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 QUEK JIAN AI (PROJECT LEADER) CHEH KIT CHUN LEE MING CHEI OOI MUN SIONG YONG ZI JUN

ID NO. 12AGB02864 12AGB02881 11AGB04048 11AGB01762 13AGB05484

SUPERVISOR: 1. PROF. DR AKIHIKO NAKAYAMA 2. DR NOOR ZAINAB HABIB MODERATOR: DR ZAFARULLAH NIZAMANI

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 28 th AUGUST 2015

0

Contents

1.0:Abstract .............................................. ...................................................... ....................................................................................... ................................. 1 2.0: Introduction ................................................ ...................................................... .............................................................................. ........................ 2 3.0: Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3 4.0: Literature Review and an d 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 P roposed 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 h ydraulic 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. emban kment. Each of these options’ mechanism, constraints, disadvantages, environmental feasibility and costing are explained to fit the client’s 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, 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 3 0 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 s ystem 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 Ch art.



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 b y 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 heav y 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). 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 (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015). 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 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. 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 1 200

1000

800

600

400 40 0

200 2 00

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 couldn’t generate accurate bed 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‘ground-truthing’ which truthing’ which means internal accuracy. (MESH, 2010).

B. Return Period

1 IN 10 YEARS RETURN PERIOD Q = 9 m3/S 1 IN 30 YEARS RETURN PERIOD Q = 21 m3/S 1 IN 100 YEARS RETURN PERIOD Q = 52 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

Manning’s 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√ 2√   1 

Flow rate, = 1.0, = Manning’s Manning’s Roughness Coefficient

A= Area of Channel =

, R= Hydraulic Radius =

P = Perimeter of Channel =

,

 

= 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)

 =   

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 Froude’s number. If the Froude number is equal to 1, the flow is critical flow and if the Froude’s number is more than 1 then the flow is supercritical flow and if the Froude’s number is less than 1 then the flow is subcritical 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)

  = 1  

G. Broad Crested Weir (Humberto Avila, 2009) a.

   =    



= Coefficient of discharge

H = Total energy head (m) of upstream flow a b.

 = ℎ   a

ℎ

measured relative to the weir-crest elevation. = Upstream head relative to the top of the broadcrested weir

8

5.3: Calculation of the Water Level

A. Return Period of 1 in 10 years 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

Cross Section

y (m)

H (m)

E (m)

Fr

State of flow

0.63533

1.00000

Critical

1.11305

0.46379

Subcritical

CS000

0.42921

Before CS000

0.70940

CS000 - CS200

0.54625

0.67070

0.69228

Subcritical

CS200 - CS400

0.46402

0.63920

0.88799

Subcritical

CS400 - CS600

0.57061

0.68413

0.64760

Subcritical

CS600 - CS800

0.55545

0.67560

0.67483

Subcritical

CS800 - CS1000

0.54924

0.67227

0.68652

Subcritical

CS1000 - CS1200

0.58572

0.69316

0.62220

Subcritical

CS1200-CS1400

0.49898

0.64947

0.79488

Subcritical

0.61305

9

B. Return Period of 1 in 30 years 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

Fr

State of

Cross Section

Cross Section

y (m)

H (m)

E (m)

flow CS000

0.74677

1.09590

1.00000

Critical

Before CS000

0.92328

1.57848

0.72068

Subcritical

CS000 - CS200

0.90841

1.13741

0.73903

Subcritical

CS200 - CS400

0.77200

1.09715

0.95013

Subcritical

CS400 - CS600

0.94877

1.15716

0.69089

Subcritical

CS600 - CS800

0.92365

1.14454

0.72022

Subcritical

CS800 - CS1000

0.91337

1.13968

0.73282

Subcritical

CS1000 - CS1200

0.97381

1.17071

0.66354

Subcritical

CS1200-CS1400

0.83002

1.10830

0.84966

Subcritical

1.07848

10

C. Return Period of 1 in 100 years

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

Cross Section

y (m)

H(m)

E (m)

Fr

State of flow

1.93710

1.00000

Critical

2.47394

0.98773

Subcritical

CS000

1.33851

Before CS000

1.34906

CS000 - CS200

1.55999

1.98395

0.78542

Subcritical

CS200 - CS400

1.32776

1.93724

1.01275

Supercritical

CS400 - CS600

1.62852

2.01298

0.73368

Subcritical

CS600 - CS800

1.58589

1.99428

0.76521

Subcritical

CS800 - CS1000

1.56842

1.98723

0.77875

Subcritical

CS1000 - CS1200

1.67097

2.03349

0.70429

Subcritical

CS1200-CS1400

1.42667

1.94547

0.90448

Subcritical

1.97394

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 concretefilled block work, concrete or timber sleeper walls, concrete, steel or timber sheet pile, or contiguous piling. Figure 10 shows the cantilever wall’s base with a large heel so 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 adequ ate 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 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)

Constraints and Disadvantages

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 A gency, 2002)

Environmental Feasibility

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 emba nkments 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, 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

Constraints and Disadvantages

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.

