Measurement 47 (2014) 645650

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Determination of soil stiffness parameters at a deep excavation

construction site in Kenny Hill Formation
Law Kim Hing a, Siti Zulaikha Othman b, Roslan Hashim b, Zubaidah Ismail b,
a
b

KH Geotechnical Services, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Civil Engineering Department, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 December 2012
Received in revised form 4 September 2013
Accepted 16 September 2013
Available online 2 October 2013
Keywords:
Deep excavation
Kenny Hill Formation
Hardening Soil model
Oedometer stiffness
Standard penetration test
Tri-axial stiffness

a b s t r a c t
This paper determines the residual soil stiffness parameters at a deep excavation for a basement car park in the Kenny Hill Formation. Parametric studies revealed that the horizontal
wall deection at each stage of excavation could be reasonably predicted with a simple correlation between stiffness parameters with eld standard penetration tests (SPTs) N value
for Hardening Soil model. The correlation between tri-axial stiffness and oedometer stiffness with standard penetration test (SPT) N value is found to be 1.5 N (MPa) with unloadingreloading stiffness three times of tri-axial stiffness. The Hardening Soil model and the
correlation obtained may be applied to similar soil conditions as the Kenny Hill Formation.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The demand for underground space such as deep basement car-park, road and railway tunnels has increased
substantially in highly urbanized areas due to scarcity of
the land. A major concern in these developments is the
ability of the geotechnical engineers to predict accurately
the wall and ground movements associated with the construction activities during the design stage. Nowadays,
numerical analysis such as nite element method (FEM)
has been assuming an increasingly important role in the
prediction of ground and wall deformations as highlighted
by Lee et al. [1].
A general overview of the Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh geological settings is given by Tan [2] where the engineering
geologic problems in these two cities were discussed. Several studies in the past have been conducted to examine
the soil parameters like stiffness. Tests for the stiffness of
soil at very small strain were conducted in a hydraulic
Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 379675284; fax: +60 379675318.
E-mail address: zubaidah_jka@yahoo.com (Z. Ismail).
0263-2241/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.09.030

tri-axial cell tted with bender elements and with local

axial gauges for characterizing the non-linear stressstrain
behavior of soil for monotonic loading required for analyses
of the dynamic and small strain cyclic loading of soils was
studied by Viggiani and Atkinson [3]. Simple expressions
were obtained which described the variation of strain in
terms of the current stress and over consolidation ratio.
The parameters in these expressions were found to depend
on plasticity index. The inuence of layered soil in soil
structure interaction was also estimated. The method offers
a practical method that does not require complex calculations. Another simple and practical method for estimating
the horizontal dynamic stiffness of a rigid foundation on
the surface of multi-layered soil was proposed by Nakamura [4]. In this method, waves propagating in the soil are
traced using the conception of the cone model, and the
impulse response function can be calculated directly and
easily in the time domain with a good degree of accuracy.
Lipinski and Wdowska [5] predicted the soil stiffness with
a focus on Quaternary heavy over-consolidated stiff sandy
clay. Series of tri-axial tests on reconstituted and natural
material were carried out which provided data for setting

