Lebanese University.

Faculty of Engineering.

Department-1-

Design of flexible retaining

walls(sheet-piles):
Analysis Methods:
There are several methods of analyzing cantilever and anchored sheet-pile walls.
Two of the early methods were (a) the free-earth support and the (b) fixed-earth
support, along with the simplified assumptions of active (from filled side) and
passive pressure on the free side below the dredge line, and recently the finite
elements method.
A-Traditional Methods of Analysis:

step1: earth pressure diagrams

-Walls with one level of tie backs, and cantilever sheet piles: free earth pressure
diagram
-Walls with multiple levels of tie backs:

step2: determine the embedment length, sum of moments about

the anchor to determine depth of embedment. (Ʃ MAL = 0)

step3: determine the anchor load, sum of horizontal forces (Ʃ FH =

0)

step4: determine the maximum moment.

Factor of Safety

A factor of safety (F.S) should be applied to the coefficient of

passive earth pressure (Kp). The value for the factor of safety is
dependent on the design life of the wall (temporary or
permanent).
The Passive pressure coefficients (Kp') used in the design
calculations shall be reduced as follows:
 1. Temporary Retaining Walls:

The factor of safety (F.S) for a temporary wall is 1.25

Kp' = Kp / 1.25

2. Permanent Retaining Wall:

The factor of safety (F.S) for a permanent wall is 1.50.

Kp' = Kp / 1.5

EXAMPLE - ANCHORED SHEETING WALL

Step 1: Using the Free Earth Method, determine the depth of embedment, required
section modulus and anchor design load for the following situation (temporary
sheeting).

Step 2: we use Rankine Theory for a level backfill

 = 0.31
1 − sin ϕ
Ka =
1 + sin ϕ

= 3.25
1 + sin ϕ
Kp =
1 − sin ϕ

A safety factor is taken on the passive earth pressure coefficient

 = 2.60
Kp
K'p =
1.25

Step 3: Compute the pressures and forces

Step 4: Sum moments about the anchor to determine depth of embedment:

ƩM@o= 0

= (2.15)(F1) + (3 .27)(F2) + (5.50 + D/2)(F 3) + (5.50 + 2/3 D)(F4)

 - (5.50 + 2/3 D)(F5)
=74.76 + 432.26 + 245.58D + 22.33D2 + 7.87D2 + 0.95 D3 - 65.78 D2 - 7.97 D3
=507.02 + 245.58D - 35.58 D2 - 7.02 D3

 D=4.95m
The depth of embedment is increased by 20 % to minimize lateral deflection of the
sheeting at its base.
D = 1.2(D) = 1.2(4.95) = 5 .9 m
Step 5: Determine anchor load (sum the horizontal forces):
ƩFH=0
F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 - F5 - AL =0
34.77 + 132 .19 + 221 .02 + 35.04 - 293.05 - AL = 0
AL = 129.97 kN per meter of wall
A safety factor of 1.5 is applied to the anchor- load to determine the anchor-
design load.
1 .5(AL) = 194 .96 kN per meter of wall.
Step 6: Determine the depth of zero shear (assume that the point of zero shear will
occur at a depth s from the top)
 Solving this equation: s= 5.82m.
Step 7: Determine the maximum moment (sum moment about the point of zero
shear)
Mmax= AL(s-1.2) - (s/2)*F6 - (s/3)*F7
Mmax = 318.71 KN.m
Step 8: determine minimum section modulus

= 1848000 mm3 /ml (σall=172500 KN/m2)

M max
S=
σ all

Thus we can choose a sheeting type.

NB: There is no "exact" method to analyze/design a sheet-pile type of
wall. Both field observations and laboratory model tests show that there
is a complex interaction of (as a minimum) construction method (install
and backfill, or install and excavate the free side), excavation depth,
stiffness of wall material, type and state of retained soil, and passive
pressure resistance.
With anchored walls there is also the anchor geometry, initial anchor
prestress (or load), construction stage when anchor rod is installed, and
behavior of that part of the wall above the anchor rod (into or away from
the backfill).
The two original methods named were oversimplifications of an
extremely complex problem, relied totally on rigid body statics, and
was based entirely on the assumptions of an active earth pressure above
the dredge line and passive earth pressure below. Wall and anchor rod
stiffness did not enter into the equation. As a result of substantial
overdesign, few walls failed.
The FEM is somewhat less of an approximation. Additionally, it allows
for better modeling of the problem and gives more useful design
information as part of the output. But it requires a computer program.

B-The F.E.M Method:

It's more precise than traditional methods of analysis.
This Figure illustrates the sheet-pile wall and P-X coding, the element forces, soil
node springs, and the sign convention. The problem is actually the beam-on-
elastic-foundation problem turned 90° with the soil springs removed above the
dredge line.

