Put Cover

Abstrak
In development of a Indonesia’s New Capital City, presents some challenges due to
interactions between urban planning and existing geological condition. Hence the
design is required to accommodate the existing conditions to ensure serviceability of the
superstructure. The Island of Kalimantan due to its formations and history is abundant
in soft soil deposits which present some problems for critical infrastructures such as
roads, bridges, buildings among others.

This has motivated us to share the insights discovered during our exploration of
possible design options. One such options and its design stages are presented and
discussed to use in a proposed bridge in Kalimantan. The design stages discussed
are soil profiling, soil parameter determination, modeling, and analyses results.

2
Brief Speaker Introduction
Seto Wahyudi S.T, M.Eng., Ph.D.
Founder & Chief Operation Officer
ZEKON's Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and
Geotechnical Officer principal with 15 Years of
experiences handling sophisticated Geotechnical
Analysis
Seto Wahyudi S.T, M.Eng., Ph.D.
EDUCATION
Bachelor Degree : Institut Teknologi Bandung (Civil Engineering)
Master Degree : University of Tokyo (Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering)
Doctoral : University of Tokyo (Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering)
EXPERIENCE
2007 – 2009 : Civil Engineer at Tripatra Engineering
2014 : Co-Founder PT. ZEKON Indonesia
2015 – Ongoing : Chief Executive Officer at PT. Zekon Inti Rekayasa

3
Contents 1 About Us: Zekon Indonesia

Overview of Geotechnical &

2 Geological Condition in Indonesia’s
New Capital City (IKN) Nusantara

Basic of Bridge Abutment and Road

3 Embankment Principal

Reinforcement Options for Bridge

4 Abutmen and/or Road Embankment

4
About Us
Zekon Indonesia

5
About Us

Zekon Indonesia Group is a National Integrated Engineering

Construction services provider.

We are offering innovative execution and delivery solutions to

its clients in multiple sectors for projects of scale and

complexity, whilst managing diverse technological interfaces

100+ 100+
Our Clients
Our Project
Satisfied
6
Zekon Indonesia Timeline
Our Services

Geotechnical Engineering Structural Engineering Near shore & Marine Engineering

Road & Hydrology Study Pre-design Engineering Construction, Management

Survey And Supervision
8
Our Management Certification

9
Our Portfolio

KM-14 Hauling Road

Underpass Project
PT. Jembayan Muara Bara

10
Our Portfolio

Disposal Area Salak Brine Heat Rec Binary

Power Plant Project
PT. Tripatra Engineering and Contractors

11
Our Major Clients

12
 13

Overview of
Geotechnical
Condition in
Indonesia’s New
Capital City (IKN)
 IKN Nusantara

Jembatan Dirgahayu 1
4

Jembatan Pulau Balang

Infrastructure
Map IKN
Nusantara
Infrastructure IKN
Nusantara
15
History Soil Investigation Data IKN
(ZEKON Indonesia)
Kota IKN

Access Toll Road

16
Geological Condition Formasi Geologi Kampung Baru / Balikpapan
Lokasi Rencana Jembatan IKN Dirgahayu

18
Geological Condition
Soil Investigation Layout
Soil investigation of Dirgahayu Bridge IKN

20
Soil Profile

21
Borelog
Result
Very Soft to Soft
Clayey SILT
Example 4m
Clay Shale ???
Borelog
Result,
S-10.

22
 Clay Shale Mineralogy

Clay Shale Mineralogy

Non-Clay Mineralogy
Clay Mineralogy
(Quartz, Feldspar, Mica)

Montmorilonite
Kaolinite Illite Halloysite
/Smectite
- Ukuran 7.2 A - Ukuran 9,6 A - Lembaran bentuk - Berbentuk Silinder
- Lembaran bentuk - Lembaran bentuk Oktahedral Memanjang
Oktahedral Oktahedral - Lapisan Ion Lemah - Dapat berubah
- Stabil dan sukar - Mudah namun jauh lebih perilaku jika dipanasi
dipisahkan Mengembang jika kuat dari atau menguap
Ter-expose Air (H2O) Montmorilonite.
Sehingga sukar di Source: Ariesnawan, 2015
pisahkan
23
XRD Test (X-Ray Difraction)
• We conduct an XRD Test to show the quantity of mineralogy that were indicated as
problematic soil.
• Three Samples were taken for the XRD Test
• Result shows that the majority of the mineralogy is Quartz, and the Clay Mineralogy
were under 10% of each samples.

