Gs02 Slope Stability Analysis Rev.00

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS AT EXISTING SOIL NAIL SLOPE ALONG NKVE
(CH+4400.00 TO CH+4800.00) PACKAGE GS-02

Document No. KVLRT3-MCSB-GS02-GEO-CAL-000002
Revision No. 00 Revision Date 21 JUNE 2017
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE 3 (LRT 3) PROJECT
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .....................................................................................1
1.2 Objective and Scope of Report ..................................................................1
2.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................2
3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS .................................................................4
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................4
3.2 Slope Geometry .........................................................................................4
3.3 Factor of Safety for Slope Stability .............................................................5
3.4 Geotechnical Parameter ............................................................................6
3.5 Results of Slope Stability Analysis .............................................................10
4.0 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................10
5.0 REFERENCE ............................................................................................11
Appendix A – Slope Stability Analysis using SLOPE/W
Appendix B – Temporary Sheet Pile Analysis at Affected NKVE Soil

Nails Slope
MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page i of i

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS AT EXISTING SOIL NAIL SLOPE ALONG NKVE (CH+4400.00
TO CH+4800.00) PACKAGE GS-02
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Prasarana Malaysia Berhad has been appointed by the government as the official
Project Employer for the Light Rapid Transit Line 3 (LRT3) Project. The proposed
LRT3 line is 38km in length, with roughly 36km being elevated guideway and
about 2km being underground.
Prasarana Malaysia Berhad (Prasarana) has appointed Minconsult Sdn Bhd.to

provide detailed engineering consultancy services for the Eastern Corridor of the
LRT3 Project. The scope of services covers the eastern corridor of around 17km
of elevated guideway and roughly 2 km of underground track. Within the Eastern
Corridor there are a total number of 13 stations and 1 underground station. The
Eastern Corridor has been divided into 6 different packages; GS-01, GS-02, GS-
03, GS-04, GS-05 and the Underground section.
1.2 Objective and Scope of Report
This report covers the design calculations/analysis pertaining to geotechnical

design for reinstated slope between pier P4-05 to pier P4-17 (Chainage CH
+4400.00 to CH +4800.00) Package GS-02.
The objective of this report is to present the finding and provide the following:
(i) Geotechnical engineering parameter for geotechnical design
(ii) Evaluation of slope stability analysis of proposed reinstated slope
MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 1 of 24

2.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
This report makes reference to the following factual reports:
1. Factual Report of Soil Investigation Works for Proposed Light Rail Transit
Line 3 From Bandar Utama – Johan Setia (Package 1) by Pakatan Tenaga
Sdn. Bhd. Dated March 2015
2. Factual Report of Soil Investigation Works for Feasibility Study for the
Proposed Light Rail Transit Line 3 (Kelana Jaya to Klang) by Soils &
Foundations Sdn. Bhd. Dated November 2013.
With reference to the above factual reports, one (1) Borehole (BH 47) is the only
available borehole at proposed slope protection works. BH 47 has been taken into
consideration for the analysis of slope stability. Figure 1 shows the location of the
borehole BH 47 and Figure 2 presents the subsoil profile for BH 47. It can be
observed from the borelog that the subsoil profile contains predominantly medium
stiff to hard sandy silt. This is further underlain by very dense silty sand at reduced
level of about RL+12.4.
From Figure 1, it can be seen that there are five (5) additional boreholes
(BH_LH_01, BH_LH_02, BH_LH_03, BH_LH_04 and BH_LH_05) being proposed
along the Chainage CH +4400.00 to CH +4800.00. However, Site
Investigation(S.I) Works for these boreholes yet to be carried out and will only be
carried out during the construction stage prior to any commencement of piling
works. Hence, the slope stability of the proposed reinstated slope shall be
reviewed upon completion of the SI of the proposed boreholes.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS AT EXISTING SOIL NAIL SLOPE ALONG NKVE (CH+4400.00 TO CH+4800.00) PACKAGE GS-02
DATARAN PRIMA
PIER P4-17 STATION
PIER P4-05
Figure 1 : Location of Borehole BH 47