Environmental Feasibility

Embankment is relatively cheaper to be build b uild and to maintain. By B y 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 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. Theatre. The top section of the proposed site site is also protected with cantilever retaining wall and automatic flood barrier. The cantilever retaining wall is built 140 m on the right right side from from Buccleuch Street Bridge to National Cycle 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. 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 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 the proposed site’s soil is sandstone (Academia.edu, 2015). 2. Gravitational acceleration= 9.8060 m/s2 ~ As it averaged over the Earth’s topographical surface which is 231.4 m above sea level (Mark Z. Jacobson, 2005). 3. γs, Saturated unit weight = 19.612 = 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. γc, unit weight of RCC = 25 = 25 kN/m 8. ρw, water density= 1000 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, Bunger y 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 Bd, base depth Hl ,heel length/ base length under water Tl , toe length/ base length under soil Td, toe depth including Bd H, height of retaining wall Wu, Unexposed wall depth Wt, top length of wall Wb, Bottom length wall SKl, Shear key length Hwa, max height of water Hws, Height of water in saturated soil B, Total base length Width of retaining wall

0.3000 0.3000 0.8000 2.5000 0.8000 3.0000 2.7000 0.4000 0.4250 0.4000 2.7000 2.7000 3.7250 1.0000

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

Distances From the most bottom left of the base to : Cwbl, center of wall length Cbubl, center of Tl Cbabl, center of base

1.0125 m 2.475 m 1.8625 m

From the base centreline to : Cwbc, center of wall Cbbc, center of Tl

0.85 m -0.6125 m

Equations Involved: 









    

   ++     ++  (  ) ++        

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



to most bottom left of base =

, Center of base to most bottom left of base = , Center of wall to base centerline =

, Center of



to base centerline =

=

25

7.3: Analysis of Forces

a)Horizontal force Pa, total earth pressure force= Pe, total effective pressure force Ps, total surcharge force = Hw, hydrostatic horizontal force Total =

b)Vertical force Permanent loads:

Fw, wall Fb, base Fe, earth Fhy, hydrostatic total

28.2413 14.1797 9.6000 35.5934 87.6144

kN kN kN kN kN

30.9375 27.9375 132.3810 35.5934 226.8494

kN kN kN kN 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: 









  



 =  =  (  )   =    =  ()  =  (  )  =   =   =  (−)  =      

26

7.4: Criteria A. Overturning Criteria

Assume the partial factor

Pfe, moment by earth /effective PFs,moment by surcharge PFh, moment by hydrostatic PFrw, restraining wall

overturning moment : Meo, earth Meff, effective Ms, surcharge Mhyo, hydrostatic total restraining moment:

Mw, wall Mb, base Mer, earth Mhyr, hydrostatic total

1.1 1.5 1.35 0.9 31.0654 15.5976 21.6000 72.0767 140.3397

kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m

28.1918 46.8302 294.8787 118.9265 488.8272

kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m

Since the restraining moment is higher than the overturning moment, the overturning criteria of cantilever restraining wall are satisfied.








   

 =   +   =  +   =  +   =  +   = ( )  = ( )  = ( )  = ( )

B. Sliding force criteria Assume:

Pfel,earth load/ effective load PFsl, surchage load PFf, friction

1.35 1.5 1

μ, coeffiecient of friction as most rocks

0.55 27

between 0.5-0.8.(Academia.edu, 2015). PFhl, hydrostatic load sliding force:

Le, earth load Lef, effective load Ls, surcharge load Lhy, hydrostatic load total

Frictional resisting force: Fμv, vertical force : Factor of safety = Fμh, Fr ictional ictional resisting force for shear key= Total frictional force= New FOS =

1.35

38.1257 kN 19.1426 kN 14.4000 kN 48.0511 kN 119.7194 kN

124.7672

kN

1.0422 4.1185 kN 128.8857 kN 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:  

 







 =   =   =   =    =        =     =  ()(  )()

C. Bearing Pressure Criteria Assume the partial factor

Pfwal, wall Pfa, active load PFp, passive load Pfea, earth / effective Pfhy, hydrostatic

1.35 1.35 1.5 1 1.35 28

Moment at the base centreline Mah, active horizontal moment Mph, passive horizontal moment Meh, effective horizontal moment Mhh, hydrostatic horizontal moment Mwb, wall Meb, earth Mhb, hydrostatic Mt, total N= Bearing Pressure at the heel and toe P1, Max P2, Min P3

38.125728 21.6 14.17968 72.07668563 35.50078125 -81.0833625 -29.4313133 70.96819908

kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m

259.9133738

kN

100.462971 39.08783372 80.27920101

kN/m2 kN/m2 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 didn’t exceed the allowable. Equations Involved: 







  









 = (++ )  = (   )  = (+ )  = (+ )  =   =   =  = ( )      =     =     =   (−) 29

7.5: Reinforcement in Cantilever Retaining Wall

a)Wall Assume the partial factor Pfa,active load Pfp, passive load Pfea, earth / effective Pfhy, hydrostatic d', nominal cover d, effective depth of the concrete Horizontal force Le, earth load Lef, effective load Ls, surcharge load Lhy, hydrostatic load total

38.125728 38.88 14.17968 48.05112375 139.2365318

Max moment Maw, Active Mpw, Passive Mew, Effective Mhw, Hydrostatic Mmt, total

40.0320144 kN.m 21.26952 kN.m 40.824 kN.m 50.45367994 kN.m 152.5792143 kN.m

1.35 1.5 1 1.35 0.044 m 0.3810 mm kN kN kN kN kN

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 Pfea, earth / effective Pfhy, hydrostatic d, effective depth of the concrete

