Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sheet-Pile Walls

    Uploaded by

    massimo.bochiolo
    153 views27 pages

    Original Title

    Sheet-pile walls

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    153 views27 pages

    Sheet-Pile Walls

    Uploaded by

    massimo.bochiolo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 27
    10 Sheet-pile walls Although sheet-pile walls are often used to form waterfront retaining Structures, where ground conditions are very poor and the groundwater level is near to ground surface, they may also be used in temporary works ap- plications, where ground and groundwater conditions may be much better. ‘Typically, cantilever sheet piling is used for low retained heights of soil, with anchored walls being used for higher walls. The possible modes of failure for all walls of this type include failure of the soil under passive conditions on the excavated side of the wal, failure of the sheets themselves in bending, and overall instability. Other ultimate limit states and serviceability limit states exist for each type of wall, 10.1 Groundwater conditions Where sheet-pile walls are used as waterfront structures they willbe subjected to out-of-balance water pressures as a result of « lag between groundwater level (on the retained side of the wall) and the water in the river or dock, because of tidal or flood conditions. For routine, limit-equilibrium analyses, it is normal to consider the re sultant ofthe unequal water pressures on either side ofthe wall as a separate out-of-balance pressure distribution. Effective vertical stresses in the soil, and therefore effective horizontal stresses, are calculated on the basis of a simpli- fied, hydrostatic, groundwater pressure/depth distribution. A correction is then made, if necessary, to the active and passive forces acting on the wall, in order to allow for the effects of seepage: Figure 10.1 shows two possible out-of-balance water-pressure distribu- tions, depending on whether or not the bottom of the sheet piling penetrates impermeable ground. Table 10.1 gives the recommendations for estimating the eflet of groundwater on sheet ple walls, according to BS6349: Part I(984). ‘More rigorous solutions can be obtained by using flow-net sketching, oF preferably finite element seepage analyses, to obtain the head distribution around the sheet piling (see chapter 13). The pressure distribution on the face ofthe sheet piling can then be calculated from the head distribution via Bernoulli's equation, Until recently no solutions have been available to allow simple estimates of passive earth-pressure coefficients in the presence of up- ‘ward seepage although it has been appreciated that this may have a significant fect in reducing passive resistance at the toe 104 Groundwater and sbet-pile structures After BS 6349-Part (1984) (@) Shes ple walls driven into impermeable sll The general shape ofthe net groundwater pressure as shown below: a Yes (@) Minor now-ial water-level variations, with weephole drainage provided Upper groundwater level (UGWL) LW + 05m ‘sm (8 igh own noni ur, ap UGWL= most unevourable bewesn (LW) and HW asi preiced fal i 20, (Gi) Large ial vantions with o drainage provide. UGWL mean te level ie MEWS + MWS) EIMHWS ~MLWS}, up to an extreme of MHWS + MLWS) ~ELW, 6) Large dal varitons, with Nap value drainage provided COWL tap vave mer lel Pus = UGWL~ MLW upto an extreme of UGWL~ ELW, (ty Shetple als driven into permeable sit ‘The general shape ofthe net groundwater presure isa shown below, whete UGWL and = vals ae afr sheeple was dive into impermeable soll~sce(a above Seepage causes tp increase im efectve ace pressures, a dsuease in elecive pussveresstancs, and 8 Defiions UGWL”™ Upper groundwater level, on andar side Design water-level eifereace LW Seasonal lowewater level nontdal water HW Seasonal high-water leven non-ial MEWS — Meanhighaierspring tere th sucssie igh waters sping MLWS Mean low.witer spring tie level—as above, but low-water fv ELW) Exteme low-vatrlevei—the lowest water level expected ding the Me ofthe strotare, normally witha return eviod of ot ls than 0 year or permanent Works, Reduced salety factors may be used when ealoulstons use BLN rageoveralongpeviodftins of wo ae a Figure 101 Simplified net pressure ditibution de to groundwater imbalance on ses Bh pF ean 6 | BR fp 2 $ AW); 9 te \ ip 2 EEE 3 es 0 ae oo 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 @ Figore 102 Est of wpward sxpage on pasive arthpressve coeficnt, K, (Soubya and Kastner, 192) 198 PARTHE PRESSURE AND FAW Solutions by Soubra and Kastner (1992), derived from the log spiral method, are shown in Figure 10.2, and can be used in place of the approximation suggested in Table 10.1. These solutions are based upon the realistic approxi- ‘mation that in uniform ground conditions all head loss will occur over a length of sheet piling equal to twice the depth of penetration below dredge Tevel. Thus, if the head loss [rom one side of the sheets to the other is H, and the depth of penetration isf, the maximum hydraulic gradient in the flow region will approximately equal H/2f-Ttcan be seen that, fora constant effective angle of friction, K, decreases linearly as Hf increases, becoming zero when H/f =3, For non-zero values of K, the reduction is a function of the effective angle of the Iriction (Figure 10.26). Figures 10.2(c) and (d) sive K,, values for 3/4" = —1/3 and 3/6! = ~2/3 10.2 Definitions of factor of safety A single factor of safety is commonly applied during routine sheet-pile wall calculations, in order to make allowance for uncertainty in applied loads, soil strength parameters, groundwater conditions, and soil geometry 0 pro- vide a margin of safety against failure, and to keep deformations within acceptable limits. 1s likely that Eurocode7 will advocate a partial factor type of calculation, where the factor on both actions (applied forees) and reactions (resistive forces) i explilly stated during calculation. However, in realty, there i tle enough certainly ofthe efficiency ofthe design methods curzenily in use and a numberof different definitions of factor of safety are Already in use, a follows. (a) Factor of safety on passive earth-pressure coefficients. This methéd is advocated by the current British Code of Practie on Earth Retaining Struc- ture (CP2:19S1), the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, and the Hong Kong Geotechnical Control Office's Geoguide/. Details can also be found in Terzaghi (1984) and Tschebatarioff (1973) For anchored sheet-pile walls, as an example, the depth of penetration is established based on moment equilibrium about the tie, using an effective passive pressure distribution ‘oblained from passive earth-pressure coelicients divided by the relevant factor of safety (Figure 103). CP2 recommends that a factor of safety of approximately 2 should be used, while Tschebotarioff (1973) notes that this is equivalent to a 70% increase in penetration beyond that required for limiting equilibrium. The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual states thatthe actor of safety should not be ess than 1.5, while Teng (1962) suggests the use ofa factor of safety of between 1.5 and 20 Burland etal. (1981) have criticized this factor of safety when applied to undrained analysis, because it can lead to two possible required depths of ‘embedment. The use of undrained analysis is not recommended here, and for other applications further work by Potts and Burland (1983) indicates SHEET-PILE WALLS. 