5m and 6.5m,
corresponding to bottom and top slope, respectively. The slope gradient is 1V:1.5H (33.7°). The
proposed bungalow will be constructed on the existing ground at the top of the slope. Another
bungalow is currently under construction at an existing platform at the toe of the slope.
4.2 Soil Investigation
Soil investigation was carried out within the footprint of the project site. The soil investigation
comprises of two (2) boreholes and fifteen (15) Mackintosh Probe with laboratory tests. The soil
investigation field works were carried out by Prima Geotechnics Sdn Bhd between 12 May to 16
May 2009. The locations of the exploratory holes are shown in Figure 1 and the borehole logs
are presented in Appendix A.
The boreholes were advanced using a multi speed rotary wash boring machine. Water was
used as the flushing medium and NW size casings were used to prevent the side walls from
collapsing. The following tests/samplings were carried out:
i. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) at 1.5m spacing by driving a split spoon sampler of
50mm diameter into the soil using a 65 kg hammer falling freely over a height of 760
mm.
ii. Disturbed samples were collected from the split spoon sampler for visual examination,
logging and laboratory index tests.
iii. Undisturbed Mazier samples for laboratory testing.
iv. Laboratory tests to obtain index properties, classification and strength parameters of the
underlying soil.
The accuracy of the soil investigation is of importance as it forms the basis of this geotechnical
report.
2 / 15
5. INTERPRETATION OF SOIL INVESTIGATION RESULTS
5.1 Sub-Surface Profile
From the results of the soil investigation and the laboratory test programme, an interpretation of
the findings is presented. Generally, the underlying soil can be divided into the following soil
profiles:
i) The site is directly underlain by the weathered derivative of the sandstone bedrock
consisting of firm to stiff sandy / clayey SILT, to a depth of about 9m. The SPT N values
of this material range from 5 to 12.
ii) Boreholes BH-1 and BH-2 revealed that the stiffness of the soil increase gradually with
depth and stiff to very stiff silty CLAY is encountered at depth between 9m and 12m. The
SPT N values of this materiaI vary from 10 to 19. This material is in turn underlain by
very stiff sandy SILT (SPT=19 to 22) at BH-2.
iii) Generally, hard layer consists of sandy / clayey SILT with SPT-N in excess of 50 blows
was encountered at depth approximately 12m to 15m below ground level (bgl).
Based on the available geotechnical data, subsurface cross-sections were drawn as presented
in Figures 4a to 4c. The locations of subsurface cross-sections are shown in Figure 1.
5.2 Laboratory Test Results
Laboratory test consisting of classification tests such as atterberg limits, sieve and/or
hydrometer analysis and strength tests involving CIU tests are conducted. Summary of the test
results is presented in Appendix B.
5.3 Ground Water Level
The ground water table measurement was taken daily before commencement of work in the
morning and at the end of the day’s work. The ground water levels recorded one day after the
borehole was completed are presented in Table 5.1.
Records from the ground water level monitoring indicate that the ground water levels in the
boreholes are generally at 7.5m depth. Due to the short duration of the monitoring, the water
level is likely to fluctuate depending on the weather condition and rainfall intensity.
Table 5.1 : Ground Water Levels from Boreholes

