4/28/2016

BENGKEL PENENTUAN KAEDAH PEMBAIKAN CERUN UNTUK

PIHAK BERKUASA TEMPATAN (PBT) I-KPKT 2016

PENENTUAN KAEDAH
PEMBAIKAN CERUN
INTRODUCTION . GABION WALL .
RUBBLE PITCHING . RUBBLE WALL

DATE: 26nd APRIL 2016 TIME: 3.00 P.M – 5.00 P.M

MOHD TAUFIK HARON

COO PROTASCO BERHAD / KUMPULAN IKRAM SDN BHD

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
3. SLOPE TERMINOLOGY
4. COMMON TYPE OF SLOPE FAILURE IN
MALAYSIA
5. VIDEO OF SLOPES FAILURE
6. SLOPE FUNDAMENTAL
7. SLOPE STABILITY
8. FACTOR ATTRIBUTED TO SLOPE FAILURE
9. GABION WALL,RUBBLE PITCHING,RUBBLE
WALL

1
 4/28/2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1. Malaysia covers an area of 330,000 sq

km consists of two geographical
segments; West and East Malaysia.
2. It is geographically diverse from coastal
plains terrain rising to hills and
mountains.
3. Nowadays, the high demand for
property sector causes the deprivation
of flat area in Malaysia.
4. It causes the development shifting and
expanding towards the hilly areas.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

4. However, there are lot of

implications on the environment
which raised the concern of
public’s safety.
5. In the past 20 years Malaysia
experiencing an increase number
of slope failure rapidly.
6. Events of slope failure
questioning publics their safety
which lead to protest against hilly
developments.

2
 4/28/2016

VIDEO OF HIILY AREA (SATELLITE IMAGE)

BANGI KAJANG

BUKIT FRASER KAPIT

SARAWAK FEDERAL ROAD RAWANG

3
 4/28/2016

VIEW OF DEVELOPMENT SHIFTING TOWARDS THE HILLY AREA

(SETIAWANGSA & BUKIT DINDING)

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT IN KUALA LUMPUR

BUKIT DINDING SUNWAY MONTANA, MELAWATI

TAMAN DESA MELAWATI LIFESTYLE RESIDENTIAL

4
 4/28/2016

LANDSLIDE TRAGEDIES IN MALAYSIA

NO NAME YEAR

1 Ringlet, Cameron Highlands, Pahang 1 May 1961

2 Highland Tower 11 Dec 1993

3 Genting Highland 30 June 1995

4 PLUS, Gunung Tempurung 6 Jan 1996

5 Pos Dipang 29 Aug 1996

6 Keningau 1996

7 Bukit Antarabangsa 15 May 1999

8 Taman Hillview, Bukit Antarabangsa 20 Nov 2002

9 Bukit Lanjan Dec 2003

10 Gunung Pass 31 May 2006

11 Kg. Pasir, Ulu Klang 31 May 2006

12 Bukit Antarabangsa 2008

13 Perkampungan Orang Asli Sg. Rui, Cameron Highland 2011

14 Hulu Langat 2011

15 Bukit Setiawangsa 2012

16 Bukit Nanas May 2013

17 Jalan Mahameru 2013

RINGLET, CAMERON
HIGHLAND TOWER
HIGHLANDS, PAHANG
(11 DEC 1993)
(1 MAY 1961)
No. of fatalities : 16 people No. of fatalities : 48 people

5
 4/28/2016

HIGHLAND TOWER (1993)

GENTING HIGHLAND PLUS, GUNUNG TEMPURUNG

(30 JUNE 1995) (6 JAN 1996)

No. of fatalities : 20 people No. of fatalities : 1 people

6
 4/28/2016

POS DIPANG (29 AUG 1996)

No. of fatalities : 44 people

BUKIT ANTARABANGSA
KENINGAU, SABAH (1996)
(15 MAY 1999)

No. of fatalities : 302 people Casualties : Most of residents of

Causes : Debris flow from Bukit Antarabangsa
Tropical Gregg Typhoon

7
 4/28/2016

TAMAN HILLVIEW BUKIT ANTARABANGSA

20 NOV 2002

No. of fatalities : 8 people

BUKIT LANJAN (Dec 2003)

• Economic lost : Sum to

almost RM 836 million

8
 4/28/2016

GUNUNG PASS (31 May 2006)

Year of Failure : 2003 -

2006
Location : Gunung Pass,
Simpang Pulai
No. of casualties : none
Economic lost : Sum to
almost RM 354.6 million

Kg. Pasir, Ulu Klang (31 May 2006)

Year of Failure : 2006

Location : Kg. Pasir, Ukay
Perdana, Ampang, Hulu Klang
No. of fatalities : 4 people

9
 4/28/2016

SLOPE FAILURE AT BUKIT ANTARABANGSA

• Year of Failure : 6TH December 2008

• Location : Bukit Antarabangsa, Ampang
• No. of fatalities : 4 people
• No of house buried : 14
• 14 Bungalows at Taman Bukit Mewah
and Taman Bukit Utama destroyed
• 1.5 km from Highland Tower

10
 4/28/2016

MODEL SIMULATION OF (BEFORE)

FAILURE AT BUKIT ANTARABANGSA

20

21

11
 4/28/2016

MODEL SIMULATION OF (AFTER)

FAILURE AT BUKIT ANTARABANGSA

12

14

20

21

TYPICAL ANIMATION OF SLOPE FAILURE

IN BUKIT ANTARABANGSA

SPT < 10
SPT 20 – 30
SPT 50
BEDROCK

12
 4/28/2016

BUKIT SETIAWANGSA SLOPE FAILURE (2012)

Year of Failure : 2012

Location : Bukit Setiawangsa, KL
No. of casualties : none
Evacuation : 88 residents

WORK CARRIED OUT AT SETIAWANGSA SLOPE FAILURE

SHOT CRETE WORK INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE BLOCK

REMOVAL OF HANGING BLOCK DEMOLITION OF HOUSE AT CREST

13
 4/28/2016

BRIEFING TO PUBLIC & MEDIA ON EMERGENCY

RESPONSE OF SLOPE FAILURE AT SETIAWANGSA

Briefing To Public Briefing To Media And Kuala Lumpur Mayor

Briefing At Site Briefing To Media At Site

DTM OF SETIAWANGSA BEFORE SLOPE FAILURE

14
 4/28/2016

SETIAWANGSA SLOPE FAILURE

AFTER SLOPE FAILURE

PROPOSED REMEDIAL WORK

BUKIT NANAS SLOPE FAILURE (2013)

• Year of Failure : 2013

• Location : Bukit Nanas, KL
• No. of casualties : none
• Damages : 8 vehicles buried

15
 4/28/2016

SLOPE FAILURE AT LEBUHRAYA MAHAMERU (2013)

LANDSLIDE
BLOCKING
ROAD PATH

TRAFFIC JAM
DUE TO ROAD
CLOSURE

16
 4/28/2016

SLOPE FAILURE AT RUMAH ANAK-ANAK YATIM DAN

KEBAJIKAN MADRASAH AL-TAQWA, HULU LANGAT

VIDEO OF SLOPE FAILURE AT HULU LANGAT

17
 4/28/2016

MEDIA STATEMENT FOR SLOPE FAILURE CASE AT HULU LANGAT

3.0 SLOPE
TERMINOLOGY

18
 4/28/2016

SLOPE TERMINOLOGY
Cut-Off Drain Berm

Berm Drain

Flight
Height

Toe Drain
Overall
Slope Flight
Height

Slope Angle

Buffer Zone

SLOPE TERMINOLOGY

Berm Berm
Drain
Flight

Toe Cascade
Drain Drain

Slope at Karak Highway

19
 4/28/2016

TYPES OF SLOPE

ROCK SLOPE

ROCK SLOPES AT KARAK HIGHWAY

20
 4/28/2016

NATURAL SLOPE

CAMERON HIGHLANDS KUNDASANG,SABAH

EMBANKMENT SLOPE

LEBUHRAYA PANTAI TIMUR 2 LEBUHRAYA PANTAI TIMUR 2

21
 4/28/2016

CUT AND FILL SLOPE

Cut Slope

Lebuhraya Pantai Timur 1

4.0 COMMON TYPE

OF SLOPE FAILURE
IN MALAYSIA

22
 4/28/2016

Perak Karak Highway Bentong-Gombak

TYPES OF SLOPE FAILURES

Kundasang,Sabah Kenyir,Terengganu

LANDSLIDES

EROSION FALLS

TYPES OF
SLOPE
FAILURES

LATERAL TOPPLE
SPREADS

FLOWS

23
 4/28/2016

LANDSLIDES

The movement of a mass of rock,debris or

earth flowing down a slope (Cruden 1991)

There are TWO types of

landslide movement:

1. TRANSLATIONAL landslide

2. ROTATIONAL landslide

TRANSLATIONAL SLIDE

The material displaces along a

planar surface, sliding out over the
original ground surface

24
 4/28/2016

ROTATIONAL SLIDE

Single Rotational Multiple Rotational Successive Rotational

Landslide Landslide Landslide

Rotational Movement, About An Axis That Is Parallel To The

Slope Contours

ROCK FALLS

Rockfall at Bukit Lanjan

28th November 2003

A fall starts with the detachment

of material from a steep slope

25
 4/28/2016

ROCK TOPPLE

A slope movement that occurs due to forces that cause an

over-turning moment about a pivot point below the center of
gravity of the slope.

FLOWS
1. Downslope movement of unconsolidated material. Particles move
around and mix with the mass.
2. There are few types of flows such as:

5. DEBRIS
1. CREEP AVALANCHE

2. EARTHFLOW 4. DEBRIS
FLOW

3.
MUDFLOW

26
 4/28/2016

CREEP

A group of trees on a slope where the base of each tree bows

outward in the downslope direction

EARTHFLOW
Earthflow Video At Quebec,canada

CHARACTERISTIC:

a. Moderate-to-slope.
b. Movement may be slow-to-rapid.

27
 4/28/2016

MUDFLOW
3. MUDFLOW

CHARACTERISTIC:

a. Occur on moderate-to-steep slopes.

b. Typically flows down slopes or follows

drainage channels

c. Movement is generally rapid

DEBRIS FLOW

CHARACTERISTIC:

a. Movement very slow to very rapid.

b. Consists of coarse material (more than 50% is sand-sized particles or larger).

c. Often follows drainage systems downslope.

28
 4/28/2016

DEBRIS AVALANCHE
5. DEBRIS AVALANCHE

CHARACTERISTIC:

a. Occur on very steep slopes.

b. Movement a combination of fall, flow, and

slide.

c. Material consists of a mixture of rock, soil,

and organic debris (trees, shrubs).

LATERAL SPREAD

CHARACTERISTIC:

1. Lateral spreads are distinctive usually

occur on very gentle slopes or flat
terrain.

2.Usually caused by earthquakes

29
 4/28/2016

SLOPE EROSION

Water Erosion Wind Erosion

Sheet Erosion
Creep

Rill Erosion

Ephemeral Erosion Saltation

Gully Erosion
Suspension
Stream-Bank Erosion

SPEED AND MOISTURE RELATIONSHIPS FOR THE

VARIOUS TYPE OF SLOPE FAILURE

30
 4/28/2016

LANDSLIDE SIZE

NO DESCRIPTION AREA (m2) AREA (acre)

1 VERY SMALL < 200 0.05

2 SMALL 200 – 2000 0.05 – 0.5

3 MEDIUM 2000 – 20000 0.5 – 5

4 LARGE 20,000 – 200,000 5.0 – 50.0

5 VERY LARGE 200,000 – 2,000,000 50.0 – 500

6 HUGE > 2,000,000 > 500

Reference: Landslide in Practice ,Derek H. Cornforth

5.0 VIDEOS OF
SLOPE FAILURE IN
MALAYSIA

31
 4/28/2016

SLOPE
FAILURE
AT JAPAN

ROCK FALL
AT TAIWAN

32
 4/28/2016

VIDEO OF
PLANAR
FAILURE, USA

6.0 FUNDAMENTAL OF
SLOPE

33
 4/28/2016

FACTORS CONTRIBUTE TO SLOPE STABILITY

WHAT ARE THE 8 FACTORS??

6 5
7

8
3
1 2

Slope stability
basically are effected
by 8 factors

FUNDAMENTAL OF SLOPE

1. Slope stability is based on the interplay

between two types of forces namely:

DRIVING(D) FORCES
RESISTING(R) FORCES

2. Driving forces promote downslope movement

of material, whereas resisting forces deter
movement.

34
 4/28/2016

Driving Forces Overcome

Resisting Forces,
The Slope Is Unstable And
Results In Soil Mass
Movement.

“D < R” i.e. Slope will Not Fail

1To
n
D
R

D:driving Force
R: Resisting Force

35
 4/28/2016

FUNDAMENTAL OF SLOPE

1. The main driving force(D) in most land movements is

gravity. The main resisting force is the material's
shear strength.
2. Resisting forces (R) act oppositely of driving forces(D).
The resistance to downslope movement is dependent
on the shear strength of the slope material.
3. Shear strength is a function of cohesion (ability of
particles to attract and hold each other together) and
internal friction (friction between grains within a
material).

FUNDAMENTAL OF SLOPE

1. Does gravity act alone? NO!!

Slope angle, climate, slope material, and water contribute
to the effect of gravity. Mass movement occurs much more
frequently on steep slopes than on shallow slopes.

2. Water plays a key role in producing slope failure. In the

form of rivers and wave action, water erodes the base of
slopes, removing support, which increases driving forces.
Water can also increase the driving force by loading, i.e.,
adding to the total mass that is subjected to the force of
gravity.

36
 4/28/2016

How does slope angle affect both

driving and resisting forces?

W cos A = N Increase in N increases the frictional

component, thereby increasing the
W sin A = D
resisting forces.

How Does Slope Angle Affect Both Driving (D)

Slope
Driving Force
Angle Cos θ Sin θ W
D = wsin θ
θ

20 0.94 0.34 20 6.8

70 0.34 0.94 20 18.8

•Conclusions

•Slope angle ________ R_________ D__________ Slope FOS________

37
 4/28/2016

7.0 SLOPE STABILITY

FACTOR OF SAFETY

Resisting Forces
F.0.S =
Driving Forces

F.O.S > 1 then SAFE

F.O.S< 1 then UNSAFE

38
 4/28/2016

FACTOR OF SAFETY

Effect of
1. Engineering properties
2. Slope geometry
3. Ground water table

AFFECT OF GROUND WATER TABLE TO F.O.S

1.438
1.234
1.438
GWL

The water level which located below

the slip plane would not give any
reduction on the FOS of the slope

39
 4/28/2016

AFFECT OF SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETER TO F.O.S

The higher shear strength of the

soil the higher the FOS of the slope

AFFECT OF SOIL PROFILE TO F.O.S

What are the differences of these two slopes analysis in
term of FOS and type of failure ?

40
 4/28/2016

AFFECT OF SLOPE GRADIENT TO F.O.S

THE GENTLER THE SLOPE THE

HIGHER THE FOS OF THE SLOPE

The Affect of Soil Properties to F.O.S

Driving Force (T)

Soil Properties Affect F.O.S
Unit Weight (Y )
Water Level
Slope Angle (θ) (Steep)

Resistance Force (F)

Soil Properties Affect F.O.S

Cohesion ( C ) High

Phi (Φ ) High

41
 4/28/2016

SAMPLE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS DI MUKIM SETAPAK,

KUALA LUMPUR

1.513

Proposed 2:1 Slope (63°)

185 mRL Soil Nailing 15° (1.5m c/c)

37 m Proposed Townhouse
Buffer Zone
20m 148 mRL

Soil Layer Soil Unit Weight, γ Cohesion, c Friction Angle, Ø

(kN/m³) (kN/m²) (°)
SPT-10 18 5 29
SPT-15 18 5 30
SPT-20 18 5 31
SPT-50 19 10 35
SPT-100 19 10 36

SLOPE W ANALYSIS FLOW CHART

•SI Data
•Survey Data
•Lab Data

•Determine Soil Layer

•Determine Parameter
•Determine Water Level

42
 4/28/2016

SLOPE W ANALYSIS FLOW CHART

Data Gathering

Data Interpretation

Drawings

Analysis

DATA DATA
INTERPRETATION
DRAWINGS ANALYSIS
GATHERING

SI DATA

SURVEY DATA

LAB DATA

43
 4/28/2016

DATA DATA
INTERPRETATION
Drawings Analysis
GATHERING

Determine Soil Layer

Determine Parameter

Determine water
Level

8.0 FACTORS
ATTRIBUTED TO SLOPE
FAILURE

44
 4/28/2016

FACTORS ATTRIBUTED TO SLOPE FAILURE

NUMBER OF
NO CAUSES OF LANDSLIDE PERCENTAGE (%)
CASES

1 DESIGN ERRORS 29 60

2 CONSTRUCTION ERRORS 4 8

DESIGN AND
3 10 20
CONSTRUCTION ERRORS

4 GEOLOGICAL FEATURES 3 6

5 MAINTENANCE 3 6

6 TOTAL 49 100

DESIGN ERROR
• Abuse of the prescriptive method on
the slope gradient (slope angle) to be
adopted for cut or fill slopes without
proper geotechnical analyses and
calculations.
• Rule of thumb
1V:1H for cut slope and 1V:1.5H for
fill slope without proper
geotechnical analysis and design.
• Subsurface investigation (S.I.) and
laboratory tests were not carried out
to obtain representative soil
parameters, subsoil and groundwater
profiles for design and analysis of
slopes.

45
 4/28/2016

DESIGN ERROR

• A lack of good understanding of

fundamental soil mechanics so that
the most critical condition of cut
slopes is in the long term (in the
“Drained Condition”).

• it is necessary to adopt effective

shear strength parameters for the
“Drained Analysis” of the cut slopes
in residual soils instead of
undrained shear strength (su or cu)

CONSTRUCTION ERROR

• Forming cut slopes by excavating

slopes from the bottom instead of
the correct practice of cutting
from the top downwards.

• This will trigger landslides or

potential shear planes extending
beyond the proposed cut slope
profile

• Tipping of loose material on

slopes to form a filled platform or
filled slope. Why contractor do
this at site????

46
 4/28/2016

CONSTRUCTION ERROR

• Not removing the vegetation on the slopes

causing the bio-degradable materials to be
trapped beneath the dumped fill, forming a
potential slip plane with a very low friction
angle of the bio-degradable materials
(vegetation).

• The uncompacted fill slopes having a very low

Factor of Safety will likely fail in the long term.

• Over-excavation of cut slopes. Contractors

unintentionally over-excavate cut slopes and
then try to fill back the excavated materials to
reform the slope to the required gradient. The
uncompacted loose materials will slip down.

GEOLOGICAL ERROR

• Discontinuities in residual soils,

especially sedimentary
formations, are not usually
detectable during the design
stage even with extensive
subsurface investigation
(boreholes, geo-physical
method)

47
 4/28/2016

EFFECT OF BEDDING PLANES TO SLOPE STABILITY

LACK OF MAINTENANCE ( POST CONSTRUCTION)

• Blockage of drains for surface run-

off, and erosion.
• Blockage of drains will cause large
volumes of water to gush down a
slope causing erosion to the slope
and the formation of gullies.
• These gullies will further
deteriorate into a big scar on the
slope and finally lead to a landslide.
The blockage of drains could also be
due to debris accumulated on
cracked drains, the collapse of
drains, etc.

48
 4/28/2016

LACK OF MAINTENANCE ( POST CONSTRUCTION)

Calcite precipitation on the Broken Cascade

gunite surface Drain
Long Crack on the top of
berm

Soil & debris filled drain while

back of gunite are empty

Culvert clogged by backfill

material

SLOPE MAINTENANCE

• Maintenance inspections can be sub-

divided into three categories :
• (a) Routine Maintenance Inspections,
which can be carried out adequately by
any responsible person with no
professional geotechnical knowledge,
• (b) Engineer Inspections for
Maintenance, which should be carried
out by a professionally qualified
geotechnical engineer, and
• (c) Regular Monitoring of Special
Measures, which should be carried out by
a firm with special expertise in the
particular type of monitoring service
required.

49
 4/28/2016

TENSION CRACKS

HOW TO REDUCE THE EFFECTS OF LANDSLIDES

1. Landslides can be reduced by avoiding construction on

steep slopes and existing landslides, or by stabilizing the
slopes.
2. Stability increases when ground water is prevented from
rising in the landslide mass by
I. Covering the landslide with an impermeable membrane,
II. Directing surface water away from the landslide,
III. Draining ground water away from the landslide
IV. Minimizing surface irrigation.
3. Slope stability is also increased when a retaining structure
and/or the weight of a soil/rock berm are placed at the toe
of the slope

50
 4/28/2016

HOW ?

Obtain The Professional Services Of

A Geotechnical Engineer, An
Engineering Geologist Or A Civil
Engineer WHO Can Properly
Evaluate The Potential Hazard Of
The Site?

OFFICIAL GUIDELINES OF DEVELOPMENT AT

HILLY AREA USED IN MALAYSIA

GARIS PANDUAN
PERANCANGAN GARIS PANDUAN PERANCANGAN
PEMBANGUNAN PEMBANGUNAN
DI KAWASAN BUKIT DAN DI KAWASAN BUKIT DAN TANAH
TANAH TINGGI BAGI WILAYAH TINGGI
PERSEKUTUAN CERUN BAGI JABATAN PERANCANGAN BANDAR
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN DAN DESA SEMENANJUNG
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA
2010(GPWPKL2010) KEMENTERIAN PERUMAHAN DAN
KUALA LUMPUR, 2010 KERAJAAN TEMPATAN (KPKT)

GARIS PANDUAN KESELAMTAN DRAF GARIS PANDUAN

PERANCANGAN PEMBANGUNAN PERANCANGAN PEMBANGUNAN
DI KAWASAN BUKIT DAN TANAH DI KAWASAN BUKIT DAN TANAH
TINGGI NEGERI PULAU PINANG TINGGI NEGERI SELANGOR

51
 4/28/2016

2D VS 3D INFORMATION

LIMITATION OF 2D VIEW

1. Difficult to visualize
existing terrain
condition.
Where are the valleys?

Where are the highest peak?

Where are the flow direction?

2D Earthwork plan layout

52
 4/28/2016

ADVANTAGES OF 3D VIEW
Advantages of 3D view:-
1. Easily for view technical issue related
development such as Buffer zone, Terrain
condition
2. The authorities can identify easily
enhance the issue based 3D View.

322mRL

104.5mRL
80mRL

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVITY OF SURROUNDING AREA

LOCALISED GLOBAL

Where are the highest peak???

Highest peak

IDENTIFICATION OF SENSITIVITY OF SURROUNDING AREA

LOCALISED GLOBAL

Where are the highest peak??? Highest peak

53
 4/28/2016

BUFFER ZONE

BUFFER ZONES

Before
Development

After
Development

54
 4/28/2016

EXAMPLE OF INSUFFICIENT BUFFER ZONE

EXAMPLE OF INSUFFICIENT BUFFER ZONE

Buffer Zone

Height(hs)

55
 4/28/2016

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

2.3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS:

FOS SLOPE
F.O.S F.O.S
GUIDELINE
NATURAL SLOPE MAN MADE SLOPE

DRAF GARIS
PANDUAN
PERANCANGAN
PEMBANGUNAN
DI KAWASAN BUKIT DBKL GUIDELINE
DAN TANAH
TINGGI WILAYAH
PERSEKUTUAN 1.3 1.5
(DBKL)

PANDUAN
REKABENTUK
CERUN (JKR)
JKR GUIDELINE

56
 4/28/2016

HONG KONG F.O.S CHART

RISK TO LIFE Recommended Factor of Safety against Loss of
Life for a Ten-year Return Period Rainfall
ECONOMIC
RISK
Ten-year Return Period Negligible Low High
Recommended Factor

Economic Loss for a

Negligible > 1.0 1.2 1.4

of Safety against

Rainfall

Low 1.2 1.2 1.4

High 1.4 1.4 1.4

Note: (1) In addition to a factor of safety of 1.4 for a ten-year return period
rainfall, a slope in the
high risk-to-life category should have a factor of safety of 1.1 for the
predicted worst
groundwater conditions.
(2) The factors of safety given in this Table are recommended values.
Higher
or lower factors of safety might be warranted in particular situations in
respect of economic loss.

NEXT LOT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NEXT LOT

SITE INVESTIGATION WORKS

(BOREHOLES) FOR SLOPE
STABILITY ANALYSIS

57
 4/28/2016

NEXT LOT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NEXT LOT

Negligence of FOS
analysis at crest slope

Stability analysis of slope is

localised for proposed
Negligence of FOS analysis
development lot
at toe slope

NEXT LOT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NEXT LOT

FOS analysis should be

done for overall slope
instead of proposed lot
only

58
 4/28/2016

BERM DESIGN

SLOPE BERM DESIGN

Inacceptable design

Sempadan
Sempadan Lot
Lot
6

5
4

1 Acceptable design

Total number of berm slope must not more than 6 berms

59
 4/28/2016

SLOPE BERM DESIGN

Inacceptable design

Acceptable Design
Design of slope must be in proposed development boundary

CROSS SECTION

60
 4/28/2016

PROPOSED CROSS-SECTION (CASE 1)

Cross section does not

extend to the crest slope

Position of RC Wall exceed

boundary lot
PROPOSED

Relocate position of RC
Wall within boundary lot

Extent cross section to

SECTION A−A
the crest slope AFTER CORRECTION

PROPOSED CROSS-SECTION (CASE 2)

Extent cross
section to the
crest slope

PROPOSED

AFTER CORRECTION

61
 4/28/2016

PROPOSED CROSS SECTION DOES NOT

PERPENDICULAR TO THE CONTOUR
A-a

B-b

PROPOSED CROSS SECTION IS PERPENDICULAR

TO THE CONTOUR
A-a

B-b

62
 4/28/2016

EARTHWORK PLANNING

VIDEO 3D SIMULATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

BEFORE DEVELOPMENT

AFTER DEVELOPMENT

63
 4/28/2016

9.0 KULSIS

HAZARD/RISK MAP

64
 4/28/2016

3D FLYTHROUGH OF RISK SLOPES IN KUALA LUMPUR

3D WEB BASED SYSTEM

DEVELOPMENT
CLICK HERE TO START

65
 4/28/2016

10.0 GABION WALL,

RUBBLE PITCHING,
RUBBLE WALL

TYPE OF SLOPE
REMEDIAL

EARTH RETAINING SLOPE SURFACE

STRUCTURE PROTECTION

UNREINFORCED GRAVITY RETAINING

MASONRY RETAINING WALLS
WALLS

GABION WALL RUBBLE

RUBBLE WALL
PITCHING

66
 4/28/2016

RUBBLE WALL

• Rubble walls are suitable for retained

heights typically up to 1.5 m (in the
case of a simple stem wall) or greater
heights (in the case of stepped or
buttressed walls). An advantage of
masonry retaining walls is they require
minimal construction plant.*

*BS 8002 – Code Of Practice for Earth Retaining Structure

TYPICAL SECTION OF RUBBLE WALL

Cut-off Drain

Weep Hole

Backfill Material Rubble Wall

Toe Drain

Base Slab
Lean Concrete

67
 4/28/2016

RUBBLE WALL
Stones being laid or bed in mortar

RUBBLE WALL AT
KEM TENTERA SG. BESI

RUBBLE WALL AT TAMAN TAN YEW LAI

EXAMPLE OF RUBBLE WALL

Rubble Wall

Rubble Wall

68
 4/28/2016

GABION WALL
Cube or rectangular cage like structures
fabricated of heavy wire mesh and filled with
rocks

GABION WALL AT TAMAN TAN YEW LAI

WIRE MESH (BS 443)
Minimum diameter of
2.7mm
Overall diameter after PVC coating
3.8mm
Maximum mesh size
80x100mm

ROCK FILLS (BS 433)

Clean, Natural, Hard and Durable
Minimum density of 2650 kg/m³

GABION WALLS

1. Gabion walls are suitable for retained heights

typically up to about 10 m.
2. Gabions are large rectangular cages or baskets,
made of hexagonal woven steel wire or square
welded mesh, filled with stone.
3. Gabions are used to build retaining walls,
revetments, and anti-erosion works.
4. Box gabions are normally available in 0.5 m
modules of length 2 m to 6 m, width 1 m to 2 m,
and in depths of 0.3 m, 0.5 m,and 1 m.

*BS 8002 – Code Of Practice for Earth Retaining Structure

69
 4/28/2016

TYPICAL SECTION OF GABION WALL

TYPICAL SECTION OF GABION WALL

70
 4/28/2016

EXAMPLE OF GABION WALL

Gabion Wall

Gabion Wall

RUBBLE PITCHING

Rubble pitching at
Taman Tasik Permaisuri
Rubble pitching or stone pitching
consists of rocks that are placed on
a geotextile fabric material

Stone pitching are generally used as

erosion protection Rubble pitching at
Taman Tasik Permaisuri

71
 4/28/2016

RUBBLE PITCHING

1. Pitching shall consist of irregular stones selected to

roughly fit together and placed on bedding material
having a mean thickness of 100 mm.
2. The stone facing shall have a mean thickness of 300
mm with at least 90 percent of the individual stones
having a mass not less than 40 kg.
3. The stones shall be firmly bedded without any
tendency to rock and, where necessary, shall be
securely wedged in position by stone spalls.
4. The spaces between them shall be completely filled
with hand-placed mortar from bottom to top, and the
surface shall be cleaned to expose the individual
stone faces. All mortared joints shall be raked 5 mm
below the adjacent surface of the rock pitching.

EXAMPLE OF RUBBLE PITCHING

Rubble Pitching

Rubble Pitching

72
 4/28/2016

DESIGN CONSIDERATION

• Typically a retaining wall design has to

consider the following:
• b1) Sliding stability of retaining walls:
– This calculation considers the retaining wall stability in the horizontal
direction.
– Factor of safety sliding = Resisting horizontal forces / driving horizontal forces
– Under normal conditions a safety factor of at least 1.5 is required.

• b2) Overturning stability of retaining walls:

– This type of calculations considers the stability of the wall against toppling
(i.e. turning over).
– Factor of safety overturning = Resisting moments / driving moments
– Under normal conditions a safety factor of at least 2.0 is required.

DESIGN CONSIDERATION
• c) Bearing Stability in retaining wall design:
– In all cases a retaining wall has to be founded in some kind of base material
(be that rock or soil). Compute bearing stresses on the toe and heel of the
wall. The reason why bearing stresses have to be computed on both sides is
because the overturning causes increased stresses in the toe and reduced
stresses on the heel base.
– minimum safety factor of 3.0 is typically specified.

Horizontal
Force
Overturning
Moment

Resisting
Moment Resisting Force

73
 4/28/2016

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

FOS Against FOS Against FOS Against

Top Width Base Width
Height (m) Overturning Sliding Bearing
(mm) (mm)
FOS > 2 FOS > 1.5 FOS > 3
0.5 9.233 3.995 7.986
1 4.057 2.174 3.428
1.5 2.498 1.566 1.625
400 800 2 1.769 1.262 0.862
2.5 1.355 1.08 0.503
3 1.09 0.958 0.316

400 mm

Allowable Bearing Capacity

= 100 kPa @ 40 blows of MP
@ SPT 5 0.5m~3m

300 mm

800 mm

JKR PROBE VS BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL

74
 4/28/2016

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOS VS

HEIGHT OF RUBBLE WALL
GRAPH OF FOS VS HEIGHT
12
FOS Overturning = 2
11
FOS Sliding = 1.5
10 FOS bearing = 3
9
Factor of Safety

8
7
6 Overturning
5 Sliding
4 Bearing
3
2
1
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Height of Rubble Wall (m)

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT WATER LEVEL

2 2
W=10kN/m W=10kN/m
0.35m 0.35m

Unit Weight Soil = 17 kN/m 2

0.5m
2
Unit Weight Soil = 17 kN/m
0 0
Wall Friction = 18 Wall Friction = 18
0 0

Soil Friction = 20 Soil Friction = 20

1.5m

3m 3m

2m 2m
0.4m 0.4m
0.5m 0.4m 0.5m 0.4m

Soil friction (Øo) 20o

Length of Toe, D (m) 2
GWT (m) 1.5 0.5
Active Pressure Coefficient (Ka) 0.436
Passive Pressure Coefficient (Kp) 3.312

Resistance Moment (Mr), kNm 300

Overturning Moment (Mo), kNm 127 172

F.O.S againts Overturning 2.36 1.74

Resistance Force (Fr), kN 68 63

Horizontal Force (Fh), kN 68 82

F.O.S againts Sliding 1.00 0.77

Maximum Bearing Pressure (kPa) 109 96

75
 4/28/2016

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT LENGTH OF TOE

2
W=10kN/m
0.35m W=10kN/m
2
0.35m

2 Unit Weight Soil = 17 kN/m 2 0.5m

Unit Weight Soil = 17 kN/m
Wall Friction = 18
0
0.5m Wall Friction = 18
0

Soil Friction = 20
0
Soil Friction = 20

3m 3m

2m 2.5m
0.4m 0.4m
0.5m 0.4m 0.5m 0.4m

Soil friction (Øo) 20o

GWT (m) 0.5
Length of Toe, D (m) 2 2.5
Active Pressure Coefficient (Ka) 0.436
Passive Pressure Coefficient (Kp) 3.312

Resistance Moment (Mr), kNm 300 414

Overturning Moment (Mo), kNm 172 206

F.O.S againts Overturning 1.74 2.01

Resistance Force (Fr), kN 63 73

Horizontal Force (Fh), kN 82

F.O.S againts Sliding 0.77 0.89

Maximum Bearing Pressure (kPa) 123 105

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT SOIL FRICTION

2
W=10kN/m
0.35m
2
W=10kN/m
0.35m
2
Unit Weight Soil = 17 kN/m 2
Unit Weight Soil = 17 kN/m
0
0.5m Wall Friction = 18
0
0.5m
Wall Friction = 18
0

Soil Friction = 20
0
Soil Friction = 25

3m
3m

2m
2m 0.4m
0.4m 0.5m 0.4m

Length of Toe, D (m) 2

GWT (m) 0.5
Soil friction (Øo) 20o 25o
Active Pressure Coefficient (Ka) 0.436 0.366
Passive Pressure Coefficient (Kp) 3.312 4.275

Resistance Moment (Mr), kNm 300

Overturning Moment (Mo), kNm 172 166

F.O.S againts Overturning 1.74 1.81

Resistance Force (Fr), kN 63 79

Horizontal Force (Fh), kN 82 76

F.O.S againts Sliding 0.77 1.04

Maximum Bearing Pressure (kPa) 123 113

76
 4/28/2016

SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Soil friction (Øo) 20o 25o
GWT (m) 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5
Length of Toe, D (m) 2 2.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 2 2.5
Active Pressure
0.436 0.436 0.436 0.436 0.366 0.366 0.366 0.366
Coefficient (Ka)
Passive Pressure
3.312 3.312 3.312 3.312 4.275 4.275 4.275 4.275
Coefficient (Kp)

Resistance Moment
300 414 300 414 300 414 300 414
(Mr), kNm
Overturning Moment
127 150 172 206 119 142 166 200
(Mo), kNm

F.O.S againts
2.36 2.76 1.74 2.01 2.52 2.92 1.81 2.07
Overturning

Resistance Force (Fr),

68 79 63 73 86 100 79 92
kN
Horizontal Force (Fh),
68 68 82 82 61 61 76 76
kN

F.O.S againts Sliding 1.00 1.16 0.77 0.89 1.41 1.64 1.04 1.21

Bearing Capacity (kPa) 100

Maximum Bearing
109 96 123 105 98 88 113 98
Pressure (kPa)
Minimum Bearing
7 20 0 1.4 16 27 0 7
Pressure (kPa)

77