PERFORMANCE OF MULTI-PROPPED DEEP

EXCAVATION IN KENNY HILL FORMATION

K. H. Law1 , Roslan Hashim2,a and Zubaidah Ismail2,b

1 KHGeotechnical Services, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
E-mail: khgeotech@yahoo.com
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia.
E-mail: a roslan@um.edu.my, b zu ismail@um.edu.my

This paper evaluates the performance of a 18.5 m deep multi-propped excavation

for a basement car-park with a plan view dimension of approximately 30 m wide
by 35 m long in residual soils derived from the Kenny Hill Formation using 3D
finite element (FE) studies. A non-linear elasto-plastic Hardening Soil (HS) model
as implemented in the commercial finite element program PLAXIS was used in
the studies. 3D FE back-analyses have been conducted and the results are com-
pared with the measured horizontal wall deflections to investigate the effect of soil
stiffness parameters (E50ref , Eref , Eref ) of HS model on the horizontal wall deflec-
oed ur
tions. Parametric studies revealed that the horizontal wall deflection at each stage
of excavation could be reasonably predicted with a simple correlation between
the HS stiffness parameters (E50 ref , Eref , Eref ) and field standard penetration tests
oed ur
(SPT) N values. In this case history, the correlation between triaxial stiffness, E50 ref
ref
and oedometer stiffness, Eoed and SPT N value is found to be 1.5 N (MPa) with
unloading-reloading stiffness, Eur ref three times of triaxial stiffness, Eref . Based on
50
the field observations and 3D analysis of case history, it is found that geometrical
or corner effect has significant influence on the back-calculated soil Young’s modu-
lus, suggesting that 3D geometrical or corner effect needs to be considered when
back-analyses are performed to establish an empirical correlation to be adopted in
the future in the same soil conditions.

Keywords: Deep excavation, Kenny hill formation, Hardening soil model, Finite ele-
ment, Standard penetration test.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the past, the performance of deep excavations and the calibration of empirical corre-
lation between soil stiffness parameters and SPT N value in Kenny Hill Formation were
mainly evaluated using 2D FE back-analyses [1–3]. Approximation is commonly needed
in 2D numerical models to represent the real situations and this could lead to uncertainties
in the interpretation and validity of the results. Field data clearly indicated that the stiff-
ening 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 [4,5]. In this case, when
back analyses were performed to calibrate the 2D model, the soil stiffness would have

Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure

Edited by C. F. Leung, S. H. Goh & R. F. Shen
Copyright © 2013 Geotechnical Society of Singapore (GeoSS). Published by Research Publishing.
ISBN: 978-981-07-4948-4 :: doi:10.3850/978-981-07-4948-4 017 705
706 Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure

I-4 I-5
I-3

I-2

I-6

I-1
I-8 I-7

Figure 1. Project site layout.

to be increased in order to match the observed wall deflection especially in corner areas.
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
the same soil conditions.
This paper presents a case history data and back-analysis results of a 18.5 m deep multi-
propped deep excavation supported by diaphragm wall in weathered residual soils of
Kenny Hill formation. In order to take into account the geometrical or 3D corner effect on
the back analyses results, 3D FE back analyses were performed to assess the effects of soil
Young’s modulus on the performance of the retaining system and the results are compared
with 2D FE analyses results and field measurement data.

2. CASE HISTORY

The case study project is located at Lebuh Ampang, in the Kuala Lumpur City Center. It is a
24-storey office building with 5 levels of basement car-park. The construction of basement
involved a 18.5 m deep excavation, approximately 30 m wide and 35 m long in plan view,
in weathered residual soils of Kenny Hill formation as shown in Figure 1. The excavations
were performed using the bottom-up method. Figure 2 shows the profile of the excavation
stages, the diaphragm wall, the lateral struts and the subsoil layers at the project site. The
diaphragm wall of 23 m deep and 0.8 m thick was supported by three levels of H-section
steel struts. A double steel section was used for the 2nd and 3rd strut layers to provide
sufficient resistance against the high horizontal earth pressures at these levels.
A total of 8 nos. of inclinometers (I–1 to I–8) and 6 nos. of water standpipes (P–1 to P–6)
were installed to monitor the lateral wall displacements and the fluctuation of groundwa-
ter table during entire excavation process.

3. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

The ground conditions at the site generally consist of residual soils and weathered rocks of
the Kenny Hill Formation. This formation is also referred to as meta-sedimentary,
 Performance of Multi-Propped Deep Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation 707

RL30.5m
L1 Strut at RL28.8m
(H350X350137kg/m)
S1
GWL
Silty Sand
RL26.0m 1st Exc. to RL27.5m
SPT-N = 4
RL24.5m
L2 Strut at RL23.2m
S2 (2H400X400X172kg/m)
Sandy Silt/Clayey Silt
RL20.0m SPT-N = 30 2nd Exc. to RL21.4m
S3
L3 Strut at RL17.2m
Silty Sand
(2H350X350X137kg/m)
SPT-N = 60
RL15.5m
3rd Exc. to RL15.0m
S4
Silty Sand 4th Exc. to RL12.0m
SPT-N = 120
RL8.0m
Wall Toe RL7.5m
S5
Silty Sand
SPT-N = 150
RL2.0m
S6 Highly Weathered Siltstone

Figure 2. Soil and cross section profile of retaining wall.

considering that the sedimentary rocks (e.g., sandstone, siltstone) have been partly meta-
morphosed into quartzite and phyllite [6]. As shown in Figure 2, the soil profile at this
project site consists of an upper 6 m of recent alluvium underlained by Grade IV to VI
residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation up to a depth of about 30 m. Highly fractured and
weathered Siltstone with Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of 0% is encountered beyond
30 m depth. SPT N blow counts were low in the alluvium layer but increases beyond 50
blows/300 mm from a depth exceeding 10.5 m. The bulk density of the residual soil lay-
ers generally ranged from 19 kN/m3 to 22 kN/m3 with depth. The groundwater table is
located at a depth of 4.5 m below ground surface.

4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

4.1. Finite Element Mesh and Boundary Conditions

The excavation geometry of the case history was carried out for a plan area of approxi-
mately 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 the corner effect of the excavation
[4,5,11]. The numerical back analyses of this case history have therefore been conducted by
3D FE analyses using the program PLAXIS 3D FOUNDATION (3DF) Version 2.2.
Figure 3 shows the FE mesh adopted in the numerical back analyses. The side boundaries
of the mesh are fixed horizontally but are free to move vertically and the bottom boundary
of the mesh is fully fixed. Soil elements are 15-node wedge elements which are created
708 Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure

100 m

100 m

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6 50 m

Figure 3. 3D model of excavation.

by projection of 2D, 6-node triangular elements. The diaphragm wall was assumed to be
“wished-in-place”. The installation effect of diaphragm wall was not considered.

4.2. Constitutive Models and Selection of Parameters

The HS model [7] as implemented in the FE program PLAXIS 3DF was used to study the
Young’s modulus of the residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation. It has been successfully
used for the modelling and analysis of retaining wall structures in weathered residual soil
of Kenny Hill Formation [1,3].
In the HS model, three Young’s moduli, namely triaxial secant (E50 ref ), oedometer (Eref )
oed
and unloading-reloading (Eur ) Young’s moduli at a reference pressure (Pref ) are required
ref

to be input into the numerical model. In contrast to the Mohr-Coulomb model, the three
Young’s moduli of the HS model represent those at the reference pressure which can be
calibrated to the in-situ stress state.
The residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation were assumed as a drained material [8]. The
effective stress strength (c and φ) parameters as shown in Table 1 have been selected as the
representative effective strength parameters, as reported by Nithiaraj et al. [9] and Wong
and Muhinder [10]. The oedometer stiffness, (Eur ref ) and unloading-reloading stiffness, (Eref )
ur
parameters were set equal to 1.0 (E50 ) and 3 (E50
ref ref ) respectively, as suggested by Tan et al.

[3]. In the FE back-analyses, only the triaxial secant modulus, (E50 ref ) was optimized while

other parameters remain unchanged.

The diaphragm wall was modelled with 6-noded isotropic linear elastic plate elements
with Young’s modulus of 20 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.15. The steel strut was modelled
using 3-noded linear elastic beam elements. Preloading of struts was carried out in the
field, but not modelled in the 3D analysis. The interaction between the diaphragm wall
and surrounding soil is modelled using interface elements with interface reduction factor,
Rinter of 0.67. The groundwater level outside the excavation area was located at a depth of
about 4.5 m below ground surface with a hydrostatic pressure condition.
 Performance of Multi-Propped Deep Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation 709

Table 1. Soil parameters.

