Twelfth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, 6-10 May, 1996, Kuala Lumpur

Site Stabilisation and Foundations for a High-rise

Building on a Steep Slope

J.C. WALLACE Ove Arup & Partners International, Singapore

Y.W. YEE Arup Jururunding Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

SYNOPSIS A new multi-storey hotel has been constructed on a steep slope at the Genting Highlands resort in Malaysia.
The site formation works involved cutting back the slope of decomposed granite soil, to form two platforms, one above
the other, and two vertical faces of combined height up to 40m. The faces are each retained by a line of non-contiguous
hand-dug caissons, with infill panels between, tied back by multiple rows of permanent ground anchors. The building is
founded on hand-dug caissons socketed into bedrock as deep as 42m from platform level. This paper describes the slope
stability assessment, including the soil parameters adopted and examples of the calculated factors of safety, and the design
and construction of the anchored retaining walls and foundations. A long term inspection and testing programme for
monitoring the performance of the retaining walls and anchors is briefly outlined.

INTRODUCTION
Recent expansion of accommodation and car parking
facilities at the Genting Highlands hilltop resort in Malaysia
has included construction of the New Highland Hotel, on
a steeply sloping site. The following sections describe the
site, the geotechnical investigation carried out and the
design and construction of slope stabilisation measures and
foundations for the development.
SITE AND DEVELOPMENT
The site is on a steep hillside on a strip of ground along
and just below the crest of the slope. At the top of the
slope to the east of the site is the well known Genting
Hotel with open-air car parking to the north. A road
following the contour around the hillside marks the site's
lower, western boundary, below which there is a very steep
slope dropping more than lOOm to the valley floor. Before
construction began at the site, the area was undeveloped
and covered in natural vegetation (grass and shrubs).
A plan of the building is shown in Figure 1 and a typical
cross-section in Figure 2. The development contains an
hotel and multi-storey car park. The substructure below
ground level at the top of the site comprises up to 12 levels
in all (9 levels of car parking and 3 levels of staff quarters)
and the 16-storey superstructure consists of a 3-storey
podium with 13-storey tower block above.
The site formation works essentially involved cutting back
the existing slope to form two 'steps', ie platforms. Two
vertical retammg walls support the cut faces above the
platforms - Wall D, 20m to 23m high, between the two
platforms, and Wall F, 9m to 17m high, along the face
above the upper platform (Figure 2).
The retaining walls each comprise a line of non-
contiguous hand-dug caissons, with reinforced concrete
infill panels between. Multiple rows of permanent ground
anchors installed through the caissons provide lateral
support to the walls.
The building foundations comprise hand-dug caissons
socketed into granite bedrock. Loads from the hotel tower
are carried on caissons installed through the lower
platform. The 3-storey podium on the eastern side of the
tower is supported on caissons installed through the upper
platform and on the Wall F caissons.
SITE INVESTIGATION
Topographic Survey
A topographic survey for the project included the general
area around the proposed building and extended down the
slope well below the lower platform level. The survey
generally provided contour lines at 1.5m intervals. One of
the primary purposes of the surveying was to enable
accurate plotting of ground profiles (cross-sections) through
the site for engineering analysis.

347
 0 10 20 40

SCALE BAR (WI )

1>18
\13 .. ~
.. .. .. ..
I

.. ..
...
\!> s
WALLF
s
"
s ..

FIGURE I. PLAN OF BUILDING AND BOREHOLE LAYOUT

RL. 1801m

Soil Investigation

An extensive soil investigation was carried out involving NOlES

I f llliNDA liON'~ OMIT1[t' 1llR ( LAI.:l1Y
59 boreholes (Figure 1). The boreholes were advanced by I NClTT(lc;('lllf

rotary wash boring to depths ranging from lOrn to 56m.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were carried out at
approximately 1.5m intervals in all the boreholes. The
boreholes were terminated in rock strata (with one
exception) and bedrock was proved by coring at least 6m.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boreholes.

Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples retrieved

from the boreholes. These were mainly classification tests,
i.e. moisture content, Atterberg limits and particle size
analyses, and indicated that the soil on the site generally
contains a high percentage of coarse material - sand and
gravel (above 70%).