195 Ts Figure 103 Deinition of current CP2 factor of safety (Eom Posts and Burland, 1983. Foe ‘tabi, taking moments sbout prop postion ies Fp PhalpiPyubas + Praiys + Pya-Lwn~ Par ye) generally satisfactory results, Since work by Rowe and Peaker (1965) has indicated that a factor of safety of about 1.5 is necessary to limit deformations in loose granular deposits and to allow for progressive feilure in dense granular deposits, the factor of safety of 2 given by CP2 is recommended since this also allows for a reasonable margin of uncertainty on soil parameters. This ‘method is used in the example calculations at the end of this chapter. (b) Factor of safety on passive effective strength parameters. This method is advocated by CIRIA Report No. 54(1974) and the Hong Kong Geoguide 1 (GCO, 1982). The soil parameters are reduced by the factor of safety before the passive carth-pressure coefficients are calculated, Thus K,, values are cbained for _, (tang” dig= tan. ( ms ) and y= tan-1( 222) 5g=tane(S2°) with where F = 1.52.0 for sands, depending on the certainty with which @’ and 6’ are known, F-=1.2-15 for clays analysed in the long term. 196 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTHLRETAINING STRUCTURES. This method, for F = 1.5, is roughly equivalent to a factor of safety on the passive earth-pressure coefficient, K,, of 2.0. When low values of F are used, it may be prudent to increase the depth of penetration by up to 20%, 10 allow for accidental overdredging. {c) Factor of safety on net passive total pressure. The Piling Handbook (BSC, 1979) describes this method. Burland er al. (1981) and Potts and Burland (1983) have found that this method gives rapidly increasing factors of safety with depth of embedment, and gives much higher calculated factors of safety than other methods. This method is not recommended, because the factor of safety on effective strength parameters is very low; it should, however, be noted that the method has had considerable use in the UKwithout apparent ill effet (a) Factor of safety on all effective strength parameters. This method has been suggested by Burland et al. (1981) and Potts and Burland (1983). The method uses a factor of safety on shear strength which is equal for all elements of the failing soil ie. the factors of safety are applied to calculations for both the active and passive pressures. ‘The mobilized effective strength parameters are tan tang’) a y= tan and c=" as in slope stability calculations. Potts and Burland (1983) have suggested the use of F = 1.5 for solls with relatively low angles of frition, but they note that this would lead to overconservative results when the effective angle of friction is high. For waterfront structures itis likely that the retained soil will be fill, or perhaps highly overconsolidated natural soil. Much greater displacements will be required to mobilize passive pressures then active, and ‘factor of safety on passive earth pressure alone would seem more appropt ate. As far as is known, this method is not in regular use for conventional design. (6) Increased depth of embedment to provide a margin of safety One of the simplest methods of ensuring the stability of a sheet-pile wall is suggested by Teng (1962), Tschebotarioff (1973), and the USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual (USSI, 1975) In this method the depth of embedment to achieve limiting equilibrium (ie. a factor of safety of unity) for moments about the tie level is calculated. The depth of penetration to be achieved during construction is obtained by multiplying the calculated depth by a factor which, in the literature, varies from 1.20 to 20. Thus FD where D’ is the depth of penetration for limiting equilibrium and Fy is the ‘multiplying factor for depth, ‘Teng and the USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual (USSI, 1975) re- commend F,= 1.20 to 1.40, but Tschebotarioff has noted that a factor of SHEET-PILE WALLS 197 safety on passive earth-pressure coefficient (method (a) above) of 2.0 is equi valent to a depth factor (F,) of 1.7. While Burland et a. (1981) found that this method maintains a more or