Borehole Water Level (m bgl)
BH-1 7.40
BH-2 7.80
3 / 15
6. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
6.1 Slope Stability
Stability analysis for the soil nail reinforced slope has been carried out to determine the
minimum factor of safety against instability based on Bishop’s method for circular slip surface,
using limit equilibrium technique. This method assumes subdivision of the sliding soil mass into
vertical slices. The normal stresses along the slip surface are calculated using the equilibrium of
slice, assuming that the forces transmitted between neighbouring slices is strictly horizontal.
The stability factor is determined from the equilibrium moment. The safety factor is defined as
the ratio of the maximum resisting moment to the moment of the actual driving forces, both
taken with respect to the center of the slip circle considered. A computer program, GGU-
STABILITY developed by GGU Zentrale Vermatung mbH, Germany is used to conduct the
analysis and a brief description of the program is presented in Appendix C. Results of the slope
stability analyses are presented in Appendix C.
Slope stability of the cut slope was evaluated considering long-term drained strength of the soil.
Drained analyses were carried out for cut slope, as the long-term failure is more critical.
The Factor of Safety (FOS) considering various risk categories given by the Geotechnical
Control Office of Hong Kong is referred in the determination of minimum FOS for the stability
analysis.
The proposed development falls into medium risk category where any failures will affect
occupied buildings (residential), therefore the minimum factor of safety adopted for stability
analysis is 1.4.
The stability analysis was carried out using the parameters from the soil investigation results
and taking into consideration the proposed buildings on the top and the bottom of existing slope.
The geometry of existing RE wall and slope as well as the imposed loading from the proposed
buildings are as follows:
i) Existing RE Wall (three tiers) height = 5.5m
ii) Existing cut slope (1V:1.5H, two berms) height = 12m
iii) Building load (two storeys) = 20 kPa
iv) Vehicle load at car park = 5 kPa
According to the architect’s drawings provided, a low retaining wall (2.85m high) is proposed at
the upper part of the existing slope. The building load at the toe of the slope is ignored in the
stability analysis. The earthworks profile at the footprint of the lower bungalow is modeled in the
stability analysis. The soil parameters are based on the results of CIU tests on mazier samples.
The soil parameters from the strength tests results are summarized in Table 6.2.
4 / 15
Table 6.2: Soil Parameters from CIU Tests

Depth SPT Soil γ C' Φ' Ref.
(m) Nave Type 3
[kN/m ] [kN/m2] [deg.] Borehole
Firm to stiff
0-9 5 - 12 18 22 17.5
clayey / sandy SILT BH1 &
Stiff to very stiff silty BH2
9 – 12 10 - 19 19 25 21
CLAY
Very stiff
12 – 15 19 - 22 18 17.5 26 BH2
sandy SILT
Hard sandy / clayey BH1 &
> 12 >50 19 19 28
SILT BH2
The strength parameters from the CIU tests indicate marginally high apparent cohesion (c’)
values and slightly low effective angle of friction (‘) compared to typical values for residual soil.
Considering the above observation, the soil parameters adopted in the stability analysis are as
summarized in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Adopted Soil Parameters for Slope Stability Analysis

Depth Soil γ C' Φ'
3 2
(m) Type [kN/m ] [kN/m ] [deg.]
Firm to stiff
0-9 18 8 28
clayey / sandy SILT
Stiff to very stiff silty
9 – 12 19 10 30
CLAY
Very stiff
12 – 15 18 10 32
sandy SILT
Hard sandy / clayey
> 12 19 15 32
SILT
Stability analyses were carried out considering low ground water level (as recorded in the
boreholes) and high ground water level due to unforeseen water leakage, unexpected high
surface water infiltration etc. The results of these analyses are presented in Appendix C and
the Factor of Safeties are summarized in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Summary of Slope Stability Analysis

Analysis Case Ground Water Condition Factor of Safety
1 Low 1.70
2 High 1.30
The overall Factor of Safety considering high ground water condition is less than the minimum
requirement of 1.4 therefore soil nails are proposed to provide overall slope strengthening and
hence increase the FOS.
5 / 15
Soil Nail Design
Based on the 25mm diameter steel reinforcement bar for the soil nail, the allowable tensile
capacity of soil nail is:
Tall = 0.5fyAy
= 0.5 x 460 x 1000 x  x 0.0252 / 4
= 112 kN
Material = SILT
Ultimate bond strength fbult = 60 kPa (ref. table in Appendix C)
Drilled hole diameter = 100mm
Factor of Safety = 3 ( ref. BS8081:1989 )
For length = 18m

Ultimate geotechnical capacity =  x 0.1 x 18 x 60 = 339 kN
Therefore, the allowable geotechnical capacity = 113 kN
Working Load of Soil Nail

The working load of soil nail should not exceed the allowable tensile capacity of the steel
reinforcement and the allowable geotechnical capacity, therefore the adopted working load of
soil nail is 75 kN.
Adhesive force in soil