Unconfined compressive strength tests were conducted on

rock cores. The strengths varied between 11.0 and 80.5
MPa with an average of 35.8 MPa. The wide range can be
attributed to the varying grades of weathering and the
presence of fissures in some of the sample cores.

Soil and Rock Stratification

The boreholes confirmed that the natural ground consists

of variably weathered granitic material. The SPT results
showed that the soil strength generally increases with FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION
depth. For the engineering purposes considered here, the
ground could be broadly divided into four categories of
material, based on descriptions in the borehole logs and the
SPT results :-

348
 I- ~ou, COR'NG r~ BOREHOLE
• - COMMOI>. POl~~ ~OR FAMILY Of FAI~URE SJRCACES

SLID CIRC:_[S Sri OW~ ARE FOR LOAU CASE 1 ON!._ y

BUILDING
1750

w
> -- -- - ~H 40 I
w -- I
--' 1725
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1700
---- -----.--"'..,'" -_-_-_-_ . _-_ . _-_-_-_._-_-_-_--
--.- '<"'· ------

-.--- ,_,_----- .. -.--.-- +- •• +--

1575
• • •• • •• • • • • • • • .•>,~~,l ,'j"~- j@_ ~·)lc:::_ •.
-'so -20 60
H 0 R' Z 0 NT A!._ S CAL [ 1,.,..'
20
""

FIGURE 3. GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION 5-5

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
(a) Fill or Made Ground
Generally consists predominantly of loose silty sand
In order to minimise the depth of excavation required for
and gravel. SPT 'N' values generally less than 10
the building's caisson foundations, it was decided to first
blows/300mm.
carry out the bulk excavation for the site formation, and
then sink the foundation caissons from approximately the
(b) Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG)
final platform levels.
Material of weathering grade V in accordance with
British Standard BS 5930. In general, SPT 'N' between
Construction of the two main retaining walls D and F had
10 and 50 blows/300mm. (Includes some residual soil,
to proceed simultaneously with the bulk excavation, so that
grade VI).
lateral support to the vertical cut faces could be provided
progressively as excavation levels were lowered to the final
(c) Moderately Decomposed Granite (MDG)
platform levels. The critical activity with respect to overall
Grade III material. Rock coring generally required
completion of the project was the construction of the hotel
but in places interbedded with soil with SPT 'N'
tower. Therefore priority in the site formation.works was
above 100 blows/300mm. (Includes some highly
on excavation of the lower platform to allow an early start
weathered granite, grade IV.)
on the tower foundations. Based on the foregoing
objectives, the overall sequence of the groundworks was as
(d) Slightly Decomposed Granite (SDG)
follows :-
Grade II material. Rock coring required, with CRR
exceeding 60% and RQD above 30%.
1. Install hand-dug caissons for retaining walls D and F
with priority on Wall D (furthest downhill). '
Eleven geological cross-sections were drawn through the
site. An example is shown in Figure 3.
2. Excavate in front (downhill) of Wall D to progressively
lower the ground level to create the lower platform.

3. Wall D: In sequence with 2 above, progressively

construct the reinforced concrete infill panels between
adjacent retaining wall caissons, and install and stress

349
 INTERM£DIA T£
STABIUTY
I
successive rows of permanent ground anchors through
the caissons.
-WALI.F
4. Install caisson foundations from the lower platform. INTERt.I£DIAT£
STABIUTY

5. Excavate in front (downhill) of Wall F to progressively

\
lower the ground level to create the upper platform. \ ~-WAll 0

6. Wall F: In sequence with 5 above, construct the infill

panels and install permanent tie-back anchors through OV£RAll
'---._
-"--~·--'------,---.... LOCAL
STABIUTY

ST.ABIUfY
the caissons (as 3 above).