3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
The stability of all reinstated slope has been analyzed based on the following data
obtained from geotechnical investigation and engineering survey:
(i) Subsoil condition and engineering properties of soil (shear strength, angle of
internal friction, density, etc.)
(ii) Ground water table
(iii) Geometric configuration of slope derived from survey data
Slope stability analysis has been carried out using the computer programme
SLOPE/W (by GEOStudio 2017) and the limit equilibrium technique by
Morgenstern-Price to assess the slope stability of the proposed reinstated slope
as per in Slope Protection Works Layout Plan Eastern Corridor Package GS02
(Dwg. No.: KVLRT3-MRCBGK-GS02-EC-GEO-SPT-LOP-160701).
In addition to the above, “Entry-Exit” method has been used to assess the stability
of the proposed reinstated slope.
3.2 Slope Geometry
The typical geometry of the existing slope is studied based on the survey data and
cross section at the project site location. Generally, the existing steep slopes with
gradient ranging from 1V:0.5H to 1V:1.5H are currently protected with the
application of soil nail and gunite surface protection.
Reinstated slopes have been proposed at pier locations (P4-05 to P4-17

excluding P4-12 & P4-13) along existing soil nail slope near to Dataran Prima
Station in order to ensure the constructability of proposed piers without the
impedance from existing soil nails. The proposed gradient of the reinstated slope
is designed to 1V:2H with provision of berm drain at the toe of slope. In addition,
Reinforced Concrete Wall (R.C Wall) and left-in-place FSP IIIA Interlock Sheet
Pile have been proposed at Pier P4-05 to P4-07 to retain the expose height from

the top of the proposed reinstated slope (1V:2H) to the edge of the private land at
the top of the existing soil nail slope.
Proper slope surface drainage to prevent water runoff from discharging over the
top slope is proposed in the form of concrete lined interceptor drains at the top of
the cut. Toe drains are proposed at edge of the finished grade along the base of
the slope to discharge collected water runoff to the sumps/culverts. All exposed
cut soil surfaces are to be reinstated to prevent erosion of the materials due to
direct impact of rainfall and/or surface runoff over the slope surfaces.
The cross-sections that illustrate the description above at the location of Piers P4-
05 to P4-17 along the existing soil nail slope near to Dataran Prima Station can be
referred to Slope Protection Works Cross Section Drawing Eastern Corridor
Package GS02 (Dwg. No.: KVLRT3-MRCBGK-GS02-EC-GEO-SPT-SEC-160702
to 160703 & 160707 to 160708).
Prior to any commencement of excavation works, temporary support system shall

be designed and provided by WPC with reference to Construction Sequence for
Installation of Bored Piles Adjacent to Existing Soil Nail Slope Package GS02
(Dwg. No.: KVLRT3-MRCBGK-GS02-EC-GEO-SPT-SEC-160705 to 160710).
3.3 Factor of Safety for Slope Stability
A review of the Guideline for Slope Design by Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) was
carried out to assess the recommended factor of safety (FoS) for slope stability.
As according to the JKR Guideline for Slope Stability (2010), the recommended
FoS for unreinforced cut slopes is 1.3. The recommended FoS as per said
guideline is the minimum requirement adopted in this slope stability analysis.

3.4 Geotechnical Parameter
Based on the available borehole data for BH 47, there is no laboratory testing
carried out to measure the accurate values of the fundamental geotechnical
properties of soil like shear strength and compressibility. Therefore, for certain
geotechnical parameters, the Atterberg Limits are normally used to determine
relevant correlation (in conjunction with the limited test results) and in semi-
empirical method of design.
Generally, the subsoil profile for BH 47 is divided into five (5) main strata; namely,
Medium Stiff sandy SILT, Stiff sandy SILT, Very Stiff sandy SILT, Hard gravelly
SILT and Very Dense gravelly SAND.

