Flood Defense System

UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND GREEN TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (HONS) ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
UGNA 3044 CAPSTONE PROJECT

GROUP 6
NAME ID NO.
QUEK JIAN AI (PROJECT LEADER) 12AGB02864
CHEH KIT CHUN 12AGB02881
LEE MING CHEI 11AGB04048
OOI MUN SIONG 11AGB01762
YONG ZI JUN 13AGB05484
SUPERVISOR: 1. PROF. DR AKIHIKO NAKAYAMA

2. DR NOOR ZAINAB HABIB
MODERATOR: DR ZAFARULLAH NIZAMANI
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 28th AUGUST 2015
0
Contents
1.0:Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0: Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2
3.0: Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3
4.0: Literature Review and Project Conception .............................................................................. 4
5.0: Hydraulic Assessment.............................................................................................................. 6
5.1: Site study hydrological data and Methodology ................................................................... 6
5.2: Equations involved in Calculation of the Water Level ........................................................ 7
5.3: Calculation of the Water Level ............................................................................................ 9
5.4: Drawings of the Water Level on Different Segment of the Channel................................. 12
6.0: Optioneering .......................................................................................................................... 15
6.1: Counterfort Cantilever Retaining Wall .............................................................................. 15
6.2: Automatic Flood Barriers .................................................................................................. 17
6.3: Tire Bale Embankment ...................................................................................................... 19
6.4: Proposal ............................................................................................................................. 21
7.0: Cantilever Retaining Wall Design ......................................................................................... 24
7.1: Retaining wall data and methodology ............................................................................... 24
7.2: Design of retaining wall ..................................................................................................... 25
7.3: Analysis of Forces ............................................................................................................. 26
7.4: Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 27
7.5: Reinforcement in Cantilever Retaining Wall..................................................................... 30
7.6: Drawings of Retaining Wall .............................................................................................. 38
8.0: Economic Appraisal ............................................................................................................... 42
8.1: Flood Damages .................................................................................................................. 42
8.2: Cost of Proposed Plan ........................................................................................................ 42
9.0: Carbon Calculation of construction work .............................................................................. 53
9.1: Data for Carbon Calculation .............................................................................................. 53
9.2: Carbon Calculation ............................................................................................................ 55
10.0: Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................. 62
11.0: Project Timeline................................................................................................................... 67
11.1: Capstone Project .............................................................................................................. 67
11.2: Construction timeline ....................................................................................................... 68
0
12.0: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 74
13.0: References ............................................................................................................................ 75
14.0: Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 80
1.0:Abstract
The flood defense system started with hydraulic assessment on the XX area. The
hydraulic assessment gives water level data that is vital for the project in 3 different return
periods. From the hydraulic assessment, the options are proposed at different part of the channel.
The options proposed are counterfort cantilever retaining wall, automatic flood barrier and tire-
bale embankment. Each of these options mechanism, constraints, disadvantages, environmental
feasibility and costing are explained to fit the clients requirement. The counterfort cantilever
retaining wall is no longer applicable in this project as the counterfort is expensive and not fully
utilize with a short retaining wall. The design of the cantilever retaining wall is then shown
together with different bar size needed in different section of the retaining wall; wall, toe, heel
and shear key. Shear links are also added in the shear key parts to prevent shear forces to destroy
the retaining wall. The costing of the project is also done and the total cost of the entire project is
RM 11,493,705.47. The flood defense system project could reduce flood from damaging nearby
property which sums up to RM 200 million last January. The total cost of the project is sum of
the 3 options cost. Besides that, the project also did carbon calculation to track the estimated
carbon dioxide release to the atmosphere. The total carbon dioxide that will be released in this
project is 7652.244 tons. In order to avoid any risk from happening in the site, a risk assessment
is done and 10 mitigation measures had been considered to prevent risk from happening. The risk
is calculated using impact multiply with likelihood formula. At the same time, the project had
done scheduling which shows the total duration of the project. The total duration of the project is
405 days. The total duration of the project is a summation of the preliminaries period and
building works period. With all these done, the project is now complete. (325 words)
1
2.0: Introduction
This Capstone Projects introduce to design of flood defense system in XX area located at
the center of Kelantan state, west coast of Malaysia due to the flooding events at January 2015.
This Capstone Project teaches the mechanics of flooding and flood protection scheme design that
could help protect the properties surrounding the XX area from flooding with its economic
viability, impact on the climate change and environment studies.
Firstly, the hydrological assessment must be done in order to identify the highest or
lowest water level that the river at XX area had. Calculation of the hydrological assessment is
done to find the longitudinal section of the river with different water level. The water levels are
based on 3 return periods which is 1 in 10 years, 1 in 30 years and 1 in 100 years used in specific
method by the Flood Estimation Handbook 1999.
Secondly, the optioneering is done after hydrological assessment in the Capstone Project.
The optioneering stage allows the selection of the most suitable flood defenses to be used at
different part of XX area. The flood defenses that are proposed in this Capstone Project are
counterfort cantilever retaining wall, automatic flood barriers and tire bale embankment. Each
proposed idea has its mechanism, constraints, disadvantages, environmental feasibility and
costing explained.
Thirdly, the cantilever retaining wall design is prepared by working out the design
pressure and forces involved. The retaining wall need to be designed for stability by preventing
overturning and sliding. Furthermore, the retaining wall needs to be reinforced with steel
reinforcements. The cantilever retaining wall is design with AutoCAD.
Fourthly, the retaining wall needs to have its economic appraisals with the bill of quantity
and specification to have an accurate cost estimation of the construction of retaining wall
surrounding the targeted area. The bill of quantity is based on Malaysia industry measuring
standards. Fifthly, the carbon calculation need to be done to ensure that the construction of the
retaining wall is environmental- friendly and carbon produced from this project will not affect
2
the environment. Next, the risk assessments need to be done as the every project has risk and
through risk assessment, the elimination of risk can be assessed. With risk assessment, less work
risk will happen. Finally, the construction timeline need to be done to ensure that the project will
not be delay and the flood defense system can be done before the next flood.
In conclusion, the Capstone project involves all the 7 elements and need to be done and
assess to ensure a complete flood defense system that is workable and environmental- friendly.
3.0: Objectives
The objectives of this Capstone Project:
To conduct a literature review on the flood defense mechanism by studying the project
background and feasibility, conducting the product market survey and site study and
reviewing and screen alternative processes and calculation of the economic potential of
different proposed options.
To manage Capstone Project and the real project within the timeline using Gantt Chart.
To assess the hydraulic assessment using the water return period.
To provide information of alternative and screening through different options for flood
defense system for the targeted area.
To be able to exhibit the teamwork, presentation, management and leadership skills.
To produce a well- organized report on flood defense system.
To design a retaining wall with reinforcement provided and a longitudinal section of a
channel with different water levels.
To learn the calculation of the forces and pressure that will affect the retaining wall.
To estimate the cost of the retaining wall design and its carbon footprint of the
construction work.
To do a project risk assessment to reduce the work risk in the construction site.
To ensure the stability of the retaining wall by considering the overturning moment and
sliding forces.
3
4.0: Literature Review and Project Conception
Flood is defined as water body that rises and overflows parts of land which are not
regularly submerged. Flood could bring devastating impacts on human lives and activities.
(Smith & Ward, 1999). From Figure 1, the state of Kelantan, Selangor and Penang are one of the
few states in Peninsular Malaysia that experienced flooding in fluctuating scales.
In these recent years, the state of Kelantan had experienced annual flood around its state.
This is due to the northeast monsoon climate happening in the Peninsular Malaysia that occurs
between the months of November till February. During these periods, heavy rainfall as much as
600mm during intensive precipitation would happen in that area. (DID, 2011).
The XX area located at the center of Kelantan state is at risk of flooding due to the river.
The flooding activities of different return periods will affect different area of the XX area.
(Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015). Figure 2 shows the parts of area that may flood
in high likelihood (1 in 10 years return period) while Figure 3 shows the parts of area that may
flood in medium likelihood (1 in 30 years return period) and Figure 4 shows the parts of area that
may flood in low likelihood (1 in 100 years return period).
Besides that, the flood also affects the economic, community activities and human
livelihood. The figures below show the estimated human population affected by the flood in
different likelihood/return period. (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015). Figure 5
shows amount of local population affected beside the river in high likelihood (1 in 10 years
return period) while Figure 6 show the amount of local population affected beside the river in
medium likelihood (1 in 30 years return period) and Figure 7 shows the amount of local
population affected beside the river in high likelihood (1 in 100 years return period). Besides
that, Figure 8 also shows the water level of different return period in the XX area (Dumfries &
Galloway, 2014).
The water level from Figure 8 indicates that the XX area in the Kelantan state is actually
experienced severe flood even in the 1 in 25 years return period. Some mitigation methods must
be done with some effective solutions to solve the flooding problem immediately.
4
Mitigation methods like counterfort cantilever retaining wall, automatic flood barriers
and tire bale embankment had been considered in this Capstone Project.
Firstly, the counterfort cantilever retaining walls is proposed as it is a combination of

counterfort retaining wall and cantilevered retaining wall. (A Design Guide for Earth Retaining
Structures, 1992). It can stabilize hill sides and control erosion. (National Programme on
Technology Enhanced Learning, 2015). However, it is expensive as counterforts and infill stem
are highly cost.
On the other hand, the automatic flood barrier is also considered. When flood occurs,
water will flow in the chamber and cause hydrostatic pressure and push the barrier causes it to
float and rise fully. When floodwater recedes, automatic will lower back to resting position.
(National Archives and Record Administration, 2010). Although automatic flood barriers need
some evacuation work to install it, the space required is small compare to other flood defenses
and after installation, the system work on its own without any energy required and it can keep on
reuse. Thus, the maintenance cost is low. (Van den Noort Innovations).
Lastly, the tire bale embankment is the last option considered as it is a cheaper alternative
approach towards the traditional earth and clay embankment to protect low level land from
flooding. (timbertransportforum, 2015). Tire bale embankment is relatively cheaper to build and
to maintain as tire bale is light weight that requires fewer plants, equipment and workers during
the construction as less material are being used.
5
5.0: Hydraulic Assessment
5.1: Site study hydrological data and Methodology

A. Bed Level and Chainage
Cross Section CS1400 CS1200 CS1000 CS800 CS600 CS400 CS200 CS000
chainage (m) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
bed level (AOD) 100.5 99 98.12 97.03 95.98 95.02 93.11 92
Data of the bed level and chainage of XX area were collected using InterFerometric
Synthetic Aperture Radar (IFSAR) and GPS survey. (Jacobs U.K. Limited, 2007). IFSAR is a
new technology that features digital mapping that could produce high resolution of image data
and precise elevation data. However, IFSAR couldnt generate accurate bed level when there are
raised objects on the land. Examples of raised objects are the trees, hedges and buildings.
Therefore GPS survey is conducted with the help of local council in order to provide some
ground-truthing which means internal accuracy. (MESH, 2010).
B. Return Period
1 IN 10 YEARS RETURN PERIOD Q = 9 m3/S