7. Install caisson foundations from the upper platform.

SLOPE STABILITY
Soil Parameters

The ground was divided into the four soil/rock strata

Slope stability analyses were performed on four cross-
sections through the site at the locations shown in Figure 1.
The analyses were carried out using Bishop's method with
variably inclined interslice forces, using the well-
established Oasys program SLOPE. The result is
expressed in terms of a factor of safety on soil shear
strength.
Failure Modes
Slope stability was considered under both temporary
conditions (during excavation) and in the long term
situation with the development completed. For the long
term case, slope stability was examined by considering
three broad failure modes, as follows (see Figure 4) :-
(a) Overall Stability
Analyses were made on slip circles extending from
the open-air car park at the top of the site, beneath the
new retaining walls and building, and day-lighting on
the slope below the site.
listed above. For the fill and CDG, drained shear strength
parameters c' and ¢' were adopted in the slope stability
analyses. The values used (see below) were estimated from
the soil investigation data and are considered reasonable
average values for the soils present. The MDG is typically
anisotropic, containing core boulders of SDG within the
MDG matrix, and locally the shear strength can be
expected to be highly non-uniform. For the purposes of
the slope stability analyses, where potential failure surfaces
typically pass through relatively extensive masses of the
MDG, and based on the SPT results, the MDG was treated
as a very weak rock. The SDG (solid bedrock) generally
has high shear strength and it is unlikely therefore that
critical slip surfaces will pass through this material.
The following shear strength parameters were adopted :-
Fill c' 5 kPa, ¢' = 30°
CDG c' 5 kPa, ¢' = 35°
MDG Cu = 500 kPa (¢ = zero).

(b) Intermediate Stability

(1) Slip circles starting from the road/open-air car
park at the top of the site and day-lighting
through Wall F (upper retaining wall).
(2) Slip circles day-lighting through Wall D (lower
retaining wall).
(c) Local Stability
Slip circles starting on the lower platform and
day-lighting on the slope below the site.
For each failure mode, families of slip circles were
analysed, to search for minimum values of the factor of
safety.
In the slope stability analyses', the SDG was assigned the
same shear strength as the MDG.
Groundwater
The effect of a phreatic surface was not generally
included in the slope stability analyses, i.e. the
groundwater level was taken to be at or below solid
bedrock level. This assumption was based on the
following:-
(i) groundwater was not encountered in the site
investigation boreholes;

350
 (ii) the caisson excavations were generally dry or
encountered water only close to bedrock level;
(iii) the platform at the top of the slope (open-air car park)
is paved, allowing minimal rainwater infiltration;
(iv) a surface drainage system was being installed to
discharge stormwater away from the site;
(v) weep holes were provided on a 3m square grid
through the anchored retaining walls.
External Loads
The following external loads acting on the potentially
sliding soil mass were allowed for in the slope stability
analyses where appropriate:-
(a) Traffic surcharge - applied on the road and open-air
car park at the top of the site.
(b) Wind load - acting on the tower block. It was
assumed conservatively that the caisson foundations
might transfer the full lateral wind load to the
potentially sliding soil mass.
(c) Vertical building load - part of the load on the
caissons may be transferred in shaft resistance to the
soil mass above the solid bedrock. Therefore two
cases were considered :
(i) Zero building load applied to the soil (ie 100%
transferred to bedrock).
(ii) Half of the vertical load on the caissons
transferred to the 'sliding' soil mass.
(d) Ground anchor forces- the vertical component of the
anchor loads was assumed to be resisted by the
caissons. The horizontal component was included in the
slope stability analyses as an external (resisting) force
acting on the potentially sliding soil mass. The anchor
forces incorporated in the analyses were
conservatively based on only the design working
loads of the anchors, and not their ultimate capacities.
Check analyses were performed with the anchor force
equal to half the design value (and also zero, for
overall stability) to examine the sensitivity of the
results.
(e) Lateral loads from retaining walls - in analysing the
local stability of the lower platform, checks were made
of the hypothetical case where a number of the upslope
ground anchors fail : analyses were performed
assuming that half the lateral load on Wall F (upper)
and the full lateral load on Wall D are transferred to
the tower substructure and through its foundations to
the soil beneath.
351
(t) Shear resistance of caissons - the contribution of the
reinforced concrete caissons to the shear resistance on
potential slip surfaces was conservatively neglected in
the stability analyses.
Factors of Safety
The slope stability assessment and determination of
required ground anchor capacity was based on the need to
achieve a long-term factor of safety on soil shear strength
of not less than 1.4 for all credible combinations of design
assumptions.
Results of Slope Analyses
Slope stability analyses were performed on four cross-
sections considered to be representative of the most critical
portions of the slope. One of these, Section 5, is shown in
Figure 3. For each cross-section, analyses were carried
out for each of the failure modes identified above and for
up to six different load cases. (Altogether, there were 168
sets of analyses for the four sections). As an example, the
results for Section 5 are shown in Table 1. ·
(a) Overall Stability
The analyses yielded high factors of safety (FOS), in
an overall range of 1.80 to 3.08 for all the cases
considered. This implies that such a mode of failure
would not occur, even if all the anchors were to fail.
As noted above, in the stability analyses the SDG was
assigned the same shear strength as the MDG. But
generally in practice the SDG has much greater
strength than the MDG and slip circles that penetrate
deep into the SDG are unlikely to be critical.
Therefore, where the slip circles in Figure 3 are shown
through the SDG, the critical circle will actually be
shallower and have a higher FOS.
(b) Intermediate Stability
Analyses performed on these slip circles indicate the
FOS exceeding 1.4 when the full anchor design load is
applied. In the hypothetical case when half the anchors
have failed, there would generally still be a FOS of at
least 1.0.
(c) Local Stability
Analyses for slip circles passing beneath the tower
footprint yield FOS values for Load Case 1 (no lateral
load from the retaining walls and no building weight
transferred to the 'sliding' soil mass) which are not less
than about 1.4, and for Load Case 2 (half the building
weight transferred) values not less than 1.25. For the
hypothetical Load Cases 3 and 4 where lateral loads
from the retaining walls are applied, to model failure
of the ground anchors, the FOS values are lower but
 still above 1.0. For slip circles 'J', outside the tower
footprint, FOS values for some of the cross-sections
were marginal, in the range 0.95 to 1.10. Since failure
on such a surface would probably damage the road
below the building, and might jeopardise the building
platform, slope stabilisation works (anchored caisson
wall and soil nails) are being installed on the
downhill side of the road.
tied back by up to seven rows of permanent ground anchors
installed through the caissons.
The principal considerations in the design of the retaining
walls were :-
(i) lateral stability
(ii) structural adequacy - considering soil-wall interaction
(iii) vertical load capacity of the caissons.