1 1.35 0.256

m

30

Max Moment Mbb, base Mbe, earth Mbh, hydrostatic bearing pressure :

Mmin M3, P3min

Mmt, total

32.05828125 193.6072125 70.27476848 -142.914892

kN.m kN.m kN.m kN.m

-53.84913119 99.176239

kN.m kN.m

k

0.060532372

z, lever arm length

0.237435676

mm


879.3627215

mm2

bar size: 12 mm, bar spacing: 125 mm c) Heel Assume the partial factor

PFh, base

1.35

d, effective depth of the concrete Max Moment Mbh, heel bearing pressure: Mmt, total

Mmax

0.2560

m

4.96125 kN.m -20.0925942 kN.m -15.1313442 kN.m

k

0.023088599

z, lever arm length

0.249254854

mm


127.8027729

mm2

bar size: 8 mm, bar spacing:175 mm e)Shear key Assume the partial factor

PFsk, shear key

d, effective depth of the concrete

1.5 0.3560

m

31

Earth Pressure Et, Earth pressure top Eb, Earth pressure bottom

12.35556 32.94816

Max Moment Mtsk, top shear key Mbsk, bottom shear key Mmt, total

kN/mm2 kN/mm3

2.3166675 kN.m 1.71605 kN.m 4.0327175 kN.m

k

0.001126713

z, lever arm length

0.355553763

mm


23.87805295

mm2

D. Detailing Minimum area of longitudinal steel distribution fctm = 0.30x fck ^0.666 2.5649639 mean width of tension zone: Btw, wall Bbh, base/ heel Bsk, shear key

381 mm 256 mm 356 mm

base

879.3627

use As

bar size: 12 mm, bar spacing:125 mm

905 mm2

toe

127.8028

use As min


393 mm2

Shear key

23.87805

use As min


523 mm2












=ℎ′ −)  = (  −    = (    )  = (  − )  = (  − )  =  32

















 

















=0.5  0.25 0.25 .9       = .9  =   = (  )  = (   )  = (  )   = (  )( )(   )  = (  )(  = (  )  =   =   = (  )  = 0.5( 5( )(  )()  =0.30   min wal wall = 0.2626  1000  min base/toe =0.26  1000  min heel =0.26  1000 ℎ   = 0.0013 01310100000  )

Minimal effective depth

i) Wall Mmt, Max moment dm, minimal effective depth d, effective height check

152.5792143 kN.m 176.4613702 mm 381.0000 mm satisified

Mmt, Max moment dm, minimal effective depth d, effective height check


ii) Base

33

iii)Heel Mmt, Max moment dm, minimal effective depth d, effective height check


Mmt, Max moment dm, minimal effective depth d, effective height check


iv)Shear key

Crack Control Pful, Partial factor ultimate load = i) Wall MSLS, moment serviceability limit state

ρs, Stress in steel at SLS From table 6.3: From table 6.2:

1.5

max bar size max crack width max bar spacing

ii) Base MSLS, moment serviceability limit state ρs, Stress in steel at SLS From table 6.3: From table 6.2:


iii)Heel MSLS, moment serviceability limit state ρs, Stress in steel at SLS From table 6.3: From table 6.2:


iv)Shear Key MSLS, moment serviceability limit state ρs, Stress in steel at SLS From table 6.3:

max bar size max crack width

101.7194762

kN.m

283.9799618 12 0.4 150

Mpa mm mm mm

66.11749267

kN.m

281.6439175 12 0.4 150

Mpa mm mm mm

10.0875628

kN.m

94.26025957 16 0.3 200

Mpa mm mm mm

2.688478333

kN.m

13.23360376 Mpa 25 mm 0.2 mm 34

From table 6.2:

max bar spacing

Anchorage length Kat,tension=

200 mm

28

i)Wall Bar Size Alt, anchorage length tension

12 mm 336 mm

Bar Size Alt, anchorage length tension

12 mm 336 mm


10 mm 280 mm


10 mm 280 mm

ii)Base

iii)Heel

iv)Shear key

Curtailment of flexural steel Cc, constant curtailment=12

i)Wall Bar Size Cl, curtailment length

12 mm 144 mm

Bar Size Cl, curtailment length

12 mm 144 mm


10 mm 120 mm


10 mm 120 mm

ii)Base

iii)Heel

iv)Shear key

35

e) Distribution of steel i) Wall Secondary reinforcement 1) More than 20% 2) spacing <= 3.5h 3) 400mm2 USE: 400 mm

181 mm2 1487.5 mm2 400 mm2 bar size: 10 mm spacing : 175mm

Secondary reinforcement 1) More than 20% 2) spacing <= 3.5h 3) 400mm2 USE: 400 mm

181 mm2 1050 mm2 400 mm2 bar size: 10 mm spacing : 175mm


78.6 mm2 1487.5 mm2 400 mm2 bar size: 10 mm spacing : 175mm


71.2 mm2 1400 mm2 400 mm2 bar size: 10 mm spacing : 175mm

ii) Base

iii)Toe

iv)Shear Key

f) Lap length Kl = 40 Bar size transverse Bar size longitudinal LLt, lap length tension LLc, lap length compression