less constant factor of safety om shear strength, dificulties and inconsistencies arise if the soil profile beneath the dredge level is complex. Nonetheless, the method has the great virtue of simplicity. According to Teng (1962), F = 1.2 to 1.4 is equivalent to a factor of safety on the passive earth-pressure coefficient of 1.5 t0 20. (Burland, Potts and Walsh's ‘revised’ factor of safety. By analogy with bearing-capacity theory, Burland et al. (1981) have prepared a new definition of factor of safety. In this definition the moment stability of an anchored sheet below dredge level, about the tie, is considered on the basis of the mobilizing moments, due to soil above the dredge level, and the resisting ‘moments, due to soil below the dredge level i) Mobitizing moments. Two types of moment arise, the first due to earth pressure on the sheet piling above dredge level, and the second due to the surcharge applied by the soil above the dredge level to the soil on the active side below dredge level. For the soil in Figure 10.4, the first of these moments is the sum of Py,-L4, and P,3.L4>. The mobilized mo- ment below dredge level due to the weight of soil above dredge level is shown as P,,-L4s for the case in Figure 104, More generally, the lateral Ts rae cvnenae 0 | cs Figere 104 Burland, Pots and Wales (1981) revi actor of ety. F, = ataring moment ‘shoot Ojmobilizing moments shout O. 198 eaRTHL omrssunr awn PARTHE-RETAINING STRUCTURES pressure due to this surcharge willbe 4K, where q is the vertical effective stress at dredge level on the active side and K, isthe active earth-pressure coefcient below dredge level. When a cohesive, 'g'soilis encountered, the mobilizing moment is unalfeted by ©. (i) Restoring moments. Restoring moments derive from both the active and passive sides ofthe sheet piling below dredge level. On the passive side, resistance is obtained from the sell-weight of the soi, ie, (7~ 72)D?-Ky. but this is reduced by the force on the active side of the wall due (0 sell-weight below dredge level, ie. 4(j —74)D?.K,. Elective cohesion increases passive resistance by c'K,_D and decreases forces onthe active side by e/K,D, thus giving @net‘netease in force of & D(K y+ Ky ‘The factor of safety ie defined as the ratio of restoring moments to mobilizing ‘moments, about the tie level on the sheet. For the general case of a «’¢" so the revised factor of safety is then restoring movement ‘mobilizing movement Phsl + PevaLens Pralias + Palas + Paabas + Pwilws + Pwalwa (see Figure 10.4, Tt has been suggested that this method provides a more satisfactory defini- tion of factor of safety than that currently used in CP2 (method (a) above) The evidence that this is so appears to be that the method gives logical results over @ wide range of soil parameters, and that it gives results which are compatible with the factor of safety on all shear-strength parameter methods (method (d) above), Burland et al. (1981) suggest that F, should be between 1.5 and 2.0, while Potts and Burland (1983) suggest that F, should bbe 20 for low angles of shearing resistance but may be lower for higher angles of shearing resistance. ‘This method of calculating a factor of safety is rather complex, and there is little experience of its use. It is included here because it has been proposed as the recommended method for inelusion in the new British Standard on Earth-Retaining Structures, which is currently (1992) being drafted. Potts and Burland (1983) have demonstrated that for drained, long-term analysis the revised factor of safety is greater than the CP2 factor of safety, for identical geometry, Using a factor of safety on passive earth pressure of 2, in accordance with CP2, F,#22-35 for F,#20-23 for @! {or a wide range of wall adhesion and frietion values. 