RETAINING WALLS Lateral stability : two main failure modes were

General
Each retaining wall consists of a line of 1.2m diameter
hand-dug caissons installed at approximately 4m centres
and generally socketed into rock, with reinforced concrete
infill panels spanning between the caissons. The walls are
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF
considered - wall toe stability (toe 'kick-out'), and overall
stability. Toe stability was checked for each excavation
stage by determining moments about the lowest installed
anchor to ensure there was adequate toe penetration, and
also checking the required anchor force. Overall wall
stability was addressed in the slope stability analyses
described above.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES (SECTION 5-5)

SLIP FACTOR OF SAFETY (for critical circle through common point)

SECTION 5
CIRCLE Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

A 2.96 2.33 2.39 2.02 1.99 1.80

Overall
B 2.70 2.70 2.62 2.61 2.54 2.19
Stability
c 2.44 2.40 2.38 2.33 2.31 2.2~

Intermediate Slip Circle D 2.71

-Through Wall F (upper) 2.06

Intermediate Siip Circle F 1.99

-Through Wall D (lower)
G 1.98

H 1.92
Local Stabilty of
1.56
Lower Platform
1.10

OVERALL STABILITY INTERMEDIATE STABILITY - THROUGH WALL D (LOWER)

ALL CASES: TRAfFIC SURCHARGE ON TOP AREA ALL CASES : TRAFFIC SURCHARGE ON TOP AREA
l'tiND LOAD ACTING NO 'MND LOAD
CASE 1 FULL ANCHOR FORCE, NO BUILDING l'tiEIGHT CASE 1 FULL ANCHOR FORCE, NO BUILDING WEIGHT
CASE 2 FULL ANCHOR FORCE, 1/2 BUILDING l'tiEIGHT CASE 2 FULL ANCHOR FORCE, 1/2 BUILDING WEIGHT
CASE 3 HALF ANCHOR FORCE, NO BUILDING l'tiEJGHT CASE 3 HALF ANCHOR FORCE, NO BUILDING WEIGHT
CASE 4 HALF ANCHOR FORCE, 1/2 BUILDING YtiEIGHT CASE 4 HALF ANCHOR FORCE, 1/2 BUILDING 'MEGHT
CASE 5 ZERO ANCHOR FORCE, NO BUILDING l'tiEIGHT
CASE 6 ZERO ANCHOR FORCE, 1/2 BUILDING l'tiEIGHT