GGU-STABILITY program requires adhesive force input for the soil nail stability analysis. The
adhesive force for the soil nail is derived as follows:
Adhesive stress of soil (Ultimate bond strength) = 60 kN/m2

Drilled hole dia. = 100mm
Horizontal spacing = 1.5m
tsoil = 60 x  x 0.1 / 1.5 = 12.6 kN/m/m
Considering low and high ground water conditions, stability analyses for the slope reinforced
with soil nail were carried out and the results are presented in Appendix C. The results of these
analyses are summarized in Table 6.5.
Table 6.4: Summary of Slope Stability Analysis of Soil Nail Reinforced Slope
Analysis Ground Water Factor of Remarks
Case Condition Safety
1 Low 1.73
2 High 1.32
Global stability
3 High (with 1.40
horizontal drains)
4 High (with 1.50 Localised slope (2.85m high retaining wall)
horizontal drains) directly below the proposed building.
The stability analysis for the soil nail reinforced slope with provision of horizontal drains
indicates an overall factor of safety (FOS) of 1.4 which is satisfactory. The stability analysis for
6 / 15
the 2.85m high retaining wall located directly below the proposed building indicates FOS of 1.5
which satisfies the minimum requirement of 1.4.
Soil Nail Pad Design
The most common potential failure modes at the facing-nail head connection are flexure failure
due to excessive bending beyond the facing’s flexural capacity and punching shear failure that
occurs around the nail’s head. For each of these failure modes, the nail head and facing must
be designed to provide capacity in excess of the maximum nail head tensile force at the nail’s
head.
i) Tensile force at the nail’s head
The nail tensile force at the nail’s head, To, is smaller or equal to the maximum nail
tensile force. The Clouterre (1991) design guidelines recommend adopting in-service
values of the head nail tensile force as:
 60 percent of the maximum nail service load for a nail spacing of 1m or less;
 100 percent of the maximum nail service laod for a nail spacing of 3m or more; and
 A linear interpolation for intermediate nail spacing.
For a typical nail head spacing of 1.5m x 1.5m, the nail head tensile force correspond to
a recommended facing service load of about 0.7 times the maximum nail working load.
Nail head tensile force, To = 0.7 x WL = 0.7 x 75 = 52.5 kN
ii) Facing Flexural Capacity
Theoretically, the soil pressure that causes facing failure can be applied to an influence
area around the nail head, and a nail tensile force (“reaction”) is obtained. This force is
designated as the facing flexure capacity, RFF, and can be estimated as:
RFF = CF/265 x (avn + avm) x (Shh/Sv) x fy

where:
CF = factor that consider the non-uniform soil pressures behind the facing
h = thickness of facing
avn = reinforcement cross sectional area per unit width in the vertical direction at
the nail head
avm = reinforcement cross sectional area per unit width in the vertical direction at
midspan
Sh = nail horizontal spacing
Sv = nail vertical spacing
fy = reinforcement tensile yield strength
Consider :
Facing thickness, h = 200mm
Reinforcement mesh = BRC A6
Reinforcement cross-sectional area per unit width = avn = avm = 142mm2/m
Reinforcement tensile yield strength, fy = 460 MPa
7 / 15
For permanent facing, CF = 1
RFF = (1/265) x (142 + 142) x (1.5 x 0.2/1.5) x 460

= 98.6 kN
Given the tensile force at the soil nail head, To , and the facing flexural capacity, the
safety factor against facing flexural failure can be defined as:
FSFF = RFF/To
= 98.6/52.5
= 1.8 > 1.5 therefore OK.
iii) Facing Punching Shear Capacity
As is common for concrete structural slabs subjected to concentrated loads, the nail-
head capacity must be assessed in consideration of the punching shear capacity, RFF,
and can be expressed as:
RFP = CPVF
where,
CP = Correction factor = 1.0
VF = Punching shear force acting through the facing section
= 330 f’c  D’c hc
where,
D’c = effective diameter of conical failure surface at the centre of section
hc = effective conical depth of conical surface
f’c = concrete compressive strength
The size of bearing plate is 200mm x 200mm and hc= 0.5h = 100mm.
LBP = Length of bearing plate = 200mm