646

K.H. Law et al. / Measurement 47 (2014) 645650

up formula for calculation of Youngs modulus in a wide

range of strain 102/1.0%. A series of tri-axial tests was also
conducted by Powrie et al. [6] on samples of speswhite kaolin, to investigate the stressstrain relations appropriate to
diaphragm walls in clay. The results of the tests highlight
the inuence of the recent stress history on the behavior
of the soil. In particular, the recent stress history imposed
during wall installation was found to have signicant effect
on the stiffness of the soil during the subsequent excavation
stage. Although the pre-excavation stress state of the soil
may be closer to the passive than the active condition, the
reversal in the direction of the stress path at the start of
the excavation stage means that the response of the soil
behind the wall will probably be very stiff. Shaee et al. [7]
conducted an experimental study investigating the prefailure and failure characteristics of compacted sand-clay
mixtures under monotonic compression and extension
loading paths. Results revealed that pore pressure, secant
modulus, undrained shear strength and angle of shearing
resistance increase when sand content was raised in both
compression and extension. It was also found that the
tested materials were over-consolidated by the fact that
normalized shear strength depends on initial conning
stress.
The ber Bragg grating (FBG) sensor has been widely
used in the measurement of temperatures and moisture
[810]. Jackson et al. [11] examined the feasibility of using
inexpensive wireless nanotechnology based devices for
the eld measurement of soil temperature and moisture.
In their study, the design, validation, and application of a
new exible ber Bragg grating (FBG) sensing beam are presented for effectively measuring dynamic lateral displacements inside soil mass in a shaking table test. The dynamic
lateral displacements at different depths of the soil mass
in the shaking table box throughout time history are calculated by differential and integral methods Xu et al. [12].
In the past, the performance of deep excavations in Kenny Hill Formation was mainly evaluated using 2D niteelement back-analyses as exemplied by studies by Liew
and Gan [13], Soana and Hooi [14] and Tan et al. [15].
Approximation is commonly needed in 2D numerical model to represent the real situations and this could lead to
uncertainty in the interpretation and validity of the results
as shown by Simpson et al. [16]. The correlation of soil
stiffness parameters with standard penetration test (SPT)
N value, which was calibrated based on 2D back-analyses
results may not be representative of actual condition at
the site. Field data clearly indicated that the stiffening
effect of corners lead to much smaller wall and ground
movements at the corners as compared to that measured
near the middle of the excavation wall as shown by Lee
et al. [17], Ou and Shiau [18] and Ou et al. [19]. In this case,
when back analyses were performed to calibrate the 2D
model, the soil stiffness would have to be increased in
order to match the observed wall deection. Therefore,
3D geometrical or corner effect needs to be considered
when back-analyses were performed in order to get a
meaningful empirical correlation to be adopted in the
future in same soil conditions.
A common problem in the analysis of deep excavation
in residual soils is the soil tests data often limited or low

quality due to the difculty in obtaining undisturbed

in situ soil samples. Very often, acceptable data on strength
properties of soil could be obtained through laboratory
tests but not on its modulus value. Therefore, information
from back-analyses of the Youngs modulus based on local
case histories, if available, are often very useful for engineering judgment in the estimation.
This study examined the soil stiffness parameters for a
deep excavation supported by diaphragm wall in weathered residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation. An elastoplastic isotropic Hardening Soil (HS) model following
Schanz et al. [20], as implemented in commercial nite element program PLAXIS, was employed in this study. The
objective is to provide data for the determination of horizontal displacements which can also be generally applied
to other excavation works in soil conditions similar to
the Kenny Hill Formation.

2. Material and methods

The study project is located at Lebuh Ampang, Kuala
Lumpur city center. It is a 24-storey ofce building with
5 levels of basement car-park. The construction of basement involved 18.5 m deep of excavation, approximately
30 m wide and 35 m long, in weathered residual soils of
Kenny Hill Formation. The excavations were performed
using the bottom-up method. The diaphragm wall of
23 m deep and 0.8 m thick was supported by three levels
of H-section steel struts with 3.5 m horizontal spacing on
average. A double steel section was used for 2nd and 3rd
layers strut to provide sufcient resistance against high
horizontal earth pressures at these levels. At the contact
point between the strut and diaphragm wall, I-section
walers supported by angle brackets were installed to provide better load transfer between the retaining wall and
struts.
The ground condition at the site generally consists of
residual soils and weathered rocks of the Kenny Hill
Formation. This formation is also referred by Komoo [21]
as meta-sedimentary, considering that the sedimentary
rocks (e.g. sandstone, siltstone) have been partly metamorphosed into quartzite and phyllite. The weathering process
of the rock material which is rather complex have been
described by Raj [22].
The soil prole at this project site consists of an upper
6 m of recent alluvium underlined by Grade IV to VI residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation up to depths of about
30 m. Highly fractured and weathered Siltstone with Rock
Quality Designation (RQD) of 0% is encountered beyond
30 m depth. Grading analysis revealed that the residual soil
mainly consists of sandy silt and clayey silt material. Standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts were low in the
alluvium layer but increases beyond 50 blows/300 mm
from depth exceeding 10.5 m. The high SPT-N values
exceeding 150 blows/300 mm were probably due to the
presence of quartz veins or phyllite fragments encountered
in the boreholes. The bulk density of residual soil layers are
generally ranged from 19 kN/m3 to 22 kN/m3 with depth.
The moisture content of residual soil layers are close to
plastic limit with plasticity index generally lying in

