Project Zefram Cochrane

Alignment & Civil Workshop Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Alignment & Civil Workshop - Objectives

1.) Review and identify;

- Project Development Interfaces
- Constraints
- Assumptions
- Design Criteria &
- Bidding Strategy (opportunities / drivers)

2.) Agree criteria for development of Study Alignment options and associated C/S Structures for
input into overall Study cost summary
3.) Identify Risks and Opportunities for development / mitigation
4.) Identify information requirements for development of Alignment Options etc. and understand
available and missing data
5.) Agree set of constraints / assumptions / design criteria proposed for the Study development
used to-date
6.) Review and agree / accept / pose modifications for development to preliminary alignment to-date
Alignment & Civil Workshop - Agenda

Environmental Issues / Constraints

Geotechnical Issues / Constraints
Alignment Engineering Issues & Development
Civil / Structural Engineering Issues & Development
Project Zefram Cochrane

Alignment & Civil Workshop Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Environmental Issues / Constraints

Objective and Methodology

Environmental and social sensitivity mapping

High-level screening of potential environmental and social considerations
Desk based approach based on publicly available information
Reference to governments (Federal and State) development planning
documents:
National Physical Plan 2
Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020
Selangor Structure Plan 2020
Negeri Sembilan Structure Plan 2001-2020
Melaka Structure Plan 2000-2020
Johor Structure Plan 2020
Criteria

Land available for development constraints

Existing Built-up Area
Physical Constraint Area
Prime Agriculture Area (PAA) Rank 1 and 2; and
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Rank 1, 2 and 3
Flood Prone Areas
Heritage Buildings
Land Availability
Land Use
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)

Based on three broad criteria:

Important for biodiversity
Important for life support
Areas vulnerable to hazards

ESA Rank 1 Existing and proposed Protected Areas. No development, agriculture or

Important small habitats outside the PA
system: Turtle landing sites, salt licks,
important plant areas, limestone outcrops
and natural wetlands of high conservation
value.
Catchments of existing and proposed dams.
Areas above 1,000m contour.
ESA Rank 2 All other forests and wetlands outside of
Protected Areas.
500m buffer zone around Rank 1 areas.
Areas between 300m 1,000m contour.
ESA Rank 3 Marine park islands.
500m buffer zone around Rank 2 areas.
Catchments of water intake and groundwater
recharge zones.
Areas between 150m - 300m contour, all
areas with erosion risk above 150ton/ha/yr,
all areas experiencing critical or significant
coastal erosion.
logging permitted except for
low-impact nature tourism,
research and education.
No development or agriculture.
Sustainable logging and low
impact nature tourism may be
permitted subject to local
constraints.
Controlled development where
the type and intensity of the
development shall be strictly
controlled depending on the
nature of the constraints.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
Prime Agricultural Areas (PAA)
Prioritizes agricultural land to be conserved based on existing major food
production areas.
Categories Managing Criteria
PAA Rank This area shall remain as
1 paddy land and not
developed for other
purposes.
PAA Rank These areas shall remain as
2 agriculture areas unless it is
within the city and town
limits.
PAA Rank These areas shall remain as
3 agriculture areas unless
they are designated to be
developed for other uses.
Criteria used to identify the PAA
Granary areas
Paddy land outside granary areas
Agricultural land designated as Permanent
Food Production Park (PFPP)
Agriculture areas on peat/ organic soils
Agriculture areas on Class 1 and Class 2 soils
Agriculture areas on Class 3 soils
Agriculture areas without regular dry
season
Agriculture areas with short dry season
Prime Agricultural Areas (PAA)
Flood Prone Areas
Heritage

Heritage areas/ buildings of significant historical and cultural importance

Melaka, UNESCO World Heritage City
Royal Town of Sri Menanti, Negeri Sembilan
Location of Heritage Buildings and UNESCO Site in Melaka
Integrated National Transportation Network
Assumptions and Risks / Constraints

Desktop study based on references readily available in the public domain

Land ownership / take not assessed
No consultation with stakeholders (potential public objection to siting, land
acquisition)
Project Zefram Cochrane

Alignment & Civil Workshop Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Environmental and Social