Data of the return periods are collected using standard Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH)
1999 of statistically pooling group approach. The approach uses the HiFlows-UK dataset
published at August 2005 which can provide the flood peak data and station informations.
(Environment Agency, 2009). Gauges are installed along the channel. Besides this approach,
single site analysis can be carried out on each 2 gauged location along the channel. Besides that,
the rainfall- runoff model parameter used to determine the return period used the Flood
Estimation Handbook Flood Event Analysis using data from FEH Volume 4, Appendix A
together with the interpretation of the local gauged data. (Jacobs U.K. Limited, 2007).
6
C. Broad Crested Weir Data
Breath, B = 10 m, Discharge Coefficient, Cd= 1.1, Height of weir, Hw = 0.5 m
Broad crested weirs are weirs that have crests extending horizontally in the direction of
the flow far enough to support the nappe and could fully develop hydrostatic pressure for at least
a short distance. (Dynatech, 2002). It is required in this channel to regulate the flow and
measuring the flow of water that gone through it.
D. Channel Data
Breath, B = 10m Mannings roughness coefficient, n= 0.03
Height, H = 3m Side slope, z = 1.0
The channel has a n of 0.03 as it is made of cement rubble masonry lining with bottom
float finishes. (Oregon.gov, 2011).
5.2: Equations involved in Calculation of the Water Level

A. Manning Equation (Zhen-Gan Ji,2008)

= 2/3 0 = Flow rate, = 1.0, = Mannings Roughness Coefficient

A= Area of Channel = + 2 , R= Hydraulic Radius =
P = Perimeter of Channel = + 2 2 + 1, 0 = Slope
Manning equation is used as the water in the channel flows uniformly with depth of water
taken as normal depth of the water. (National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning,
n.d.). Due to the water characteristics, the height of the water above the weir at the end of the
channel will be responsible for the increase of height of water at after CS000. However, the
increase of height will not be a concern in other cross section therefore the other section is
assumed as uniform flow that uses Manning Equation to calculate.
B. Flow rate (Zhen-Gan Ji, 2008)

= = velocity of the water
7
C. Specific Energy (Subramanya, 2009)
2
= + 2 E = Specific energy, y= water depth,
g= gravitational acceleration = 9.806 m/s2
Specific energy is the total sum of velocity head and depth of flow. (Dynatech, 2002).
E. Froude Number (Subramanya, 2009)

= D= Hydraulic water depth = , T=Top water width = + 2

State of flow can be differentiated by Froudes number. If the Froude number is equal to 1,
the flow is critical flow and if the Froudes number is more than 1 then the flow is supercritical
flow and if the Froudes number is less than 1 then the flow is subcritical flow. Supercritical flow
shows that the water travels at a higher velocity than the critical velocity and has a smaller
normal depth than the critical depth while subcritical flow shows that the water travels at a lower
velocity than the critical velocity and have a bigger normal depth than the critical depth.
(Dynatech, 2002).
F. Critical depth(Subramanya, 2009)

2
=1
3
G. Broad Crested Weir (Humberto Avila, 2009)

3
2 2
a. = (3 ) = Coefficient of discharge
H = Total energy head (m) of upstream flow

a measured relative to the weir-crest elevation.
2
b. = + = Upstream head relative to the top of the broad-
2
a crested weir
8
5.3: Calculation of the Water Level
A. Return Period of 1 in 10 years
Cross Section Chainage (m) Height(m) So Q(m3/s) A (m2) V (m/s)

CS000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 9.00000 4.47631 2.01059
Before CS000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 9.00000 7.59728 1.18463
CS000 - CS200 200.00000 1.11000 0.00555 9.00000 5.76087 1.56226
CS200 - CS400 200.00000 1.91000 0.00955 9.00000 4.85557 1.85354
CS400 - CS600 200.00000 0.96000 0.00480 9.00000 6.03167 1.49212
CS600 - CS800 200.00000 1.05000 0.00525 9.00000 5.86299 1.53505
CS800 - CS1000 200.00000 1.09000 0.00545 9.00000 5.79408 1.55331
CS1000 - CS1200 200.00000 0.88000 0.00440 9.00000 6.20029 1.45154
CS1200-CS1400 200.00000 1.50000 0.00750 9.00000 5.23883 1.71794
Cross Section y (m) H (m) E (m) Fr State of flow

CS000 0.42921 0.63533 1.00000 Critical
Before CS000 0.70940 0.61305 1.11305 0.46379 Subcritical
CS000 - CS200 0.54625 0.67070 0.69228 Subcritical
CS1200-CS1400 0.49898 0.64947 0.79488 Subcritical
9
B. Return Period of 1 in 30 years
Cross Section Chainage (m) Height(m) So Q (m3/s) A(m2) V(m/s)

CS000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 21.00000 8.02541 2.61669
Before CS000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 21.00000 10.08522 2.08226
CS000 - CS200 200.00000 1.11000 0.00555 21.00000 9.90927 2.11923
CS200 - CS400 200.00000 1.91000 0.00955 21.00000 8.31597 2.52526
CS400 - CS600 200.00000 0.96000 0.00480 21.00000 10.38791 2.02158
CS600 - CS800 200.00000 1.05000 0.00525 21.00000 10.08967 2.08134
CS800 - CS1000 200.00000 1.09000 0.00545 21.00000 9.96792 2.10676
CS1000 - CS1200 200.00000 0.88000 0.00440 21.00000 10.68641 1.96511
CS1200-CS1400 200.00000 1.50000 0.00750 21.00000 8.98917 2.33614
Cross Section y (m) H (m) E (m) Fr State of

flow
CS000 0.74677 1.09590 1.00000 Critical
10
C. Return Period of 1 in 100 years
Cross Section Chainage (m) Height(m) So Q (m3/s) A(m2) V(m/s)

CS000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 52.00000 15.17670 3.42631
Before CS000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 52.00000 15.31059 3.39634
CS000 - CS200 200.00000 1.11000 0.00555 52.00000 18.03352 2.88352
CS200 - CS400 200.00000 1.91000 0.00955 52.00000 15.04056 3.45732
CS400 - CS600 200.00000 0.96000 0.00480 52.00000 18.93723 2.74591
CS600 - CS800 200.00000 1.05000 0.00525 52.00000 18.37389 2.83010
CS800 - CS1000 200.00000 1.09000 0.00545 52.00000 18.14415 2.86594
CS1000 - CS1200 200.00000 0.88000 0.00440 52.00000 19.50183 2.66642
CS1200-CS1400 200.00000 1.50000 0.00750 52.00000 16.30213 3.18977
Cross Section y (m) H(m) E (m) Fr State of flow

CS000 1.33851 1.93710 1.00000 Critical
CS200 - CS400 1.32776 1.93724 1.01275 Supercritical
11
5.4: Drawings of the Water Level on Different Segment of the Channel
A. Return Period of 1 in 10 years
12
B. Return Period of 1 in 30 years
13
C. Return Period of 1 in 100 years
14
6.0: Optioneering
6.1: Counterfort Cantilever Retaining Wall
Mechanism
Retaining structures such as retaining walls and bulkheads commonly are encountered in
foundation engineering as they are used to support slopes of earth mass. Counterfort cantilever
retaining walls was chosen in this project due to the site consideration and client requirement.
Cantilever retaining walls are similar to counterfort retaining walls and can be combined into
one. However, the differences between both are the presences of thin, vertical concrete slabs that
tie the wall and base slab together. This used to reduce the shear and the bending moments.
Figure 9 shows the model of counterfort cantilever retaining wall. (A Design Guide for Earth
Retaining Structures, 1992)
Besides that, such retaining walls use lesser material than a traditional gravity wall.
Sometimes cantilevered walls are buttressed on the front, or include a counterfeit at the back, to
improve their stability against heavy loads. Buttresses are short wing-like walls at right angles to
the main trend of the wall. Typical cantilever walls include reinforced concrete, or concrete-
filled block work, concrete or timber sleeper walls, concrete, steel or timber sheet pile, or
contiguous piling. Figure 10 shows the cantilever walls base with a large heel so that the mass
of earth can be added to the wall for design purpose. (The Constructor Civil Engineering Home,
2014)
The main steel and nominal steel was installed on the tension face and opposite face to
control the shrinkage that occurs at the in-situ concrete work. The reinforcement requirements
that is bending, fabricating and placing are dealt within the section on reinforced concrete.
Constraints and Disadvantages

The high cost of forming the counterforts and infill stem walls are not practical for walls
less than about 16 feet high. Groundwater behind a retaining wall, whether static or percolating
through subsoil, can have adverse effects upon the design and stability.
15
Furthermore, slip circle failure always occurs for cantilever walls when heavy surcharge
is applied. Circular failure is generally observed in slope of soil, mine dump, weak rock and
highly jointed rock mass. Moreover, low quality of material that applies in cantilever
construction and low design reinforcement in cantilever wall are one of the few major factors
that cause the failure of cantilever wall. Moreover, cantilever wall failure is cause by the mistake
in calculation of water table height and the wrong identification of natural environment and type
of soil.
Environmental Feasibility
The main function of retaining walls is to stabilize hill sides and control erosion.
(National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning, 2015) When roadway construction is
required over craggy terrain with steep slopes, retaining walls can help to lower the grades of
roads and the land alongside the road. Some road projects having a scarcity towards the available
land beside the travel way will make the construction right along the toe of a slope difficult to
build. In these cases wide-ranging of grading may not be possible and retaining walls become
necessary to allow for safe construction and adequate slope conditions for adjacent land uses.
Retaining walls help to stop erosion when the soils are unstable with steep slopes, or
heavy runoffs exist in that area. Excessive runoff can destabilize roadways and structures.
Furthermore, controlling sediment runoff is a major environmental and can reduce the water
quality near any road and bridge projects. In these situations, building retaining walls is more
suitable as it can reduce vegetation removal and reduce erosion caused by runoff. In turn, the
vegetation surrounding the area are able to serves in stabilizing the soil and filtering out
sediments and pollutants before they enter the water body, thus improving water quality.
Cost Estimation
The estimated cost of construction of a counterfort cantilever is RM 8.5 million. The real
cost detailing is in the Economic Appraisal. As the cost estimated of counterfort cantilever
retaining wall is too expensive, the retaining wall is built as a cantilever retaining wall without
any counterfort that could still hold its own function as the water level is low.
16
6.2: Automatic Flood Barriers
Mechanism
Automatic flood barriers are one of the many demountable flood barriers. The difference
is that the automatic flood barrier work passively without any manpower, power and any
warning system. The barriers are typically housed within chambers hiding in the ground. They
are activated automatically by the onset of flooding. When flood occurs, water will flow in the
chamber and cause hydrostatic pressure and push the barrier causes it to float and rise fully and
when floodwater recedes, it will automatically lower back to resting position.
It can be used on many terrain locations such as waterway, river, roadway, underground
car park, building, and critical infrastructure. Besides that, installation is easy. Firstly, excavation
is done to the required depth. Next, the construction of the footings and the watertight basin
foundation walls is set. Then, lateral reinforced cap beams are formed on the basin foundation
walls to exacting dimensions and the flood barrier concrete cap beam forms were placed at the
top of the foundation walls. Lastly, concrete is placed in the cap beams, and following adequate
curing time, the flood barrier doors and associated hardware are installed and thus, the
installation process is finished. (National Archives and Record Administration, 2010). Figure 11
shows the lifting mechanism of automatic flood barrier (National Archives and Record
Administration, 2010)
Automatic flood barrier have a larger advantage over other type of demountable system
as there is no need storage and transportation for the gate. Moreover, the gate will return to its
resting position when the flood is over and will not block any scenery surrounding the water
body. (Tom, J., 2013). Figure 12 shows structure of automatic flood barrier (Van den Noort
Innovations)