647

K.H. Law et al. / Measurement 47 (2014) 645650

between 15% and 30%. The groundwater table is located at

depth of 4.5 m below ground surface.
The movements of the diaphragm wall, the ground and
the adjacent buildings were monitored during excavation
using standard monitoring devices. Fig. 1 shows the excavation site along with the instruments for monitoring locations. Eight inclinometer casings (I-1 to I-8) were installed
inside 800 mm thick diaphragm wall to monitor the lateral
displacements of diaphragm wall. All the inclinometer casings were installed to a depth of 3 m below diaphragm wall
toe level, so that the toe movement of the diaphragm wall
can be measured.
Six water standpipes (P-1 to P-6) were also installed
outside the excavation area to monitor the uctuation
of groundwater table during the entire excavation
process.

100 m
100 m

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6

50 m

Fig. 2. 3D model of excavation.

2.1. Mesh and boundary conditions

The excavation geometry of the case history was carried
out for a plan area of approximately 30 m by 35 m. The
ratio of excavation length to width is about 1.2 suggesting
that a plane strain 2D model may not be appropriate due to
corner effect of the excavation [68]. The numerical back
analyses of this case history have therefore been conducted
by 3D nite element analyses using the program PLAXIS
3D FOUNDATION Version 2.2.
Fig. 2 shows the nite element mesh adopted in the
numerical back analyses. The side boundaries of the mesh
are prevented from movement in the horizontal plane but
are free to move vertically and the bottom boundary of the
mesh is fully xed. The 0.8 m thick diaphragm wall was
modeled with isotropic linear elastic plate elements. Soil
elements are 15-node wedge elements which are created
by projection of 2D, 6-node triangular elements. Supporting steel struts were modeled with isotropic linear elastic
beam elements. The diaphragm wall was assumed to be
wished-in-place. The installation effect of diaphragm
wall was not considered.

Fig. 1. Instrumentation monitoring layout.

2.2. Constitutive models and selection of parameters

The Hardening Soil (HS) model as implemented in nite
element program PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION Version 2.2 was
used to study the Youngs modulus of the residual soil of
Kenny Hill Formation. It has been successfully used for
the modeling and analysis of retaining wall structures in
weathered residual soil of Kenny Hill Formation as demonstrated by Liew and Gan [13] and Tan et al. [15]. The
stressstrain curve of HS model is represented by nonlinear hyperbolic curve as proposed by Duncan and Chang
[23]. In HS model, three Youngs modulus, namely triaxial
secant, oedometer and unloadingreloading Youngs modulus at the reference pressure are required to be input into
the numerical model. In contrast to the MohrCoulomb
model, the three Youngs moduli of the HS model represent
those at the reference pressure rather than at the in situ
state.
According to Tan [24] the residual soils of Kenny Hill
Formation may be assumed as drained material. Hence,
an effective drained analysis was adopted in the 3D
numerical modeling. The effective stress strength and stiffness parameters adopted in the numerical back-analyses
are listed in Table 1.
Due to friable nature of the material, the recovery of
suitable undisturbed samples for laboratory testing is often
limited or low-quality. The effective stress strength (c0 and
0
/ ) parameters as shown in Table 1 have been selected as
representative effective strength parameters, as reported
by Nithiaraj et al. [25] and Wong and Muhinder [26]. An
unloadingreloading Poissons ratio, vur of 0.2 and stressdependent Yongs modulus parameter, m of 0.5 were
adopted for the residual soil layers. In the numerical
back-analyses, only the triaxial secant modulus was optimized while other parameters remain unchanged. The
oedometer stiffness and unloadingreloading stiffness
parameters were set as suggested by Tan et al. [15].
The diaphragm wall was modeled with 6-noded isotropic linear elastic plate element. The Youngs modulus of
the diaphragm wall was determined using the correlation
E = 4.7  106(fcu)0.5 kN/m2, as recommended by Ou [27],
where fcu is the 28 days uniaxial compressive strength of