12 mm 10 mm 480 400

mm mm


   =  .9  36





   

 = .  =       =      =      =      =    

transverse longitudinal

Shear Forces

Et, Earth pressure top Ved Vrd Max Ɵ cot Ɵ Asw/s Stirrup spacing

12.35556 711.680256 576720 22 2.5 0.729928468 Bar size:10mm

kN/mm2 kN kN ˚

Stirrup Spacing: 200mm








 =    =   1000 1000   =0.181  10  =   .7Ɵ 

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

Bill

1

Description of Works

Units

Volume

Amount

Amount

(RM)

(RM)

CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT

1.1

Contractor's All Risk

0.18%

15368

Overhead

1.2

Perkeso / SOCSO

0.06%

5123

127779

2 2.1

ENGINEER / SO / PD'S REQUIREMENT

Establishment, Maintenance & Removal Of SO's Site Office

0.20%

17076

2.3

Pre & Post Survey

0.27%

23052

2.4

Surveying Equipment

0.07%

5976

2.5

Testing & Sampling

0.03%

2561

0.31%

26467

0.36%

30736

3 3.2 3.3 4

CONTRACTOR'S REQUIREMENT

Mobilization & Demobilization Of Construction Plant & Equipment Site Agent

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

ha

-

1,725.85

1314

ha

-

2,268.64

1727

ha

-

2,887.50

2199

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 stumps, dispose of and/or carting debris, loose boulders, waste materials, away from site and trimming as directed by the S.O. 5.2

The reserve width of the new river alignment. General clearance within working reserve along the river as shown in the drawing or as directed by b y S.O. of all undergrowth, bushes, shrubs

5.3

including grubbing up of roots, felling and disposal of trees and demolition of structure as below and removed from site to contractor own dumping area.

6

CONFIRMATORY BOREHOLES

43

6.1 7

Movement : Rotary Wash Boring / Core Drilling

N/A

7

2,516.76

17617

m3

-

19.5

180504

m3

-

28.89

267424

m3

-

2

18513

m3

-

3.09

28603

m2

-

1.72

13096

m2

-

250.94

1910694

EXCAVATION

Excavate over site to reduce level not exceeding 2.50m deep and get 7.1

out, part return, fill in and ram, 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 8.1

by hydraulic rock breaker to disposal site approved by the S.O/Engineer

9 9.1

FILLING

Construction of river spoil heaps using excavated material Construction of road embankment

9.2

using excavated material or surplus material to be compacted to a minimum compaction fo 95% MDD. Slope trimming for base preparation

9.3

to receive slope revetment materials and turfing.

10

RETAINING STRUCTURE

Supply and install of Reinforced 10.1

Soil Wall components consisting of 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

m2

-

343.03

2611653

m2

-

56.58

430809

To design and construct modular block retaining wall average 2.5m high (Keystone or equivalent) 10.3 including foundation, subsoil 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 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

m3

-

270.41

2499290

14.1 Contraction joint with water stop

m

-

32.82

23302

14.2 Expansion joint

m

-

29.22

20746

m2

-

8.74

6205

13

GRADE C30 CONCRETE

13.1 In slab 14

CONCRETE ANCILLARIES

Prepare and apply one coat sealer 14.3

and two coats emulsion paint at 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

Total=

8,537,834.87

Amount

Amount

(RM)

(RM)

Area=7614.15m2 Volume=9256.63m3 B. Automatic Flood Barrier

Bill

1


Units

Volume


1.1

Contractor's All Risk

0.18%

604

Overhead

1.2

Perkeso / SOCSO

0.06%

201

6476

2 2.1



0.20%

671

2.3

Pre & Post Survey

0.27%

906

2.4

Surveying Equipment

0.07%

235

2.5

Testing & Sampling

0.03%

100

3 3.1


Clearing & Cleaning Up Upon Completion

0.06%

201

46

3.2

Mobilization & Demobilization Of Construction Plant & Equipment

0.31%

1041

3.3

Site Agent

0.36%

1208

3.4

Temporary works

0.39%

1309

4

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, 4.1 belukar, tall grass, grubbing up

ha

-

1,725.85

120.8

ha

-

2,268.64

158.8

ha

-

2,887.50

220

m2

-

1.71

1197

roots stumps, dispose of and/or carting debris, loose boulders, waste materials, away from site and trimming as directed by the S.O. 4.2

The reserve width of the new river 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

4.3

including grubbing up of roots, felling and disposal of trees and 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, dispose as specified and directed by S.O.

47

5

CONFIRMATORY BOREHOLES

Mobilization to site and demobilization on completion of all 5.1

equipment necessary for execution

L.S

-

-

8372.67

m3

-

270.41

17036

m3

-

8.3

15396

m3

-

28.89

53591

m3

-

25.46

47228

N/A

-

-

101640

m2

-

83.05

58135

of the Site Operations and installation of the Ancillary Works 6 6.1 7

GRADE C30 CONCRETE

In slab EXCAVATION

General excavation and disposal 7.1

from site surplus excavated material to contractor own dumping site.

8

EXCAVATION ANCILLARIES

Excavate in artificial hard material 8.1

by hydraulic rock breaker to disposal site approved by the S.O/Engineer

9

IMPORTED MATERIAL

Filling with approved imported 9.1

earth to form level as directed by the S.O.

