5/13

SLOPE STABILIZATION MEASURES FOR THE KUALA LUMPUR - KARAK TOLL

HIGHWAY

Z.C. Moh Managing Director, Moh and Associates, Singapore

P. Wijemunige Project Manager, Moh and Associates, Singapore
R. Khanchanusthiti Project Director, Malaysian-Thai Development Sdn. Bhd, Malaysia

SYNOPSIS The construction in the mountainous stretch of Kuala Lumpur - Ksrak Toll Highway, which traverses through
varied terrain ranging from flat land to rolling to rugged and mountainous, involved high cuts and deep fills. About
seven years later, many of the high cut slopes started to have erosional and stability problems which became
progressively serious imposing great inconvenience and safety problems to the road users. A major slope repair program
was carried out from 1986 to 1988 after a detailed geotechnical study comprising of field investigation and laboratory
testing. Different slope improvement methods were used to rectify the problem slopes, including the use of ground
anchors, gabion walls, anchored retaining walls and horizontal drains. Hydroseeding was generally used to protect the
slope surfaces from erosion, but guniting was used at some slopes. In the paper, the properties of the residual soils
are discussed. Details of different slope improvement methods are given for typical slopes. Merits and demerits of
different slope improvement methods used are discussed as observed during and after construction. Whenever possible
the cost involved in different slope improvement methods are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

The Kuala Lumpur - Karak Toll Highway is a part of the
overall Federal Route II which is the major East-West
link for Peninsular Malaysia and of utmost importance
for land transport between the eastern and western
regions of the country. The highway traverses through
varied terrain ranging from flat to rolling to rugged
and mountainous. The construction in the mountainous
and hilly stretch of the highway was characterized by
deep cuts with maximum heights exceeding 60m and fills
reaching about 24m. About seven years after the opening
of the highway, many of the high cut slopes started to
have erosional and stability problems which became
progressively more serious with time.
A total of 166 problem slopes were identified within
about 50km mountain stretch of the highway for slope
improvement work. These slopes were categorized into 3
groups according to the criteria shown in Fig.l. Among
them, there were 20 category 'A' slopes, 46 category 'B'
slopes and 100 category 'C' slopes.
A detailed geological and geotechnical investigation was
carried out in the 66 category 'A' and 'B' slopes which
included field investigation and laboratory testing of
soil samples. A total of 139 boreholes l'ere drilled and
about 1,200 samples were collected for laboratory
testing. One hundred and seventy piezometers were
installed for groundwater monitoring and 60 constant
head field permeability tests were carried out in the
boreholes.
Laboratory testing on soil samples included 158 sets of
triaxial shear strength tests, 16 sets of direct shear
tests and nearly one thousand sets of physical property
tests. Four different types of shear strength tests were
carried out on the soil samples including multi-stage
CIU tests, single stage CiU tests, CAU tests with pore
pressure control and direct shear tests. Details of
these test procedures and the comparison of test results
are discussed elsewhere (MOH AND WIJEMUNIGE, 1990).

~L 0
PE
E
SLOPE HAS
FAILED OR
FAILURE M)ST
LIKELY
SLOPE FAILURE SLOPE FAILURE
IS UKELY
TO OCCUR
IS UNUKELY
IN NEAR FU1URE GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
E

HIGH A The general geology surrounding the Bentong area which

includes a major part of the Kuala Lumpur - Karak
Highway is shown in Fig.2. Most of the problem slopes
B
were located in granitic rock areas and few slopes were
MEDIUM
located in the stratified rock areas belonging to the
Lower Arenaceous Series.

LOW c
According to ALEXANDER (1968), the granite found in this
area belongs to the 'Main Range' intrusion which is a
syntectonic pluton of the composite batholithic type.
FIG. I CRITERIA OF SLOPE CATEGORIZATION The predominant biotite granite of the Main Range
419
 5/13
can be divided into three layers, but in some places one
or two layers were absent. The average thickness of
layer 1 (top soil layer) is 12m and it was found at
almost every slope investigated. Layer 2 (middle layer)
which has an average thickness of 6.5m is located 3-20m
below the ground surface and layer 3 (bottom layer)
overlying the granite bedrock is about 7 .Om thick. Of
the total thickness of the soil cover, 50-70% is layer 1
and the rest is the other two layers in approximately
equal proportions. Physical properties of the three
soil layers are shown in Fig.3 together with SPT N
values. The amount of fine fraction of the soil
decreases with increase in depth below the ground
surface. Various quantities of corestones or boulders
were found embedded in the soil overburden at many
places. They were generally found near the bedrock
surface, but in some places they were found very near
the ground surface. These boulders are usually round in
shape and their sizes vary from about 0.5m to more than
6m in diameter.

