Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108
www.elsevier.com/locate/undsp

Engineering properties of the Bukit Timah Granitic residual soil

in Singapore
W.G. Zhang a,b,c,d,⇑, R.H. Zhang d, L. Han d, A.T.C. Goh e
a
Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
b
National Joint Engineering Research Center of Geohazards Prevention in the Reservoir Areas, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
c
Key Laboratory of Rock Mechanics in Hydraulic Structural Engineering, Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430072, China
d
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
e
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Received 4 May 2018; received in revised form 17 July 2018; accepted 18 July 2018
Available online 16 August 2018

Abstract

Extensive site investigations were conducted prior to the construction of a Mass Rapid Transit project in Singapore that was predom-
inantly in the Bukit Timah Granite (BTG) formation residual soil. This paper evaluates the engineering properties of the BTG formation
residual soil based on data from 208 site investigation boreholes from four different sites. Based on the results from 2481 conventional
laboratory tests and 1192 in-situ tests, this paper summarizes the engineering properties of the highly variable BTG residual soil, includ-
ing conventional composition analysis, index and hydraulic properties, and strength and deformation parameters required for geotech-
nical analysis and design. Based on these results, the BTG formation is found to be quite heterogeneous. As the degree of weathering
decreases with depth from the top of the formation, the BTG residual soil becomes sandier, with reduced silt and clay fractions. The
coefficient of permeability and the compression index of the BTG residual soil vary significantly. In addition, the empirical equations
relating the shear strength (index) to the standard penetration test (SPT)-N, as well as the equations and charts for determining stiffness,
are proposed. These findings, together with the proposed equations or charts, can be used for design guidance of similar projects related
to granitic residual soils in Singapore.
Ó 2018 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Bukit Timah Granite; Residual soil; Shear strength; Stiffness; Laboratory testing; In-situ testing

1 Introduction (Old Alluvium), which masks older rocks beneath in the

From the geological viewpoint, Singapore is character-
ized by three formations: (i) igneous rocks of granitic or
similar composition (Bukit Timah Granite) at the center
and in the northwest, (ii) sedimentary rocks (Jurong For-
mation) in the west, and (iii) a semi-hardened alluvium
⇑ Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of New Technology for
Construction of Cities in Mountain Area, Chongqing University,
Chongqing, China.
E-mail address: cheungwg@126.com (W.G. Zhang).
east (Goh, Zhang, Zhang, Xiao, & Xiang, 2018; Pitts,
1984a, 1984b; Sharma, Chu, & Zhao, 1999; Zhang and
Goh, 2016; Zhang, Wang, Zhou, Goh, and Zhang, 2018).
Prior to the construction of a Mass Rapid Transit project
in Singapore that was predominantly in the Bukit Timah
Granite (BTG) residual soil, extensive site investigations
were carried out. Previously, Zhang, Goh, et al. (2018)
reported the instrumented excavation responses, including
the retaining wall deflections, the ground surface settle-
ment, the groundwater drawdown, and the strut forces in
the BTG residual soil. As a companion paper, this paper

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.07.001
2467-9674/Ó 2018 Tongji University and Tongji University Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Owner.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108 99

evaluates and summarizes the engineering properties of the

BTG residual soil based on the data from four different
sites involving 208 site investigation boreholes, 2481 con-
ventional laboratory tests, and 1192 in-situ tests.

2 BTG formation

The Bukit Timah Granite formation is widely dis-

tributed throughout the central and northern areas of Sin-
gapore Island. The rock in the formation varies from
granite to granodiorite. Several hybrid rocks and dykes
are also included in the BTG formation. The granite is
encountered in various states of fracturing and weather-
ing, from residual soil to intact unweathered, fresh rock. Fig. 2. Simplified view of a weathering profile of tropically weathered
Top portions of the BTG formation have generally been igneous rocks (after Little, 1969).
heavily weathered and decomposed into residual soil con-
sisting mainly of reddish to yellow brown clay-like soil, 3 Variability of the BTG layers
with some fill above the residual soil. Figure 1 shows a
typical cross-sectional profile from a geophysical survey, Figures 3–5 show the distribution of the BTG layer
which highlights the varying ground conditions generally thicknesses for the GVI and GV layers, and the distribu-
encountered. tion of the depth to rockhead, respectively, based on the
A typical simple cross-section of a weathering profile data from 208 boreholes. These three plots all indicate that
through the BTG formation is shown in Fig. 2. Note that the BTG formation layers are highly variable.
this classification follows BS 5930:1999 (Table 1), in which
the weathering grade generally decreases with depth. The 4 Physical properties of the BTG formation residual soil
upper GVI and GV layers can be considered soils, the
underlying GIV represents a transition zone, and GIII to 4.1 Grain size distribution (composition)
GI denote the different weathering grades from moderately
weathered to fresh rock. This study focused on the physical The change of the grain size distribution with depth
and mechanical properties of the GVI and GV layers. seems to reflect the degree of weathering. Particularly, the