10

INSTALLATION

10.1 Self-closing flood barrier 11

FINISHES

11.1 Floor Finishes 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

Amount

Amount

(RM)

(RM)

C. Tire- bale Embankment

Bill

1


Units

Volume


Contractor's All Risk(Public 1.1

Liability Insurance and Insurance Insurance

0.18%

4716

0.06%

1572

Of Works) 1.2 2 2.1

Perkeso / SOCSO



0.20%

5240

2.3

Pre & Post Survey

0.27%

7075

2.4

Surveying Equipment

0.07%

1834

2.5

Testing & Sampling

0.03%

786

0.31%

8123

0.36%

9433

3 3.2

3.3 4


Mobilization & Demobilization Of Construction Plant & Equipment Site Agent

Overhead =38779

GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS (GPT)

49

4.1

Removal of Floating Vegetation

m2

-

11

102236

4.2

Transport Out Floating Vegetation

m2

-

8

74354

m3

-

20

464710

N/A

-

N/A

-

155

1085

5

EXCAVATION

Excavate over site to reduce level not exceeding 2.50m deep and get 5.1

out, part return, fill in and ram, deposit, spread in making up levels where directed within the site and remainder load and cart away.

6 6.1 7 7.1 8

COMPACTION TEST

Conduct Compaction Test to Flood Protection Bund as specified

1330

FIELD DENSITY TEST

Conduct Field Density Test to Flood Protection Bund as specified 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

ha

-

1,725.85

1604

9

SITE CLEARANCE

To clear the site area (within Right of Way including the river and river slope) of trees irrespective of sizes, 9.1

undergrowth bushes, shrubs, belukar, tall grass, grubbing up roots stumps, dispose of and/or carting debris, loose boulders, waste materials, away from site and

50

trimming as directed by the S.O. 9.2

The reserve width of the new river alignment.

ha

-

2,268.64

2109

ha

-

2,887.50

2684

1.71

15893

General clearance within working reserve along the river as shown in the drawing or as directed by S.O. of all undergrowth, bushes, shrubs 9.3

including grubbing up of roots, felling and disposal of trees and 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

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

m3

-

17.1

397327

m3

-

10.7

248620

the S.O 10.2

Compacted Clay Layer Backfilling with suitable material and approved materials as specified in making up levels including

10.3

spread, grade and compact to 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

m2

-

7.8

72495

m

-

14.42

11969

additional fertilizer until satisfactorily established within the duration of the Contract. 12 12.1 13 13.1 14

Filling ancillaries

Filter Geotextile KET 15 or other approved and equivalent Drainage work

In earth for 900mm precast pipe culvert depth 1.5 - 2.0m. Labor

14.1

Plant/Excavator Operator/Driver

day

73

98.06/day

14317

14.2

General Labor

day

73

63.11/day

59891

Total=

2,620,216.33

Volume =23235. 52 Area =9294. 208 The entire bill is taken from JPS Report Repo rt 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 Concrete of RC wall Concrete of RC base Concrete of RC Key or nib Total Concrete Used Item Area of section : Area of view: Area of side: Total Area=

Volume(m3) / m Total Volume(m 3) of length 710m 1.2375 878.625 1.1175 793.425 0.2000 142.000 2.555 1814.05

Area(m2)/m Wall 1.2375 Base + Heel 1.3175 Top 3.725 Bottom 3.725 Left 3.8 Right 3.8 17.605

Total surface Area of RC retaining wall = 17.6 05m2/m x 710m = 12499.55 cement: sand : gravel = 1:2:4 for grade 25/30 concrete Item Electricity Energy Water

Energy to produce 1m 3 of concrete 3.9 kWh 272.1 MJ 270 Liters

b) Tire bale embankment Item Area of tire bale Area of clay Area of sand filled into tire bale Area of pipe for drainage Area of soil Total area/volume for embankment

Total to produce of length 710m 2769 kWh 193191 MJ 191700 Liters

Area(m2)/m 5.46 3.50 1.092 0.0155 8.76 17.712

Total Volume(m3) of length 770m 4204.2 2695 840.84 11.935 6745.20 14497.18

c) Automatic flood barrier Item Aluminum steel

Weight of steel kg/m Weight Weigh t kg of steel length 350m 27.2 9520

53

Item Electricity Energy Water

Energy 15 kWh 54 MJ 230 Liters

Total to produce of length 350m 5250kWh 18900 MJ 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 carbon calculation, we utilize an Excel software V2.1 to calculate the total CO

2

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 the transportation, 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

Category

Quarried

Construction material

Unit Conversion Or Density

Embodied tCO2 per tonne of material

Recycled aggregate Clay

2.0 tonnes/m3

0.008

1.9 tonnes/m3

0.2

1.85tonnes/m3

0.0053

6kg/m2*20mm

0.48

11kg/m2*20mm

0.75

7.9 tonnes/m3

1.72

Material sand

Timber

Metals

Particle Board Plywood Steel: bar & rod

Construction Material

Recycled aggregate Clay Sand Particle Board Plywood Steel: bar& rod

Quantity (tonnes)

2073.2 5120.5 958.9 37.5 27.5 2866.2

Distance between Source of supply and site(km)