GWT RL +31.828
Fgure 2: Subsoil Profile Borehole BH 47

In the absence of direct measurement of effective stress parameter, the angle of

shearing resistance, Ф’ for cohesive soil can be correlated with the plasticity index
value. Figure 3 shows the correlation between Plasticity Index and Angle of
shearing resistance established by Gibson (1953).
Figure 3: Correlation between Plasticity Index & Angle of Shearing Resistance for
Cohesive Soil (after Gibson, 1953)

The shear strength of clay, in effective terms, is basically frictional and hence
effective cohesion, c’ = 0. This is certainly the case for saturated clay. However,
for partially saturated clay, where meniscus effects draw the particle together to
produce inter-particle stress, a small cohesion value may be observed, although
this itself is a frictional phenomenon. For this reason, the c’ value to be used in the
slope stability should be limited to maximum value of 5 kPa.
With reference of the above, the drained shear strength parameter used in this
analysis as shown on table 1.
Table 1: Drained Shear Strength Parameter adopted for Slope Stability Analysis
Drained Shear Strength

Plasticity Parameter
Soil Unit Weight* SPT-N
Index Effective Angle of shearing
Description (kN/m3) Value
(%) Cohesion, C’ resistance, Ф’
(kPa) (°)
Boreholes BH 47
Medium
Stiff sandy 17.5 18.5 5 3 29.5
SILT
Stiff sandy
18 18.5 9 5 29.5
SILT
Note:
* The unit weight is determined by Laboratory Test Result as per factual report
listed before in item 2.0 or/and as per Bowles J.E (1997)

3.5 Results of Slope Stability Analysis
Stability analysis has been carried out at cross sections of Pier P4-05 to Pier P4-
17 (excluding Pier P4-12 & P4-13) as in Slope Protection Works Cross Section
Drawing Eastern Corridor Package GS02 (Dwg. No.: KVLRT3-MRCBGK-GS02-
EC-GEO-SPT-SEC-160702 to 160703 & 160707 to 160708). Since the long term
is considered as critical for the slope design, the drained analysis is carried out
and the results are presented in Appendix A and summarize in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Predicted Factor of Safety from Stability Analysis
Pier No. Predicted Factor of

Safety
P4 - 05 2.11
P4 - 06 1.51
P4 - 07 1.59
P4 - 08 1.58
P4 - 09 1.72
P4 - 10 1.73
P4 - 11 1.71
P4 - 14 2.02
P4 - 15 2.08
P4 - 16 2.09
P4 - 17 4.11
4.0 CONCLUSION
The stability of the proposed reinstated slope at the selected pier locations along
the existing soil nail slope near to Dataran Prima Station (Chainage CH +4400.00
to CH +4800.00) has been analysed. The summary and conclusion are presented
below:
(i) Based on the results of the stability analysis for the proposed reinstated
slope, the predicted minimum factor of safety under long term condition is
ranging from 1.51 to 4.11 which have achieved the minimum requirement
of JKR Guideline for Slope Stability.

(ii) All slopes shall be reinstated to design formation immediately upon

completion of pile cap construction to minimize the occurrence of rills and
erosion gullies that could eventually aggravate the stability of the slope.
(iii) It is recommended that appropriate surface drainage shall be provided in

the form of line berm drained, in between slope, line interceptor drains at
the crest of the slope and cascade drains in high cut to effectively channel
the water runoff down to the toe of the slope. In addition, horizontal subsoil
drains are proposed in the lower bench of the slope.
5.0 REFERENCE
(i) Bowles J.E.(1997), Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed. Mc-Graw Hill
Intl.
(ii) Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, The

Governemt of Hong Kong (2000), Geotechnical Manual of Slope
(iii) Slope Engineering Branch, Public Works Department Malaysia (2010),

Guideline for Slope Design.
(iv) Peck, R.B. Hanson, W.E. and Thornburn (1974), T.H Foundation
Engineering, Proc. ASCEE, Vol. 102, No. GT3, March pp.197-228.
(v) M. Carter and S.P Bentley (1991), Correlation of Soil Properties, Pentech
Press Ltd.
(vi) BS 8002 : 1994, Code of practice for Earth Retaining Structure.
(vii) BS 8110 : Structural Use of Concrete
(viii) BS 5930 : 1999, Code of Practice for Site Investigations
(ix) BS 8004 : 1986, Code of Practice for Foundation
(x) Reinforced Concrete Designer’s HAdbook by Charles E. Reynolds and

James C. Steedman 10th Edition

APPENDIX A :
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS USING SLOPE/W












APPENDIX B :
TEMPORARY SHEET PILE ANALYSIS AT AFFECTED NKVE SOIL

NAILS SLOPE

PROJECT : Construction and Completion of Light Rail Transit Line 3 (LRT3) from Bandar Utama to Johan Setia.
TITLE : Summary of Sheet Pile Analysis at NKVE Soil Nails DESIGNED BY : Syahmizzi Ifwat Bin Azharnim
DATE : 21-Jun-2017 CHECKED BY : Ir. Lam Yoon Cheong
Top of Sheet Pile