(a) Color-shaded contour section of surface wave velocity (SWV)

(b) SWV inferred ground stratigraphy

Fig. 1. Varying ground conditions from a geophysical survey (LTA Factual Geotechnical Report, 2008).
100 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108

Table 1
Bukit Timah Granite weathering grades (after BS 5930:1999).
Grade Classifier Typical characteristics from BS 5930:1999 Typical descriptions from the BTG formation
GVI Residual Soil derived by in situ weathering but retaining none Residual soil recovered as very soft to very stiff slightly gravelly fine
Soil of the original texture or fabric to coarse sandy silt or loose to dense slightly silty, slightly gravelly
fine to coarse sand
GV Completely Considerably weakened. Slakes. Original texture Completely weathered to stiff to hard fine to coarse sandy silt or dense
Weathered apparent to very dense fine to coarse sand
GIV Highly Large pieces cannot be broken by hand. Does not Highly weathered, completely discolored rock to very dense silty sand
Weathered readily disaggregate (slake) when dry sample and gravel with intact rock fragments, or highly fractured rock with
immersed in water low SCR and very low RQD — generally less than 10%, usually 0%
GIII Moderately Considerably weakened, penetrative discoloration Moderately weathered, fractured, moderately strong to extremely
Weathered Large pieces cannot be broken by hand strong rock. Noticeable discoloration. Makes a dull or slight ringing
sound when struck by hammer
GII Slightly Slight discoloration, slight weakening Slightly weathered, moderately to slightly fractured, strong to
Weathered extremely strong rock
GI Fresh Unchanged from original state Fresh very strong to extremely strong intact rock with original
fractures

35

30

25
Number

20

15

10

0
0-2 >2-4 >4-6 >6-8 >8-10 >10-12 >12-14 >14-16 >16-18 >18-20 >20-22
GVI thickness (m)
Fig. 3. Variation of the thickness of the GVI layer.

50

40

30
Number

20

10

0
0-3 >3-6 >6-9 >9-12 >12-15 >15-18 >18-21 >21-24 >24-27 >27-30 >30-31
GV thickness (m)
Fig. 4. Variation of the thickness of the GV layer.
 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108 101

40

30

Number
20

10

0
10 >10~15 >15~20 >20~25 >25~30 >30~35 >35~40 50

Depth to Rockhead (m)

Fig. 5. Variation of the depth to rockhead.

silt and the clay fractions of the soil are affected, as shown
in Fig. 6. The clay fraction decreases significantly with
depth for the GV layer, while the silt content also decreases
with depth. The sand fraction, in general, increases with
increasing depth. This finding is consistent with the results
reported by Zhao, Broms, Zhou, and Choa (1994) and
Rahardjo, Satyanaga, Leong, Ng, and Pang (2012).
4.2 Index properties
Figure 7(a) shows the liquid limit (LL), plastic limit
(PL), and plasticity index (PI) against depth, based on
the data from borehole DT2439. It is obvious that down
to the depth of 21 m, the three indices exhibit similar
dependence on depth. In general, PI decreases rapidly with
increasing depth, while PL and LL do not show any
conclusive trends. Figure 7(b) shows the variation of the
Distribution (%)
0 25 50 75
0 formation residual soil are below the A-line, indicating that
clay silt
5 dependence of the soil composition on depth, in Fig. 6, also
10
Depth (m)
particle density, bulk density, and dry density with depth.
The plot indicates a reduction in the particle density and
an increase in the dry density and bulk density with increas-
ing depth. However, these changes with depth are not sig-
nificant. The standard penetration test (SPT) results in
Fig. 7(c) demonstrate that SPT-N values generally increase
with depth. The soil varies from soft fill at the ground sur-
face to hard residual soil above the weathered rock. Fig-
ure 7(d) indicates a clear decrease of the water content
with increasing depth.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of the bulk density, with
the distribution concentrated in the 1700
2000 kg/m3
range. It can be observed that the bulk density follows a
normal distribution, and the most probable value is in
the 1800
1900 kg/m3 range.
Determination of the Atterberg limits is important for
the investigation of soil behavior. The plot of the Atterberg
limits for the residual soil on the plasticity chart is indica-
tive of the soil’s clay mineral composition. Figure 9 shows
the relationship between PI and LL, along with the Atter-
100 berg A, B, U lines. Most of the data points for the BTG
sand
they consist of mainly silts, as already shown in Fig. 6. The
tends to show the predominance of silt. The BTG forma-
tion residual soil is generally described visually as a silty
clay or a clay-like silt. In addition, the Atterberg limits,