INTERMEDIATE STABILITY - THROUGH WALL F (UPPER) LOCAL STABILITY OF LOWER PLATFORM

ALL CASES : TRAFFIC SURCHARGE ON TOP AREA ALL CASES : l'tiND LOAD ACTING
NO 'MND LOAD NO TRAFFIC SURCHARGE APPLICABLE
NO BUILDING l'tiEIGHT NO ANCHOR FORCE ON SLIDING SOIL
CASE 1 FULL ANCHOR FORCE CASE 1 ZERO LATERAL LOAD FRO~ RETAINING WALLS, NO BLDG. WT.
CASE 3 HALF ANCHOR FORCE CASE 2 ZERO LATERAL LOAD FROM RETAINING WALLS, 1/2 BLDG. WT.
CASE 3 \\HH LATERAL LOAD FR~ RETAINING WALLS, NO BLDG. WT.
CASE 4 \11TH LATERAL LOAD FR~ RETAINING WALLS, 1/2 BLDG. WT.

352
 For the toe stability analyses, the soil parameters in Table
2 were adopted. The mobilised horizontal earth pressure
coefficients K.m and ~m were determined using the design
charts in NA VFAC 7.2 (1982) adopting a factor of safety
(FOS) = 1.3 on soil shear strength, and wall friction ratios
Table 2 - Soil Parameters for Calculation of Wall Toe
Stability
Stratum 'Y c' rf>' Kam
(kN/m 3> (kPa) (deg.)
CDG 18 0 35 0.31
MDG 21 - - 0.31*
* - conservative
of¢' m of 2/3 and 112 for active and passive pressures,
respectively. The FOS of 1.3 was considered appropriate
for the temporary condition of the wall during excavation,
which is the critical case for wall toe stability.
The groundwater level was assumed to be below the wall
toe, based on the site investigation boreholes and
observations in the initial caisson excavations.
For most sections of the retaining walls the toe
penetration was governed by the required vertical load
capacity of the caissons.
Structural adequacy : soil-wall interaction analyses
modelling the staged excavation and anchoring sequence
were carried out to determine the shear forces and bending
moments in the wall and to estimate lateral wall
displacement, using the Oasys program FREW (for design
of 'flexible' retaining walls). The soil parameters in Table
3 were adopted. The horizontal earth pressure coefficients
K. and KP were varied with depth according to the SPT
blowcounts and were determined using the design charts in
NA VFAC 7.2 (1982) with unfactored soil parameters.
The results of the soil-wall interaction analyses for walls
D and F are summarised in Table 4. The shear forces and
bending moments calculated by FREW are equivalent to
'working' values. These were factored up by 1.4 to obtain
'ultimate' values for reinforced concrete design to British
Standard BS 8110.
Vertical load capacity : the retaining wall caissons were
treated as load bearing piles to determine the required
Kpm penetration below final excavation level. The vertical loads
allowed for were the self-weight of the caisson and infill
4.17 panels, friction on the back of the wall, the vertical
component of anchor load and any applied column loading.
4.17*
PERMANENT GROUND ANCHORS
The anchors are of the multistrand type, designed to
British Standard BS 8081, to an allowable load of 1500 kN
with a factor of safety of not less than 1.5. The anchors
were installed in 165mm diameter drillholes and socketed
at least lOrn into rock (grade III or better). Typically the
anchors were 25m to 30m long. The minimum lengths of
'fixed' (bonded) strand at the bottom of the anchor and
'free' strand in the tendon were 6m and 12m, respectively.
For long term durability, triple corrosion protection of the
steel strand in the free length was provided by a coating of
grease, individual PVC sheathing, and finally grouting the
drillhole to achieve a water and air free environment. The
fixed length of the anchor was pregrouted into a corrugated
tube before installation in the drillhole.
The anchor design included checks for the following
modes of failure :-
(i) grout-rock bond failure
(ii) grout-strand bond failure
(iii) rock cone (mass) pull-out
(iv) strand tensile failure.