Note that:
– Coulomb pressure diagram is used above dredge line.
– Anchor rod should be positioned at a node and modelised as a spring.
– soil under dredge line is modulated as springs having Ks (modulus of
subgrade reaction)
 The stiffness elementary stiffness matrix is:

And thus, the problem is F.E.M problem.

Types and materials used for sheet-piling:

Sheet-piling materials may be of timber, reinforced concrete, or steel. Allowable

design stresses are often higher than in general building construction and may be
from about 0.65 to 0.90 fy for steel and wood. Reinforced concrete design stresses
may be on the order of 0.75fc' for unfactored loads.
 Steel sheet-piles are mostly used for several reasons:
– resistant to high driving stresses (ex: in gravelly material)
– It has light weight.
– It may be used several times.
– we can increase easily the pile length by welding

Anchor rods:

For anchor rod design we should have:

1. The anchor node displacement must be large enough that active earth pressure
can develop behind the wall. δ~ 0.001H, where H is the free height from the
dredge line to the anchor rod node.
2. The allowable tensile stress
Far
fs = ≤ fa
Ar
Where fa = 0.6 to 0.75fy. The factors to reduce fy to the allowable stress fa are the
necessary rod safety factor for that anchor rod force Far.

The force and the pile bending moment depend on anchor rod location.

Wales:
Wales are longitudinal members running parallel with and in close contact with
the wall. They may be located on either the front or back face of the wall. The back
face location is desirable in certain cases for both appearance and clearance, but it
will require both a work space and adequate attachment to the wall by bolting or
welding to support the anchor rod pull. Back face Wales are most often attached by
field-welding.
Bolting is difficult for either face location; since bolt holes shop-drilled in the
sheetpiling by the steel fabricator seldom align with the wale after the piles are
driven. On the other hand it is very difficult to field-drill large-diameter bolt holes
in the driven piles using hand drills.
Wales on the front face are somewhat easier to install but also require a hole
through the wall for the anchor rod—usually made by burning with an acetylene
torch. Again, shop holes for bolting are not practical; however, here the wale
usually covers the hole, so ragged edges of burned holes are not noticeable.
Wales are usually made from a pair of back-to-back channels with spacing for the
anchor rod. Sometimes a pair of I beams is used; however, W shapes having wide
flanges are not suitable unless the flanges are braced so they do not bend.
It is usually permissible to use large bending stresses—as much as 0.9 fy in the
Wales; however, the Wales must be sufficiently rigid to transfer the anchor force
laterally over the anchor spacing s to satisfy the mathematical model. If there is
very much lateral displacement between anchors spacing s, most of the anchor
force will be concentrated at the anchor. At best, this effect produces an unsightly
wall, but more importantly soil moves into those "bulged" regions and backfill
settlements occur. This causes pavement cracks; and if structures are near the wall
they may crack and even collapse. Thus, anchor rod spacing s is a significant
design parameter.
Since wale fixity is fairly certain only at the anchor points. The wales are assumed
to carry a uniform load w of intensity shown, and if we assume an approximate
fixed end beam the bending moment at any anchor point (which will be the
maximum) is:
Or
w.s 2 w.s 2
M =
10 12
Example: design Wales for a lower anchor rod assuming a typical wale section
on an interior span of s = 3 m. Try to use a pair of channels back to back with
fy = 250 MPa (A-36). The axial anchor rod force per meter was found to be
Far= 346.11/cos20o = 368.32 KN/m.
Solution: The anchor rod force per meter is the uniform pressure on the wale.

ω.s 2 368.32 × 3 2
M = = = 331.49KN .m
10 10

Using σall = 0.75fy = 190MPa


M 331.49
σ all = Sx = = 1.745× 10 −3 m 3
S 190000

For a single channel:

1.745 × 10 −3
Sx = = 0.8723× 10 −3 m 3
2

Use: C380 x 74: d = 381 mm bf = 94.4 mm tw = 18.2

(C15 x 50): tf = 16.5 k = 37.0 mm
 Sx = Ix =
−3
0.882 × 10 m 3
168× 10−6 m 4

The approximate deflection between two anchor points for the wale assuming a.
fixed end beam with an L = 3 m:
Ok
ω.s 4 368.32 × 3 4
∆c = = −6
= 1.16 × 10−3 m = 1.16mm.
348EI 348× 200 × 10 × (2 × 168× 10 )
6

Sheet-piles anchorage:
There are several types of anchorages for sheet-piles walls:
TIEBACKS.
One of the most popular anchorage methods presently used is the tieback .These
are essentially small piles oriented at about ƞ = 15 to 25° from the horizontal.
By using small slopes the vertical stress component on the wall can be neglected.