15 plotted above and below the A-line on the plasticity chart,

indicate that the granitic residual soil can be a clay or a silt
20 of intermediate to high plasticity. Figure 9 shows that LL
and PI of the BTG formation granitic residual soil are in
25 the 25%
95% and 8%
55% ranges, respectively.
30
4.3 Hydraulic properties
35

Fig. 6. Variation of the soil composition with depth, for the BTG residual Both laboratory (falling head test) and field tests (single
soil (based on DT2439). packer, rising head, and falling head) were conducted to
102 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108

Fig. 7. Variation of index properties with depth for the BTG residual soil (based on borehole DT2439).

300

250

200
Number

150

100

50

0
1.5 >1.5~1.6 >1.6~1.7 >1.7~1.8 >1.8~1.9 >1.9~2.0 >2.0~2.1 >2.1

Bulk density ( 103 kg/m3)

Fig. 8. Variation of the bulk density.

obtain the hydraulic properties of the residual soil.
Figure 10(a) shows the coefficient of permeability (k) for
the GVI and GV layers, at different depths, for eight
laboratory test samples. Figure 10(b) shows the permeabil-
ity for the GVI and GV layers, for the data from 56 field
tests. There is a considerable scatter in the permeability
for both the GVI and GV layer soils, with the majority
in the range 1  104 to 1  106 m/s. These findings are
consistent with the study by Forsythe and Pearse-
Hawkins (2014).
5 Mechanical properties of the BTG formation residual soil
5.1 Strength
Figure 11(a) shows the SPT-N result vs. the depth below
the ground surface for this project. Figure 11(b) shows the
SPT-N result with respect to the top of the GVI layer. The
plots show that the degree of weathering decreases with
depth from the top of the formation. Although there is a
considerable scatter in the two plots, a lower bound of the
 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108
60
B-Line
50 U-Line
A-Line
40
PI = 0.9LL-7.2
PI (%)
30
20
10
PI = 0.73LL-14.6
0
0 20 40 60
LL (%)
Fig. 9. Plot of PI vs. LL, with the Atterberg A, B, U limit lines.
SPT-N value with depth can be obtained as shown. Similar
trends were observed by Leong, Rahardjo, and Tang (2003).
Figure 12 presents the cohesion and friction angle
results for 769 data points, vs. the SPT-N result; it is obvi-
ous that no accurate empirical equations exist that could
relate the cohesion or the friction angle to the SPT-N
result, owing to the significant scatter. Table 2 presents
the categorical average mean and standard deviation for
the cohesion and friction angle, represented by the red, yel-
low, and black lines, respectively, based on the SPT-N val-
ues. With increasing N, both the average cohesion and
friction angle increase. Cohesion increases significantly,
while the increase is less significant for the friction angle.
In addition, the standard deviation of cohesion increases
with increasing N, while the standard deviation of the fric-
tion angle decreases, indicating a smaller scatter.
Unconsolidated-undrained (UU) triaxial compression
tests were conducted on the BTG formation GVI and
GV layer soils, to characterize the undrained shear strength
(cu). Figure 13 shows the undrained shear strength vs. the
SPT-N result, for 392 data sets. For these data, the best lin-
ear relationship between the undrained shear strength and
SPT-N is
Fig. 10. Coefficient of permeability vs. depth, for the BTG formation residual soil.
103
cu ¼ 3:025N ð1Þ
However, as there is a considerable scatter in the data, a
spline function is proposed
cu ¼ 5:627N ðfor N 6 15Þ ð2aÞ
cu ¼ 84:4 þ 0:508ð100  N Þ ðfor N > 15Þ ð2bÞ
The spline-based fit provides a slightly higher estimation
of cu for SPT-N below 30 and a conservative estimate of cu
for SPT-N above 30.
80 100 In a previous study of UU test data from a single site,
Wong (2014) proposed the empirical equation of (cu/N)
= 19N0.44. In this paper, based on the 392 data sets, a sim-
ilar empirical regression equation is proposed, as shown in
Fig. 14.
5.2 Stiffness
To understand the soil stiffness, pre-bored pressuremeter
tests were conducted on the BTG formation residual soil,
using an Oyo-type pressuremeter Elasmeter 200, where
radial displacements were directly measured using LVDTs
(Zeng and Huang, 2016). Goh, Cham, and Wen (2011) pro-
posed an alternative method to interpret the unload-reload
portion of the pressuremeter by examining the elastic mod-
ulus with respect to the corresponding radial strains (which
would be equal to half the shear strain in the cavity wall),
instead of assuming a linear function to work out a single
unloading modulus.
Figure 15 shows the secant modulus of a particular pres-
suremeter curve (Ep) plotted against its corresponding
radial strain (er = R/Ro). The pressuremeter modulus
decreases, even within the range where a best-fit line is used
to estimate the unload-reload modulus in soil investigation
reports. For example, as the radial strain increases from
0.2% to 1% within the reloading curve, the elastic modulus
decreases from 307 MPa to 103 MPa. This rapid degrada-
tion of the pressuremeter stiffness with the radial strain
104 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108