0 10kN/m? 0— 10KN/m? SHPET-PILE WALLS 199 103 Cantilever sheet-pile walls According to Head and Wynne (1985), the majority of retaining walls being constructed at the present time (up to 75%) are of the cantilever type. Lite is known of their actual behaviour, but they are designed as a special case of sheet-pile walls, using the method of Blum (1931) which is also used for the fixed earth support design of sheet-pile walls (section 104) 103.1. Preliminary design There are few observations, at any scale, of the behaviour of this type of wall, Bica and Clayton (1992) have brought such data as are available to- gether, and proposed that this can, for simple soil conditions, form the basis of preliminary design. Figure 10.5 shows a design chart for the prefiminary estimation of depth of embedment (d) of cantilever sheet-ple walls retaining soil of height h, under dey of fully submerged conditions. The total length ‘of sheet pile is (d+). The effective angle of friction isthe plane strain value, which can (for preliminary design purposes) be assumed to be 10% higher than the value obtained from triaxial testing. Curves are given for different values ofthe factor of safety F,, see section 102(e) above. These curves may bbe approximated by the following equation: a = F.02y3).¢- 20 paket! eo Fioae 108 Design char for prelainary tiation of dap of ambadent of anser sh ‘le walls under dey orflly submerged condition ica tnd Clayton, 193) 200 PARTIE PRESSURE AND FARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES (NB. 4" in degrees). A factor of safety F design ‘The maximum bending moments to be taken by the sheet piling can, similarly, be estimated directly from published measurements. The design value of maximum bending moment increases as a function of the depth of embedment (d), for any given retained height of soil (i). Therefore, when estimating the maximum bending moment from Figure 103 itis necessary to know either the value of djh or of F. The value of maximum bending. ‘moment can also be obtained from the approximate equation 5 is suggested for preliminary Maas 1095,¢-W 30-116) amy -28)12 oh where jis the bulk or buoyant density of the soil, depending upon the groundwater conditions his the retained height of the soil dis the depth of embedment of the wall (d+ hi is the total length of sheet piling is the plane strain effective angle of friction of the sol. Figure 10.7 allows some appreciation of the influence of different ground watet conditions on the reyuited depth of embedment. Cases I, I and IV hhave groundwater balance, and therefore no flow around the sheets, In Case IIT there is seepage around the sheet piling; the pore pressure at the base of the sheet (d, not d’)has been taken as y4(d-+ h/2),and linear head distribution Lup the sides of the sheet has then been assumed. In making a preliminary hte verge penne esa 0st) s % 35 © * o oo Figure 146 Design chart for preliminary estimation of maximum bending moment appli to "ioe embeded cantilever walls under dry or flly submerged conditions. SHEET-PILE WALLS 201 Figere 107 Graph to estimate preliminary value of ot) for cantilever shect-pie wall ‘eaeulations (= 1) «estimate of pile length, it should be remembered that the overturning moment Js dominated by the extent of groundwater imbalance, while the restoring moment is predominantly a function of the eflective angle of friction and groundwater level below excavation level. The charts have been produced Using factors of safety on passive pressure of 1.5, Mayniel’s and Caquot and Kerisel’s earth-pressure coefficients, and a bulk density of 20 kN/m. From Figure 10.7 it can be seen that cantilever sheet-pile walls are best suited to low retained heights (< 4.5m) and embedment in soils with a high elfective angle of friction (ie. sands and gravels). When clay exists below 202 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES. dredge level and there isa large groundwater imbalance, depths of penetration rapidly become uneconomical, as is shown by