Values of the effective shear strength parameters

obtained from multi-stage au
tests for the three soil
layers at different slope locations are plotted against
sample depth in Fig.4. It can be seen that the strength
parameters of the three soil layers at different
~?G~AEN~ ~~ [UrosSIL LOCAUTIES a·~~f~ARENACEOUS locations varied considerably. Comparisons of strength
0 ~~sa ULTRABAs•c [I] cALCAREous SERIES D ·~~~ARENACEous parameters obtained from different types of tests were
10 20miles
discussed by MOH AND WIJEMUNIGE (1990).
0

FIG. 2 GEOLOGY OF BENTONG AREA

0. deg
exhibits marked variation in texture and includes 40
20 30
coarse, medium and fine-grained types. The stratified 0

-~
rocks found along some sections are metamorphic rocks
that belong mainly to the 'Schist Series'. This series 5
of rocks comprises a distinct sequence of mixed
argillaceous and arenaceous types, originally shales 10
with some sandstone, but largely altered by the process

~,
E
of metamorphism to phyllite, slate, schist or hornfels. 15
The dominant types of rocks in the Schist Series are J:
1--
mica schist, mica-quartz schist and quartz schist. n. 20
These are strongly foliated and contorted. w
0
~0
•• 0
25
0
The subsurface profile in these granitic hills consists
of residual granitic soil cover with embedded corestones 30
underlain by the granite bedrock. Thickness of the soil
35oL-----.....J
cover varied from 6m to 45m, the thinner covers were
found at slopes located in higher altitudes and thicker FIG. 4 EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS OF
SOIL LAYERS IN GRANITIC SOIL AREAS
covers at slopes located in lower altitudes. Field and
laboratory test results show that the properties of the
soil cover vary with depth. In general, the soil cover
Majority of the constant head field permeability tests
were carried out in soil layer 1 and the results varied
in a wide range from 3xl0-6 to 3xl0-3 em/sec, with
majority of the estimated permeability values falling
between 2xl0-4 and lxl0-3 em/sec.

Stratified rocks are highly weathered that boreholes

could be sunk by wash boring to great depths (40m at
one location). Properties of these weathered rock
r layers varied considerably with depth as well as from
~ 15
UJ place to place (Fig.5 ). Variations of shear strength
0
parameters are also significant and this can be due to
20
variation of the orientation of weak planes
(schistosity) within the tested specimens.

Fill embankments along this road have been constructed

FIG. 3 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL by dumping the excavated materials from the cut slopes
LAYERS IN GRANITIC SOIL AREAS
in valley areas. The granitic soil fills were generally
less denser than the fills made of stratified rock
420
 5/13
Groundwater condition in a slope plays a very important
role in slope stability yet this is the most difficult
variable to measure or to estimate accurately based on
available methods. The groundwater levels obtained
during the monitoring period (usually less than six
months in this project) were unlikely to represent the
peak levels which might occur during a critical
rainstorm. Therefore, an estimate was made of the
extent to which the water level in each slope may rise
due to rainfall and other factors. The wetting band
approach proposed by LUMB (1975) was used in the
estimation of the groundwater level rise.
36
40~----~ ~------~ ~--------~

FIG.5 PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN STRATIFIED ROCK AREAS