(a) SPT-N variation with depth from ground surface (b) SPT-N variation with depthf rom top of BTG

Fig. 11. The weathering profile characteristics of the BTG formation.

Fig. 12. Relationship between: (a) cohesion and SPT-N, (b) friction angle and SPT-N.

Table 2
Strength of the BTG formation soil based on CU tests.
SPT-N of soil Average lc and the standard deviation rc cohesion (kPa) Average l/ and the standard deviation r/ friction angle (°)
N  10 lc = 8.8, rc = 10.1 l/ = 28.6, r/ = 8.2
10 < N  30 lc = 13.8, rc = 21.5 l/ = 29.8, r/ = 7.0
N > 30 lc = 18.4, rc = 24.9 l/ = 30.5, r/ = 6.6
 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108
Fig. 13. Relationship between the undrained shear strength and SPT-N.
Fig. 14. Relationship between cu /N and SPT-N.
Fig. 15. Strain-dependent behavior of the pressuremeter modulus (based on borehole DT2207).
105
reflects the strain-dependent behavior of soil within the
elastic region.
By repeating the same analysis for all of the 71 pres-
suremeter test data sets, it is possible to characterize the
strain-dependent behavior of the pressuremeter modulus.
Figure 16 shows the rapid degradation of the pressuremeter
stiffness with the radial strain. Based on Goh, Jeyatharan,
and Wen (2012), it is possible to fit an empirical power cor-
relation between the pressuremeter modulus and the radial
strain
B
Ep =N ¼ A  ðDR=Ro Þ ð3Þ
where A and B are empirical constants, N is the SPT-N blow
count value, PleaseCheck is the radial strain of the cavity,
and the pressuremeter unload modulus Ep is in MPa.
Although the data are rather scattered from the suggested
design correlation, such expressions can still be used for pre-
liminary stages in the geotechnical design in local soils.
Note that the proposed equation in this study is
0:669
Ep =N ¼ 0:111  ðDR=Ro Þ ð4Þ
The equation proposed by Goh et al. (2012) is
0:5
Ep =N ¼ 0:2  ðDR=Ro Þ ð5Þ
Figure 17 shows a comparison between Eq. (4) proposed
in this study and Eq. (5) by Goh et al. (2012), indicating
that the proposed equation yields more accurate prediction
of the stiffness dependence on the deformation modulus.
Table 3 lists the relationships between the pressuremeter
modulus and SPT-N value using the method of Goh et al.
(2012), and using the alternative approach, for the same
0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5%, and 1.0% radial strains, as recommenda-
tions on the variation of the pressuremeter modulus, for
the BTG formation soil. The comparison re-confirms that
106 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108