Execution method:
Tiebacks are constructed by drilling a hole on the order of 150 to 375 mm in
diameter using a hollow-stem auger. The anchor cable or rod, with an expandable
end plate (or toggle), is pushed or carried in the hollow stem of the auger and at the
design depth is extruded. Then the end plate/toggle is expanded. The end plate
greatly increases the pull-out resistance of the anchor from the concrete shaft. The
auger is slowly withdrawn, and simultaneously concrete or sand-cement grout
(with either material containing appropriate admixtures), usually of about
fc'=21MPa, is forced through the hollow stem. The concrete/grout is under a
pressure of from 75 to 225 kPa so that it expands around the cable/rod for bond
and against the soil to produce an irregular surface for friction/adhesion. A
grouting pressure is used to approximate K0 conditions so that the soil-anchor
friction angle δФ or, if cohesive, an adhesion such that Ca C

High-strength steel (fy on the order of 1000 to 14 000 MPa) tendons or rods are
generally used for tieback anchors because they are usually prestressed to a design
force computed.
High-strength steel is used instead of regular structural steel with an fy = 250 MPa
(A36) so that after soil creep and steel relaxation occur there is a substantial holding
force remaining in the "tieback."
Tieback walls are often used in deep
excavations where it is essential that lateral
wall movements and subsequent perimeter
settlements be minimized. An advantage of these
walls is they can be constructed from the
top down (built as excavation proceeds).
Another advantage is they do not produce
obstructions in the construction area. Often
these walls are left in place and become part of the
final construction.
The tieback anchor design can be made using this equation:

Par = πDL[ γ .d 2 k . tan δ + c a ]

Where
D = average shaft diameter; compute based on volume of concrete pumped,
together with the original and final hole depths, m or ft
L = length of cement/grout; compute based on original and final hole depth,m or ft
K = soil coefficient—between Ka and K0
d2 = average depth of grouted length L, m or ft
δ = soil-cement friction coefficient and  Ф
ca = adhesion to cement zone (0.7 to 1c, kPa or ksf)

Example: design the concrete shaft of the tie-back anchor for the anchor force of
1104.96 KN; Ф=20o

Solution. Try a 350-mm nominal anchor shaft diameter. Take adhesion as 0.8Su
(Su = qu/2 =61/2 = 30.5 kPa). Assume that K0 conditions will be obtained around
the shaft perimeter from the pressure grouting. This state will produce a small
angle of internal friction of about Ф = 20°. We will also assume the grout pressure
produces K0 conditions so that K = K0 = 1 - sin 20° = 0.66
and the friction angle δ = Ф = 20°.

Par = πDL[ γ .d 2 k . tan δ + c a ]

With: d2=10m and γ' = 20.8-9.8 = 11KN/m3

Par = L (π x 0.350) [(5x17.9 + 5.0 x 11) (0.66 x tan20°) + 0.8 x 30.5]

= L(1.10) [(144.5X0.2402) + 24.4]
= L (1.10) (34.7 + 24.4) = L (65.01)
L=1104.96 / 65.01  L= 17.00m
The total anchor rod/cable L tot = 5.25 + 17.00 = 22.2 m. The vertical force/meter
of wall Fv =368.32 sin 20° = 126.0 kN. This value of L is reasonably consistent
with d2 used, so we may take this as a valid solution—unless the anchor fails
during installation.
The presence of existing structures and utilities should be taken into account when
deciding upon the location and inclination of anchors. The installation of the
grouted tieback, location and inclination, should be surveyed against these existing
site constraints. The design shall meet the requirements for minimum ground cover
for the grouted
The minimum anchor free length is:
a- 15 ft (4.6 m) or
b- The length of the tieback from the face of the wall to the theoretical failure
plane plus H/5, whichever is greater.
The theoretical failure plane is inclined at an angle of 45o- Ф/2 with the vertical,
where Ф is the friction angle of the soil, if the back-slope is horizontal.
Block Anchors:
The block anchor is a cast-in-place or precast concrete member that may be square
or rectangular in section with the necessary length to develop adequate passive
resistance for one or more anchor rods/cables attached along its length.
So we can write this equation:

∑ Fh = Far − L( Pp '− Pa '+ Ftop + Fbot )

L( Pp '− Pa '+ Ftop + Fbot )
Far =
S .F

: Passive force on block

Pp '

: Active force on block

Pa '

: Friction force at the top face of the block

Ftop

: Friction force at the bottom face of the block

Fbot
 : Safety factor, (1.21.5)
S.F

We should check the rotation of the block;

Assume that and are collinear;

Pp ' Pa '

∑ M pp = 0
B '.LP '+ B'.L.FR + ( H − y ) L.Ftop − Far .e − yLFbot = 0
Far e yFbot ( H − y ) Ftop
P' = + − − FR
BL B B

With FR=Pa'.tanδ  side friction

And:
P ' ≤ ( q sur + γ .d 1 )

NB: we should locate the anchorage so that its passive zone is outside the active
wedge of the wall.
References:

– FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN.

– NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.