REMEDIAL MEASURES

materials (Fig.6). Several series of multi-stage CIU

tPsts were carried out on samples taken from different Slope flattening was the most common method used to
fill slopes and the results are presented in Fig.6. stabilize the cut slopes along this highway. Horizontal
drains were installed in a number of cut slopes to
further enhance the stability. Ground anchors were used
WEIG~~.~~Nim' SPT. N 0, deQ
in one cut slope because of an existing high voltage
electricity transmission tower at the top of the cut
b6 18 20 22 Of---'20T--40T---"':60r'---"i80 20 30 40 500 10 20 30
slope which prevented the slope being flattened.
00.:£ ~Ill Majority of the problem fill embankments were
2
reconstructed and at two locations anchored retaining
4
o 0 '6f! ll •• • • walls on bored piles foundations were used because of
~·
0
the steep ground surface slope. Drainage layers were
6
0~
00
0 ..
0

0 . provided in these embankments to prevent the buildup of

<S> 0~·. 0
high groundwater levels. Surface drains including
8 0 0

I
E o<P o&
~0 . . .
•
0
• intercepter drains, bench drains and collector drains
0
f-
0..
10
0 <IJ) I' oooM • o• 0
• were provided in improved slopes to collect the surface
"' runoff and to divert it safely to the proper outlets.
0 12 ([])
• a»• All the exposed soil surfaces were protected by
14 ~
•
o•
Q) ..
hydroseeding, turfing or guniting .
0 0
16 0 0

In the following sections, three typical cases of slope

18 0 ~~~~~E
0 remedial works are presented. Distribution of the total
20
• ~~~r:;;f2s cost among different items of work involved in these
remedial works is also discussed.
FIG. 6 PROPERTIES OF SOILS IN EXISTING FILLS

CASE 1 Cut slope protected with ground anchors

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES The cut slope A3 is about 540m long and 45m high at the
highest point (Fig. 7). Outcrops of granite bedrock were
found in the lower 1-2 flights at some parts of the cut
Stability analyses were carried out by using Morgenstern slope. A high voltage electricity transmission tower
and Price's method of slices (MORGENSTERN AND PRICE, was situated very near (about 30m) the top of the old
1965) which can be used for the analyses of non-circular slope cut. Five boreholes were drilled and 7 piezometers
sliding surfaces. When ground anchors were used for were installed to monitor the groundwater condition.
slope stabilization, the anchor capacity was calculated Granite bedrock was encountered at about 25m to 30m
according to the force polygon method by dividing the below the ground surface, The soil cover can be divided
sliding mass into slices and considering the equilibrium into two sublayers (Layer 1 and 3), with thicknesses
of these slices. Generally, the boreholes were located varying from about 13m to nearly 30m in the upper layer
along estimated critical slope sections and therefore and about 10m in the lower layer.
soil profile at these sections could be established
quite accurately.
Recut slope profile with individual flight gradient of
1V:1H gave a factor of safety close to 1.2 in the slope
Shear strength tests carried out on soil samples area around CH 0+280m, where the soil cover was found to
recovered from different soil layers gave wide ranges of be thickest. Because of the existing tower around CH
values for shear strength parameters which were 0+380m, the slope could not be flattened to the above
primarily due to non-homogeneity of the soils and may gradient without endangering the stability of the
also be partly due to disturbance effects during tower. A steeper flight gradient was therefore used
sampling and testing. Therefore, direct use of the between CH 0+350m and CH 0+420m (Fig.8), and the upper
laboratory test results at any given slope location was 4 flights of the slope was stabilized using ground
avoided. A parametric study was carried out in anchors. A total of 76 anchors of 40 ton capacity were
conjunction with previous slope failures and installed along 4 rows (Fig. 7) to obtain a factor of
representative values of the shear strength parameters safety of 1.3. A higher factor of safety for this part
of the different soil layers were selected within of the slope was considered in the design because of the
allowable limits to best explain the field conditions. existing transmission tower on top of the slope.
421
5/13
230mm THK STONE PITCHED INTERCEPTER ORAIN
SLOPE PROTECTION
SLOPE AREA PROTECTED~
BY GUNITING ~

0.5m MIN HEIGHT STONE

PITCHING ABOVE ROCK
II

ROCK

---- --------
~KUALA LUMPUR a~ zoo o•400 J~ EXISTING CULVERT
0 25 50m
CARRIAGEWAY
HORIZONTAL DRAINS STONE PITCHING
SCALE
PLAN
FIG. 7 SLOPE STABILIZATION BY FLATTENING AND GROUND ANCHORS I CASE I I

Anchors used were strand type (4 strands) and the fixed was not visible on the cut slope face but numerous large
length was 10m in the hard soil (Layer 3). The free diameter boulders (2-3m) were found on the cut slope
length of the anchors varied from 8m in the lowest row face. Three boreholes were drilled along two slope
to 23m in the uppermost row. Anchors were generally sections and four piezometers were installed to monitor
the groundwater condition. The residual soil cover in
this slope overlying the granite bedrock was 25-30m
thick and it can be divided into three sublayers. The
soil layers 1, 2 and 3 were respectively 15-20m, 5-6m,
and 5-10m thick at the borehole locations. According to
the piezometer monitoring records, a steady groundwater
table at about 3.5m above the bedrock level was
monitored.

After a detailed analysis, a recut slope profile with

EXISTING CUT SLOPE flight gradients varying between 1V:0.7H and 1V:1.25H
(
SLOPE PROTECTION WITH GUNITE was used (Fig.9). This recut slope gave a factor of
REVISED CUT SLOPE
safety of 1.21 under the observed groundwater
SLOPE PROTECTION BY
HYDROSEEDING condition. Although this factor of safety is acceptable
for a highway slope, it was decided to install
SOIL LAYER 3
-)"""C--:r-":-~-""\-e
horizontal drains in this slope to lower the risk of
possible slope failures during heavy rains due to rising
~T~~~t~D BEDROCK/ groundwater levels. Horizontal drains of 23-30m length
0 K) 20 30m were installed in the high slope area along three
benches. Hydroseeding was used in this slope to provide
SCALE
the vegetation cover for erosion protection.
FIG.B RECUT SLOPE PROFILE STABILIZED WITH GROUND ANCHORS

inclined at 20° to the horizontal. Square precast

concrete slabs, 1.7sq.m. in size and 300mm thick were
used as the anchor pads. In order to avoid any soil ORfGINAL SLOPE~.r-­

erosion in the anchored slope area, 75mm thick guniting ///

with one layer of BRC A5 mesh was used as the slope RECUT SLOPE PROTECTED /
BY HYOROSEEDING /
protection measure. Steel anchor bars, 12mm in diameter
and 550mm long were used at 1m spacing to anchor the
gunite cover to the soil. Gunite cover under the anchor BENCH DRAIN

pads were separated from the rest of the area to avoid

cracking during anchor stressing. A filler and sealing
compound were used to seal the gap around the anchor
pad. This is important because seepage of water under
HORIZONTAL DRAINS AT 60m
the gunite cover and soil erosion can cause loss of the SPACING -23m LONG 0 20 30m

prestressing force in anchors. RCW>SIDE DRAIN

SCALE

SUB-SOIL DRAIN

FIG. 9 RECUT SLOPE PROFILE AT CH. 0+060m AND

RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSES I CASE 2 J
Horizontal drains were installed in a 40m long area
where an old slope failure was found and seepage of
groundwater was observed. Hydroseeding was used to
provide the vegetation cover in other areas outside the CASE 3 Anchored retaining wall on bored pile foundation
gunited area to prevent soil erosion.

Slope A13 is a fill .embankment located in the granitic

CASE 2 Cut slope stabilized by slope flattening soil area. The filled area is about 40m wide at the
road level and it gradually narrows down with depth
conforming with the topography of the valley (Fig.10).
Cut slope A16 is about 320m long and 108m high at the
Three boreholes were drilled, two on the road side and
highest slope section and the natural ground slope rises
the other in the middle of the sloping fill and one
to a considerable height beyond this cut slope. Bedrock
422
 5/13
piezometer each was installed in these boreholes to to collect . rainwater falling over each bench and the
monitor the groundwater condition. The old fill was respective flight, and collector drains to collect water
very loose (SPT N around 2-3) and was about 4.5m thick from bench drains and in some places from the
at center of the valley area. The residual soil below interceptor drains.
the fill layer was subdivided into two layers, the upper
layer (Layer 1) was about 7m thick and the lower layer
(Layer 3) was about 5m thick. Hydroseeding was generally used for slope erosion
protection. In few slopes, guniting had to be used
because of difficulty of hydroseeding or in the
necessity of providing a positive erosion protection to
the slope to secure the structures on top of the cut
60m HIGH
WING WALL
slopes as in Case 1. Hydroseeding was difficult on some
slopes, because of high sand content in the soil which
lead to localized soil slumping or unsuitable soil
chemistry which did not allow grass to grow.
I 2rr- 0 BORED PILES
60m LONG

ELEVATION
Cost of slope remedial works

Cost of slope remedial works can vary according to the

place, time and many other factors and therefore no
attempt is made here to give the actual costs involved
in these works. However, the knowledge of relative cost
for different items of work is important in selecting
the most appropriate remedial measure at a given slope
location. Also, such a comparison of relative cost may
help the practicing engineers in deciding whether or not
to include certain measures in the proposed remedial
works (example - proper bench drains). The breakdown of
the total cost on different items of work in the above 3
cases are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Cost Breakdown for Slope Remedial Measures

PLAN Percentage of Total Cost

Item of Work
FIG.IO STABILIZATION OF A FILLED SLOPE USING
AN ANCHORED RETAINING WALL I CASE 3) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Earthwork 34.2 54.1 8.6
Ground anchors 36.3 0.0 27.0
An anchored retaining wall on bored pile foundation was
selected at this location to prevent the loose fill from Bored piles & retaining wall 0.0 0.0 60.0
sliding (Fig.lO). The retaining wall is 6m high and Erosion protection 17.9 6.2 o.o
comprises individual columns at 3.5m spacing founded on
bored piles. Each column is anchored by a 40 ton anchor Surface drains 8.9 14.7 4.4
inclined at 25° to the horizontal. Reinforced Horizontal subsurface drains 2.7 25.0 0.0
concrete panels, 0.9m wide and 2.6m long were used
between the columns to form the wall to retain the fill
material. A drainage layer was provided behind the
retaining wall to prevent groundwater level buildup in The breakdown of the cost for remedial works of the
the new fill. The bored piles were 1.2m diameter and slope in Case 1 shows that about half of the total cost
about 6m long, penetrating into the hard soil layer has been spent on installation of the ground anchors and
(Layer 3). Anchor bars of 32mm diameter with double provision of gunite cover which was needed to ensure the
corrosion protection were used as the ground anchors. long term performance of the anchors. The cost of
The free length of the anchors was 25m and the fixed earthwork needed to stabilize about 500m stretch of this
length varied between 5 and 10m depending on whether it slope was slightly less than the cost of ground anchors
was in hard soil or rock. These anchors were also used used to stabilize about 70m stretch of the slope. Had
as a temporary support during the excavation of the the high voltage electricity transmission tower not been
existing fill to construct the retaining wall. Anchors there, the slope around this area could also have been
were stressed in stages as the new fill behind the stabilized by flattening to lV:lH gradient as in other
retaining wall was built. parts and the extra earthwork could have cost only about
10% of the cost of the ground anchors or about 8% of the
cost of ground anchors and gunite slope protection.
Surface drainage and surface protection This suggests that use of ground anchors for slope
stabilization is ten times costlier than slope
flattening. An approximate estimation showed that the
Surface drains to intercept, collect and divert the guniting at this slope location had been 40 times
surface runoff flowing onto the cut slope from uphill costlier than the hydroseeding, This high cost of
natural ground areas as well as that accumulated on the guniting can be partly due to the small quantity of work
slope itself, and providing of suitable surface erosion in which case a substantial portion of the unit cost
protection measures are very important in maintaining comes from the initial fixed costs. The cost of all the
the slopes in good and stable conditions. Three types surface drains was slightly less than 10% of the total
of surface drains were used in this project, namely the cost and about half of that cost was for the bench
interceptor drains to intercept the surface runoff from drains.
uphill slope flowing over to the cut slope, bench drains
423
5/13
The slope described in Case 2 was stabilized by slope
flattening and installation of horizontal drains. Fifty
four per cent of the total cost had been spent on the
earthwork and 25% on the installation of horizontal
drain holes. The cost of surface drains was about 15%
and the cost of surface erosion protection was about
6%. The cost of horizontal drain holes was higher in
this slope than in other slopes, because the drain holes
were longer (23-30m) and many of them had to be drilled
through large granite boulders.
The cut slope described in Case 2 was 108m high which is
about two and a half times the height of the cut slope
described in Case 1, yet the cost of remedial works of
the two slopes were of the same order.
At the fill slope location described in Case 3, about
87% of the total cost was spent on the retaining wall of
which 27% was for the ground anchors and the remaining
60% was for the construction of the wall. The cost of
earthwork, surface drains and erosion protection was
about 13% of the total cost. It appears from these data
that the most expensive single item of the remedial work
carried out at this location is the installation of the
ground anchors. The cost of ground anchors was clearly
more than the cost of bored piles or the cost of
concrete columns. The cost of precast concrete panels
appears to be the least and most attractive.
CONCLUSIONS
Slope failures along this highway have been caused by
steep cuttings, high groundwater conditions and lack of
proper surface drainage control measures and surface
erosion protection measures. Majority of the slope
failures of the 20 category 'A' slopes was due to
instability caused by steep slope gradients and high
groundwater conditions and the failures enclosed most of
the soil cover. Failures in stratified rock areas were
partly controlled by the weak planes in weathered rock
beds. Instability of the fill slopes were characterized
by continuous settlement of the road pavement.
Problems at most of the 46 category 'B' slopes and
almost all of the 100 category 'C' slopes had been
caused by soil erosion due to improper or inadequate
surface drains and lack of surface erosion protection
measures. At some locations the slopes had been
devastated by surface erosion and there was no easy way
other than recutting of these slopes.
Slope flattening was generally used to stabilize the cut
slopes along this highway since at many locations this
could be carried out with little obstruction to the
traffic flow and without any interference from the
existing structures. However, at one location part of
the steep slope had to be retained and stabilized by
ground anchors because of an existing structure on top
of the hill and this costed as much as ten times the
cost of excavation of that retained soil part. This
shows that use of ground anchors in slope stabilization
is very costly and should be adopted only if it is
really needed. Use of retaining walls at fill slope
locations cannot be avoided in mountainous roads because
of the steep natural ground slopes. The bored pile
foundation used in the retaining wall described in
Case-3 does not account for an outstanding cost and
424
therefore use of such a foundation system for retaining
walls in hilly terrain might be justified.
Surface drainage control and surface erosion protection
are very important in maintaining the slopes in good and
stable condition. Surface erosion create scars on slope
face which are very difficult to get rid of and costly
to repair. If not repaired, these surface erosions
continue to grow until the total devastation of the
slope. As the benefits of surface erosion protection
are not immediately obvious, many tend to neglect it
completely or to carry out substandard work. A good
example of such negligence is the omission of proper
bench drains on the slopes which lead to serious soil
erosion. The bench drains provided on slopes along this
highway give a very good protection yet the cost of
these bench drains at the two cut slopes presented in
this paper was only 4 - 7% of the total cost.
Hydroseeding method of providing a good grass cover
over the slope face was found to be very successful in
this project, because it was cheaper yet it produced
good results. A uniform and healthy grass cover could
be obtained over soil surfaces and even in soil areas
within jointed rock masses. Although guniting was used
on some slopes to provide a protective cover due to
various reasons, this method is more costly compared to
hydroseeding. It is interesting to note that the cost
of hydroseeding of slopes described in Case 1 and Case 2
was in the range of 3 to 5% of the total cost of
remedial works.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dato Mustafa Ahmad, Director
General and Mr. Yeoh Eng Hun, Deputy Director General of
the Malaysian Highway Authority for granting the
permission to publish this paper. Acknowledgements are
also due to Mrs. Diana Lim for her assistance in the
drafting work, and Mrs. Jaqueline for typing the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J.B. (1968). Geology and Mineral Resources of
the Bentong Area, Pahang: Geological Survey of West
Malaysia, District Memoir 8, 250 pp.
Lumb, P. (1975). Slope Failures in Hong Kong, Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology (8), 31-65.
Moh, Z.C., and Wijemunige, P. (1990). Shear Strength
Properties of Some Malaysian Residual Soils: Proc. 6th
Conference REAA (3), 18, Kuala Lumpur.
Morgenstern, N.R., and Price, V.E. (1965). The Analyses
of the Stability of General Slip Surfaces: Geotechnique,
(15), 79-93.