5.3 Compressibility

The compressibility of the BTG formation residual soil

Fig. 16. Variation of the pressuremeter modulus with the radial strain,
based on 71 pressuremeter tests.
Fig. 17. Comparison between the equation proposed in this work and that
proposed by Goh et al. (2012).
is captured by the pre-consolidation pressure and the com-
pression index, obtained from the oedometer tests. Fig-
ure 19(a) shows the variation of the pre-consolidation
pressure with depth, indicating a significant scatter. For
simplicity, it is assumed that the averaged saturated unit’s
weight is 20.0 kN/m3; accordingly, the dry unit’s weight
is 10.0 kN/m3. The blue dashed line in Fig. 19(a) corre-
sponds to the case in which the ground water table is 0 m
below the ground surface, while the red dashed line corre-
sponds to the case in which the ground water table is 3.5 m
below the ground surface. It is obvious that most of the
data points are beyond the bounds that are regarded as
the most probable effective stresses, indicating that the
BTG formation soil is over-consolidated. Figure 19(b)
plots the variation of the compression index Cc with depth,
also indicating a significant scatter from 0.035 to 0.8. In
other words, this figure suggests that the BTG formation
soil is highly heterogeneous.
Table 4 summarizes the statistical information about the
compression index Cc for the four sites. The average com-
pression index is about 0.30 and the coefficient of variation
COV is 0.462, well above the commonly adopted value of
0.25, suggesting a considerable uncertainty.
Compression index, Cc, has been correlated with a num-
ber of index properties for the BTG formation residual soil.
Figure 20 shows a good correlation of Cc with the initial
void ratio, e0, independent of the SPT-N value. The rela-
tionship can be expressed in the following form:
C c ¼ 0:4e0 þ b ð6Þ
where b ranges from 0.30 to 0.05, for most of the data
points. The upper bound of 0.05 is consistent with the
report by Leong et al. (2003) while the lower bound is
0.30, much smaller than 0.20 used by Leong et al.
(2003).
6 Summary and conclusions

Based on a series of laboratory and field tests, this study

the proposed equation provides more accurate stiffness
predictions.
Based on Eq. (4), charts with regard to the choice of the
pressuremeter modulus with SPT-N and radial strains were
developed, and are shown in Fig. 18.
demonstrates significant heterogeneity of the BTG forma-
tion layers. The results and the interpretation of the design
parameters for the BTG formation residual soil were
obtained based on several tests, including the conventional
composition analysis, the report of index and hydraulic
properties, and the review and analysis of the triaxial test

Table 3
Pressuremeter modulus for the Singapore BTG formation residual soil.
Soils of BTG Pressuremeter moduli correlated to SPT-N (MPa)
0.1% radial strain 0.2% radial strain 0.5% radial strain 1.0% radial strain
Goh et al. (2012) 7.8  N 4.5  N 3.0  N 1.8  N
This study 11.3  N 7.1  N 3.8  N 2.4  N
 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108 107

Fig. 18. Charts for choosing the pressuremeter modulus with SPT-N and radial strains.

(a) Pre-consolidation pressure vs. depth (b) Compression index vs. depth

Fig. 19. Variation of the pre-consolidation pressure and compression index with depth, based on 4 sites.