648

K.H. Law et al. / Measurement 47 (2014) 645650

Table 1
Soil parameters.
Symbol

Unit

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

kPa
()
()
MPa

1
27
0
6

5
31
0
45

8
33
0
90

15
35
0
180

20
35
0
225

100
35
0
500

Eref
oed

MPa

45

90

180

225

500

Eref
ur

MPa

18

135

270

540

675

1500

kN/m3
kN/m3
(-)
(-)
kPa
(-)

18
18
0.5
0.2
100
0.546

19
19
0.5
0.2
100
0.485

20
20
0.5
0.2
100
0.455

20
20
0.5
0.2
100
0.426

20
20
0.5
0.2
100
0.426

22
22
0.5
0.2
100
0.426

(-)
(-)

0.9
0.7

0.9
0.67

0.9
0.67

0.9
0.67

0.9
0.67

0.9
1.0

c
0
/

w
Eref
50

csat
cunsat
m

vur
pref
K NC
o
Rf
Rinter

Note: Eref
50 for S1 to S5 is taken as 1.5 N (MPa).

concrete in MPa. For this case history, the adopted concrete

strength of diaphragm wall was 35 MPa. A Poissons ratio
of v = 0.15 was adopted for the concrete diaphragm wall.
Considering the possibility of long term cracking and creep
of concrete due to bending, the stiffness of the diaphragm
wall was reduced by 30% as recommended Gaba et al. [28]
in CIRIA Report C580.
The steel strut was modeled using 3-noded linear
elastic beam element with its stiffness determined by EA,
where E is the Youngs modulus of the steel, E = 205
kN/mm2 and A is the cross-sectional area of the steel strut.
No preloading was applied in the 3D numerical modeling
on each strut right after it was installed.
The interaction between diaphragm wall and surrounding soil is modeled using interface elements. The reason for
including the interface elements in the modeling of the
wall-soil interaction is to limit the friction, which is mobilized between the soil and the wall. For this study, an interface reduction factor, Rinter of 0.67 was adopted to model
the interaction between the residual soils and concrete
diaphragm wall.
The groundwater level outside the excavation area was
located at about 4.5 m below ground surface with groundwater pressure in hydrostatic condition.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 3 presents a comparison of predicted versus
measured lateral wall deections at inclinometer I-3 for
construction stages 14. Only I-3 is used for comparison,
as this section would most probably satisfy the 2D plane
strain condition. Comparison of 3D back analyses results
with eld measured data revealed that the horizontal wall
deections at each stage of excavation could be reasonably
estimated with a simple correlation between stiffness
parameters with eld standard penetration tests (SPT) N
value for HS model. In this case history, the correlation
between triaxial stiffness, and oedometer stiffness, with
SPT N value is found to be 1.5 N (MPa) with unloading
reloading stiffness, three times of triaxial stiffness. The predicted lateral wall deections agree well for most stages

but with slightly conservative result at 2nd stage of excavation. For the 1st stage of excavation, the predicted cantilever mode deection prole and magnitude of the wall
matches well with eld measured prole and values. For
the 2nd stage of excavation, 3D analysis predicts deepseated (bulging) movements toward the excavation side
with wall top movement restrained by L1 strut. In contrast,
the measured deection prole still in cantilever mode.
However, close scrutiny of the measured deection prole
has revealed that the bulging movement of the wall has in
fact started to develop. The discrepancy between the measured and predicted wall deection prole could be due to
the reason that fully drained condition has yet to be
achieved in the residual soil layers with the wall response
closer to undrained behavior. As for 3rd and 4th excavation
stage, the predicted deection prole and magnitude of the
wall below L2 strut level matches reasonably well with
eld measured data. However, large discrepancy in both
deection prole and magnitude has been observed above
the L2 strut level. This discrepancy may be attributed to
the effect of strut pre-loading carried out in the eld,
which was not modeled in the back analysis.
Fig. 4 compares the 2D plane strain and 3D analysis
results based on the above established correlation. It
should be noted that pre-loading of strut has been included
in the 2D numerical simulation. The results clearly demonstrate that geometrical or corner effect has signicant impact on the induced wall and ground deformations. As the
excavation depth increases the discrepancy between 2D
and 3D result getting wider, implying that as the excavation gets deeper relative to its length more restraint is provided by the sides of excavation as well as the arching of
the soil across the corners. The above result is consistent
with the nding of Finno et al. [29]. They showed that large
differences between 2D and 3D responses are apparent
when L/He ratio is less than 2, where L is the length of wall
and He is the total excavation depth. For this case history,
the L/He is approximately 1.89.
The above results may generally be applied to cases
with similar soil conditions as that of the Kenny Hill
Formation.