Clay Mineralogy

(Lab Sucofindo 2022)

24
Direct Shear Soaked - Unsoaked
• We conduct a Direct Shear Test with soaked and unsoaked processes to determine whether there is any indication of problem if
the soil were exposed by water or were not
• Six (6) specimen from every samples were taken. One of those remain unsoaked and each of the rest were soaked between 2
Hours, 4 Hours, 8 Hours, 12 Hours, and 24 Hours.
• In order to compare those specimens at the same condition, The Direct Shear Test were taken at dry condition from each of the
specimen and loaded with the same overburden pressure.
• Result shows that from 22 samples that were tested, there is no indication of significant changes in soil strength.

Initial Condition of After Soaked Condition After Dried (Unsoaked) for Direct Shear Test
Specimens 24 hours
Direct Shear Soaked - Unsoaked
Test Results
S-01 (33.00 - 33.70)
Spec. 1 (0 Jam) Spec. 2 (2 Jam) Spec. 3 (4 Jam) Spec. 4 (8 Jam) Spec. 5 (12 Jam) Spec. 6 (24 Jam)
2
1,8
1,6
Shear Stress (kg/cm2)

1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
Lateral Displacement (mm)

26
Direct Shear Soaked - Unsoaked
Test Results (4 of 22 samples)

S-01 (33.00 - 33.70) S-03 (23.00 - 24.00)

Spec. 1 (0 Jam) Spec. 2 (2 Jam) Spec. 3 (4 Jam) Spec. 1 (0 Jam) Spec. 2 (2 Jam) Spec. 3 (4 Jam)
Spec. 4 (8 Jam) Spec. 5 (12 Jam) Spec. 6 (24 Jam) Spec. 4 (8 Jam) Spec. 5 (12 Jam) Spec. 6 (24 Jam)
3 3
Shear Stress (kg/cm2)

Shear Stress (kg/cm2)

2,5 2,5
2 2
1,5 1,5
1 1
0,5 0,5
0 0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0
Lateral Displacement (mm) Lateral Displacement (mm)

S-07 (42.00 - 42.32) S-09 (18.00 - 18.30)

Spec. 1 (0 Jam) Spec. 2 (2 Jam) Spec. 3 (4 Jam) Spec. 1 (0 Jam) Spec. 2 (2 Jam) Spec. 3 (4 Jam)

Spec. 4 (8 Jam) Spec. 5 (12 Jam) Spec. 6 (24 Jam) Spec. 4 (8 Jam) Spec. 5 (12 Jam) Spec. 6 (24 Jam)

3,000 3,000

Shear Stress (kg/cm2)

Shear Stress (kg/cm2)

2,000 2,000
1,000 1,000
0,000 0,000
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0
Lateral Displacement (mm) Lateral Displacement (mm)

27
Basic of Bridge
Abutment and Road
Embankment Principals

28
Bridge Approach
Embankment
Failure Case
• Bridge Approach Embankment Failure
at
• Failure occur due to steep slope and
soft soil deposit basal condition

29
Road Embankment Failure
Case

• Two High Toll Road embankments’ Slope

Failure at KM 103 and 122 Cipali

30
Failure Modes for Embankments on Soft Soil (EoSS)
Failure Mode Type Cause Solution

Local Stability - Steep Slope - Lowering Slope Steepness

- Erosion - Soil Reinforcement Technique
- Using Erosion Control Matt

Rotational Failure - Soil Foundation and/or embankment fill - Using Good Selected Fill
shear strength not adequate - Basal Reinforcement
- Reinforced Slope
- Foundation
Foundation Extrusion - Soil Foundation and/or embankment fill - Basal Reinforcement
shear strength not adequate - Foundation Support

Bearing Capacity - Soil Foundation and/or embankment fill - Foundation Support

shear strength not adequate - Lightweight Fill Material

Settlement - Consolidation - PVD, Stone Column, RIC, etc.