geotechnical analysis and design. Some preliminary conclu-

Table 4
sions arrived at in this study are as follows:
Statistics of the compression index Cc.
Site Average SD COV
(1) The ground conditions for construction at the BTG
A 0.294 0.154 0.524 formation vary significantly. Thus, the number of
B 0.329 0.150 0.456
boreholes for site investigations should be ensured;
C 0.299 0.130 0.435
D 0.289 0.138 0.478 (2) The BTG formation residual soil becomes sandier
Overall 0.303 0.140 0.462 with reduced silt and clay fractions, because the
degree of weathering decreases with depth from the
top of the formation;
data and pressuremeter test data. These analyses allowed (3) There are significant scatters with regard to the coef-
the derivation of correlational relations for the strength ficient of permeability vs. depth, for both the GVI
and deformation parameters, which are required for and GV layer soils;
108 W.G. Zhang et al. / Underground Space 4 (2019) 98–108
Fig. 20. Compression index Cc vs. initial void ratio e0.
(4) Equations and charts for determining the stiffness of
the Singapore BTG formation residual soil are
proposed;
(5) The average compression index of the BTG forma-
tion residual soil is
0.30 and it is highly
heterogeneous;
(6) Correlations between PI and LL, as well as between
Cc and e0, empirical equations relating the shear
strength to the SPT-N are proposed.
Conflict of interest statement
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been
no significant financial support for this work that could
have influenced its outcome.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to acknowledge the financial
support from the LTIF project funded by the Land Trans-
port Authority, Singapore. Special thanks are given to the
LTA staff: Dr. Goh K.H., Mr. Otard Chew Y.S., Mr. D.C.
Chen, Mr. Ang Kok Hua, Mr. Soh Kin Meng, Mr. Tang
Yew Hoe, Mr. Wong Wing Choi, and Mr. Kong Jian
Yuan, for their assistance in this project. The first author
is also grateful to the support from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51608071), General
Financial Grant of the China Postdoctoral Science Foun-
dation (2017M620414); Special Funding for Post-doctoral
Researchers in Chongqing (Xm2017007), the Key Labora-
tory of Rock Mechanics in Hydraulic Structural Engineer-
ing, Ministry of Education (RMHSE1601) and the
Advanced Interdisciplinary Special Cultivation program
(No. 106112017CDJQJ208850).
Appendix A Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.07.001.
References
BS 5930 (1999). Code of Practice for Site Investigations. British Standards
Institution.
Forsythe, A., Pearse–Hawkins, N. (2014). Assessment of hydraulic
conductivity and groundwater flow models in the Bukit Timah
Granite. In Proc. Underground Singapore, 25–26 Sept, Singapore
(pp. 132–149).
Goh, K. H., Cham, W. M., & Wen, D. (2011). A pressuremeter’s
perspective on soil stiffness. Proc. Of Conference Underground Singa-
pore, 2011, 167–176.
Goh, K. H., Jeyatharan, K., & Wen, D. (2012). Understanding the
stiffness of soils in Singapore from Pressuremeter testing. Geotechnical
Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 43(4), 56–62.
Goh, A. T. C., Zhang, W. G., Zhang, Y. M., Xiao, Y., & Xiang, Y. Z.
(2018). Determination of EPB tunnel-related maximum surface settle-
ment: A Multivariate adaptive regression splines approach. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment, 77, 489–500.
Leong, E. C., Rahardjo, H., & Tang, S. K. (2003). Characterization and
Engineering Properties of Singapore Residual Soils, 1, 1279–1304. Lisse:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Little, A. L. (1969). The engineering classification of residual tropical soils.
In Proceedings of Specialty Session on Engineering Properties of
Lateritic Soils, 7th International Conference Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Mexico: Vol. 1 (pp. 1–10).
LTA Factual Geotechnical Report (2008). Design and Construction of
DTL2 Station and Tunnels. Singapore: Land Transport Authority.
Pitts, J. (1984b). A review of geology and engineering geology in
Singapore. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 17, 93–101.
Pitts, J. (1984a). A survey of engineering geology of Singapore. Geotech-
nical Engineering, 15, 1–20.
Rahardjo, H., Satyanaga, A., Leong, E. C., Ng, Y. S., & Pang, H. T. C.
(2012). Variability of residual soil properties. Engineering Geology,
141–142, 124–140.
Sharma, J., Chu, J., & Zhao, J. (1999). Geological and geotechnical
features of Singapore: An overview. Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology, 14(4), 419–431.
Wong, K. S. (2014). Personal communication.
Zeng, B., & Huang, D. (2016). Soil deformation induced by Double-O-
Tube shield tunneling with rolling based on stochastic medium theory.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 60, 165–177.
Zhang, W. G., & Goh, A. T. C. (2016). Multivariate adaptive regression
splines and neural network models for prediction of pile drivability.
Geoscience Frontiers, 7, 45–52.
Zhang, W. G., Goh, A. T. C., Goh, K. H., Chew, O. Y. S., Zhou, D., &
Zhang, R. (2018). Performance of braced excavation in residual soil
with groundwater drawdown. Underground Space, 3, 150–165.
Zhang, W. G., Wang, W., Zhou, D., Goh, A. T. C., & Zhang, R. (2018).
Influence of groundwater drawdown on excavation responses – A case
history in Bukit Timah granitic residual soils. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Zhao, J., Broms, B. B., Zhou, Y., & Choa, V. (1994). A study of the
weathering of the Bukit Timah Granite Part B: Field and laboratory
investigations. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering
Geology, 50, 105–111.