Automatic flood barrier as a demountable flood defense has an extra disadvantage when
compare to the permanent flood defenses. Instead of typical functional and structural failure,
17
demountable flood defense have one more mode of failure which is the operational failure. It is
the failure when operating the flood defenses from forecasting the weather to triggering the flood
alert system till mobilization of their components and lastly closure operation. Failure in any part
of the operation will result in the reduction of efficiency of the flood defenses. However for
automatic flood barriers, the operational failure will mostly likely be the failure of the lifting
mechanism. This can happen when the components get jammed by the debris. (Environment
Agency, 2002)
The structural failure is less likely will happen if the design that the wall is fix in the
chamber but for functional failure, the automatic flood barriers will have a disadvantage where if
the water level exceed, overtopping will occur as the automatic flood barriers will not be able to
increase their permanent height during its service. (Environment Agency, 2002)
Automatic flood barriers need some evacuation work to install it but the space required is
small compare to other flood defenses. After installation, the system work on its own without
any energy required and it can be reuse. The systems are invisible when there is no flood, so it
will not block the scenery surrounding the river. The materials used in this flood defense system
are strong and it can withstand a long time of service. In short, the automatic flood barrier is
environmental friendly. (Van den Noort Innovations)
Cost Estimation
The estimated cost of construction of automatic flood barriers is RM 340,000. The real
cost detailing is in the Economic Appraisal.
18
6.3: Tire Bale Embankment
Mechanism
The tire bale earth embankment is a cheaper alternative approach compared to the
traditional earth and clay embankment to protect low level land from flooding. The tire bale earth
embankment uses tire bale where-by each bale consist of approximately 100 used car tires that
are highly compress by vertical tire balers shown in Figure 16 and strap with high tensile
galvanize steel wire to produce a bale shown in Figure 13. Similar to earth embankment, the tire
bales are used to replace the clay core in embankments which is shown in Figure 14. Tire bales
are low weight core embankment material with bulk density of 580-655 Kg/m 3 and each bales
weight at 712.5-725 Kg (timbertransportforum, 2015)
Tire bales are highly permeable and low in thermal conductivity which contributes to a
more stable core compare to clay core. The bales have 10-15% of voids after compression and
the voids will be filled with sand to prevent deformation of the bales after being placed into the
embankment. (HR, W, 2015). The construction of bales as core of embankment in every layer of
bales will be covered with a layer of geotextile material to prevent any foreign contaminant
seeping into the bale except water molecules shown in Figure 15. Since tire bale has porosity of
50-60% (timbertransportforum, 2015), the tire bales acts like a drainage system which helps to
drain and accelerate the exit of excess water, which is a major contributor to many geotechnical
embankment failure. This helps to prevent seepage of tire bale embankment as drainage systems
is installed in the embankment between the layers of tire bales (Texas, 2015) shown in Figure 17
or an extra drainage will be constructed at the foot (bottom slope) of the embankment just like
the Earth embankment to drain water out during precipitation and flooding. Tire bales are
arrange in stairs pattern to enable the embankment to be built steeper with a slope ratio 1:2.5
rather than the Earth embankment with ratio of 1:4. (Jorge & Christopher, 2015) The tire bale
embankment will have a life span of over 200 years of service life once is built as the tire bales
in the embankment only exhibit small amount rebound and it can retained its shape after the
metal straps has torn apart by the weight of earths and aggregates placed on top and around the
tire bales. (Jorge& Christopher, 2015)
19
Although tire bale embankment is a cheaper type of embankment to build, there are some
drawbacks of the embankment. Tire bales embankments can only be placed at areas with large
space to accommodate the wide base of the embankment and is not suitable to be constructed in
urban areas especially in town centers. Tire bale embankment behaves very much like the
traditional Earth embankment where-by once the water overflow the embankment during a
serious flood event, the embankment will fail entirely and will cause water to retain at a longer
period after the flood especially at in-land area. (fao.org, 2015), (Md., B., Sakai, T. and Md.,
Z.,2015) Moreover, if there are any contaminants found in the tire bale such as organic material,
oil and other contaminants, the tire bale embankment core will experience exothermic reaction
due to bacterial activity and will further increase the temperature of the core and eventually
become flammable. (Jorge& Christopher, 2015) Therefore, chemicals and excess water are
being used to clean and process all waste tires before the baling process.
Embankment is relatively cheaper to be build and to maintain. By reusing old tires for tire
bale for flood defense, a significant volume old tires disposal can be reduced. Since tire bale is a
low weight material, this helps to reduce the number of operation of installing tire bales in place
by machineries and the number of times for transporting tire bales can be reduced. Tire bale
embankment will safeguard the damage of landscape as does not need to undergo raw material
extraction for clay material to make the core of the embankment. The use of tire bale can double
and triple the factor of safety for slope stability due to the arrangement of the tire bales in stair
steps. It also reduces the carbon footprint due to steeper slope. It can also further safeguard the
electricity pylons and relocation or removal of the established soke dyke is not needed. (Andy,
2015) Moreover, the construction of tire bale embankments saves cost during site operations as
tire bale is lightweight that requires fewer plants, equipment and workers to construct the
embankment.
Cost Estimation
The estimated cost of construction of automatic flood barriers is RM2.6 million. The real
cost detailing is in the Economic Appraisal.
20
6.4: Proposal
Top section of the proposed site
The top section of the proposed site starts from the Buccleuch Street Bridge till the
Robert Burns Centre Film Theatre. The top section of the proposed site is also protected with
cantilever retaining wall and automatic flood barrier. The cantilever retaining wall is built 140 m
on the right side from Buccleuch Street Bridge to National Cycle Route 7 while 300 m on the
left side. The cantilever retaining wall is used to support the nearby bridges and road that is
surrounding the channel. On the other hand, the automatic flood barriers is built 170 m on the
right side while 80 m on the left side. The automatic flood barrier is built to allow public to enjoy
the scenery when the water level is low
21
Middle section of the proposed site
The middle section of the proposed site starts from Robert Burns Centre Film Theatre to
Halfords Store. The middle section of the proposed site is also protected with cantilever
retaining wall, automatic flood barrier and tire-bale embankment. The cantilever retaining wall is
built 220 m on the right side while 50 m on the left side. The cantilever retaining wall is used to
support the nearby bridges and road that is surrounding the channel. On the other hand, the
automatic flood barriers are built 100 m on the right side. The automatic flood barrier is built to
allow public to enjoy the scenery when the water level is low. Lastly, the tire-bale embankment
is built 180 m on the right side. The tire- bale embankment will be a cheaper alternative to be
built with amount large amount of spaces provided.
22
Bottom section of the proposed site
The bottom section of the proposed site starts from Halfords Store to cemetery of
Troqueer Parish Church. The bottom section of the proposed site is also protected with tire-bale
embankment. The tire-bale embankment is built 590 m on the right side. The tire- bale
embankment will be a cheaper alternative to be built with amount large amount of spaces
provided.
23
7.0: Cantilever Retaining Wall Design
7.1: Retaining wall data and methodology
1. Earth Density = 2000 kg/m3

~ As the proposed sites soil is sandstone (Academia.edu, 2015).
2. Gravitational acceleration= 9.8060 m/s2
~ As it averaged over the Earths topographical surface which is 231.4 m above sea level
(Mark Z. Jacobson, 2005).
3. s, Saturated unit weight = 19.612 kN/m3
~ As it equals to earth density/ gravitational acceleration
4. Ka, Active coefficient = 0.32
~ As the soil is dense fine sand. (Christopher Souder, 2014)
5. Kp, Passive coefficient = 2.1
~ As the angle of shearing resistance is 31.7 that can be acquired from the Mohr-
Coulumb Failure Envelope. (David Jr, 2011)
6. Pso, Soil pressure = 25 kg/m2
7. c, unit weight of RCC = 25 kN/m
8. w, water density= 1000 kg/m3
9. fck, characteristic cylinder strength of the concrete = 25 N/mm2
~As the concrete is C25/30 class (Mosley, Bungery and Hulse, 2007)
10. fyk, charactheristic yield strength of reinforcement = 500N/mm2
~ As the steel is hot- rolled high yield (Mosley, Bungery and Hulse, 2007)
All of the methods and equation is referred to reinforced concrete design textbooks. (Bhatt,
MacGinley and Ban, 2014) (Mosley, Bungery and Hulse, 2007)
24
7.2: Design of retaining wall
We, exposed wall height 0.3000 m

Bd, base depth 0.3000 m
Hl ,heel length/ base length under water 0.8000 m
Tl , toe length/ base length under soil 2.5000 m
Td, toe depth including Bd 0.8000 m
H, height of retaining wall 3.0000 m
Wu, Unexposed wall depth 2.7000 m
Wt, top length of wall 0.4000 m
Wb, Bottom length wall 0.4250 m
SKl, Shear key length 0.4000 m
Hwa, max height of water 2.7000 m
Hws, Height of water in saturated soil 2.7000 m
B, Total base length 3.7250 m
Width of retaining wall 1.0000 m
Distances
From the most bottom left of the base to :
Cwbl, center of wall length 1.0125 m
Cbubl, center of Tl 2.475 m
Cbabl, center of base 1.8625 m
From the base centreline to :

Cwbc, center of wall 0.85 m
Cbbc, center of Tl -0.6125 m
Equations Involved:

, Center of wall length to most bottom left of base = + 2

, Center of to most bottom left of base = + + 2
+ +
, Center of base to most bottom left of base = 2
+ +
, Center of wall to base centerline = ( + )
2 2
+ +
, Center of to base centerline = = + +
2 2
25
7.3: Analysis of Forces
a)Horizontal force
Pa, total earth pressure force= 28.2413 kN
Pe, total effective pressure force 14.1797 kN
Ps, total surcharge force = 9.6000 kN
Hw, hydrostatic horizontal force 35.5934 kN
Total = 87.6144 kN
b)Vertical force
Permanent loads: Fw, wall 30.9375 kN
Fb, base 27.9375 kN
Fe, earth 132.3810 kN
Fhy, hydrostatic 35.5934 kN
total 226.8494 kN
Variable loads: Fs, surcharge 25.0000 kN

Fw, water 21.1810 kN
total 46.1810 kN
In the analysis of forces, the water pressure is equal in all directions.
Equations Involved:
1
= 2
2
1
= ( ) 2
2
=
1
= 2 ( )2
1
= ( + )
2
=
=
=
( )
= ( + )

26
7.4: Criteria
A. Overturning Criteria
Assume the partial factor Pfe, moment by earth /effective 1.1

PFs,moment by surcharge 1.5
PFh, moment by hydrostatic 1.35
PFrw, restraining wall 0.9
overturning moment :
Meo, earth 31.0654 kN.m
Meff, effective 15.5976 kN.m
Ms, surcharge 21.6000 kN.m
Mhyo, hydrostatic 72.0767 kN.m
total 140.3397 kN.m
restraining
moment: Mw, wall 28.1918 kN.m
Mb, base 46.8302 kN.m
Mer, earth 294.8787 kN.m
Mhyr, hydrostatic 118.9265 kN.m
total 488.8272 kN.m
Since the restraining moment is higher than the overturning moment, the overturning criteria of
cantilever restraining wall are satisfied.
Equations Involved:
+
= ( )
3
+
= ( 3
)
+
= ( )
2
+
= ( )
2
= ( )
= ( )
= ( )
= ( )
B. Sliding force criteria

Assume: Pfel,earth load/ effective load 1.35
PFsl, surchage load 1.5
PFf, friction 1
, coeffiecient of friction as most rocks 0.55
27
between 0.5-0.8.(Academia.edu, 2015).
PFhl, hydrostatic load 1.35
sliding force: Le, earth load 38.1257 kN

Lef, effective load 19.1426 kN
Ls, surcharge load 14.4000 kN
Lhy, hydrostatic load 48.0511 kN
total 119.7194 kN
Frictional resisting force:

Fv, vertical force : 124.7672 kN
Factor of safety = 1.0422
Fh, Frictional resisting force for shear key= 4.1185 kN

Total frictional force= 128.8857 kN
New FOS = 1.0766
Since the frictional resisting force is higher than the sliding force, sliding force criteria of the
cantilever restraining wall is satisfied. With the addition of the shear key, the factor of safety will
increase.
Equations Involved:
=
=
=
=
=

=
1
= ( )( )()
2
C. Bearing Pressure Criteria
Assume the partial factor Pfwal, wall 1.35

Pfa, active load 1.35
PFp, passive load 1.5
Pfea, earth / effective 1
Pfhy, hydrostatic 1.35
28
Moment at the base centreline
Mah, active horizontal moment 38.125728 kN.m

Mph, passive horizontal moment 21.6 kN.m
Meh, effective horizontal moment 14.17968 kN.m
Mhh, hydrostatic horizontal moment 72.07668563 kN.m
Mwb, wall 35.50078125 kN.m
Meb, earth -81.0833625 kN.m
Mhb, hydrostatic -29.4313133 kN.m
Mt, total 70.96819908 kN.m
N= 259.9133738 kN
Bearing Pressure at the heel and toe

P1, Max 100.462971 kN/m2
P2, Min 39.08783372 kN/m2
P3 80.27920101 kN/m2
Since the allowable bearing pressure is 110kN/m2, bearing pressure criteria of the cantilever
restraining wall is satisfied as the max bearing pressure didnt exceed the allowable.
Equations Involved:
+
= ( )
3
+
= ( )
2
+
= ( )
3
+
= ( )
3
=
=
=
= ( + ) + +
6
1 = +
2
6
2 =
2
(1 2 )
3 = 2 +
29
7.5: Reinforcement in Cantilever Retaining Wall
a)Wall
Assume the partial factor
Pfa,active load 1.35
Pfp, passive load 1.5
d', nominal cover 0.044 m
d, effective depth of the concrete 0.3810 mm
Horizontal force
Le, earth load 38.125728 kN
Lef, effective load 38.88 kN
Ls, surcharge load 14.17968 kN
Lhy, hydrostatic load 48.05112375 kN
total 139.2365318 kN
Max moment
Maw, Active 40.0320144 kN.m
Mpw, Passive 21.26952 kN.m
Mew, Effective 40.824 kN.m
Mhw, Hydrostatic 50.45367994 kN.m
Mmt, total 152.5792143 kN.m
k 0.042044134
z, lever arm length 0.362281697 mm
As, minimum area of reinforcement 886.6564357 mm2
bar size: 12 mm, bar spacing: 125 mm
b) Base
d, effective depth of the concrete 0.256 m
30
Max Moment
Mbb, base 32.05828125 kN.m
Mbe, earth 193.6072125 kN.m
Mbh, hydrostatic 70.27476848 kN.m
bearing pressure : Mmin -142.914892 kN.m
M3, P3-
min -53.84913119 kN.m
k 0.060532372
bar size: 12 mm, bar spacing: 125 mm
c) Heel
Assume the partial factor PFh, base 1.35
Max Moment
Mbh, heel 4.96125 kN.m
bearing pressure: Mmax -20.0925942 kN.m
Mmt, total -15.1313442 kN.m
k 0.023088599
bar size: 8 mm, bar spacing:175 mm
e)Shear key
PFsk, shear
Assume the partial factor key 1.5
31
Earth Pressure
Et, Earth pressure top 12.35556 kN/mm2
Eb, Earth pressure bottom 32.94816 kN/mm3
Max Moment
Mtsk, top shear key 2.3166675 kN.m
Mbsk, bottom shear key 1.71605 kN.m
k 0.001126713
D. Detailing
Minimum area of longitudinal steel distribution
fctm = 0.30x fck ^0.666 2.5649639
mean width of tension zone: Btw, wall 381 mm
Bbh, base/ heel 256 mm
Bsk, shear key 356 mm
base 879.3627 use As bar size: 12 mm, bar spacing:125 mm 905 mm2
toe 127.8028 use As min bar size: 10 mm, bar spacing:200 mm 393 mm2
Shear key 23.87805 use As min bar size: 10 mm, bar spacing:150 mm 523 mm2
Equations Involved:
=

= ( 2 + )
3

= ( 2 + )
2

= ( 2 + )
3

= ( + )
2 2
103
= 2 6
10
32

= (0.5 + 0.25 0.9)
106
= 0.95
=

= ( 2 + )
2

= ( 2 + )
2

= 2 ( 2 + )
2

3 = (3 2 ) ( 2 )( 2 + )
2

= ( 2 + 2)( )
= 1 ( )
=
=
= ( )2
2
= 0.5( ) ( )2 (3)
2
= 0.30 3

min wall = 0.26 1000

min base/toe = 0.26
1000

min heel = 0.26
1000
= 0.00131000
Minimal effective depth
i) Wall
Mmt, Max moment 152.5792143 kN.m
dm, minimal effective depth 176.4613702 mm
d, effective height 381.0000 mm
check satisified
ii) Base
check satisified
33
iii)Heel
check satisified
iv)Shear key
check satisified
Crack Control
Pful, Partial factor ultimate load = 1.5
i) Wall
MSLS, moment serviceability limit state 101.7194762 kN.m
s, Stress in steel at SLS 283.9799618 Mpa
From table 6.3: max bar size 12 mm
max crack width 0.4 mm
From table 6.2: max bar spacing 150 mm
ii) Base
iii)Heel
iv)Shear Key
34
Anchorage length
Kat,tension= 28
i)Wall
Bar Size 12 mm
Alt, anchorage length tension 336 mm
ii)Base
Bar Size 12 mm
iii)Heel
Bar Size 10 mm
iv)Shear key
Bar Size 10 mm
Curtailment of flexural steel

Cc, constant curtailment=12
i)Wall
Bar Size 12 mm
Cl, curtailment length 144 mm
ii)Base
Bar Size 12 mm
Cl, curtailment length 144 mm
iii)Heel
Bar Size 10 mm
iv)Shear key
Bar Size 10 mm
35
e) Distribution of steel
i) Wall
Secondary reinforcement
1) More than 20% 181 mm2
2) spacing <= 3.5h 1487.5 mm2
3) 400mm2 400 mm2
USE: 400 mm bar size: 10 mm spacing : 175mm
ii) Base
1) More than 20% 181 mm2
2) spacing <= 3.5h 1050 mm2
3) 400mm2 400 mm2
iii)Toe
1) More than 20% 78.6 mm2
2) spacing <= 3.5h 1487.5 mm2
3) 400mm2 400 mm2
iv)Shear Key
1) More than 20% 71.2 mm2
2) spacing <= 3.5h 1400 mm2
3) 400mm2 400 mm2
f) Lap length
Kl = 40
Bar size transverse 12 mm

Bar size longitudinal 10 mm
LLt, lap length tension 480 mm

LLc, lap length compression 400 mm
Equations Involved:
106

= 0.1961000

36

= 1.15

=

=
=
= transverse
= longitudinal
Shear Forces
Et, Earth pressure top 12.35556 kN/mm2

Ved 711.680256 kN
Vrd Max 576720 kN
22
cot 2.5
Asw/s 0.729928468
Stirrup spacing Bar size:10mm Stirrup Spacing: 200mm
Equations Involved:
=
1000
= 1000
2

= 0.18 (1 250 ) 106

=
0.78
37
7.6: Drawings of Retaining Wall
38
39
40
41
8.0: Economic Appraisal
8.1: Flood Damages
The total damage that happened in Kelantan due to flood is as much as RM 200 million.
The flood had damages the basic infra-structure. (The Star, 2015). In order to prevent such
disaster to happen again, the proposed plan is proposed.
8.2: Cost of Proposed Plan

A. Cantilever Retaining Wall
Amount Amount
Bill Description of Works Units Volume
(RM) (RM)
1 CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT
1.1 Contractor's All Risk 0.18% 15368 Overhead
1.2 Perkeso / SOCSO 0.06% 5123 127779
2 ENGINEER / SO / PD'S REQUIREMENT