RL + 46.45m
SOIL PARAMETER
Ground Water
Level γ = 17.5 kN/m3
RL + 31.8m c' = 3 kPa
Φ' = 29.5°
E = 3300 kPa
Level of Sheet Pile

toe RL
+24.95m
γ = 18 kN/m3
c' = 3 kPa
Φ' = 29.5°
E = 6300 kPa
γ = 19 kN/m3 Φ' = 37°

FILL MATERIALS c' = 0 kPa E = 10000 kPa
PROPOSED SHEET PILE

Type = FSP IIIA Moment Inertia,I = 2.28x10-4 m4/m
Young Modulus = 2.1 x108 kN/m2 Working Stresses = 140 N/mm
2
TOE Length of MAX MAX MAX

CONDITION* LEVEL** CBP Wall FOS DISP BM SF
(RL,m) (m) (mm) (kNm/m) (Kn/m)
Drained - S 25.0 21.5 4.9 154 91.9 50.6
Bending Moment & Shear Force check for Proposed Sheet Pile
Allowable Bending Moment = 213 kNm/m > 91.9 kNm/m OK

Allowable Shear Force = 2604 kN/m > 50.6 kN/m OK
Notes:
a) Allowable Bending Moment = Working Stress x Sectional Modulus
b) Allowable Shear Force = Working Stress x Sectional Area
Z:\3616002_LRT3\Design\GS02_Existing Soil Nailing_P4-05 to P4-11\temporary inclined strut\summary 18-jul-2017.xls

MINCONSULT SDN. BHD. | Sheet No.
Program: WALLAP Version 6.06 Revision A51.B69.R54 | Job No. :3616002
Licensed from GEOSOLVE | Made by :SIA
Data filename/Run ID: Sheet_Pile Analysis
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
Affected NKVE Soil Nails Slope | Checked :LYC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT DATA
SOIL PROFILE
Stratum Elevation of ------------------ Soil types -------------------
no. top of stratum Left side Right side
1 46.45 1 M.Stiff SILT 1 M.Stiff SILT
2 25.90 2 Stiff SILT 2 Stiff SILT
SOIL PROPERTIES
Bulk Young's At rest Consol Active Passive
-- Soil type -- density Modulus coeff. state. limit limit Cohesion
No. Description kN/m3 Eh,kN/m2 Ko NC/OC Ka Kp kN/m2
(Datum elev.) (dEh/dy ) (dKo/dy) ( Nu ) ( Kac ) ( Kpc ) ( dc/dy )
1 M.Stiff 17.50 3300 0.500 OC 0.340 2.940 3.000d
SILT (0.350) (1.166) ( 3.429)
2 Stiff SILT 18.00 4500 0.500 OC 0.340 2.940 5.000d
(0.350) (1.166) ( 3.429)
3 FILL 19.00 10000 0.500 OC 0.249 4.023
(0.300) (0.000) ( 0.000)
Additional soil parameters associated with Ka and Kp

--- parameters for Ka --- --- parameters for Kp ---
Soil Wall Back- Soil Wall Back-
------- Soil type ------- friction adhesion fill friction adhesion fill
No. Description angle coeff. angle angle coeff. angle
1 M.Stiff SILT 29.50 0.000 0.00 29.50 0.000 0.00
2 Stiff SILT 29.50 0.000 0.00 29.50 0.000 0.00
3 FILL 37.00 0.000 0.00 37.00 0.000 0.00
GROUND WATER CONDITIONS

Density of water = 9.810 kN/m3
Left side Right side
Initial water table elevation 31.80 31.80
Automatic water pressure balancing at toe of wall : No
WALL PROPERTIES
Type of structure = Fully Embedded Wall
Elevation of toe of wall = 24.95
Maximum finite element length = 1.20 m
Youngs modulus of wall E = 2.1000E+08 kN/m2
Moment of inertia of wall I = 2.2800E-04 m4/m run
E.I = 47880 kN.m2/m run
Yield Moment of wall = Not defined
STRUTS and ANCHORS