Symbol Unit S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

C kPa 1 5 8 15 20 100
φ [◦ ] 27 31 33 35 35 35
ψ [◦ ] 0 0 0 0 0 0
ref
E50 MPa 6 45 90 180 225 500
ref
Eoed MPa 6 45 90 180 225 500
ref
Eur MPa 18 135 270 540 675 1,500
γsat kN/m3 18 19 20 20 20 22
γunsat kN/m3 18 19 20 20 20 22
m [–] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
νur [–] 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
pref kPa 100 100 100 100 100 100
KoNC [–] 0.546 0.485 0.455 0.426 0.426 0.426
Rf [–] 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Rinter [–] 0.7 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.0
ref for S1 to S5 is taken as 1.5 N(MPa).
Note: E50

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 4 presents a comparison of predicted versus measured lateral wall deflections at

inclinometer I-3 for construction stages 1 to 4. Only I-3 is used for comparison, as this sec-
tion would resemble a 2D plane strain condition, with some corner effects.The predicted
lateral wall deflections 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
deflection profile and magnitude of the wall matches well with the field measured pro-
file and values. For the 2nd stage of excavation, 3D analysis predicts deep-seated (bulging)
movements toward the excavation side with the wall top movement restrained by L1 strut.
In contrast, the measured deflection profile was still in a cantilever mode. However, close
scrutiny of the measured deflection profile has revealed that the bulging movement of the
wall has in fact started to develop. The discrepancy between the measured and predicted
wall deflection profiles could be due to the reason that a fully drained condition has yet to
be achieved in the residual soil layers with the soils still undergoing consolidation, espe-
cially in S2 soil layer with higher silt content.
As for 3rd and 4th excavation stage, the predicted deflection profile and magnitude of
the wall below L2 strut level matches reasonably well with field measured data. However,
large discrepancy in both deflection profile 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 field, which was not modeled in the back analysis. Comparison of 3D back anal-
yses results with the field measured data revealed that the horizontal wall deflections at
each stage of excavation could be reasonably estimated with a simple correlation between
stiffness parameters (E50ref , Eref , Eref ) with field SPT N value for the HS model. In this case
oed ur
history, the correlation between triaxial stiffness, E50 ref and oedometer stiffness, Eref with
oed
710 Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm) Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
30.5 30.5

28.5 28.5

26.5 26.5

24.5 24.5

22.5 22.5

20.5 20.5

Depth (RL)
Depth (RL)

18.5 18.5

16.5 16.5

14.5 14.5

12.5 12.5

10.5 Measured Stage 1 10.5 Measured Stage 2

8.5 3D Stage 1 8.5 3D Stage 2
6.5 6.5
Lateral Wall Deflection (mm) Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
30.5 30.5

28.5 28.5

26.5 26.5

24.5 24.5

22.5 22.5

20.5
Depth (RL)

20.5
Depth (RL)

18.5 18.5

16.5 16.5

14.5 14.5

12.5 12.5

10.5 10.5
Measured Stage 3 Measured Stage 4
8.5 8.5
3D Stage 3 3D Stage 4
6.5 6.5

Figure 4. Measured versus computed wall horizontal displacements.

SPT N value is found to be 1.5 N (MPa) with unloading-reloading stiffness, Eurref equal to 3
ref ref
E50 . The reference pressure (P ) is set to 100 kPa.
Figure 5 compares the 2D plane strain and 3D analysis results at 3rd and 4th excavation
stages based on the above established correlation. For the sake of brevity, the 1st and 2nd
excavation stages results are not shown in this paper. It should be noted that pre-loading
of strut has been included in the 2D numerical simulation. The results clearly demon-
strate that geometrical or corner effect has significant impact on the induced wall and
ground deformations. As the excavation depth increases the discrepancy between 2D and
3D results gets larger, implying that as the excavation gets deeper relative to its length
more restraint is provided by the corners of the excavation including the arching of the
 Performance of Multi-Propped Deep Excavation in Kenny Hill Formation 711

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm) Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
30.5 30.5

28.5 28.5

26.5 26.5

24.5 24.5

22.5 22.5
Depth (RL)

Depth (RL)
20.5 20.5

18.5 18.5

16.5 16.5

14.5 14.5

12.5 12.5

10.5 10.5
Measured Stage 3 Measured Stage 4
8.5 3D Stage 3 (1500N) 8.5 3D Stage 4 (1500N)
2D Stage 3 (1500N) 2D Stage 4 (1500N)
6.5 6.5

ref = 1500 N kPa).