Sustainability Performance
Management
Objective and Methodology

Demonstrating commitment to sustainable development

Establish environmental and social sustainability performance indicators or
targets for the project
Performance indicators will allow a transparent and consistent performance
commitment by the project proponent
Approach and methodology
Review of national policies
Development of performance indicators (4 to 5)
Global reporting guidelines
Case studies from similar projects (2 to 3)
 Local Policies on Sustainable Development

9th Malaysian Plan : Sustainability Development Indicators - MURNInet

National Physical Plan (2010)
Landuse National Urbanization Policy (2006)

10th Malaysian Plan

National Green Technology Policy
Green Green Technology Roadmap
Technology Green Township and Green Buildings Initiatives

National Policy on Climate Change

Climate National Roadmap to Reduce the Emission Intensity of GDP
Change

National Land Public Transport Master Plan (Draft)

Towards the National Public Transport Policy
Transport Toolkit Regional/Sector Land Public Transport Master Plan
Assumptions and Risks / Constraints

Desktop study
Further development (next phase)
needs to take into account any existing management framework
Framework needs to be in place to develop action plans, monitor & measure
and report performance
indicators need to be discussed and agreed stakeholders
Project Zefram Cochrane

Alignment & Civil Workshop Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Preliminary Framework for

Stakeholder Engagement
Objective and Methodology

Development of a framework (plan) for consultation focusing on the

approach and methodologies for public consultation and engagement
Preliminary identification of key stakeholder groups and potential issues of
concern
Allows for engagement to be planned in early stage of project delivery
Potential Considerations

Stakeholder analysis and planning

Disclosure and dissemination of information
Consultation and participation
Feedback mechanism
Ongoing reporting to Affected Communities
Project Zefram Cochrane

Alignment & Civil Workshop Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Geotechnical Issues / Constraints

Agenda

1. Overview Geology Along the HSR Corridor

2. Availability of SI Information
3. Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges
4. Guidelines, Standards and References
5. Information Required for Study
6. Risks to Project Win
1. Overview Geology Along the HSR Corridor
Overview Geology Along the HSR Corridor

Quartenary

Tertiary

Cretaceous-Jurassic

Triassic

Carboniferous

Devonian
Proposed Alignment and
Acid Intrusives Stations Location
Geology Plan of Station along the HSR Corridor

Quartenary

Tertiary

Cretaceous-Jurassic

Triassic

Carboniferous

Devonian

Acid Intrusives Proposed Alignment and

Stations Location
Kuala Lumpur Station

Quartenary Main geological formation are

Tertiary Carboniferous (Phyllite, slate, shale
Cretaceous-Jurassic
and sandstone. Locally prominent
Triassic
of Limestone) and Acid Intrusives
Carboniferous

Devonian

A Acid Intrusives
Kuala Lumpur Station
Challenges in Limestone Formation

Geological Formation Key Challenges

Carboniferous
(Phyllite, slate and shale with
subordinate sandstone and
schist. Locally prominent
development of limestone)
- Kuala Lumpur limestone
Collapse weak soil zone
above limestone bedrock
Sudden collapse due to
cavities in limestone
Seremban / Sendayan Station

Quartenary

Tertiary
Main geological formation are
Cretaceous-Jurassic
Tertiary (sandstone, shale, B

Triassic conglomerate) and Devonian

C
Carboniferous (phyllite, schist and slate)
Devonian A
Acid Intrusives
Seremban / Sendayan Station
Challenges in Tertiary and Devonian

Geological Formation Key Challenges

Main geological formation are No significant risk identified.
Tertiary and Devonian.

Tertiary is isolated continental

basin deposits of Late Tertiary
age : Shale, Sandstone,
conglomerate and minor coal
seams.