D’c = LBP + hc = 0.2 + 0.1 = 0.3m
VF = 330 x 25 x  x 0.3 x 0.1
= 155.5 kN
RFP = 1 x 155.5 = 155.5 kN
FSFP = RFP/To
= 155.5/52.5
= 2.9 > 1.5 therefore OK.
iv) Facing Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity of soil nail pad resting on in-situ soil is checked based on the soil
parameters derived from the boreholes.
8 / 15
The soil parameters adopted are:

 = 18 kN/m3, c’ = 8 kN/m2,  = 28 degrees
The ultimate bearing capacity of soil nail pad is given by the following equation.
qult = c’Nc + qNq + 0.5BN

where,
c’ = Cohesion of soil under effective stress conditions
q = effective surcharge
B = width of soil nail pad
Nc , Nq , N = Bearing Capacity Factor
Nc = 25 , Nq = 14 , N = 16
Try soil nail pad width of 0.7m x 0.7m.
qult = (8 x 25) + (0.2 x 18 x 14) + (0.5 x 18 x 0.6 x 16)

= 200 + 50.4 + 100.8
= 351.2 kN/m2
Bearing pressure from the soil nail is calculated based on nail head tensile force, To and the soil
nail pad area:
Bearing pressure = To / (B x B)
= 52.5 / (0.7 x 0.7) = 107.1 kN/m2
Factor of safety against bearing failure = 351.2 / 107.1 = 3.2 > 3 therefore OK.
Soil Nail Design Summary
The details of the proposed soil nail reinforcement:

 Soil nail to be installed at an inclination 12° degrees below horizontal.
 The diameter of the steel reinforcement bar is 25mm.
 The drilled hole diameter is 100mm.
 Cement grout strength = 30 MPa
 The length of each soil nail is 18m.
 The working load of soil nail = 75 kN
 The spacing of soil nail at 1.5m (vertical) x 1.5m (horizontal).
 No. of soil nail per vertical row = 4
 No. of soil nail rows = 24
 Total No. of soil nail = 96
The details of the proposed soil nail pad:

 Pad size = 700mm x 700mm x 200mm
 Bearing plate = 200mm x 200mm x 10mm M. S. plate
 Reinforcement = 1 layer of BRC A6
 Gunite strength = 25 MPa
9 / 15
Horizontal Drain
Horizontal drains are proposed at the toe of the existing cut slope to lower down the high ground
water level due to unforeseen water leakage, unexpected high surface water infiltration etc. The
details of the horizontal drains are as follows.
 Length of horizontal drain = 12m
 Horizontal drain pipe = 80mm dia. perforated PVC wrapped with geotextile filter fabric
 Inclination = 1V:10H
 Height of horizontal drain outlet above the berm = 750mm
 U-channel discharge to berm drain
 Horizontal drain horizontal spacing = 3m
 No of horizontal drain rows = 12
 No of horizontal drain per row = 2
 Total No. of horizontal drain = 24
6.2 Foundation Analysis
6.2.1 Shallow Foundation
The design of shallow foundation for the light structures was carried out using the SPT-N values
based on Meyerhof (1956) correlation:
qall = 20 N Kd for B ≤ 1.2m
qall = 12.5 N [ (B+0.3)/B ]2 Kd for B > 1.2m
qall = allowable bearing pressure [kPa] for So = 25-mm settlement.

N = the statistical average value for the footing influence zone of about
0.5B above the footing base to at least 2B below the footing base.
B = width of footing [m]
Kd = depth factor = 1 + (0.33D/B) ≤ 1.33 (Meyerhof 1965)
D = depth of embedment [m]
Individual spread footings can be adopted as the foundation for the proposed bungalow. The
exact loadings from this building are not available at this stage. The loads from the structure are
expected to be distributed within the sandy / clayey silt layer.
Assuming that the footing is placed at 1.0m below ground level, the allowable bearing capacity
analyses for square footing of 1m, 1.2m, 1.5m and 2m are presented in Appendix D and the
results summarised in Table 6.3. In the event that the actual column load exceeds the above
values, other types of foundation such as raft or piled foundation may have to be considered.
Table 6.3 : Allowable Bearing Capacity for Structures