Table 3 - Soil Parameters for Soil~-Wall Interaction Analyses

Soil Parameters
Stratum
'Y c' 1/> Ka Kp Ko v' E'
(kN/m3) (kPa) (deg.) (kPa)
FILL 17 5 30 0.31 4.30 0.45 0.2 1375xN*
to to to
32 0.29 4.55
CDG/ 18 5 35 0.22 4.70 0.40 0.2 1500xN*
MDG to to to
45 0.14 14.0
* N SF · blowcounti: OOrnm

353
Table 4 - Results of Soil-Wall Interaction Analyses CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION

FREW Results Full-time site supervision was provided by experienced

representatives of both the Engineer and Owner. The
Wall Height Max Max Max founding rock in every caisson was inspected and verified
Lateral Wall Structural Anchor personally by the Engineer's representative. Similarly,
Displ. * Forces Force there was close supervision of the fabrication, installation
and stressing of all the permanent ground anchors.
Shear Bending (kN/m) (kN/
(m) (mm) Force Moment caisson
~kN/m) kNm/m LONG TERM MAINTENANCE
A 20 27 318 636 405 1590 A long term inspection and maintenance programme has
B 23 45 280 530 411 1615 been set down for implementation throughout the life of the
building.
c 17 34 211 551 401 1576
The retaining walls are to be inspected visually by the
* top of wall Engineer on a yearly basis. Inclinometer tubes have been
built into the retaining wall caissons to allow monitoring of
For the allowable anchor load of 1500 kN, the average any lateral movements. The anchor heads are accessible
grout-rock bond stress is approximately 300 kN/m2 based from the car parking levels and are fitted with removable
on the 10m minimum rock socket length. covers to permit rejacking of the strands in 'lift-off tests
to check the anchor loads, and to allow any restressipg
Two precontract trial anchors were load-tested at the site required. A proportion of the anchors is to be tested each
with satisfactory results. year. Permanent load cells permitting digital readout have
been fitted to 62 anchors (about 10% of total) for quick
routine checking.
FOUNDATIONS

The building is founded on hand-dug caissons socketed at CONCLUSION

least 2.4m into sound granite (grade II or better). The
caisson shaft diameters vary from 1.4m to 2.6m according
to the column loads. The depths of the caissons ranged
from 10m to 42m from platform level. The rock sockets
were "belled-out" to diameters typically 0.6m to 0.8m
larger than the shaft diameters. The bearing capacity
design of the caissons was based on the rock parameters
given in Table 5.
In addition to vertical loads, the caissons were designed
to resist lateral loads due to wind and earth pressure. The
analyses were carried out using the Oasys General
Structural Analysis (GSA) software, and the building and
caissons were modelled to resist the lateral loads in frame
action.
Table 5 - Design Parameters for Caisson Bearing Capacity
Weathered Allowable Unit Allowable Unit
Rock Grade Shaft Friction
(kPa)
II II 550
III 300
IV IV* 100
* grade IV IV accepted as toundmg matenal only when SPT 'N'
Construction of high-rise buildings on steep slopes is
feasible in certain circumstances. A thorough site
investigation including deep boreholes is needed for
determining the feasibility, and a comprehensive slope
stability analysis. To ensure a safe end-product,
construction should be supervised by experienced personnel
and particular attention paid to stabilisation measures such
as permanent ground anchors. A long term ins.pection and
testing programme should be implemented to ensure the
continued satisfactory performance of permanent slope
stabilisation measures throughout the life of the building.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper reports a development undertaken by Resorts
World Bhd and permission for publication is gratefully
acknowledged. Recognition is accorded to colleagues of
the authors in the engineering design team at Arup
End Bearing
Jururunding Sdn Bhd, in particular Mr. K.L. Ng (Project
(kPa)
Director), Mr. Y.Y. Guo (Project Manager), Mr M.M.
5000 Wong and Mr P.H. Low (Structural Engineers) and Mr.
Hisham Pajar (Geo. Engineer). The site supervision team
3000
also contributed importantly to the success of the project.
1500 The good efforts of the Contractor, Bachy Soletanche (M)
> HX Sdn Bhd on a demanding site are also recognised.

354