Strut/ X-section Inclin Pre-
anchor Strut area Youngs Free -ation stress Tension
no. Elev. spacing of strut modulus length (degs) /strut allowed
m sq.m kN/m2 m kN
1 46.45 10.00 0.002940 2.100E+08 13.80 27.00 0 Yes
2 42.50 10.00 0.002940 2.100E+08 13.80 0.00 0 Yes
SURCHARGE LOADS
Surch Distance Length Width Surcharge Equiv. Partial
-arge from parallel perpend. ----- kN/m2 ----- soil factor/
no. Elev. wall to wall to wall Near edge Far edge type Category
1 46.45 2.50(L) 10.00 10.00 10.00 = N/A N/A
Note: L = Left side, R = Right side

CONSTRUCTION STAGES
Construction Stage description
stage no. --------------------------------------------------------
1 Apply surcharge no.1 at elevation 46.45
2 Excavate to elevation 43.45 on RIGHT side
Toe of berm at elevation 39.30
Width of top of berm = 2.80
Width of toe of berm = 8.30
3 Install strut or anchor no.1 at elevation 46.45
5 Install strut or anchor no.2 at elevation 42.50
7 Fill to elevation 42.10 on RIGHT side with soil type 3
8 Remove strut or anchor no.2 at elevation 42.50
9 Fill to elevation 45.20 on RIGHT side with soil type 3
10 Remove strut or anchor no.1 at elevation 46.45
FACTORS OF SAFETY and ANALYSIS OPTIONS
Stability analysis:
Method of analysis - CP2
Factor on passive for calculating wall depth = 1.50
Parameters for undrained strata:

Minimum equivalent fluid density = 5.00 kN/m3
Maximum depth of water filled tension crack = 0.00 m
Bending moment and displacement calculation:

Method - 2-D finite element model
Open Tension Crack analysis? - No
Soil arching modelled? - No
Non-linear Modulus Parameter (L) = 0 m
Boundary conditions:
Length of wall (normal to plane of analysis) = 10.00 m
Width of excavation on Left side of wall = 30.00 m

Width of excavation on Right side of wall = 30.00 m
Distance to rigid boundary on Left side = 30.00 m

Distance to rigid boundary on Right side = 30.00 m
Elevation of rigid lower boundary = 14.00
Lower rigid boundary at elevation 14.00 - Rough

Rigid boundary on Left side - Rough
Rigid boundary on Right side - Rough
Wall / soil interface - Smooth
OUTPUT OPTIONS
Stage ------ Stage description ----------- ------- Output options -------

no. Displacement Active, Graph.
Bending mom. Passive output
Shear force pressures
1 Apply surcharge no.1 at elev. 46.45 Yes Yes Yes
2 Excav. to elev. 43.45 on RIGHT side Yes Yes Yes
3 Install strut no.1 at elev. 46.45 Yes Yes Yes
5 Install strut no.2 at elev. 42.50 Yes Yes Yes
7 Fill to elev. 42.10 on RIGHT side Yes Yes Yes
8 Remove strut no.2 at elev. 42.50 Yes Yes Yes
9 Fill to elev. 45.20 on RIGHT side No No No
10 Remove strut no.1 at elev. 46.45 Yes Yes Yes
* Summary output Yes - Yes
Program WALLAP - Copyright (C) 2017 by DL Borin, distributed by GEOSOLVE

150 St. Alphonsus Road, London SW4 7BW, UK www.geosolve.co.uk
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of results
STABILITY ANALYSIS of Fully Embedded Wall according to CP2 method

Factor of safety on gross pressure (excluding water pressure)
FoS for toe Toe elev. for

elev. = 24.95 FoS = 1.500
--------------- -------------
Stage --- G.L. --- Strut Factor Moment Toe Wall Direction
No. Act. Pass. Elev. of equilib. elev. Penetr of
Safety at elev. -ation failure
1 46.45 46.45 --- Conditions not suitable for FoS calc.
2 46.45 43.45 Cant. 3.878 26.48 38.87 4.58 L to R
3 46.45 43.45 No analysis at this stage
4 46.45 42.00 46.45 5.324 n/a 39.61 2.39 L to R
5 46.45 42.00 No analysis at this stage
6 46.45 42.00 More than one strut. No FoS calc.
7 46.45 42.10 More than one strut. No FoS calc.
8 46.45 42.10 46.45 6.272 n/a *** *** L to R
9 46.45 45.20 46.45 8.500 n/a *** *** L to R
10 46.45 45.20 Cant. 8.324 25.70 *** *** L to R
11 46.45 45.20 Cant. 4.909 26.38 43.84 1.36 L to R
Legend: *** Result not found

LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of results
BENDING MOMENT and DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS of Fully Embedded Wall

Analysis options
Length of wall perpendicular to section = 10.00m
2-D finite element model. Soil arching not modelled.
Soil deformations are elastic until the active or passive limit is reached
Open Tension Crack analysis - No
All soil moduli were factored to take account of
3-D effects due to the finite length of wall:
Modulus factors - Left side = 1.62
Right side = 1.61
Rigid boundaries: Left side 30.00 from wall Rough boundary

Right side 30.00 from wall Rough boundary
Lower rigid boundary at elevation 14.00 Rough boundary
Bending moment, shear force and displacement envelopes

Node Y Displacement Bending moment Shear force
no. coord maximum minimum maximum minimum maximum minimum
m m kN.m/m kN.m/m kN/m kN/m
1 46.45 0.154 0.000 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -50.6
2 45.83 0.149 0.000 0.4 -29.2 0.1 -41.5
3 45.20 0.151 0.000 0.8 -51.1 1.4 -32.4
4 44.33 0.152 0.000 4.7 -74.5 7.4 -23.7
5 43.45 0.152 0.000 15.9 -90.5 18.1 -13.0
6 42.50 0.150 0.000 35.5 -91.9 13.3 -6.9
7 42.10 0.149 0.000 39.7 -88.6 18.4 -0.3
8 42.00 0.148 0.000 40.4 -87.2 20.8 -0.3
9 40.80 0.143 0.000 41.6 -56.9 28.7 -3.0
10 40.15 0.139 0.000 38.3 -36.8 32.4 -6.0
11 39.50 0.135 0.000 33.9 -16.7 29.6 -7.3
12 39.30 0.134 0.000 34.3 -11.7 27.2 -7.4
13 38.25 0.127 0.000 47.1 -1.4 15.2 -7.1
14 37.20 0.120 0.000 49.1 -1.2 5.2 -6.1
15 36.00 0.113 0.000 44.1 -0.9 0.2 -5.3
16 34.80 0.107 0.000 36.4 -0.7 0.2 -6.4
17 33.60 0.101 0.000 28.6 -0.5 0.2 -6.1
18 32.70 0.097 0.000 23.4 -0.4 0.1 -5.4
19 31.80 0.094 0.000 18.8 -1.7 0.1 -4.7
20 30.90 0.090 0.000 14.8 -3.6 0.1 -4.2
21 30.00 0.086 0.000 11.3 -6.4 0.1 -3.7
22 28.80 0.081 0.000 7.1 -9.1 0.0 -3.2
23 27.60 0.075 0.000 3.5 -9.8 1.0 -2.5
24 26.75 0.071 0.000 1.7 -8.1 3.7 -1.4
25 25.90 0.067 0.000 1.0 -3.5 7.6 -0.2
26 24.95 0.062 0.000 0.0 -0.0 0.9 -0.2
27 24.65 0.061 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
28 21.93 0.049 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
29 19.20 0.037 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
30 16.60 0.024 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
31 14.00 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of results (continued)
Maximum and minimum bending moment and shear force at each stage
Stage --------- Bending moment -------- ---------- Shear force ----------
no. maximum elev. minimum elev. maximum elev. minimum elev.
kN.m/m kN.m/m kN/m kN/m
1 0.0 45.83 -1.6 40.15 0.2 36.00 -0.5 43.45
2 41.6 40.80 -6.9 27.60 18.1 43.45 -7.4 39.30
3 No calculation at this stage
4 16.9 37.20 -72.4 43.45 25.5 40.80 -42.6 46.45
5 No calculation at this stage
6 17.9 36.00 -73.7 43.45 27.3 40.15 -44.5 46.45
7 19.1 36.00 -74.8 43.45 27.7 40.15 -44.4 46.45
8 22.1 36.00 -91.9 42.50 32.4 40.15 -50.6 46.45
9 45.2 37.20 -36.8 42.50 25.1 40.15 -12.8 46.45
10 48.9 37.20 -14.6 42.50 21.4 40.15 -12.0 43.45
11 49.1 37.20 -14.1 42.50 21.3 40.15 -11.7 43.45
Maximum and minimum displacement at each stage