Differential Settlement - Basal Reinforcement

- Using Foundation

31
Reinforce Soil Walls and Slope Principle
Earth retaining structures can be
classified based on two principal
categories; external and internal
stabilized systems. External stabilized
system uses an external structural wall
against which stabilizing forces are
mobilized. Internal stabilized system is
identified by reinforced soils with
multiple layers of horizontal reinforcing
elements installed within the retained
soil mass and extending beyond the
potential failure plane. Geosynthetics
reinforced soil structures is an internally
stabilized system Basic Principle
Retaining Systems
O’Rourke and Jones, 1990

32
Example of Application (HKGEO, 2017)

33
 Fill Material Selection – Ideal Material
The attributes that make a good backfill material:
• Easy to compact
• Ability to mobilize shear resistance at small
strains (especially important for critical
structures sensitive to deformations during
construction and in-service)
• Little or no plasticity (critical for systems
sensitive to post construction deformations or
frequent wetting of fill)
• For Road, it is recommended to use Clayey SILT
Material with 6% CBR Compaction target.

34
Design Considerations for Facing Selection based on Slope Angle

Geotextiles

1V:1H
Fill Embankment

With Reinforcement
35
Retaining Wall using Reinforcement
• Geosynthetic reinforcements are placed across
potential failure planes – provide additional shear
resistance
▪ Out-of-balance forces generate tensile stresses in
the reinforcements
▪ Tensile stresses are then dissipated into
surrounding reinforced fill – by bond resistance
• Reinforcement and reinforced fill act as a composite
system
• Around 80% of shear resistance provided by reinforced
fill
• Around 20% of shear resistance provided by
reinforcements

36
References
Codes of Practice & Standards

1. SNI 8460:2017 Persyaratan Perancangan Geoteknik (2017)

2. BS 8006-1:2016 +Appendix A1, Code of Practice for Strengthened/
Reinforced Soils and Other Fills (2016)
3. FHWA-NHI-10-24 & FHWA-NHI-10-25 Geotechnical Eng. Circular
Vol.11 - Design and Construction of MSE Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Vol 1 & 2 (2009)
4. HKGEO Geoguide 6 Guide To Reinforced Fill Structure And Slope Design
(2017)
5. FHWA NHI-07-092 (2008), Geosynthetic Design and Construction
Guidelines

37
Reinforcement Options for
Bridge Abutment and Road
Embankment
─ Study Case: Dirgahayu Bridge IKN

38
 Dirgahayu Bridge IKN
Abutment Abutment
Backfill/Embankment Backfill/Embankment

48 m

8.5 m

28 m

39
 Abutment
Backfill/Embankment

40
Soil Profile
Cross Section A

Abutment
Backfill/Embankment

8.5 m

41
Bridge Approach Embankment
This bridge project requires the construction of an 8.5 m high embankment which functions as a road
approach embankment; segment that connects the head of the bridge and the construction of the road
pavement. The embankment of the approach ramp (oprit) as a basic foundation that supports the subbase
layer of the pavement needs to be designed to avoid bridge abutment failure, as per SNI design
requirements and also to avoid significant settlement per project design criteria.

The slope inclination of 1V : 2H of the embankment required in the field work is commonly used. However,
in the case of the Dirgahayu Bridge which stands on 4 meters of soft soil, the stable inclination required is
gentler than 1:2, even up to 1V : 4H, which may exceeds the ROW boundaries.

ROW

1V:4H
Fill Embankment 1V:2H

Without Reinforcement

42
Road Embankment
Therefore, reinforcement is needed that can withstand the design
embankment with a limited area, with a steeper embankment
slope, to 1:1 or even 1:0.5. For this project, several options using
geosynthetic reinforcement in the design of the Dirgahayu Bridge
embankment are discussed further in this presentation.

Ref: TenCate Solutions for Basal Reinforcement

Geotextiles
ROW ROW

1V:1H
1V:2H
Fill Embankment Fill Embankment

Without Reinforcement With Reinforcement

43
SNI Geoteknik 8460 : 2017 Design Criteria

Faktor Keamanan Gempa

44
Design Considerations – Example of Facing Tolerances

Gabion Facing & Segmental Block – More Steel Mesh Facing – Less Sensitive to Differential
Sensitive to Differential Settlement Settlement

Selection of Facing and Slope Inclination , depending on cost , often determines the
degree of precision needed for the Analysis, because of the tolerances and maximum
compressibility limits
Source : EN 14475 – Common Applications, Performances and Tolerances of Prevalent Systems
45
Road / Embankment Stress Concentration
Cross section of abutment bridge embankment
Soft Soil Sediment
28 m