10 10 10 10 10 5

Mode of Transport

road water road water water road

Footprint (tonnes fossil CO 2) Embodied

Transport

Sum

7.7 1024.1 5.1 18 20.6 4929.9

6.6 0.5 3 0 0 4.5

14.2 1024.6 8.1 18 20.6 4934.4

55

ss

Footprint (tonnes fossil CO2)

al n oi C ti er

e g n si

s

ec

us

o a

p Recommendation x E

Class :

m o o C

C25 Cement /30 type:

T

o n

o d

at

e D

M

n

tr i

n

p

o

de ps b d o

m ar

m E

u T

S

Portland Cement: dry kiln

r et

yr Minimum a w

d Cement hs yl er F:

er (kg/m3) ar C

e

,t 2 X

w

Steel Market 280 source: average 72.8 10 Reinforcement: 20 % steel by volume Aggregate % recycle source: 0

Size of project

Plant Emission s Estimator

Medium (construction cost RM9.915 to RM33.05,between 9 & 15 people permanently on site)

tCO2 per month

5

Project duration (months)

5

d a or

62.7

0.2

63

Footprint (tonnes fossil CO2) r ei o d ps o d m b n t u ar S m E T

25

n/a

25

56

Waste removal (i.e.mass balacing site derived material Inert waste disposal (could not be used as aggregate)

e g a

2

Conversion

2.0tonnes/m3

Portakabin Size Portakabins Large(8 people, 40ft X 14ft)

tCO / t

n/a

n n o T

1814.05

Distance to landfill

Mode

10

road

Footprint (tonnes fossil CO2) tr de i o d ps m o u n b S a m r E T

n/a

Season Tonnes CO 2/week Weeks in use Summer 0.051 19

5.8

5.8

CO2 (tonnes) 1

Transportation kg CO 2 per week Project duration(weeks) Total CO 2(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) Recycle Aggregate Clay Sand Practical Board Plywood Steel: bars & rods Cement C25/30 Waste Removal Plant emission Portakabins Transportation Sum

(tonnes)

Total CO2 (Output)

6000

Total CO2 (Output)

14.2 1024.6 8.1 18 20.6

5000 4000 3000

4934.4 63 5.8 25 1 15.504 6130.204

2000 1000 0

b) Automatic Flood Barrier

l n tc

l ts a

yr C

Metals

Other material

n o C

Aluminium :general Polyester

n U

a

n

O

2.7 tonnes /m3 9.52 tCO2/t

e n n

d

u

o n

r ti

e

it o

D C

)s

i

o m

yt f

ne n

t

a

m de

v re

t

Ct

e

ur ge

a

is

ai

o

t O

yt sr

oi

re

2

oi

n


ai

b

Q n

m

ot E

8.53

re

(

ot


f

tr d n

de

o

o ps e

yc %

o M

lc

T

ar

0.952

10

10

tr o n

i o d

ps

R

road

Market Average

u S ar

E

road

m

b m

p

9.52

de

e

T

81.2

0

81.2

9.1

0

9.1

58

Category

Plant Emissions Estimator

Size of Project

tCO2/mon th

Footprint (tonnes fossil CO2) de

tr o n

i

Medium (construction cost RM9.915 to RM33.05,betwee n 9 & 15 people permanently on site)

o d

ps m u

b

5

m E

1

5

n Category


os ae

Portakabin size

S

T

n/a

Tonnes CO per week

Weeks in use

CO2( tonn es)

0.051

4

0.2

2

S ar

5

r

Portakabins

e

Large (8 people, 40ft x 14ft) m m u S

Transportation Size of project Medium (construction cost RM9.915 to RM33.05, between 9 & 15 people permanently on site)

2

kg CO per week

816

Project duration(weeks)

Total CO 2(tonnes)

4

3.264

59

Total CO2 (Output) Aluminium Polyester Plant Emision

Total CO2 (Output)

(tonnes) 81.2 9.1 5

Portakabins Transportation Sum

100 80

Total CO2 (Output)

60 40 20 0

0.2 3.264 98.764

c) Tire-Bale Embankment tCO2/mont h Category

Size of Project

Plant Emissions Estimator

Medium (construction cost RM9.915 to RM33.05,between 9 & 15 people permanently on site

n 2

oi sr n oi

yr t

n a

a C

C

m

Clay Quarried Sand Material

Plastics

Soil HDPE Pipe

n U

u

ot b

O

a

m E

e

re

o r

)s it

n

D

t o

d

ti

ai

yt l

n

ne C

re

ge

e i

o ai

ts

o de

n n

t re p

a m

1.9tonn es/m3

0.2

1.85ton nes/m3

0.0053

1.7tonn es/m3

0.024

1.1tonn es/m3

2

n/a

15

3

f

is n

ur o

5

O

yt v

l

15

Ct

e

tc

Footprint (tonnes fossil CO2) tr de i o d ps m o u n b S a m r E T


Q

(

ot

n



f o

tr de

tr

d

n b

o n

i

o

o

ps e

d

o M

T

ar

ps m E

m ar u T

S

5120. 5

10 Road

1024.1

16.3

1040.4

1555. 55

10 Road

8.2

4.9

13.2

11466 .84

10 Road

275.2

36.4

311.6

16.71

10 Road

33.4

0.1

33.5 60

Category

Portakabin size

Season

Summer

Portakabins

Large (8 people, 40ft x 14ft)

Tonnes CO2 per week 0. 05 1

Weeks in use

CO2 (tonnes)

11

0.6

Transportation Size of project Medium (construction cost RM9.915 to RM33.05, between 9 & 15 people permanently on site)

kg CO2 per week

Total CO2 (Output) clay sand soil HDPE pipe Plant emission Portakabins Transportation Sum

Project duration(weeks)

816

(tonnes) 1040.4 13.2 311.6 33.5 15 0.6 8.976 1423.276

11

Total CO 2(tonnes)

8.976

Total CO2 (Output) 1500 1000

Total CO2 (Output)

500 0

Total carbon emission of entire entire project = 6130.204 + 98.764 + 1423.276 = 7652.244 tons of 2 CO

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 Safet y 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 th e site.

63

Rating

IMPACT

Rating

5

Multiple fatality, fatality of public, catastrophic property damage

Most likely (81100%) Possible (61-80%) Conceivable (4160%) Remote (21-40%) Inconceivable (020%)

5 4

X

Fatality, serious injury of public, widespread property damage

4

LIKELIHOOD

3 2

3

Severe injury (permanent incapacity), hospitalization of public, severe property damage

2

Major injury (permanent slight incapacity), complaints of public, major property damage

1

Minor injury, nuisance to public, minor property damage

1

DEGREE OF RISK 5

5

10

15

20

25

p

4

4

8

12

16

20

3

3

6

9

12

15

2

2

4

6

8

10

1

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

a

c

t

= mI

Degree of Risk

Risk Level

5 to 12

Low Medium

15 to 25

High

1 to 4

Likelihood

Those Affected l

Risk n

ar

No

n

= u C

b P G

c

l e =

excavation process

t ci

G

1 Flood might occur during

oi

e

Hazard

Original Assessment d

& ts

ur

t

Activity Affected o

n C

Will damage previous

o e

p

hi g

mi ki

c o e

er

a l

e D l

4

4

16

3

5

15

5

4

20

4

4

16

effort and equipment, possible delayed of work

2 Noise and dust generated

Noice and dust cause

during installation of flood

nuisance and health

defenses

problem to the resident

3 Collapse of site due to surcharging 4 Workers or resident nearby

Injury or death may occur, possible delayed of work Injury or death may occur

64

might fall into the excavation 5 Nearby buildings and structures might collapse

5

4

20

5

4

20

Injury or death may occur

4

4

16

Will damage previous

5

3

15

Injury or death may occur

4

3

12

Prolonged work might

4

4

16

Damage to the buildings and stucture, injury and death may occur

6 Contact with underground

Damage the pipeline and

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 : crane, vehicle, concrete pump (due to blind spot) 8 Water pressure from the river 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 struck by falling object 10 Hazardous manual task

cause mistake occur, injury or death may occur

65

Revised Assessment No

d

t c

o e l

g

Mitigation Measures mi

ki

e

er hi

o p

a

e D l

1 Install temporary flood defenses, dewatering system

1

2

2

2 Install noise barrier barrier around construction site nearby the resident resident area, vacuum extraction

1

3

3

3 Spoil from the excavation is placed away the site, the parking area near the site is closed

4

2

8

4 Set up parameter and guardrails for the the working site with standard warning signs and safety tapes

4

1

4

5

3

2

6

6 Have a complete information information from from the relevant authorities authorities on the location of the underground lines

2

2

4

7 Provide sufficient sufficient training training to the site workers and deploy enough site supervisors to supervise the whole process

2

3

6

8

Consult the relevant professional, set up appropriate ground support systems

2

2

4

9 Set up guardrails and safety net to prevent the object falling falling and reach to workers working in the excavation, provide personal protective equipment to workers 10 Provide sufficient sufficient training training to the site workers, limit limit working working time, and rotating tasks between workers

1

2

2

3

3

9

Consult the relevant professional, set up appropriate ground support systems (shoring)

66

11.0: Project Timeline 11.1: Capstone Project

Ghantt Chart for Completion of Capstone C apstone Project 6/15 6/25

7/5

7/15 7/25 8/4

8/1 4 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

Task Name

Start

End

Briefing

6/19

7/10

Duration (days) 22

Literature Review and Project Conception

6/19

7/17

29

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

6/19 6/26 7/3 7/18 8/1

7/3 7/17 7/31 7/31 8/7

15 22 29 14 7

Profitability Analysis or Economic Appraisal of Preferred Option

8/8

8/15

8

Final Report Writing and Pre-Presentation Report Submission & Group Presentation

8/16 8/26

8/25 9/4

10 10

67

11.2: Construction timeline a) Whole Schedule Timeline(Soós and Vattai, 2000)

ID Task Name 1

Flood protection scheme at XX area, Kelantan

Duration 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 20

BUILIDNG WORKS Setting out and establishment of control points

390 days 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 ID Task Name

Duration

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:

Use_of_tyre_bales_in_embankment_core_for_River_Witham_Phase_23_flood_defence_ 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 Design. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons So ns Inc. 5. Commission for Occupational Safety and Health, 2005. Code of Practice: Excavation. 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-coefficientof-passive-lateral-earth-pressure/> of-passive-lateral-earth-pres sure/> [Accessed at 23 August 2015]. 8. District Council of Franklin Harbour, 2014. Excavation 2014. Excavation and Trenching Procedure. [pdf] 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

:

[Accessed 23 August 2015] 10. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, 2011. Flood mitigation publication: managing flood problem. problem. [online] Available at: > [Accessed on 15 July 2015]. 75

11. Dumfries & Galloway,2014. Whitesands Regeneration Masterplan Emerging Draft Report . [online] Whitesands Dumfries: Dumfries & Galloway Council. Available at: [Accessed 14 Jun 2015]. 12. Environment Agency, 2002. Temporary and Demountable Flood Protection. [pdf] Available

at:

[Accessed 14 Jun 2015]. 13. Environment

Agency,

2009.

HiFlows-UK.[online] HiFlows-UK.[online]

Available

at:

<

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091017175719/environmentagency.gov.uk/hiflows/91727.aspx>[Accessed 22 August 2015] 14. Environment Agency, 2012. Fluvial Design Guide - Chapter 9. [online] Available at: agency.gov.uk/FCERM/en/FluvialDesignGuide/Chapter9.aspx > [Accessed 14 Jun 2015]. 15. fao.org, 2015. Earth embankments. embankments. [pdf] Available at:
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 consumed to produce … [online] Available at: [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. projects . Safety Science, 80, 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. 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 2009. FLOW OVER A BROAD CRESTED WEIR. WEIR. [pdf] Available at: [Accessed 7 July 2015]. 22. Jorge, G. and Christopher, J., 2015. Engineering 2015. Engineering Properties of Tire Bales for Soil Repairs and Embankment Construction. Construction. [pdf] Available at: 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. 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 Analysis. American Journal of Environmental Science.

[pdf].

Available

at:

[Accessed 1 July 2015]. 28. MESH., 2010. Ground truth, ground validator and the map-makers’ map-makers’ dilemma. 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 [Accessed 14 July 2015].

77

30. National 30. National Archives and Record Administration, 2010. Installation 2010. Installation of Self-Closing Flood Barriers and Loading Dock Turntable Removal and Structural Slab Repairs. [pdf] Available at: [Accessed 14 Jun 2015]. 31. National 31. National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning, n.d. Module 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 32. National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning, 2015. Module 6:Design of Retaining

Structure.

Lecture

26

Introduction. Introduction.

[pdf]

Available

at

[Accessed 14 Jul. 2015]. 33. Oregon.gov, 2011. Hydraulics 2011. Hydraulics Manual: Appendix A- Hydraulic A- Hydraulic Roughness (MANNING’S n)

Values

of

Conduits

and

Channels.

[pdf]

Available

at

<

ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/GeoEnvironmental/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. emissions. [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 August 2015]. 35. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015 Flood 2015 Flood Risk Management Maps. [online]. Available at: > [Accessed on 16 July 2015].

36. Smith, K., and Ward, R., 1998. Flood: physical events and natural hazards. Floods: physical processes and human impacts. impacts. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons So ns Ltd.

37. Soós, L. & Vattai, Z.A., 2000. SAMPLE SCHEDULE for Individual Project Construction

Management

-

I.

(

Retaining

wall

)[pdf]. )[pdf].

Available

at:

[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. Construction. [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 August 2015]. 40. Texas Department of transportation, 2015. Embankment 2015. Embankment Repair R epair with Tire Bales. Bales. [online] Available

at:

txdot/division/support/recycling/tirebales.html> txdot/division/support/recycling/ti rebales.html> [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015]. 41. The Star, 2014. Flood cost Kelantan RM200mil in losses. The Star Online, [online] 2 Jan. Available

at

Kelantan-RM200mil-in-losses/>[Accessed 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: [Accessed 14 Jul. 2015]. 43. tirecgroup.uk, 2015. Tyre bales in an embankment for residential development . [pdf] Available

at:

[Accessed 14 Jul. 2015]. 44. The Constructor Civil Engineering Home, (2015). CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL. WALL. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 Jul. 2015]. 45. Tom,

J.,

2013.

The

Importance

of

Passive

Solution. [pdf] Solution.

Available

at:

[Accessed 14 Jun 2015] 46. Van den Noort Innovations, SCFB. [online] Available at: 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 Pen insular Malaysia recently (DID, 2011)

Figure 2 shows the areas that may flood in high likelihood (1 in 10 years return period). (Scottish (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015) 2015)

Figure 3 shows the areas that may ma y flood in medium likelihood (1 in 30 years return period). (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015) 2015)

80

Figure 4 shows the areas that may ma y flood in low likelihood (1 in 100 years return period). (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015) 2015)

Figure 5 shows the population affected beside th e river in high likelihood (1 in 10 years return period). (Scottish (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015) 2015)

Figure 6 shows the population affected beside the river in medium likelihood (1 in 30 years return period). (Scottish (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015) 2015)

81

Figure 7 shows the population affected beside th e river in high likelihood (1 in 100 years return period). (Scottish (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2015) 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 con nect 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, a s 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, 1 992)

Figure 10 shows the cantilever wall’s base with a large he el 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 De partment of transportation, 2015)

85

Figure 15 shows the black Geosynthetic 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 whi ch is use on-site to compress 100 car c ar tires into a bale for embankment core. (timbertransportforum.org.uk, 2015) 86

Figure 17 shows cross section showing placement o f 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

Recommend Documents