the second example at the end of this section, 103.2 Determination of depth of embedment and maximum bending moment During design the sheet-pile wall is considered to be rigid, and to rotate about same point, such as point b in Figure 108. This leads to passive pressures at the toe of the sheet, but behind the wall (X in Figure 10:8(b) Blum’s simplification replaces the passive pressure behind the wall with @ force applied to the wall at some distance above the toe (Fin Figure 103). Figure 108 Cantilever sheeple wall design pinciles ' >—- Figure 149 Design sssumpsins for cantilever sheet wal SHEET-PILE WALLS 203 ‘The necessary depth of penetration is found by taking moments about the replacement force position, C. Moment equilibrium gives the required depth ‘of penetration, provided that the net pressure diagram is calculated including the effects of groundwater imbalance (see Figure 10.1 and Table 10.1). A factor of safety can be applied cither by increasing the depth of embedment beyond the point required by equilibrium (Teng (1962) suggests a 20-40% ‘depth increase) or by reducing the effective horizontal pressures onthe passive side by applying a factor of safety of 1.50 to 2.00 to the passive earth-pressure coefficients before the depth of piling is calculated The angles of wall fction Used for such calculations vary. Work by Terzaghi (1954), Teng (1962), the German Committee for Waterfont Struc- tures, and BS 6439: 1984 suggest the use of 6, = 3g’ In contrast, Padleld and Mair(CIRIA Report 104, 1984) suggest 5, = 4". Forthe active case, Terzaghi recommended 5, = 44’, on the basis tha the wall will move down with ative Shear forces, against the passive forces. CIRIA Report 104 suggests, = 4" Since lites known i this area, we recommend the traditional approach of with a maximum wall adhesion c, equal to $c’ In practice cis often taken as zero because of the remoulding that occurs asthe wall is driven into the soil ‘The design method is as follows: i) Determine soil parameters and geometry, and groundwater conditions, and plot the net total pressure diagram (Figure 10.9) i) Assume a final penetration depth, D. The following, from Teng (1962), ‘may be taken as a guide for granular soils (alternatively, Figure 10.7 ‘may be used) Soil density Depth of penetration, D Dense wis Medium dense 1.00 H Loose 10H Very loose 200 H (iii) Determine the position of C from D’ = D/1.20. (iv) Take moments about C. If anticlockwise moments exceed clockwise moments the pile depth is inadequate. Ifthe reverse is true, the pile depth is excessive. (©) Assume a new trial penetration, and repeat (ii) and (iv) until moment equilibrium about C results. (oi) Determine the point of zero shear force, and calculate the maximum bending moment, Figures 10.5 and 10.7 may be used to obtain preliminary estimates of re- uired pile length for simple soil geometry. 208 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES Example calculation 10.1 Design a cantilever wall, 3m high, for the geometry below vomit ——_ ss aon RO sino | son eo Etective strength parameters Bulk unit weight a SER DES Levels Soil description (Nim) Nm) gees) ate Sollbwown-ty day 18 0 20 Etoe _Medumdersegeavel 20 0 « Calewation of lateral earth pressure Earth-prssure coefficients Assumed angles of wall friction 9 Inlay 6 = 20", for = 10",g'= 20" K, Table B2 for 6’ 20",6'= 40" K, Table B2 Use Caquot and Keritels coefficients for passive pressure for 5'=9,9'=40" K,=1750 Table Be) for 8 y= 0750 x 1750 Table BS(b) 0.750 « 17.50 for Fa, use Ky 15 75 Barth pressure profile, Atlevela: Active side ho Atlevelb: Active side 6, = 10x 150% 150 kN/mn? Wa. 2 a 130 KNim* 7, = 048 « 150. 