Footing Safe bearing cap. Safe column
Kd ((B+0.3/B)2 Ave SPT-N
width [m] qall [kPa] load [kN]
1 1.33 1.69 8 210 210
1.2 1.28 1.56 8 200 240
1.5 1.22 1.44 8 170 255
2 1.17 1.32 8 150 300
10 / 15
6.2.2 Deep Foundation
Ultimate Geotechnical Pile Capacity

The ultimate geotechnical capacity of the driven piles is estimated based on the SPT-N values
using empirical correlation by Meyerhof:
Pult = Ps + P b
n
f
i 1
si Asi  f b Ab
Pult = ultimate pile capacity

Ps = shaft resistance of pile due to skin friction
Pb = base resistance of the pile due to end bearing
fsi = unit skin friction for the layer under study
= 2 x N (a limit of 100kPa is adopted)
fb = unit end bearing resistance
= 200 x N for cohesive soil (a limit of 10,000kPa is adopted)
= 400 x N for cohesionless soil (a limit of 10,000kPa is adopted)
As = shaft area of pile
Ab = base area of pile
n = total number of soil layers
N = SPT-N blow counts
Nave = the averaged SPT-N blow counts for the layer under study
The ultimate geotechnical capacity should be divided by the factor of safety, FOS to obtain the
allowable pile capacity for axial loading. Factors of safety of 2.5 are adopted for skin friction and
end bearing.
The geotechnical pile capacity analyses for reinforced concrete (RC) piles are presented in
Appendix E. It is expected that the toe of the pile will penetrate slightly into the bearing layer
with SPT>50.
For the tension capacity of pile, only the outer skin friction is considered. A safety factor of 3 is
used to obtain the allowable tension capacity. The maximum working load in compression and
tension as well as the estimated pile length for various pile sizes are summarised in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Summary of RC Piles

Pile size Pile length from Allowable geotechnical capacity (kN)
Borehole
(mm x mm) existing ground (m) Compression Tension
150 x 150 13 200 100
BH1 200 x 200 13 300 130
250 x 250 13 450 160
11 / 15
6.3 Retaining Wall

The reinforced concrete retaining walls must be designed accordingly taking into account the
following considerations:
 Global Stability
All reinforced structures shall be designed for a global stability factor of safety of 1.5
 Bearing Capacity
All reinforced structures shall be designed for adequate bearing capacity. The factor of
safety for bearing capacity shall be 3.0.
 Overturning
All reinforced structures shall be checked for overturning at possible rotation point for a
factor of safety of 2.0.
 Lateral Movement or Sliding