Establishment, Maintenance &
2.1 0.20% 17076
Removal Of SO's Site Office
2.3 Pre & Post Survey 0.27% 23052
2.4 Surveying Equipment 0.07% 5976
2.5 Testing & Sampling 0.03% 2561
3 CONTRACTOR'S REQUIREMENT
Mobilization & Demobilization Of
3.2 0.31% 26467
Construction Plant & Equipment
3.3 Site Agent 0.36% 30736
4 GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS (GPT)
42
Monthly monitoring and
maintenance of GPT for 1 year
period after project
4.1 handover/contract finish either using monthly - 1420
Lift Basket Method or Vacuum
Suction or others suitable method.
5 SITE CLEARANCE
To clear the site area (within Right
of Way including the river and river
slope) of trees irrespective of sizes,
undergrowth bushes, shrubs,
5.1 belukar, tall grass, grubbing up roots ha - 1,725.85 1314
stumps, dispose of and/or carting
debris, loose boulders, waste
materials, away from site and
trimming as directed by the S.O.
The reserve width of the new river
5.2 ha - 2,268.64 1727
alignment.
General clearance within working
reserve along the river as shown in
the drawing or as directed by S.O. of
all undergrowth, bushes, shrubs
5.3 including grubbing up of roots, ha - 2,887.50 2199
felling and disposal of trees and
demolition of structure as below and
removed from site to contractor own
dumping area.
6 CONFIRMATORY BOREHOLES
43
Movement : Rotary Wash Boring /
6.1 N/A 7 2,516.76 17617
Core Drilling
7 EXCAVATION
Excavate over site to reduce level
not exceeding 2.50m deep and get
out, part return, fill in and ram,
7.1 m3 - 19.5 180504
deposit, spread in making up levels
where directed within the site and
remainder load and cart away.
8 EXCAVATION ANCILLARIES
Excavate in artificial hard material
by hydraulic rock breaker to
8.1 m3 - 28.89 267424
disposal site approved by the
S.O/Engineer
9 FILLING
Construction of river spoil heaps
9.1 m3 - 2 18513
using excavated material
Construction of road embankment
using excavated material or surplus
9.2 m3 - 3.09 28603
material to be compacted to a
minimum compaction fo 95% MDD.
Slope trimming for base preparation
9.3 to receive slope revetment materials m2 - 1.72 13096
and turfing.
10 RETAINING STRUCTURE
Supply and install of Reinforced
Soil Wall components consisting of
10.1 m2 - 250.94 1910694
hexagonal shaped precast concrete
panels, reinforcing bar, anchor
44
blocks, joint fillers, cushion pads
and fasteners.
10.2 Pull out test on reinforcing strips N/A - 1,468.87
To design and construct modular

block retaining wall average 2.5m
high (Keystone or equivalent)
10.3 including foundation, subsoil m2 - 343.03 2611653
drainage, capping unit and any other
necessary works as per manufacturer
requirements.
11 SURFACE PROTECTION
Supply, deliver and install the Sand
Filled Mattress with minimum
11.1 weight of 180kg/m2 including all m2 - 56.58 430809
necessary works for proper
completion
12 HIGH TENSILE BARS INCLUDING ALL CUTTING, BENDING
12.1 10mm diameter kg - 3.3 101030
12.2 12mm diameter kg - 3.22 243617
13 GRADE C30 CONCRETE
13.1 In slab m3 - 270.41 2499290
14 CONCRETE ANCILLARIES
14.1 Contraction joint with water stop m - 32.82 23302
14.2 Expansion joint m - 29.22 20746

Prepare and apply one coat sealer
and two coats emulsion paint at
14.3 m2 - 8.74 6205
plastered surfaces of walls, beams,
columns, ceilings and the likes as
45
approved by S.O
15 LABOR
15.1 General Labor day 7 63.11 60996
15.2 Concreter day 2 78.31 21666
15.3 Steel Bar Bender and Fixer day 2 84.18 23234
15.4 Plant/Excavator Operator/Driver day 2 98.06 27065
15.5 Pavior/Plasterer day 2 85.66 23642
Area=7614.15m2 Total= 8,537,834.87
Volume=9256.63m3
B. Automatic Flood Barrier
Amount Amount
(RM) (RM)
1.1 Contractor's All Risk 0.18% 604 Overhead
1.2 Perkeso / SOCSO 0.06% 201 6476

2.1 0.20% 671
2.3 Pre & Post Survey 0.27% 906
Clearing & Cleaning Up Upon
3.1 0.06% 201
Completion
46
3.2 0.31% 1041
3.3 Site Agent 0.36% 1208
3.4 Temporary works 0.39% 1309
4 SITE CLEARANCE
4.1 belukar, tall grass, grubbing up ha - 1,725.85 120.8
roots stumps, dispose of and/or
carting debris, loose boulders,
waste materials, away from site and
4.2 ha - 2,268.64 158.8
alignment
the drawing or as directed by S.O.
of all undergrowth, bushes, shrubs
demolition of structure as below
and removed from site to contractor
own dumping area.
Clear and remove all bushes,
undergrowth, shrubs, rubbish, and
4.4 debris including grubbing up roots, m2 - 1.71 1197
dispose as specified and directed by
S.O.
47
CONFIRMATORY BOREHOLES
5
Mobilization to site and

demobilization on completion of all
5.1 equipment necessary for execution L.S - - 8372.67
of the Site Operations and
installation of the Ancillary Works
6 GRADE C30 CONCRETE
6.1 In slab m3 - 270.41 17036
7 EXCAVATION
General excavation and disposal
from site surplus excavated
7.1 m3 - 8.3 15396
material to contractor own dumping
site.
8 EXCAVATION ANCILLARIES
Excavate in artificial hard material
by hydraulic rock breaker to
8.1 m3 - 28.89 53591
disposal site approved by the
S.O/Engineer
9 IMPORTED MATERIAL
Filling with approved imported
9.1 earth to form level as directed by m3 - 25.46 47228
the S.O.
10 INSTALLATION
10.1 Self-closing flood barrier N/A - - 101640
11 FINISHES
11.1 Floor Finishes m2 - 83.05 58135
12 LABOR
48
12.1 General Labor day 7 63.11/day 12370
12.2 Concreter day 2 78.31/day 4385
12.3 Rigger/Driller day 2 95.51/day 5349
12.4 Lorry Driver day 2 88.64/day 4964
12.5 Plant/Excavator Operator/Driver day 2 98.06/day 5491
Total= 335,654.27
C. Tire- bale Embankment
Amount Amount
(RM) (RM)
Contractor's All Risk(Public
1.1 Liability Insurance and Insurance 0.18% 4716
Of Works)
1.2 Perkeso / SOCSO 0.06% 1572

2.1 0.20% 5240
2.3 Pre & Post Survey 0.27% 7075
3.2 0.31% 8123
Overhead
3.3 Site Agent 0.36% 9433
=38779
4 GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS (GPT)
49
4.1 Removal of Floating Vegetation m2 - 11 102236
4.2 Transport Out Floating Vegetation m2 - 8 74354
5 EXCAVATION
Excavate over site to reduce level
not exceeding 2.50m deep and get
out, part return, fill in and ram,
5.1 m3 - 20 464710
deposit, spread in making up levels
where directed within the site and
remainder load and cart away.
6 COMPACTION TEST
Conduct Compaction Test to Flood
6.1 N/A - 1330
Protection Bund as specified
7 FIELD DENSITY TEST

Conduct Field Density Test to Flood
7.1 N/A - 155 1085
Protection Bund as specified
8 INSTRUMENTATION
8.1 Rod settlement gauges N/A - - 1,185.40
8.2 Surface settlement markers N/A - - 658.5
8.3 Inclinometer N/A - - 2,701.43
9 SITE CLEARANCE
9.1 ha - 1,725.85 1604
belukar, tall grass, grubbing up
roots stumps, dispose of and/or
carting debris, loose boulders, waste
materials, away from site and
50

9.2 ha - 2,268.64 2109
alignment.
the drawing or as directed by S.O.
of all undergrowth, bushes, shrubs
demolition of structure as below and
removed from site to contractor own
dumping area.
Clear and remove all bushes,
undergrowth, shrubs, rubbish, and
9.4 debris including grubbing up roots, m2 1.71 15893
dispose as specified and directed by
S.O.
10 Filling
Filling with approved imported
10.1 earth to form level as directed by m3 - 47.26 1098111
the S.O
10.2 Compacted Clay Layer m3 - 17.1 397327
Backfilling with suitable material

and approved materials as specified
in making up levels including
spread, grade and compact to
10.3 m3 - 10.7 248620
construct platforms, etc, to the
required levels and gradient.
51
11 Closed turfing
Close turfing to flat and sloping
surface complete with 50mm thick
black vegetable soil including
11.1 watering, rolling, weeding, tending m2 - 5.05 46936
additional fertilizer until
satisfactorily established within the
duration of the Contract.
12 Filling ancillaries
Filter Geotextile KET 15 or other
12.1 m2 - 7.8 72495
approved and equivalent
13 Drainage work
In earth for 900mm precast pipe
13.1 m - 14.42 11969
culvert depth 1.5 - 2.0m.
14 Labor
14.1 Plant/Excavator Operator/Driver day 73 98.06/day 14317
14.2 General Labor day 73 63.11/day 59891
Volume
=23235. Total= 2,620,216.33
52
Area
=9294.
208
The entire bill is taken from JPS Report Book (Jabatan Pengaliran dan Saliran, 2012).
Total of the cost for prevention of flood in XX area is RM 11,493,705.47
52
9.0: Carbon Calculation of construction work
9.1: Data for Carbon Calculation
a) Cantilever retaining wall

Item Volume(m3) / m Total Volume(m3) of length 710m
Concrete of RC wall 1.2375 878.625
Concrete of RC base 1.1175 793.425
Concrete of RC Key or nib 0.2000 142.000
Total Concrete Used 2.555 1814.05
Item Area(m2)/m
Area of section : Wall 1.2375
Base + Heel 1.3175
Area of view: Top 3.725
Bottom 3.725
Area of side: Left 3.8
Right 3.8
Total Area= 17.605
Total surface Area of RC retaining wall = 17.605m2/m x 710m = 12499.55

cement: sand : gravel = 1:2:4 for grade 25/30 concrete
Item Energy to produce 1m3 of concrete Total to produce of length 710m

Electricity 3.9 kWh 2769 kWh
Energy 272.1 MJ 193191 MJ
Water 270 Liters 191700 Liters
b) Tire bale embankment

Item Area(m2)/m Total Volume(m3) of length 770m
Area of tire bale 5.46 4204.2
Area of clay 3.50 2695
Area of sand filled into tire bale 1.092 840.84
Area of pipe for drainage 0.0155 11.935
Area of soil 8.76 6745.20
Total area/volume for embankment 17.712 14497.18
c) Automatic flood barrier
Item Weight of steel kg/m Weight kg of steel length 350m

Aluminum steel 27.2 9520
53
Item Energy Total to produce of length 350m
Electricity 15 kWh 5250kWh
Energy 54 MJ 18900 MJ
Water 230 Liters 80500 Liters
The information above is useful for the carbon calculation of the three options namely
reinforced concrete retaining wall, tire bale embankment and automatic flood barrier. In the
2
carbon calculation, we utilize an Excel software V2.1 to calculate the total CO output upon
finish construction which prepared by the Environment Agency.
Here, we consider two main category which are construction input and transportation
which will calculate the total carbon emission in this project. For the first main category for
construction input, information such as types of materials, volume of materials, waste removal
quantity, emissions from plants to produce the raw material and the number of portakabins used
during the period of construction. For the second category which is the transportation, we
assume the type of transportation to be general where-by the carbon emission will be calculated
based on the period of the project from start to finish. All of the information is extracted from
different sources like GREENER, People.exeter.ac.uk, Tatasteelconstruction.com.
54
9.2: Carbon Calculation
a) Cantilever retaining wall
Distance
Construction Unit Embodied
between
Category material Conversion tCO2 Quantity Mode of
Source of
Or Density per tonne (tonnes) Transport
supply
of
and
material
site(km)
Recycled 0.008
Quarried 2.0 tonnes/m3 2073.2 road
aggregate 10
Clay 0.2
1.9 tonnes/m3 5120.5 water
Material 10
sand 0.0053
1.85tonnes/m3 958.9 road
10
Particle 0.48
6kg/m2*20mm 37.5 water
Timber Board 10
Plywood 0.75
11kg/m2*20mm 27.5 water
10
Steel: bar & 1.72
Metals 7.9 tonnes/m3 2866.2 road
rod 5
Construction Material Footprint (tonnes fossil CO2)

Embodied Transport Sum
Recycled aggregate 7.7 6.6 14.2

Clay 1024.1 0.5 1024.6
Sand 5.1 3 8.1
Particle Board 18 0 18
Plywood 20.6 0 20.6
Steel: bar& rod 4929.9 4.5 4934.4
55
Footprint
Exposure Class (tonnes fossil
CO2)
Composition
Embodied
Transport
Tonnage
Distance
Mode
Sum
Recommendation
Portland
Class C25 Cement Cement:
: /30 type: dry kiln
XC2 :Freshwater
Minimum
wet, rarely dry
road
Cement Steel Market
(kg/m3) 280 source: average 72.8 10 62.7 0.2 63
Reinforcement: 20 % steel by volume
Aggregate % recycle
source: 0
Footprint (tonnes
Project fossil CO2)
tCO2 per
duration
Size of project month
Transpor
Embodie
(months)
Sum
Plant
t
Emission
s
Estimator Medium
(construction cost RM9.915
to RM33.05,between
5
9 & 15 people 5 25 n/a 25
permanently on site)
56
Footprint (tonnes
Waste fossil CO2)
Tonnage
removal Distance
Embodied
Transport
tCO2/
(i.e.mass Conversion to Mode
Sum
t
balacing landfill
site
derived
material
Inert waste
disposal
(could not be 2.0tonnes/m3 n/a 1814.05 10 road n/a 5.8 5.8
used
as aggregate)
Portakabin Size Season Tonnes CO2/week Weeks in use CO2 (tonnes)

Portakabins Large(8 people, Summer 0.051 19 1
40ft X 14ft)
Transportation kg CO2 per week Project duration(weeks) Total CO2(tonnes)

Size of project
Medium
(construction
cost RM9.915 to 816 19 15.504
RM33.05,
between
9 & 15 people
permanently
on site)
57
Total CO2
(Output) (tonnes) 6000
Total CO2 (Output)
Recycle Total CO2 (Output)
Aggregate 14.2 5000
Clay 1024.6
Sand 8.1 4000
Practical Board 18
Plywood 20.6 3000
Steel: bars &
rods 4934.4
2000
Cement C25/30 63
Waste Removal 5.8
1000
Plant emission 25
Portakabins 1 0
Transportation 15.504
Sum 6130.204
b) Automatic Flood Barrier
Footprint (tonnes
per tonne of material
fossil CO2)
Unit Conversion
Embodied tCO2
Distance
Construction
Or Density
Transport
between
Category
Quantity
Recycled
material
Mode of
(tonnes)
Source
%
Embodied
Transport
of supply
Sum
and
site(km)
2.7
Aluminium 8.53 Market
Metals tonnes 9.52 road 81.2 0 81.2
:general 10 Average
/m3
Other Polyester 9.52

0.952 road 9.1 0 9.1
material tCO2/t 10
58
Project Footprint
tCO2/mon
Category Size of Project duration (tonnes fossil
th
(months) CO2)
Embodied
Transport
Medium
Sum
Plant (construction
Emissions cost RM9.915 to 5 1
Estimator RM33.05,betwee
n
9 & 15 people
permanently 5 n/a 5
on site)
CO2(
Season
Tonnes CO2 per Weeks

Category Portakabin size tonn
week in use
es)
Summer
Large (8 people,
Portakabins 0.051 4 0.2
40ft x 14ft)
Transportation
Project
Size of project kg CO2 per week duration(weeks) Total CO2(tonnes)
Medium
(construction
cost RM9.915 to 816 4 3.264
RM33.05,
between
9 & 15 people
permanently
on site)
59
Total CO2 (Output) (tonnes) Total CO2 (Output)
Aluminium 81.2 100
Total CO2 (Output)
Polyester 9.1 80
Plant Emision 5 60
40
20
0
Portakabins 0.2
Sum 98.764
c) Tire-Bale Embankment
tCO2/mont Project duration Footprint (tonnes

h (months) fossil CO2)
Embodied
Transport
Category Size of Project
Sum
Medium
(construction cost
Plant
RM9.915 to
Emissions 15 n/a 15
RM33.05,between 9
Estimator
& 15 people
5 3
permanently on site
Footprint (tonnes
Unit Conversion
Embodied tCO2
Distance fossil CO2)

Construction
per tonne of
between
Or Density
Embodied
Transport
Transport
Category
Source of
Quantity
material
material
Mode of
(tonnes)
supply
and Sum
site(km)
Clay 1.9tonn 0.2 5120.
Quarried es/m3 5 10 Road 1024.1 16.3 1040.4
Sand 1.85ton 0.0053 1555.
nes/m3 55 10 Road 8.2 4.9 13.2
Material Soil 1.7tonn 0.024 11466
es/m3 .84 10 Road 275.2 36.4 311.6
HDPE 1.1tonn 2
Plastics Pipe es/m3 16.71 10 Road 33.4 0.1 33.5
60
Tonnes CO2 Weeks CO2 (tonnes)
Category Portakabin size Season per week in use
0.
05
Large (8 people, Summer 1 11 0.6
Portakabins 40ft x 14ft)
Transportation
kg CO2 per Project
Size of project week duration(weeks) Total CO2(tonnes)
Medium
(construction
cost RM9.915 to 816 11 8.976
RM33.05,
between
9 & 15 people
permanently
on site)
Total CO2 (Output) (tonnes)

clay 1040.4
Total CO2 (Output)
sand 13.2 1500
Total CO2
soil 311.6 1000 (Output)
HDPE pipe 33.5 500
0
Plant emission 15
Portakabins 0.6
Sum 1423.276
Total carbon emission of entire project = 6130.204 + 98.764 + 1423.276 = 7652.244 tons of
CO2
61
10.0: Risk Assessment
There are many risks involve during the installation of the flood defense systems,
especially the excavation process. Working environment surrounding the excavation is
hazardous and these risks should be handled to provide a safe working environment for the
workers. The risks surrounding the site can lead to serious injury or death. This is why risk
assessment needed to be done during the installation of the flood defense systems to set
precautions and control methods in order to minimize the impact of the risk and lower the
chances of the risk to happen.
The risks can be caused by human, nature force, by-products of the work, condition of
working site and due to lacking of safety measurement. For nature force the weather at the site
will change throughout the whole process. Rain and heavy storm might occur and cause flood
during or after the excavation process. It will cause damages to the previous efforts and the
equipment around the site, this will force the working progress to come to a halt thus causing in
the delay of work. In order to prevent this, constant update with the rainfall forecast and
mitigation plan need to be done accordingly. Installation of temporary flood defenses to tackle
the flood, and dewatering system to pump out the water in the excavation site is a mitigation
method.
Besides that, risk can be caused by the mistake due to workers during the process and
when handling hazardous manual task. During the works, there are many large vehicles and
dangerous machineries required. Failure in controlling the tools and machines will cause
accident and lead to injury or death of worker or public. Besides, there is many blind spot when
the workers operate the large vehicles and handling hazardous manual task for a long time as it
tends to bore them. This will lead to the reduction of concentration from workers and eventually
lead to accident. In order to overcome this problem, we can provide sufficient training to the
workers on how to handling the equipment well and deploy sufficient supervisor to manage the
condition of the workers by providing sight for the blind spot. For handling hazardous manual
task, limiting the working time on it, and rotating the tasks between workers can be done so that
they will not get bored easily. (Commission for Occupational Safety and Health, 2005)
For condition of working site, there are many conditions like soil condition, surcharging
force act on working site, adjacent water pressure, and location of underground essential
62
services. Failure to account the condition above might lead to problem like collapse of an
excavation, instability of nearby structure, damage on the underground essential services,
damage to previous effort and equipment, delayed of work and injury or death. Before doing any
work on the site, consultation to relevant professional and authorities need to be done to have
complete information about the site. By having required information, planning can be proceeded
accordingly to prevent interference with underground essential services. Moreover, other
mitigation method like setting up appropriate ground support system can counter the force acting
on the site (District Council of Franklin Harbour, 2014). For the surcharging force, movement of
the soil from the excavation away from the site, closing of nearby parking area and diversion of
the traffic routes nearby the site can help in reduction of risk. (Health and Safety Executive,
1999).
There are many reported accidents occur due to lacking of safety measurement. A proper
work site should have various warning sign to indicate that hazard work is working around and
set fences and barricade to prevent the public accidently go into the site. All equipment should
label correctly with operating procedure nearby. Procedures like setting up guardrails, safety
tapes, and safety net help prevent any object falling on the worker working inside the excavation
(Commission for Occupational Safety and Health, 2005). Failure in doing the measurements
above might causes workers or general public nearby to fall into the excavation, and workers in
the excavation may get struck by falling object. The workers on site should also be provided with
adequate personal protection equipment to protect the workers from the hazard.
Last but not the least, the by-products of construction work like noise and dust can cause
nuisance and health problem to the resident living nearby the site. To overcome this problem, the
working site has to install with noise barrier to prevent the noise reaching the residential area and
vacuum extraction to reduce the amount of dust so that lesser dust will be carry by the air.
In conclusion, risk assessment is very important for every project and should not be
underestimated and ignored. A good risk assessment that is calculated with impact and likelihood
can cause lesser risk to occur and risk can be easily overcome so that the project can work and
complete in time and secure the safety of the site workers and the resident living near the site.
63
Rating IMPACT Rating LIKELIHOOD
Multiple fatality, fatality of public, catastrophic Most likely (81-
5
5 property damage 100%)
4 Possible (61-80%)
X
Fatality, serious injury of public, widespread Conceivable (41-
3
4 property damage 60%)
2 Remote (21-40%)
Severe injury (permanent incapacity), Inconceivable (0-
3 hospitalization of public, severe property 1 20%)
damage
Major injury (permanent slight incapacity),
2 complaints of public, major property damage
Minor injury, nuisance to public, minor
1 property damage
DEGREE OF RISK
Degree
Risk Level
of Risk
5 5 10 15 20 25
Impact
1 to 4 Low
4 4 8 12 16 20
= 5 to 12 Medium
3 3 6 9 12 15
2 4 6 8 10 15 to 25 High
2
1 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood
Those Affected Original

Risk
Construction
Assessment
G = General
likelihood
Hazard &
Public
No
Degree
C=
Activity Affected impact
1 Flood might occur during Will damage previous 4 4 16

excavation process effort and equipment,
possible delayed of work
2 Noise and dust generated Noice and dust cause 3 5 15
during installation of flood nuisance and health
defenses problem to the resident
3 Collapse of site due to Injury or death may occur, 5 4 20
surcharging possible delayed of work
4 Workers or resident nearby Injury or death may occur 4 4 16
64
might fall into the excavation
5 Nearby buildings and Damage to the buildings 5 4 20
structures might collapse and stucture, injury and
death may occur
6 Contact with underground Damage the pipeline and 5 4 20
lines: water supply pipeline, supply line of the
wastewater pipeline, gas residential area, might
supply line, and electric cause injury and death
supply line.
7 Various equipment accidents Injury or death may occur 4 4 16
: crane, vehicle, concrete
pump (due to blind spot)
8 Water pressure from the river Will damage previous 5 3 15
might cause inrush of water effort and equipment,
or collapse of soil possible delayed of work,
and injury or death may
occur
9 Worker in the excavation Injury or death may occur 4 3 12
struck by falling object
10 Hazardous manual task Prolonged work might 4 4 16
cause mistake occur, injury
or death may occur
65
Revised
Assessment
likelihood
No Mitigation Measures
Degree
impact
1 Install temporary flood defenses, dewatering system 1 2 2
2 Install noise barrier around construction site nearby the resident area, 1 3 3
vacuum extraction
3 Spoil from the excavation is placed away the site, the parking area near the 4 2 8
site is closed
4 Set up parameter and guardrails for the working site with standard warning 4 1 4
signs and safety tapes
5 Consult the relevant professional, set up appropriate ground support 3 2 6
systems (shoring)
6 Have a complete information from the relevant authorities on the location 2 2 4
of the underground lines
7 Provide sufficient training to the site workers and deploy enough site 2 3 6
supervisors to supervise the whole process
8 Consult the relevant professional, set up appropriate ground support 2 2 4
systems
9 Set up guardrails and safety net to prevent the object falling and reach to 1 2 2
workers working in the excavation, provide personal protective equipment
to workers
10 Provide sufficient training to the site workers, limit working time, and 3 3 9
rotating tasks between workers
66
11.0: Project Timeline
11.1: Capstone Project
Ghantt Chart for Completion of Capstone Project

6/15 6/25 7/5 7/15 7/25 8/4 8/14 8/24 9/3 9/13
Briefing
Literature Review and Project Conception
Hydraulic Assessment
Optioneering and Design Outline
Detailed Design of Typical Flood Defenses
Project Timeline or Work Sequence of the Construction
Carbon Calculation of the Construction Work
Profitability Analysis or Economic Appraisal of
Final Report Writing and Pre-Presentation
Report Submission & Group Presentation
Duration
Task Name Start End
(days)
Briefing 6/19 7/10 22
Literature Review and Project Conception 6/19 7/17 29
Hydraulic Assessment 6/19 7/3 15
Optioneering and Design Outline 6/26 7/17 22
Detailed Design of Typical Flood Defenses 7/3 7/31 29
Project Timeline or Work Sequence of the Construction 7/18 7/31 14
Carbon Calculation of the Construction Work 8/1 8/7 7
Profitability Analysis or Economic Appraisal of Preferred
8/8 8/15 8
Option
Final Report Writing and Pre-Presentation 8/16 8/25 10
Report Submission & Group Presentation 8/26 9/4 10
67
11.2: Construction timeline
a) Whole Schedule Timeline(Sos and Vattai, 2000)
ID Task Name Duration
1 Flood protection scheme at XX area, Kelantan 405 days

2 PRELIMINARIES 360 days
3 Letter of Award 0.1 day
4 Possession of site 0.1 day
5 Establishment of Site Offices and Amenities 360 days
6 Initial Establishment 28 days
7 Maintenance of Facilities 360 days
8 Removal of establishment 14 days
9 Join inspection and survey by other contractor 14 days
10 Submission of dilapidation report and approval 5 days
11 Vehicles and Equipments 360 days
12 Initial Provision 21 days
13 Maintenance of Vechicles and Equipments 360 days
14 Safety regulation and requirements 360 days
15 Progress report 360 days
16 Provision of Electricity, water and security 360 days
17 Provision of Scaffolding 360 days
18 Testing on works and materials 360 days
19 BUILIDNG WORKS 390 days
20 Setting out and establishment of control points 360 days
21 Initial survey and setting out 14 days
22 Progressive survey 360 days
23 Provision of equipment and machinery 360 days
24 RC retaining wall 138 days
25 Embankment (Tile bales) 73 days
26 Automatic flood barrier 28 days
68
69
b) Cantilever Retaining Wall
Duration
ID Task Name
1 Site clearance 3 days

2 Construction hoarding 3 days
3 Establishment of site office 1 day
4 Sheetwall pilling 10 days
5 Setting out area (marking) 2 days
6 Excavation behind of sheetwall 6 days
7 Excavation of foundation trench, spreading and compacting 5 days
8 Shuttering foundation slab 5 days
9 Lean concreting 3 days
10 Placement of reinforced steel bar(foundation) 7 days
11 Concreting foundation slab 4 days
12 Dismantle shuttering of foundation slab 7 days
13 Refilling along foundation slab more layers with compaction 3 days
14 Setting out (marking) 2 day
15 Placement of reinforced steel bar(concrete wall) 10 days
16 Shuttering concrete wall and scaffolding 12 days
17 Concreting retaining wall 45 days
18 Dismantle shuttering of wall and scaffolding 12 days
19 Backfilling material for foundation 3 days
20 Removal of sheetwall planks 7 days
ID Machinery schedule Duration
1 Hydraulic excavator 23 days

2 Backhoe 35 days
3 Roller compactor 11 days
4 Mobile crane 60 days
70
71
72
c) Automatic Flood Barrier
73
d) Tire- Bale Embankment
12.0: Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposed plan of the flood mitigation method consists of cantilever
retaining wall, automatic flood barrier and tire- bale embankment. These options are then
designed and evaluated in term of their function and cost. The hydraulic assessment in the
project found the highest water depth and lowest water depth in the channel to allow us for
design of option. The detailed drawing of the retaining wall show the amount of metal and
concrete are needed for a retaining wall. The costing would weigh the damages and cost of
mitigation method. Besides that, the carbon calculator measure amount of carbon dioxide release
to the atmosphere due to this project and the risk assessment would allow project site managers
to find the most suitable measure to counter it. Lastly, the scheduling of the project allows the
forecast of the project completion.
74
13.0: References
1. Academia.edu, 2015. Some Useful Numbers on the Engineering Materials (Geologic and
Otherwise). [online] Available at: http://www.academia.edu/4156626/Some_Useful_
Numbers_on_the_Engineering_Properties_of_Materials_Geologic_and_Otherwise_Angl
e_of_internal_friction [Accessed 23 August 2015].
2. Andy, Y, 2015. Use of tyre bales in embankment core for river Witham Phase 2/3 flood
defence contract. [online] Available at: <http://www2.wrap.org.uk/downloads/
Use_of_tyre_bales_in_embankment_core_for_River_Witham_Phase_23_flood_defence_
contract_Case_Study.8d5223e7.1557.PDF> [Accessed 15 July 2015].
3. Bhatt, P., MacGinley, T.J., Ban, S.C., 2014 Reinforced Conrete Design to Eurocodes
Design Theory and Examples. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
4. Christopher Souder, 2014. Temporary Structure Design. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
5. Commission for Occupational Safety and Health, 2005. Code of Practice: Excavation.
[pdf]
6. Western Australia: Commission for Occupational Safety and Health. Available at:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/code_excavation.pdf
[Accessed 22 August 2015].
7. David Jr, 2011. Coefficient of Passive Lateral Earth Pressure. [online]. Available at <
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/geotechnical-engineering/106547-the-coefficient-
of-passive-lateral-earth-pressure/> [Accessed at 23 August 2015].
8. District Council of Franklin Harbour, 2014. Excavation and Trenching Procedure. [pdf]
South Australia: District Council of Franklin Harbour. Available at:
http://www.franklinharbour.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Excavation%20&%20Tren
ching%20Procedure.pdf [Accessed 22 August 2015].
9. Dynatech, 2002. Basic Hydraulics Principle. [pdf] Available at :

<http://www.dynatech.nl/Basic%20Hydraulic%20Principles.pdf>[Accessed 23 August
2015]
10. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, 2011. Flood mitigation publication: managing
flood problem. [online] Available at: <www.gove.my> [Accessed on 15 July 2015].
75
11. Dumfries & Galloway,2014. Whitesands Regeneration Masterplan Emerging Draft
Report. [online] Whitesands Dumfries: Dumfries & Galloway Council. Available at:
<http://www. dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14402&p=0> [Accessed 14 Jun
2015].
12. Environment Agency, 2002. Temporary and Demountable Flood Protection. [pdf]
Available at:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290839/s
pub 130-e-e.pdf> [Accessed 14 Jun 2015].
13. Environment Agency, 2009. HiFlows-UK.[online] Available at: <
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091017175719/environment-
agency.gov.uk/hiflows/91727.aspx>[Accessed 22 August 2015]
14. Environment Agency, 2012. Fluvial Design Guide - Chapter 9. [online] Available at:
<http://evidence.environment-
agency.gov.uk/FCERM/en/FluvialDesignGuide/Chapter9.aspx> [Accessed 14 Jun 2015].
15. fao.org, 2015. Earth embankments. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.fao.org/docrep/012
/i1531e/i1531e01.pdf [Accessed 14 July 2015].
16. Geograph, 2015. Railways -25K OS map symbols. [online]. Available at:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/article/Railways---25K-OS-map-symbols [Accessed at 20
July 2015].
17. GREENER, 2011. How much water is consumed to produce [online] Available at:
<https://greenermk.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/how-much-water-is-consumed-to-
produce-/ >[Accessed 26 August 2015].
18. Gurcanli, G.E.,Senem, B., Merve, S., 2015. Activity based risk assessment and safety
cost estimation for residential building construction projects. Safety Science, 80, pp. 1-12.
[online] Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libezp.utar.edu.my/science/article/pii/S0925753515001666
[Accessed 22 August 2015].
19. Health and Safety Executive, 1999. Health and safety in excavations. [pdf] Norwich:
HSE. Available at:
http://regulations.completepicture.co.uk/pdf/Health%20and%20Safety/Health%20and%2
0safety%20in%20excavations.pdf [Accessed 22 August 2015].
76
20. HR, W,2015. Sustainable Re-use of tyres in Port, Coastal and River Engineering. [pdf]
Available at: http://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/186/1/SR669_-_REPRO_-
_Tyres_Manual-mwa.pdf [Accessed 14 July 2015].
21. Humberto Avila(PhD), 2009. FLOW OVER A BROAD CRESTED WEIR. [pdf] Available
at:
<http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Class/Water%20Resources%20Engineering/2009%20sprin
g%20lab%20new/Broad_crested_weir_module-3_.pdf> [Accessed 7 July 2015].
22. Jorge, G. and Christopher, J., 2015. Engineering Properties of Tire Bales for Soil Repairs
and Embankment Construction. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.utexas.edu/research /ctr
/pdf_ reports/5_9023_01_1.pdf> [Accessed 14 July 2015].
23. Jacobs U.K. Limited., 2007. Whitesands Flood Risk Appraisal: Final Report. [pdf]
Whitesands, Dumfries: Jacobs U.K. Limited. Available at <
http://www.dumgal.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2084 >[Accessed 22 August 2015].
24. John Krygier., and Dennis Wood., 2011. Making Maps:A Visual Guide to Map Design
for GIS [e-book] New York: Guilford Press. Available at <
http://makingmaps.owu.edu/blogs/erosion-flood-symbols.pdf> [Access at 20 July 2015.]
25. Mark Z. Jacobson , 2005. Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modelling. [online] Available
at< http://www.academia.edu/3130526/Chapter_4 >[Accessed 23 August 2015]
26. Mosley, B., Bungery, J., Hulse, R., 2007, Reinforced Concrete Design to Eurocode 2.
Fifth Avenue, New York: Palgrave MacMillan
27. Md., B, Sakai, T., and Md. Z., 2015. River Embankment and bank Failure: A study on
Geo-technical Characteristics and Stability Analysis. American Journal of Environmental
Science. [pdf]. Available at: <http://thescipub.com/PDF/ajessp.2011.102.107.pdf>
[Accessed 1 July 2015].
28. MESH., 2010. Ground truth, ground validator and the map-makers dilemma. [online]
Available at :< http://www.emodnet-
seabedhabitats.eu/default.aspx?page=1772 >[Accessed at 22 August 2015]
29. Mike, G. ,2015. ROAD FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION USING LIGHTWEIGHT
TYRE BALES. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.balticroads.org/downloads/28BRC
/079_T03. pdf > [Accessed 14 July 2015].
77
30. National Archives and Record Administration, 2010. Installation of Self-Closing Flood
Barriers and Loading Dock Turntable Removal and Structural Slab Repairs. [pdf]
Available at: <http://www.concretecpr.com/pdf/national_archives.pdf > [Accessed 14 Jun
2015].
31. National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning, n.d. Module 2: The science of
surface and ground water. [pdf] Available at : <
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105105110/pdf/m2l04.pdf >[Accessed at 23 August 2015]
32. National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning, 2015. Module 6:Design of
Retaining Structure. Lecture 26 Introduction. [pdf] Available at
<http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105101083 /download/lec26.pdf > [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].
33. Oregon.gov, 2011. Hydraulics Manual: Appendix A- Hydraulic Roughness (MANNINGS
n) Values of Conduits and Channels. [pdf] Available at <
ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/Geo-
Environmental/Hydraulics/Hydraulics%20Manual/Chapter_08/Chapter_08_Appendix_A/
Chapter_08_Appendix_A.pdf>[Accessed 23 August 2015].
34. People.exeter.ac.uk, (2015). Calculation of CO2 emissions. [online] Available at:
<http://people.exeter.ac.uk/TWDavies/energy_conversion/Calculation%20of%20CO2%2
0emissions%20from%20fuels.htm> [Accessed 26 August 2015].
35. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015 Flood Risk Management Maps. [online].
Available at: <www. http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm> [Accessed on 16 July
2015].
36. Smith, K., and Ward, R., 1998. Flood: physical events and natural hazards. Floods:
physical processes and human impacts. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
37. Sos, L. & Vattai, Z.A., 2000. SAMPLE SCHEDULE for Individual Project -
Construction Management - I. ( Retaining wall )[pdf]. Available at:
<file:///C:/Users/Asus/Downloads/Construction_retaining-wall_SampleSchedule.pdf>
[Accessed on 26 August 2015]
38. Subramanya, K., 2009. Flow in Open Channel. New Delhi: Tata Mcgraw- Hill
Publishing Company Limited.
78
39. Tatasteelconstruction.com, (2015). The carbon footprint of steel | Tata Steel
Construction. [online] Available at:
<http://www.tatasteelconstruction.com/en/sustainability/carbon-and-steel> [Accessed 26
August 2015].
40. Texas Department of transportation, 2015. Embankment Repair with Tire Bales. [online]
Available at: <http://www.txdot.gov/inside-
txdot/division/support/recycling/tirebales.html> [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].
41. The Star, 2014. Flood cost Kelantan RM200mil in losses. The Star Online, [online] 2 Jan.
Available at <http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/01/02/Floods-cost-
Kelantan-RM200mil-in-losses/>[Accessed at 25 August 2015]
42. timbertransportforum.org.uk, 2015. The use of recycled tyre bales in a lightweight road
embankment over peat. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.timbertransportforum.org.uk
/upload /documents/41_use_of_recycled_bales.pdf> [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].
43. tirecgroup.uk, 2015. Tyre bales in an embankment for residential development. [pdf]
Available at:
<http://www.tirecgroup.co.uk/downloads/Tyre%20bales%20in%20embankment%20case
% 20study.pdf> [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015].
44. The Constructor Civil Engineering Home, (2015). CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL.
[online] Available at: <http://file:///Users/OoiMunSiong/Desktop/Y3S3/Capstone%20
Project/
Cantilever%20Retaining%20Wall/CANTILEVER%20RETAINING%20WALL.webarch
ive > [Accessed 16 Jul. 2015].
45. Tom, J., 2013. The Importance of Passive Solution. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.ukfloodbarriers.co.uk/documents/TomJarratt-
ImportanceOfPassiveSolutions.pdf> [Accessed 14 Jun 2015]
46. Van den Noort Innovations, SCFB. [online] Available at: <http://www.noort-
innovations.nl/SCF B.html> [Accessed 14 Jun 2015]
47. Zhen- Gang Ji., 2008. Hydrodynamics and Water Quality: Modeling Rivers, Lakes and
Estuaries. Canada: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
79
14.0: Appendix
Figure 1 shows the flooded areas in Peninsular Malaysia recently (DID, 2011)
Figure 2 shows the areas that may flood in high likelihood (1 in 10 years return period). (Scottish
Environment Protection Agency, 2015)
Figure 3 shows the areas that may flood in medium likelihood (1 in 30 years return period).
(Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015)
80
Figure 4 shows the areas that may flood in low likelihood (1 in 100 years return period).
(Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015)
Figure 5 shows the population affected beside the river in high likelihood (1 in 10 years return
period). (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015)
Figure 6 shows the population affected beside the river in medium likelihood (1 in 30 years
return period). (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015)
81
Figure 7 shows the population affected beside the river in high likelihood (1 in 100 years return
period). (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015)
Figure 8 shows the water level of different return period in the XX area (Dumfries & Galloway,
2014).
82
Figure 9 show that counterfort cantilever retaining wall is connect with the wing walls projecting
upwards from the heel of the footing into the stem. The thickness of the stem between
counterforts is thinner compare to cantilever wall and spans horizontally, as a beam, between the
wing walls. The counterforts act as cantilevered elements and are structurally efficient because
the counterforts are narrow down to a wider and deeper base at the heel where moments are
higher. (A Design Guide for Earth Retaining Structures, 1992)
Figure 10 shows the cantilever walls base with a large heel so that the mass of earth can be
added to the wall for design purpose. (The Constructor Civil Engineering Home, 2014)
83
Figure 11 shows the lifting mechanism of automatic flood barrier(National Archives and
Record Administration, 2010)
Figure 12 shows structure of automatic flood barrier (Van den Noort Innovations)
84
Figure 13 shows a tire bale highly compressed by a tire baler machine. (Mike, 2015)
Figure 14 shows the detail drawing of tire bale embankment where-by the clay core is completly
replaced by tire bale with minimum soil thickness requirements. (Texas Department of
transportation, 2015)
85
Figure 15 shows the black Geosynthetic material use to cover the tire bales during construction
of the embankment. (HR, W.,2015)
Figure 16 shows a vertical tire baler machine which is use on-site to compress 100 car tires into a
bale for embankment core. (timbertransportforum.org.uk, 2015)
86
Figure 17 shows cross section showing placement of drainage pipes in tire bale embankment to
drain out excess water from precipitation and river flowing into the embankment. (tirecgroup,
2015)
Symbol 1 is a retaining wall symbol. (John Krygier and Dennis Wood,2011)
Symbol 2 is an embankment symbol (Geograph, 2015)
Symbol 2 is automatic flood barrier symbol
87

Flood Defense System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flood Defense System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND GREEN TECHNOLOGY

UGNA 3044 CAPSTONE PROJECT

SUPERVISOR: 1. PROF. DR AKIHIKO NAKAYAMA

MODERATOR: DR ZAFARULLAH NIZAMANI

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 28th AUGUST 2015

Firstly, the counterfort cantilever retaining walls is proposed as it is a combination of

5.1: Site study hydrological data and Methodology

1 IN 10 YEARS RETURN PERIOD Q = 9 m3/S

5.2: Equations involved in Calculation of the Water Level

P = Perimeter of Channel = + 2 2 + 1, 0 = Slope

B. Flow rate (Zhen-Gan Ji, 2008)

g= gravitational acceleration = 9.806 m/s2

E. Froude Number (Subramanya, 2009)

F. Critical depth(Subramanya, 2009)

G. Broad Crested Weir (Humberto Avila, 2009)

H = Total energy head (m) of upstream flow

Cross Section Chainage (m) Height(m) So Q(m3/s) A (m2) V (m/s)

Cross Section y (m) H (m) E (m) Fr State of flow

Cross Section Chainage (m) Height(m) So Q (m3/s) A(m2) V(m/s)

Cross Section y (m) H (m) E (m) Fr State of

Cross Section Chainage (m) Height(m) So Q (m3/s) A(m2) V(m/s)

Cross Section y (m) H(m) E (m) Fr State of flow

6.1: Counterfort Cantilever Retaining Wall

Constraints and Disadvantages

Constraints and Disadvantages

7.1: Retaining wall data and methodology

1. Earth Density = 2000 kg/m3

We, exposed wall height 0.3000 m

From the base centreline to :

Variable loads: Fs, surcharge 25.0000 kN

Assume the partial factor Pfe, moment by earth /effective 1.1

B. Sliding force criteria

sliding force: Le, earth load 38.1257 kN

Frictional resisting force:

Factor of safety = 1.0422

Fh, Frictional resisting force for shear key= 4.1185 kN

New FOS = 1.0766

C. Bearing Pressure Criteria

Assume the partial factor Pfwal, wall 1.35

Mah, active horizontal moment 38.125728 kN.m

Bearing Pressure at the heel and toe

z, lever arm length 0.362281697 mm

As, minimum area of reinforcement 886.6564357 mm2

bar size: 12 mm, bar spacing: 125 mm

z, lever arm length 0.237435676 mm

As, minimum area of reinforcement 879.3627215 mm2

bar size: 12 mm, bar spacing: 125 mm

d, effective depth of the concrete 0.2560 m

z, lever arm length 0.249254854 mm

As, minimum area of reinforcement 127.8027729 mm2

bar size: 8 mm, bar spacing:175 mm

d, effective depth of the concrete 0.3560 m

z, lever arm length 0.355553763 mm

As, minimum area of reinforcement 23.87805295 mm2

Minimal effective depth

Curtailment of flexural steel

Bar size transverse 12 mm

LLt, lap length tension 480 mm

Et, Earth pressure top 12.35556 kN/mm2

Stirrup spacing Bar size:10mm Stirrup Spacing: 200mm

8.2: Cost of Proposed Plan

1.1 Contractor's All Risk 0.18% 15368 Overhead