649

K.H. Law et al. / Measurement 47 (2014) 645650

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

30.5

-5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

30.5

28.5

28.5

26.5

26.5

24.5

24.5

22.5

22.5

20.5

20.5

18.5

18.5

16.5

16.5

14.5

14.5

12.5

12.5

10.5

Measured Stage 1

8.5

3D Stage 1

-5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

10.5

Measured Stage 2

8.5

3D Stage 2

6.5

6.5

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

Fig. 3. Comparison of predicted versus measured lateral wall deections.

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

30.5

-5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

30.5

28.5

28.5

26.5

26.5

24.5

24.5

22.5

22.5

20.5

20.5

18.5

18.5

16.5

16.5

14.5

14.5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

12.5

12.5
10.5

-5

Measured Stage 1

Measured Stage 2

10.5

3D Stage 1 (1500N)
8.5

2D Stage 1 (1500N)

3D Stage 2 (1500N)
8.5

2D Stage 2 (1500N)

6.5

6.5

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

Fig. 4. Comparison of the 2D plane strain and 3D analysis.

4. Conclusions

Acknowledgements

The performance of a deep excavation in stiff residual

soils of Kenny Hill Formation has been described. Application of the HS model in this practical deep excavation problem has shown that the model is suitable not only for
analyzing the case for the Kenny Hill Formation but may
also be applied for similar soils having these types of problems from a practical point of view. The case history presented here shows that whilst it is important to dene
the soil modulus parameters, it is equally important to take
into consideration the geometrical or corner effect when
evaluating the performance of an excavation.

The study was made possible by the support of the

Postgraduate Research Fund (PPP), University of Malaya
(Project No: PV057-2011B) and the research faculties of
the Civil Engineering Department, University of Malaya.
References
[1] F.H. Lee, S.H. Hong, Q. Gu, P. Zhao, Application of large threedimensional nite-element analyses to practical problems, Int. J.
Geomech. 11 (6) (2011) 529539.
[2] B.K. Tan, Urban geology of Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh, Malaysia,
IAEG2006, Paper number 24, The Geological Society of London, 2006.