Devonian consist of Phyllite,

Schist and Slate; Limestone
and sandstone locally
prominent.
Melaka / Ayer Keroh Station

Quartenary
Main geological formation
Tertiary

Cretaceous-Jurassic
are Devonian (phyllite,
Triassic schist and slate) and acid
Carboniferous intrusives
Devonian

Acid Intrusives
Melaka / Ayer Keroh Station
Challenges in Devonian

Geological Formation Key Challenges

Main geological formation is No significant risk identified.
Devonian.
Devonian consist of Phyllite,
Schist and Slate; Limestone
and sandstone locally
prominent.
Muar / Batu Pahat Station

Quartenary

Tertiary

Cretaceous-Jurassic

Triassic

Carboniferous

Devonian

Acid Intrusives

Main geological formation A

are Quartenary (marine and
continental deposits) and C
Acid intrusives
B
Muar / Batu Pahat Station
Challenges in Quarternary - soft ground areas

Geological Formation Challenges

Quarternary Tight settlement tolerance
(Marine and continental for HSR
deposits such as clay, silt and Thick soft marine clay > 10m
peat) Soft ground issues such as
i) Low bearing capacity
ii) Long term settlement
iii) Stability of embankment
Nusajaya Station

Quartenary

Tertiary

Cretaceous-Jurassic Main geological formation is

Triassic Triassic
Carboniferous

Devonian

Acid Intrusives
Nusajaya Station
Challenges in Triassic

Geological Formation Challenges

Main Geological formation is No significant risks identified.
Triassic.
Triassic consists of
interbedded sandstone,
siltstone and shale.
Geological plan of Singapore

FORMATION
KALLANG MARINE CLAY

OLD ALLUVIUM

JURONG SEDIMENTARY RESIDUAL SOILS

BUKIT TIMAH GRANITIC RESIDUAL SOILS

GOMBAK NORITE

SAJAHAT

Proposed Corridor
 Singapore Station
Source: Geological map of Singapore DSTA, 2009

Proposed Alignment and

Stations Location

Transverses mainly through

Jurong Formation.
2. Availability of SI Information
Availability of SI Information

Records of SI info along corridor near North South Expressway

Limited SI information for the proposed routes.
But some of the routes are near to NSE.
Existing SI records for NSE can be used for study.
HSR are
From Seremban to Tangkak
From Ayer Hitam to Kulai

No records available for area away from NSE

Availability of SI Information

Overall alignment of proposed HSR shown in

Red Line

White line shown the existing North-South

Highway
Availability of SI Information

Proposed alignment from Seremban

Rembau Alor Gajah Jasin Bemban
and Tangkak are near existing North-
South Highway.
Availability of SI Information

Proposed alignment from Yong Peng Ayer

Hitam Simpang Renggam are near to existing
NSE.
3. Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

Overall
Malaysia route, the possible rail might be on
at-grade / embankment
elevated especially if the route crossing the river
tunnel in urban area
bridge crossing Straits of Johor

Singapore route, the possible rail might be on

elevated at Tuas after crossing the Msia-Spore border.
tunnel in urban area
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

HSR on at-grade level (embankment or cut area)

About 50% to 70% of alignment underlying by soft ground.
Potential issues include:
- Settlement
- Bearing capacity
- Stability of embankment
Allowable settlement for HSR is very stringent
Typical ground treatment methods, such as PVD, stone column, etc. not
practical for marine clay
Piled embankment or viaduct solution is likely for soft ground area
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

Settlement Criteria for Embankment (CALIFORNIA HSR)

Differential settlement
- 1:1000 for ballasted track
- 1:2000 for non-ballasted track
Uniform settlement
- Not more than 1-1/8 inch (27mm) for ballasted track
- Not more than 5/8 inch (15mm) for non-ballasted track
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

HSR on Viaduct / Bridge

The foundation for the viaduct/bridge will likely as follows:
- RC/Spun pile
- Bored pile
- Steel pipe pile
Pile length depends on the geological conditions along the proposed
alignment.
Seismic effect due to earthquake event would be considered in the
viaduct/bridge design as part of the load combinations. Foundation would
be designed for these load combinations.
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

Settlement Criteria on Viaduct (TAIWAN HSR)

Differential settlement between adjacent piers:
- 1:1000 for simply supported spans
- 1:1500 for continuous spans
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

HSR in Tunnel / Underground

Challenges identified in Urban Area for HSR are as follows:
a. lack of available rail corridors to meet HSR alignment requirements
b. environmental impacts

Tunnel might be necessary in built-up areas

a. Kuala Lumpur
b. Seremban
c. Singapore
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

HSR in Tunnel / Underground

Factors:
Functional/ safety features TUNNEL
CONFIGURATION
DOUBLE TRACK SINGLE TRACK
TUNNEL TUNNEL

SECTION SHAPE
Construction methods

CIRCULAR SHAPE HORSESHOE SHAPE

FREE CROSS-SECTION

Aerodynamic effects

SUPPORT AND LINING DESIGN

Geotechnical features
Potential Geotechnical Risks and Challenges

HSR in Tunnel / Underground

Assessment on potential damage to existing structures/buildings due to
ground movement induced by tunneling and excavation works required.
Protection and/or underpinning work would be required for existing
structures/buildings affected by the ground movements.
For cut and cover structures, types of embedded wall can be considered
include:
- diaphragm wall
- contiguous secant bored pile wall
- sheet pile wall
4. Guidelines, Standards and References
Guidelines, Standards and Reference

Design Standards shall be in accordance with the requirements of the HSR

system and to approved British and Malaysian Design Standards,
supplemented by Eurocode Standards wherever appropriate.
5. Information Required for Study
Information Required for Study
1. SI records for area away from NSE

2. Concept scheme for viaduct/bridge/tunnel

3. Plan and profile for proposed tunnel apart from overall alignment
6. Risks to Project Win
Risks to Project Win

Underestimate/overestimate the impact of difficult ground in area without SI

records
Underestimate the protection/underpinning for major structures due to
tunneling/underground work.
Project Zefram Cochrane

Alignment & Civil Workshop Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Alignment Engineering Issues &

Development
Alignment Engineering Issues & Development

Assumptions / Project Constraints

Physical & Political Constraints
Methodology
Environmental Constraints
Design Constraints
Project Strategy Constraints
Alignment Assumptions / Project Constraints

Agreed to-date
Trip Times KUL 2 SIN 90mins
Operational Patterns Express / Non Express, No Freight.
Speed Preferred design speed of 350km/h
Stations & Interconnection with other modes As per station workshop 13th July 2013
CIQ & OCC Located in Singapore
NSE Route Following parallel if reasonably practical
Safety & Security Total exclusion of ROW, no at grade crossings
To Be Agreed
Rollingstock Provider Preference / adoption of
Safety & Security - Extreme Events, maintenance time periods, crippled trains, crossovers etc.
Main & Satellite Depots Number & General Location
Stabling - Strategies
Passing & Maintenance Equipment Sidings Number & General Location
Utilities Diversions / Building Protections
Alignment Physical & Political Constraints

Not fully understood yet

LTA / Singapore aspirations / attitude to scheme
Heavily developed areas
Military land
Malay reserves
Environmentally-sensitive areas (e.g. Sg. Pulai RAMSAR site)
Topography / ground conditions / rivers / flood plains / Straights of Johor
Alignment Methodology

Current Development Philosophy

Track General preferences At Grade vs. Elevated vs. Tunnel / Slab vs. Ballast
Minimise tunnels
Aim for above-ground construction
Identify corridor where contours do not change rapidly
Identification of corridors & Initial Alignment
HSR takes prescedence at crossings, roads elevated / under HSR

Select corridor(s) using Google Earth Pro to where possible:

Avoid no-go areas
Minimise cuttings
Give sensible height of viaduct above ground level
Minimise impacts on existing infrastructure
Minimise environmental impacts
Alignment Criteria
Max gradient : desirable 2.5%, max 3.5%
Horiz. radius 6000m; vertical radius 22km (design speed 350km/h)
Can be relaxed on approach to terminal stations
Alignment Environmental Constraints

Appreciated to-date
Known No Go Areas , areas of SSSI, Heritage (National / International)
RAMSAR Consequences of locations
Flood Plains
Seismic
Not understood yet
Land ownership
Compatibility with existing development plans
Socio Economic Drivers
Land Take
Noise & Vibration Construction & Operation phases
Any particular under/over development constraints

Geotechnical
General appreciation of alignment conditions
Typical foundation solutions including ground improvement
Embankments and Cutting Typical Sections
Alignment Design Constraints

Agreed to-date
Alignment - Design Standards UIC / Euro Norms Minimum Curves Gradients etc..
Vertical Alignment Basis of developments, Google Earth Accuracy
Segregated HSR , non-shared use rail system
Train Length 400m
Platform Sizes 400m
Seismic Methodology
To be confirmed
Maintenance Zones ROW / Access requirements
Design Clearances To existing infrastructure (road / rail / utilities) over / above
Corridor Width, Following NSE?
Rolling Stock Parameters Specific Design Loads
Train Envelopes
Project Strategy Constraints

Selling Climate Positive What does it mean for alignment and civil / structural?
Costs Accuracy Understandings / Contingency Levels
Maintenance Strategies Balancing CAPEX vs.. OPEX (e.g.. Ballast Vs. Slab)
Project Zefram Cochrane

Alignment & Civil Workshop Tuesday 3rd September 2013

Civil / Structural Engineering Issues

& Development
Civil & Structures

At Grade Track
Elevated Track
Underground Track
Utility Diversions
Building Protections
Preliminary Alignment To-Date
Civil & Structures

At Grade Track
Elevated Track Viaduct / Bridge Design
1. Design Considerations
2. Design Codes and Specifications
3. Existing HSR Viaducts / Bridges
Design Considerations Structural Performance
Design Life. For bridges designed to British Standards, design life shall be 120 years.
Replaceable elements such as expansion joints may be designed to a shorter term.
Seismic Performance. The seismic characteristics of the region along the alignment lead
to response spectra for Earthquake Events to be used in design. Resistance to damage or
collapse from these events are then considered.
0.35
TR2500
0.30 TR475

0.25
Spectral Acc. (g)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.1 1 10

Period (sec)
Site-Specific Ground Response Spectra
used in design of Penang Second Bridge
Design Considerations Structural Performance
Repairability. Design for pre-determined failure points and level of associated damage shall provide
for fast repair and return to service.
Passenger Comfort. Passenger comfort criteria require that the viaduct structures are stiff and rigid.
Load-Bearing Capacity. The viaduct shall be designed to carry the HSR dynamic live loads.
Fatigue. The viaduct shall be designed to resist fatigue damage due to vibration.

Taiwan HSR Viaduct flow chart for

capacity-protected design
Design Considerations Functionality
Functional Elements to be accommodated on viaduct:
Tracks 12 to 15m
Track Support
Drainage
Lighting
Evacuation walkway
Maintenance Access
Overhead Catenary
Cable/Duct Banks
Sig/ Comms Systems
Traction Power System
Sound barriers (where required)
Design Considerations Safety and Serviceability
Emergency Egress and Access. Walkways provided on viaduct shall allow safe egress
and access as required during emergency conditions.
Service Inspections and Maintenance. Viaduct shall provide for service and inspection of
HSR track infrastructure.
Design Considerations Efficiencies / Economies
of Scale
Materials. Generally assumed to be reinforced concrete.
Cast In-situ or Precast. Cast in-situ concrete construction shall be used for the pile caps, pier
columns and pier caps. Superstructure to be precast box girder, either segmental or whole span (as
THSR).
Standard Cross Section. Use of a standard cross section would allow the use of standard
reinforcement details, prestressing details, bearings, and shear keys for a wide range of conditions
conditions.
Design Considerations Efficiencies / Economies of
Scale
Large Scale of Standard Elements. The expected length of the viaduct structures will allow large
scale production of precast elements and development of techniques for on-site implementation.
Manufacturing and Delivery. Segments or whole spans shall be designed to be suitable for
transportation, storage, and erection on-site.
Design Considerations Environmental Impact
Noise and Vibration Mitigation. Sound barriers and other measures shall be used to mitigate noise
and vibration impacts where appropriate.
Property Access. Viaducts will maintain transverse access beneath the HSR guideway.
Design Codes and Specifications
Design Standards shall be in accordance with the requirements of the HSR system and to
approved British and Malaysian Design Standards, supplemented by Eurocode Standards
wherever appropriate.
The following publications, issued by the International Union of Railways will also be
adopted :
UIC 774-3 R: Track/Bridge Interaction: Recommendations for Calculations (2nd Edition)
UIC 776-1 R: Loads to be considered in Railway Bridge Design (4th Edition)
UIC 776-3 R: Deformation of Bridges (1st Edition)
Existing HSR Viaducts
Civil & Structures

Underground Track

> 500m long, slower speed < 500m long, higher speed
Civil / Structural
Utility Diversions
Building Protections
Preliminary Alignment To-Date
Overall alignment KUL to SIN
Nusajaya
Kuala Lumpur
Singapore