1H:1V

46
 Soil Parameter
GU-01 GU-02 GU-03 GU-04 GU-05 GU-06 Embankment
SAND -
Geotechnical Parameter Clayey SILT - Clayey SILT - Clayey SILT - SAND - COAL -
Cohesionless - Selected Fill
Cohesive - Very Cohesive - Stiff to Cohesive - Very Cohesionless - Cohesionless -
Very Loose to CBR 6% Soaked
Soft to Soft Hard Hard Very Dense Very Dense
Loose
Material Model Mohr - Coulomb
Material Type Drained Undrained Undrained Undrained Drained Drained Drained
Average N-SPT (blows/30 cm) 2 2 26 60 60 60
Saturated Weight (kN/m3) 17 17 19.5 20 21 19 18.5
Moist Weight (kN/m3) 16.5 16 18.5 19 20 18 17.5
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) - 12 200 240 - - 90
Effective Cohesion (kPa) - 8.6 20 24 - - 7
Effective Friction Angle (deg) 20 13 27 24 41 41 25
Modulus Elasticity Undrained (kPa) - 2432 40000 48000 - - 25000
Modulus Elasticity Drained (kPa) 8937 1621 28000 33600 37500 37500 21000
Poisson Ratio 0.3 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Permeability Coefficient, k (m/day) 9.E-01 9.E-04 9.E-04 9.E-04 9.E-01 9.E+00 8.64

47
Design Load
• SNI Geoteknik 8460 : 2017

• Compensation fill ~ 5 kPa (Expected – might change due to design)

• Total load on top of embankment = 20 kPa

48
Embankment Design Trials
Embankment
Reinforcement Design

Existing Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6

Stripping 1 m Stripping 1m Excavate 2 m Excavate 2 m Excavate 2m Excavate 2m Excavate 4m

2 Layer BR + Berm with 1 Layer BR +

Without 1 Layer BR + 2 Layer BR + 2 Layer BR +
Wraparound Back to back
Reinforcement 10 m RSS 10 m RSS 10 m RSS 12 m RSS
BR + 10 m RSS RSS

RSS
BR

BR : Basal Reinforcement
RSS : Reinforced Soil Structure (on Slope)

49
Summary Result
Safety Factor Achieved
Settlement
Embankment Excavation of Embankment
Option Geotextile Type Ratio Critical Failure Model
Design Soft Soil Static Dynamic Height

> 1.5 > 1.1 m < 5%

Without
0 1m Need a treatment Soil body collapse 5 (of 9.5) 3.0%
Reinforcement

2 BR 600
1 1m 1.563 1.046 9.5 4.1%
RSS 80
1 BR 700
2 2m 1.511 1.137 10.5 3.7%
RSS 80
Wraparound Berm BR 700
3 2m 1.452 1.098 10.5 3.7%
With RSS 80
Reinforcement 1 BR 700
4 2m 1.501 1.22 10.5 3.7%
Back-to-back RSS 80
2 BR 300
5 2m 1.594 1.151 10.5 3.7%
RSS 80
2 BR 400
6 4m 1.544 1.175 12.5 3.1%
RSS 80

50
0. Existing Condition
Stripping 1 m of top soft soil

• Total embankment: 9.5 m Note that Unreinforced

Embankment is not possible in this
• Without reinforcement case, so reinforcement is needed.
• Soil body collapse when embankment > 5m

9.5 m
5m 1H:1V

SF when 5m of fill embankment = 1.00 Vertical Displacement when 5m of fill

embankment = 150 mm 51
 1. With Reinforcement
Stripping 1m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement
• Total embankment: 9.5 m Slope reinforcement

• Reinforcement: (Basal Reinforcement)

Ultimate Tensile Tensile Strength at

Axial Stiffness
Strength strain 5%
Geotextile Type
Tu Np EA
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Basal 2 layers 1200 600 12000
Slope 10 m length 160 80 1600
52
 1. With Reinforcement
Stripping 1m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement

• SF static = 1.563 > 1.5 → OK • SF dynamic = 1.046 < 1.1 → NOT OK

Note the shown lateral foundation spreading

53
Vertical Displacement/Settlement = 385 mm Settlement on Top of Embankment = 380 mm

Settlement on Soft Clay = 188 mm Settlement on Stiff Clay = 129 mm

54
2. Excavate 2m + With Reinforcement
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement

Slope reinforcement
• Total embankment: 10.5 m (Basal Reinforcement)

• Reinforcement:
Ultimate Tensile Tensile Strength at
Axial Stiffness
Strength strain 5%
Geotextile Type
Tu Np EA
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Basal 1 layer 1400 700 14000
Slope 10 m length 160 80 1600

55
 2. Excavate 2m + With Reinforcement
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement

• SF static = 1.511 > 1.5 → OK • SF dynamic = 1.137 > 1.1 → OK

56
Vertical Displacement/Settlement = 365 mm Settlement on Top of Embankment = 359 mm

Settlement on Soft Clay = 198 mm Settlement on Stiff Clay = 128 mm

57
3. Side Berm
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, side berm, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement
with wraparound, and Slope Reinforcement

• Total embankment: 10.5 m

• Side berm (widening of the embankment base),
to overcome lateral spreading failure
• Reinforcement:

Ultimate Tensile Tensile Strength at

Axial Stiffness
Strength strain 5%
Geotextile Type
Tu Np EA
kN/m kN/m kN/m
1 layer wraparound,
Basal 1400 700 14000
anchorage length 6 m
Slope 10 m length 160 80 1600

59
3. Side Berm
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, side berm, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement with wraparound, and Slope Reinforcement

• SF static = 1.452 < 1.5 → NOT OK • SF dynamic = 1.098 < 1.1 → NOT OK

60
Vertical Displacement/Settlement = 337 mm Settlement on Top of Embankment = 334 mm

Settlement on Soft Clay = 203 mm Settlement on Stiff Clay = 132 mm

61
4. Back-to-Back Geotextiles
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement (back to back)

• Total embankment: 10.5 m

• Back-to-back slope reinforcement
• Reinforcement:
Ultimate Tensile Tensile Strength at
Axial Stiffness
Strength strain 5%
Geotextile Type
Tu Np EA
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Basal 1 layer 1400 700 14000
Slope Back-to-back 160 80 1600

62
 4. Back-to-Back Geotextiles
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement (back to back)

• SF static = 1.501 ≥ 1.5 → OK • SF dynamic = 1.22 > 1.1 → OK

Basal
Reinforcement
BR700

Back-to-back
RSS 80

63
Vertical Displacement/Settlement = 332 mm Settlement on Top of Embankment = 330 mm

Settlement on Soft Clay = 208 mm Settlement on Stiff Clay = 134 mm

64
5. Excavate 2m + With Reinforcement
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement

Slope reinforcement
• Total embankment: 10.5 m (Basal Reinforcement)

• Reinforcement:
Ultimate Tensile Tensile Strength at
Axial Stiffness
Strength strain 5%
Geotextile Type
Tu Np EA
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Basal 2 layers 600 300 6000
Slope 10 m length 160 80 1600

65
 5. Excavate 2m + With Reinforcement
Excavate 2 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement

• SF static = 1.594 > 1.5 → OK • SF dynamic = 1.151 > 1.1 → OK

66
Vertical Displacement/Settlement = 387 mm Settlement on Top of Embankment = 381 mm

Settlement on Soft Clay = 204 mm Settlement on Stiff Clay = 131 mm

67
6. Excavate 4m + With Reinforcement
Excavate 4 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement

Slope reinforcement
• Total embankment: 12.5 m (Basal Reinforcement)

• Reinforcement:
Ultimate Tensile Tensile Strength at
Axial Stiffness
Strength strain 5%
Geotextile Type
Tu Np EA
kN/m kN/m kN/m
Basal 2 layers 800 400 8000
Slope 12 m length 160 80 1600

68
 6. Excavate 4m + With Reinforcement
Excavate 4 m of top soft soil, reinforced by Basal Reinforcement and Slope Reinforcement

• SF static = 1.544 > 1.5 → OK • SF dynamic = 1.175 > 1.1 → OK

69
Vertical Displacement/Settlement = 245 mm Settlement on Top of Embankment = 245 mm

Settlement on Soft Clay = - Settlement on Stiff Clay = 167 mm

Soft clay has been excavated

70
THANK YOU

71
CONTACT US
ZEKON Laboratory & Workshop
PHONE NUMBER JL. A.H Nasution (Rukan Nasution Square
No.103 Kav.17,
+812-8001-2491 Karang Pamulang, Kec. Mandalajati,
E-MAIL Kota Bandung, Jawa Barat 40195

info@zekon.co.id ZEKON Head Office

WEBSITE Rukan Icon Business Park Unit R-15,
Jl. Raya Cisauk Lapan, Kab. Tangerang
www.zekon.co.id
INSTAGRAM
zekon Indonesia
LINKED IN
zekon Indonesia