66 4N/mt Atlovele: Active side 2, = 1504 20x 150=450 kNim? 10x 100= 200 kN/m? 450 200=250 kN? In clay 1, = 048 x 250= HL.OKN/m? y= 110+ 200 3LOKN/m* SHEET-PILE WALLS 205 In gral 6, =0.20 x 250=50 kNim* a= 504200 = 250%eN jm [Atleveld: Active side 2, =450+ 200d 250+ 1000 0.20(250 + 1004)=50 +200 '50-+20d' + 200+ 100d Passive side 0, =20% 100+ ¢ x 200=200 +200¢ (20-+4)100= 200 + 100d wood 875% 100d = 875d en 875u 4200+ 1008 2004 975d KN)? [Although the total pressures have been caleulated above, it can be een that the pore pressures on either side ofthe wall balance and the net diagram may be obtained from the diflerence in efective pressures. 50+ 120d KN/m* amp + Net otal pressure digram termed erie ti Deon g(Grr0re)reenae(’ sre0o.2(besoee) es0nand ‘ 3 = 11046604 3304 + 15.204 15.20d $4404 + 25047 ~ 14254" =0 “14.284? + 25047 + 20900 +2383 =0 =055e f so+soyx 2x rs ‘Trial solutions ¢=20m —3837ENmvm Run d=i8m = =1356kNmvim Run @=17m —Residval = —343kNov/m Run @= 165m Residval = + LI1KNmm Run Required depth of penetration d= 12d'= 1.2 * L654 2.0m 206 EARTH PRESSURE AND FARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES The maximum bending moment is calculated at the point of zero shear force 2 Ac 055m below dredge level Shear force =209 +50 x 05 = osp tana At Lm below dredge level Shear force =209 1 50% 10 855,52 7 or 169KN/om Run Maximum bending moment occurs at 0.7m below dredge level My, 6207 +20+038) s44n20(ar-2) 1110-90 207422) 130.0760 a 955072207 23 = 1004224460412-49 347 kNim/m Ron Example calculation 10.2 Design cantilever sheet-pile wall to support 4m ofsoil with the following profile Use Blum's method srppirpeet substituting Fy for the em 3 forces on the sheet ayo * Seon fand'g The ES" {ar actual depth of —— penetration is eH wei Sapo | aap L iL vasiveste 5 Aas SHEET-PILE WALLS 207 fective tength parameters Levels Soil description ‘oNim) 0m) (egres) ety _ Flom tse 2 ° Ss Calculation of lateral earth pressure Earth-presure coeficiens ‘Assumed angles of wall tition Ingay 259, 167 Use Maynits acne eartvpresure cotcents tervals ga 3s, kn O26 Tbe 2 fers tS gas Kio036s rab B2 Use Cat und Ker sofia for pasvepreseare fees ee gas Ret Table BS) tod for 9 =167°29') Kp =0894 «4.29 Table Bb) fo P= 2.06 ky AP og Water pressures ‘The water presures must be evaluated to allow the determination both of the net water pressure on the sheet pile and the elective stresses at each level. In this design ‘method the problem is made more dificult by the fact thatthe sheeting extends to depth d below excavation level, but that only a depth d is usedin the calculation, ‘The following examples indicate how to use Bernoulli's equation to obtain the water pressures Calelation of pore pressures ate ‘On passive side, pore pressure ‘Take datum at e, Use Bemouli’s equation See chapter 13, Assume zero head loss in gravel Head loss over sheet ~ head at ¢— head at © = [20% 20] -0 = 4m Head gradient around sheet pile 40 = [ad=10 ++ 10) where d i the fll depth, not that used for earth= pressure caleulation Head at e=24— 10x72 = 40% =4001 1/4) Pressure at 10 (bead at e) 208 EARTH PRESSURE AND FARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES Caleulation of pore pressure at d Take datum at d. Use Bernoulli's equation See chapter 13 Assume zero head loss in gravel, Head loss over sheet = head at ¢— head at ¢ =[20+10)—(- 10) = 4m Head gradient around sheet ple 40 [a=10)+ + 1.0] where dig the full depth of peneteation, not dt Head at d= head at ¢~ head érop on ed amd 20+ 101-10 30—16T/a" Pressure at d fa head = 100(30~ 1.67/d) Calewation of pore pressure at f Assume zero head loss in gravel, and uniform head gradient around the cantilever wall from ¢ 10 e Take datum at f- Use Bernoulli’ equation See chapter 13, read loss over sheet = head at ¢~— head at e = [ld + 10) + 20] ~(d~ 1.0) = 40m ead gradient around sheet pile 40 (a=10)+ +107 Head at f on pasie side head ate-+ fx distance ef =~ L0)+ 2d Ud 12d; head at f, Head at fon active side head at e+ (distance ef +2 x distance fg) Wad=t20, head at fy (@—10)+ 2/120 - 1042028) ad 1042/12 21.24 +08/12 Pore pressure at points f equal heads x 1,, since