Figure 5. Comparison of measured 2D and 3D wall horizontal displacements (E50

Lateral Wall Deflection (mm) Lateral Wall Deflection (mm)

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
30.5 30.5

28.5 28.5

26.5 26.5

24.5 24.5

22.5 22.5
Depth (RL)

Depth (RL)

20.5 20.5

18.5 18.5

16.5 16.5

14.5 14.5

12.5 12.5

10.5 10.5
Measured Stage 3 Measured Stage 4
8.5 3D Stage 3 (1500N) 8.5 3D Stage 4 (1500N)
2D Stage 3 (2500N) 2D Stage 4 (2500N)
6.5 6.5

Figure 6. Comparison of measured, 2D and 3D wall horizontal displacements.

soil around the corners. The above result is consistent with the finding from Finno et al.
[11], who have shown 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. In this case, if back analyses
are performed to calibrate the 2D model, the soil stiffness would have to be inappropriately
increased in order to match the observed wall deflections. For instance, the stiffness would
have to be increased to 2.5N (MPa) as shown in Figure 6, suggesting that a plane strain 2D
model may not be appropriate due to the corner stiffening effects.
712 Advances in Geotechnical Infrastructure

6. CONCLUSIONS

The performance of a deep excavation in the stiff residual soils of Kenny Hill Formation
has been described. Application of the HS model to this practical deep excavation prob-
lem has shown that the model is considered suitable for analyzing this type of excava-
tion problems from a practical point of view. The case history presented here shows that
whilst it is important to define the soil modulus parameters, it is equally important to take
into consideration the geometrical or corner effect when evaluating the performance of an
excavation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writers would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Lee Siew Wei of Golden Associates
(HK) Ltd for his meticulous reviews of the paper.

REFERENCES

1. Liew, S. S. and Gan, S. J., “Back analysis and performance of semi top-down basement excavation
in sandy alluvial deposits”, Proc. 16th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Vol.
1 (2007), pp. 833–837.
2. Sofiana, B. T. and Hooi, K. Y., “Prediction versus observed movement of a very deep diaphragm
wall basement in Kenny Hill residual soils”, Proc. Malaysian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Vol. 1 (2004), pp. 359–366.
3. Tan, Y. C., Liew S. S., Gue S. S. and Taha M. R., “A numerical analysis of anchored diaphragm
walls for a deep basement in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”, Proc. 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Hong Kong, Vol. 1 (2001).
4. Lee, F. H., Yong, K. Y., Quan, C. N. and Chee, K. T., “Effect of corners in strutted excavations: filed
monitoring and case histories”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124
(1998), pp. 339–348.
5. Ou C. Y., Shiau B. Y. and Wang I. W., “Three-dimensional deformation behavior of the Taipei
National Enterprise Center (TNEC) excavation case history”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 37 (2000), pp 438–448.
6. Ibrahim Komoo, “Engineering properties of weathered rock properties in Peninsular Malaysia”,
Proc. 8th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Vol. 1 (1985), pp. 3-81–3-86.
7. Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A. and Bonnier, P. G., “The hardening soil model: formulation and verifi-
cation”, Beyond 2000 in Computational Geotechnics, Roterdam:Balkema, Vol. 1 (1999), pp. 281–296.
8. Tan, S. A., “One north station excavation in 30 m of Jurong residual soils in Singapore”, Earth
Retention Conference, Washington, Vol. 1 (2010), pp. 732–739.
9. Nithiaraj, R., Ting, W. H. and Balasubramaniam, A. S., “Strength parameters of residual soils
and application to stability analysis of anchored slopes”, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 27 (1996),
pp. 55–81.
10. Wong, J. and Muhinder, S., “Some engineering properties of weathered Kenny Hill Formation in
Kuala Lumpur”, Proc. 12th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Vol. 1 (1996),
pp. 179–187.
11. Finno, R. J., Blackburn, J. T. and Roboski, J. F., “Three-dimensional effects for supported excava-
tions in clay”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133 (2007), pp. 30–36.