650

K.H. Law et al. / Measurement 47 (2014) 645650

[3] G. Viggiani, J.H. Atkinson, Stiffness of ne-grained soil at very small

strains, Gotechnique 45 (2) (1995) 249265.
[4] N. Nakamura, A practical method for estimating dynamic soil
stiffness on surface of multi-layered soil, Earthquake Engng. Struct.
Dyn. 34 (11) (2005) 13911406.
[5] M. Lipinski, M. Wdowska, A stress history and strain dependent
stiffness of over-consolidated cohesive soil, Faculty Civil Environ.
Eng., Warsaw Univ. Life Sci. 43 (2) (2012) 207216, http://dx.doi.org/
10.2478/v10060-011-0056-y.
[6] W. Powrie, H. Pantelidou, S.E. Stallebrass, Soil stiffness in stress paths
relevant to diaphragm walls in clay, Gotechnique 48 (4) (1998)
483494.
[7] A. Shaee, H.R. Tavakoli, M.K. Jafari, Undrained behavior of
compacted sandclay mixtures under monotonic loading paths, J.
Appl. Sci. 8 (2008) 31083118.
[8] L. Dong, Z. Ibrahim. Z. Ismail, Added advantages of using a tapered
ber Bragg grating sensor to determine the early age setting time for
cement pastes, Measurement 46 (2013) 43134320.
[9] L. Dong, Z. Ibrahim, H.Z. Yang, Z. Ismail, Use of tapered optical ber
sensors in study of the hydration process of cement paste, Sens. J.,
IEEE 13 (9) (2013) 34153420.
[10] L. Dong, Z.Ibrahim.B. Xu, Z. Ismail, Optimization of the geometries of
biconical tapered ber sensors for early-age curing temperature
monitoring of cement paste, Comput. Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng.
28 (7) (2013) 531541.
[11] T. Jackson, K. Manseld, M. Saa, T. Colman, P. Romine, Measuring
soil temperature and moisture using wireless MEMS sensors,
Measurement 41 (4) (2008) 381390.
[12] D.-S. Xu, J.-H. Yin, Z.-Z. Cao, Y.-L. Wang, H.-H. Zhu, H.-F. Pei, A new
exible FBG sensing beam for measuring dynamic lateral
displacements of soil in a shaking table test, Measurement 46 (1)
(2013) 200209.
[13] S.S. Liew, S.J. Gan, Back analysis and performance of semi top-down
basement excavation in sandy alluvial deposits, in: Proc. 16th
Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf., vol. 1, Kuala Lumpur, 2007, pp.
833837.
[14] B.T. Soana, K.Y. Hooi, Prediction versus observed movement of a very
deep diaphragm wall basement in Kenny Hill residual soils, in: Proc.
Malaysian Geotech. Conf., vol. 1, Kuala Lumpur, 2004, pp. 359366.
[15] Y.C. Tan, S.S. Liew, S.S. Gue, A numerical analysis of anchored diaphragm
walls for a deep basement in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in: Proc. 14th
Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf., vol. 1, Hong Kong, 2001, pp. 16.

[16] B. Simpson, H. Yeow, A.K. Pillai, B. Grose, Benets derived from use
of 3D nite element analysis in the design of deep excavations and
tunnels, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Deep Excavations, vol. 1, Singapore, 2006,
pp. 15.
[17] F.H. Lee, K.Y. Yong, C.N. Quan, K.T. Chee, Effect of corners in strutted
excavations: led monitoring and case histories, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (1998) 339348.
[18] C.Y. Ou, B.Y. Shiau, Analysis of the corner effect on excavation
behaviors, Can. Geotech. J. 35 (1998) 532540.
[19] C.Y. Ou, B.Y. Shiau, I.W. Wang, Three-dimensional deformation
behavior of the Taipei National Enterprise Center (TNEC) excavation
case history, Can. Geotech. J. 37 (2000) 438448.
[20] T. Schanz, P.A. Vermeer, P.G. Bonnier, The Hardening Soil model:
formulation and verication, Beyond 2000 in Computational
Geotechnics, vol. 1, Roterdam:Balkema, 2000. pp. 281296.
[21] I. Komoo, Engineering properties of weathered rock properties in
Peninsular Malaysia, in: Proc. 8th Southeast Asian Geotech. Conf.,
vol. 1, Kuala Lumpur, 1985, pp. 3-813-86.
[22] J.K. Raj, A study of residual soils and the stability of their cut slopes
in Peninsular Malaysia, PhD Dissertation, University of Malaya,
Malaysia, 1983.
[23] J.M. Duncan, C.Y. Chang, Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in
soils, Soil Mech. Found Div. ASCE 96 (SM5) (1970) 16291653.
[24] S.A. Tan, One north station excavation in 30 m of jurong residual
soils in Singapore, Earth Retention Conf, Florida 1 (2010) 732
739.
[25] R. Nithiaraj, W.H. Ting, A.S. Balasubramaniam, Strength parameters
of residual soils and application to stability analysis of anchored
slopes, Geotech. Eng. 27 (1996) 5581.
[26] J. Wong, S. Muhinder, Some engineering properties of weathered
Kenny Hill Formation in Kuala Lumpur, in: Proc. 12th Southeast
Asian Geotechnical Conf., vol. 1, Kuala Lumpur, 1996, pp. 179187.
[27] C.Y. Ou C, Deep excavation: theory and practice, 1st ed., Taylor &
Francis, 2006.
[28] A.R. Gaba, B. Simpson, W. Powrie, D.R. Beadman, Embedded
retaining walls guidance for economic design, CERIA C580, 2003.
[29] R.J. Finno, J.T. Blackburn, J.F. Roboski, Three-dimensional effects for
supported excavations in clay, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133
(2007) 3036.