All reinforced structures shall be checked for lateral movement or sliding for a factor of
safety of 1.5.
6.4 Roads and Infrastructure
The existing road fringing the southern boundary of the site will provide access to the proposed
bungalow, leading to the driveway and car porch area. Minimal earthworks operation will be
required to link up to this existing access road. Adequate gradient shall be provided such that no
water ponding will occur.
The minimum pavement thickness as stipulated by the local authority concerned will be
provided unless the pavement design warrants for thicker pavement detail.
6.5 Soft Ground
The site is located on cut ground in a hilly terrain with no soft, compressible soil.
6.6 Unsuitable Material
As mentioned in the preceeding section, no unsuitable material is encountered at the site except
for a thin layer of top soil.
6.7 Surface Protection and Drainage
Adequate protection of slope by mean of turfing or other artificial means must be provided. Cut-
off drains and toe drains should be provided at the top of the platform, respectively, to ensure
that water is channeled properly to the bottom of the slope without indiscriminately overflowing
down the slope.
12 / 15
7. CONSTRUCTION
7.1 Temporary Work
The temporary works for the project site such as the temporary support for the excavation of lift
core shall be designed accordingly and endorsed by professional engineer.
7.1.1 Location
Other than the temporary support for the excavation, the other locations of temporary works, if
any, shall be determined at site when the need arises.
7.1.2 Design and Analysis
Design and analysis shall properly done abiding by codes of practice and be endorsed by
professional engineer prior to construction.
7.1.3 Quantities
The temporary works quantity shall be properly and accurately evaluated then.
7.2 Construction Control
Proper and adequate construction control measures to be taken at site with adequate safety in
mind. The relevant specifications for geotechnical works including construction control
measures shall be submitted to MBPJ by the Civil Engineer prior to construction. Similarly, the
supervision programme shall also be submitted.
7.3 Method Statement
The contractor shall submit method statement and construction sequence for geotechnical
works prior to the commencement of any work, be it permanent or temporary. All the permanent
and temporary works shall be undertaken only after the engineer approved the method
statement.
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
TETUAN LAUREN NOMINIEES SDN BHD intends to construct 1 unit of 2 storey bungalow at
part of Lot 559, Jalan 5/66, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan.
The site consists of two individual slopes (5.5m & 6.5m high with a profile of 1V:1.5H) separated
by a 3m berm. There is a three tier RE wall of 5.5m high at the toe of the slope. A bungalow is
proposed to be constructed on the existing ground at the top of the slope. Another bungalow is
currently under construction at the toe of the slope.
13 / 15
The geology of Bukit Gasing is generally underlain by sedimentary rocks (comprising sandstone
with shale bedding). The weathering profile of the interbedded sandstone and shale consists of
a relatively thin soft or loose soil cover varying from 1m to 5m thick, and a weathered rock zone,
which may extend up to 30 metres thick.
The soil investigation comprises of two (2) boreholes and fifteen (15) Mackintosh Probe with
laboratory tests. In-situ SPT tests were carried out and mazier samples were collected. The
laboratory tests were carried out to obtain index properties, classification and strength
parameters.
The site is directly underlain by the weathered derivative of the sandstone bedrock consisting of
firm to stiff sandy / clayey SILT with the stiffness of the soil increase gradually with depth. Hard
layer was encountered between 12m and 15m depth.
Ground water level monitoring indicates that the ground water level is generally at 7.5m depth.
Stability Analysis
The Factor of Safety (FOS) considering various risk categories given by the Geotechnical
Control Office of Hong Kong is referred in the determination of minimum FOS for the stability
analysis. The proposed development falls into medium risk category where any failures will
affect occupied buildings (residential), therefore the minimum factor of safety adopted for
stability analysis is 1.4.
The Factor of Safety for high ground water condition is less than the minimum FOS of 1.4
therefore soil nails are proposed to provide overall slope strengthening and hence increase the
FOS.
The stability analysis for the soil nail reinforced slope with provision of horizontal drains
indicates an overall factor of safety of 1.4 which is satisfactory. The stability analysis for the
2.85m high retaining wall located directly below the proposed building indicates FOS of 1.5
which satisfies the minimum requirement of 1.4.
Soil Nail Design Summary
The details of the proposed soil nail reinforcement:

 Soil nail to be installed at an inclination 12° degrees below horizontal.
 The diameter of the steel reinforcement bar is 25mm.
 The drilled hole diameter is 100mm.
 Cement grout strength = 30 MPa
 The length of each soil nail is 18m.
 The working load of soil nail = 75 kN
 The spacing of soil nail at 1.5m (vertical) x 1.5m (horizontal).
 No. of soil nail per vertical row = 4
 No. of soil nail rows = 24
 Total No. of soil nail = 96
14 / 15
The details of the proposed soil nail pad:

 Pad size = 700mm x 700mm x 200mm
 Bearing plate = 200mm x 200mm x 10mm M. S. plate
 Reinforcement = 1 layer of BRC A6
 Gunite strength = 25 MPa
Horizontal Drain
Horizontal drains are proposed at the toe of the existing cut slope to lower down the high ground
water level due to unforeseen water leakage, unexpected high surface water infiltration etc. The
details of the horizontal drains are as follows.
 Length of horizontal drain = 12m
 Horizontal drain pipe = 80mm dia. perforated PVC wrapped with geotextile filter fabric
 Inclination = 1V:10H
 Height of horizontal drain outlet above the berm = 750mm
 U-channel discharge to berm drain
 Horizontal drain horizontal spacing = 3m
 No of horizontal drain rows = 12
 No of horizontal drain per row = 2
 Total No. of horizontal drain = 24
Shallow Foundation
Individual spread footings can be adopted as the foundation for the proposed bungalow.
Assuming that the footing is placed at 1.0m below ground level, the allowable bearing capacity
analyses for square footing of 1m, 1.2m, 1.5m and 2m are tabulated below.
Footing width [m] Safe bearing capacity qall [kPa] Safe column load [kN]
1 210 210
1.2 200 240
1.5 170 255
2 150 300
Deep Foundation
Reinforced concrete (RC) piles are considered for the deep foundation. The maximum working
load in compression and tension as well as the estimated pile length for various pile sizes are
summarised in the following table.
Pile size Pile length from Allowable geotechnical capacity (kN)
Borehole
(mm x mm) existing ground (m) Compression Tension
150 x 150 13 200 100
BH1 200 x 200 13 300 130
250 x 250 13 450 160
Pile foundation is recommended for the structures located at the edge of the existing slope. The
pile cap should be specially designed so that the piles positions are located in between the
proposed soil nails.
15 / 15

Bukit Gasing Geotechnical Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bukit Gasing Geotechnical Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CADANGAN MEMBINA RUMAH SESEBUAH 2 TINGKAT DI ATAS SEBAHAGIAN

1. SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

The scope of works covered in this report includes the following:

4.1 Site Reconnaissance and Desk Study

4.2 Soil Investigation

5. INTERPRETATION OF SOIL INVESTIGATION RESULTS

5.1 Sub-Surface Profile

5.2 Laboratory Test Results

5.3 Ground Water Level

Table 5.1 : Ground Water Levels from Boreholes

6.1 Slope Stability

Table 6.2: Soil Parameters from CIU Tests

Table 6.3: Adopted Soil Parameters for Slope Stability Analysis

Table 6.4: Summary of Slope Stability Analysis

Soil Nail Design

For length = 18m

Therefore, the allowable geotechnical capacity = 113 kN

Working Load of Soil Nail

Adhesive force in soil

Adhesive stress of soil (Ultimate bond strength) = 60 kN/m2

Soil Nail Pad Design

i) Tensile force at the nail’s head

Nail head tensile force, To = 0.7 x WL = 0.7 x 75 = 52.5 kN

ii) Facing Flexural Capacity

RFF = CF/265 x (avn + avm) x (Shh/Sv) x fy

For permanent facing, CF = 1

RFF = (1/265) x (142 + 142) x (1.5 x 0.2/1.5) x 460

iii) Facing Punching Shear Capacity

LBP = Length of bearing plate = 200mm

RFP = 1 x 155.5 = 155.5 kN

iv) Facing Bearing Capacity

The soil parameters adopted are:

qult = c’Nc + qNq + 0.5BN

Try soil nail pad width of 0.7m x 0.7m.

qult = (8 x 25) + (0.2 x 18 x 14) + (0.5 x 18 x 0.6 x 16)

Soil Nail Design Summary

The details of the proposed soil nail reinforcement:

The details of the proposed soil nail pad:

6.2 Foundation Analysis

6.2.1 Shallow Foundation

qall = allowable bearing pressure [kPa] for So = 25-mm settlement.

Table 6.3 : Allowable Bearing Capacity for Structures

6.2.2 Deep Foundation

Ultimate Geotechnical Pile Capacity

Pult = ultimate pile capacity

Table 6.4: Summary of RC Piles

6.3 Retaining Wall

 Lateral Movement or Sliding

6.4 Roads and Infrastructure

6.5 Soft Ground

6.6 Unsuitable Material

6.7 Surface Protection and Drainage

7.1 Temporary Work

7.1.2 Design and Analysis

7.2 Construction Control

7.3 Method Statement

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Soil Nail Design Summary

The details of the proposed soil nail reinforcement:

The details of the proposed soil nail pad:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen