PROJECT EXPERIENCES ON THE 1

APPLICATION OF GEOSYNTHETIC SOLUTIONS

PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK

ROLE: Contractor’s Consultant

PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND

AT HUTAN MELINTANG KE PARIT 19, BAGAN DATUK, HILIR PERAK.
ROLE: Independent Geotechnical Checker (IGC)

JENSEN TAN
Senior Geotechnical Engineer

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
 PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY 2
SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK
PROBLEMS & SITE OBSERVATIONS

- Excessive localized settlements of sub-base under

repetitive loading of 20-30 ton lorry

- High plasticity clay material with mixture of plant

roots was observed from trial pit excavation

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
 PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY
3
SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK
DESK STUDY & SITE INVESTIGATIONS

- Relevant soil investigation borehole i.e. BH-5

shows sandy silt material (residual soil) which is
not representative to the actual site condition.

- Further desk study was carried out by

superimposing the original contour map to the
factory site plan.
MP‐1
- The problematic area (~5000m2) coincides with the
fill area with fill thickness varies from 1m to 6m.
MP‐2
- Aforementioned high plasticity clay is very likely
the unsuitable fill material.
MP‐3 BH‐5
- Proposed 6 Mackintosh Probe (MP) tests to
MP‐4
determine the thickness of unsuitable fill material. MP‐5 MP‐6

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
 PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY 4
SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK
MP Results

- Unsuitable fill material varies from 0.9m to 2.1m.

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK

PROPOSED OPTION 1
5

Remove & Replace (R&R) 
by suitable compacted 
earth fill (E = 30MPa)

Original Pavement Section Proposed Option 1 (R&R)

ESAL = 15,000 < Target 2mil ESAL = 2.5mil > Target 2mil

WHY?
M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK

PROPOSED OPTION 2
6

R&R (E = 30MPa)

Original Pavement Section Proposed Option 2 (R&R + Geogrid)

ESAL = 15,000 < Target 2mil ESAL = 6.6mil > Target 2mil

WHY?
M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK

WHY GEOGRID?
7

1. Interlocking Mechanism
-> Improve Stiffness of Sub-
base

2. Reinforcement Mechanism
-> High material tensile
strength
-> High pull-out resistance

Reproduced from brief report O-40089-AS by Tensar

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK

INTERLOCKING
8

With Geogrid Without Geogrid

Ø ≈90 Ø ≈45
Reproduced from NAUE Website

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK

REINFORCEMENT
9

3‐31%

α = Ꚍgeogrid / Ꚍunreinforced

2.6‐
33.1kPa

Sample Preparation of
Direct Shear Box Test
M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
Reference: Venkata A. S. et al, 2019. Large-scale direct shear testing of geogrid-reinforced aggregate base over weak subgrade
PROJECT A: AJINOMOTO NEW FACTORY SUBGRADE STABILISATION WORK

COST COMPARISON
10

ESAL = 2.5mil > Target 2mil Option 1

Item Unit Quantity Rate (RM) Amount (RM)
R&R with  m3 7,500 30 225,000
Compacted  (Estimate R&R 
Remove & Replace (R&R) 
by suitable compacted  Suitable Earth Fill  Thk. = 1.5m)
earth fill (E = 30MPa) Material
TOTAL: 225,000
Option 2
ESAL = 6.6mil > Target 2mil Item Unit Quantity Rate (RM) Amount (RM)
R&R with  m3 2,250 30 67,500
Compacted  (R&R Thk. = 
Suitable Earth Fill  0.45m)
Remove & Replace (R&R) Material
Triax TX‐150 m2 10, 000 15 150,000
(2 layers)
M I N TA TOTAL: 217,500
WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
 PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT
STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT 11

BAGAN DATUK
PROJECT INFORMATION

- Entire stretch of road widening work is about 5.5km (CH0 to CH5500).

- Soft to very soft CLAY or SILT with thickness varies from 15m to 38m was encountered.

- PVD with surcharging was proposed to accelerate the consolidation process.

- Woven geotextile was proposed as basal reinforcement for the road embankment.

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT
STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT 12

BAGAN DATUK
SUBSOIL INFORMATION

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

PROPSOED GEOTEXTILE SPECIFICATIONS 13

By DESIGNER

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

DESIGNER’S ANALYSIS
14

PROBLEMS?
1. How much is the ground
deformations in order the mobilize
300kN/m?

2. Are the prescribed entry and exit

points represent the worst case
scenario?

3. Modeling of the localized RHS

road widening part represents the
actual scenario?

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

IGC’s INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS

15

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

STABILISATION SOLUTIONS
16

Woven Geotextile Light Weight Expanded Counterweight

300kN/m at < 10% Strain Clay Aggregate Berm
(LECA) 2.5-4.5kN/m3

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

STABILISATION SOLUTIONS
17

ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

FINAL PROPOSAL

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

DESIGN JUSTIFICATIONS
18

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

DESIGN JUSTIFICATIONS
19

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
PROJECT B: ROAD EMBANKMENT STABILISATION ON SOFT GROUND AT BAGAN DATUK

DESIGN JUSTIFICATIONS
20

SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM
 21

THANK YOU

M I N TA WWW.POWERPOINTIFY.COM