Stage -------- Displacement --------- Stage description
no. maximum elev. minimum elev. -----------------
m m
1 0.003 39.50 0.000 46.45 Apply surcharge no.1 at elev. 46.45
2 0.134 46.45 0.000 46.45 Excav. to elev. 43.45 on RIGHT side
3 No calculation at this stage Install strut no.1 at elev. 46.45
5 No calculation at this stage Install strut no.2 at elev. 42.50
7 0.148 44.33 0.000 46.45 Fill to elev. 42.10 on RIGHT side
8 0.152 44.33 0.000 46.45 Remove strut no.2 at elev. 42.50
9 0.137 46.45 0.000 46.45 Fill to elev. 45.20 on RIGHT side
10 0.154 46.45 0.000 46.45 Remove strut no.1 at elev. 46.45
Strut forces at each stage (horizontal components)

Stage --- Strut no. 1 --- --- Strut no. 2 ---
no. at elev. 46.45 at elev. 42.50
kN/m run kN/strut kN/m run kN/strut
4 42.60 426.02 --- ---
6 44.53 445.28 16.76 167.59
7 44.37 443.75 13.65 136.46
8 50.56 505.57 --- ---
9 12.77 127.73 --- ---
LRT3 | Date :21-06-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gs02 Slope Stability Analysis Rev.00

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Gs02 Slope Stability Analysis Rev.00

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Gs02 Slope Stability Analysis Rev.00

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS AT EXISTING SOIL NAIL SLOPE ALONG NKVE

(CH+4400.00 TO CH+4800.00) PACKAGE GS-02

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LINE 3 (LRT 3) PROJECT

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description .....................................................................................1

1.2 Objective and Scope of Report ..................................................................1

2.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................2

3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS .................................................................4

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................4

3.2 Slope Geometry .........................................................................................4

3.3 Factor of Safety for Slope Stability .............................................................5

3.4 Geotechnical Parameter ............................................................................6

3.5 Results of Slope Stability Analysis .............................................................10

4.0 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................10

5.0 REFERENCE ............................................................................................11

Appendix A – Slope Stability Analysis using SLOPE/W

Appendix B – Temporary Sheet Pile Analysis at Affected NKVE Soil

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page i of i

1.1 Project Description

Prasarana Malaysia Berhad (Prasarana) has appointed Minconsult Sdn Bhd.to

1.2 Objective and Scope of Report

This report covers the design calculations/analysis pertaining to geotechnical

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 1 of 24

2.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

This report makes reference to the following factual reports:

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 2 of 24

Figure 1 : Location of Borehole BH 47

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 3 of 24

3.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

3.2 Slope Geometry

Reinstated slopes have been proposed at pier locations (P4-05 to P4-17

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 4 of 24

Prior to any commencement of excavation works, temporary support system shall

3.3 Factor of Safety for Slope Stability

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 5 of 24

3.4 Geotechnical Parameter

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 6 of 24

Fgure 2: Subsoil Profile Borehole BH 47

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 7 of 24

In the absence of direct measurement of effective stress parameter, the angle of

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 8 of 24

Drained Shear Strength

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 9 of 24

3.5 Results of Slope Stability Analysis

Table 2: Predicted Factor of Safety from Stability Analysis

Pier No. Predicted Factor of

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 10 of 24

(ii) All slopes shall be reinstated to design formation immediately upon

(iii) It is recommended that appropriate surface drainage shall be provided in

(ii) Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, The

(iii) Slope Engineering Branch, Public Works Department Malaysia (2010),

(vi) BS 8002 : 1994, Code of practice for Earth Retaining Structure.

(vii) BS 8110 : Structural Use of Concrete

(viii) BS 5930 : 1999, Code of Practice for Site Investigations

(ix) BS 8004 : 1986, Code of Practice for Foundation

(x) Reinforced Concrete Designer’s HAdbook by Charles E. Reynolds and

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 11 of 24

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS USING SLOPE/W

MINCONSULT SDN BHD Page 12 of 24