there sno elevation head at ff isondatum level) a 10) id 10)+ 212-224 = 0.667 + 33-44" — 1967 /d Simplified method [BS 6349 suggests that where groundwater flow occurs modifications should be made to the ative and passive elective pressures to take this into account (see Table 10.2. Tn this case, this amounts to reducing the hydrostatic pore pressure at the toe on the active side by the one half of the head difference across the sheets xy ie. 40)2 x 10.0 20kN/m?. The pressure on the passive side is increased by this amount. The results of both pressure distributions are shown on the graph below, for an assumed depth of penetration of 12m. SHEET-PILE WALLS 209 Total pore pressures on cantilever wall for 12m embedent (f= 100m) Lateral earth presses, Atlevelat Aatve side 4,=100kNim?w=0 10.0kN/m? 2, =0.246 x 100 25 kN |e? 10+ 1 20 =300kN/m* @, =300kNim? 440.246 x 300 = TAK? Atlevele: Active side 3000 +200 x 200 = 700kN/m= ‘Assume hydrostatic pressure at base of gravel = 20 100~ 2001Nimt? ¢,=700~ 200 = S00kNim* In gravel 4, = 0.246 x $00 = 123 KN @,=123~200 = 23KN/m? Inlay = 0.368 x 50.0 = 184 KN? 184+ 200 210 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES Attoveld: Active side 14, = 700+ 10201 10.0 — 16.67) kN/m? (00 + 16.67/d kNimn* 0.368(60.0 + 1667/4) = 22.1 + 6.1" 22.10 6.1 = (00—1667/¢) ON) a 21 — 10st)" Allevele: Active side 6, =900 + 10 x 200= 1100kN/m? = 400—40.0/¢ =400— 333 of 1004333) of =0.368(700 + 33.3) = 25.76 + 12.27/¢ 8, = 25.164 1227/0) + (400 — 32.5) 5.16 —21.03/d" Passive side 6, 200 x 10=200kN/m* 0c a= 200kNim 0,= 0, L918 x 200 3036 kN/m* Net pressure at e = (65.78—2103/d)—(3836) =2740 = 2103/4 kN fm? Attevelf: Active side a= 1100 +(d' ~1)200=900+ 200d EN/m* from calevlation of w= 100(1.33 4d = L66T/E) head at f om active 1334 100d — 1667/0 KN jm? side = 90.0 + 20004 — (13.3 + 1004 ~ 1667/2) ©1617 4 100d ~ 1667/¢ KN/ma? 7, 03680) = 282 + 368d + 6.13) kN/m* yao, +4 =082 + 368d + 6.13/¢) $133 + 10d —t667/¢) =415413.680" 105d]a' N/m Passive side 200% d°KN/m? from calculation of 10010867 +d ~ 1.657/¢) head f om passive 161 + 100d ~ 1667/d Nin? side 6, — um 200d ~ (667 + 100d — 1667Ia) = 100d = 667 + 16.67 Wien? 19186, = 19.184 — 12.79 4 3197/4 N/m? 4, +u= (19.184 — 12.79 + 3197/2) (667 + 100d — 1667/4) 29.18d'— 6.10 1530/4" k N/m Netpressureat /=(29.18 — 610 + 1530/2) (415+ 168d —1054/a) = 155d'— 476 + 25B4)a" EN? ‘SHEET-PILE WALLS aun ee a ton " = oo ee ne zohe a “ 4 R 3 spe ne met em fms Me) stor sae) coe t9 2( "2. s042) 2 a5 10 pasa _357 apa) 1/10 esstnro( st) (201-157 a) «t( se) 2103) 9/12 (214-22) <1o($2ate-n) 20) M2 101¢-0) 7) 33 nuen) w=) (274 2) Maat (Pano 2881) (pg 2108) Jem [(seeae (re) = 125-4790+25¢ +082 +735 +2450 +148 + 148+ 148d" + 1660-+ 2490 + 24904 + 19.20 sous e238 conse—!9°— a5 1370-20 032 21.03 —240-! +7188 5 5954 123sa— 2740-21034 7 +8 35 349 523 3 4 523 $2 snng+—zraod + 1370-10504 212 [EARTH PRESSURE AND FARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES no" asear sara? 2580 +2364 030 6734 +336-0080 + 160~"% = 258d? + 222347 4 81.62 + 11029 ~ Trial solutions d= 110m — Residual +-263.64kNm/m Run @=120m Residual — 167.68kNm/m Run @etL7m Residual —2415kNmm Run 11.65m Residual — 1441eNavm Run 2d = 1165 x 126 140m ‘The maximum bending moment is calelated atthe point of zero shear fore (Refer to anchored sheet pile wall examples) 104 Design of anchored shect-pile walls ‘The possible failure modes for anchored sheet-pile walls are: (i) rotation about the point at which the anchor tendon joins the sheet piling (i) failure of the wall by bending, between a relatively rigid anchor and a deeply-embedded sheet pile toe (ii) failure of the anchor tendon, or of the anchor itself (iv) overall rotational failure, involving not only the mass of soil in which the sheeting is embedded, but also the soil around the anchor, In practice, the point on the sheet-pile wall at which the anchor is attached will normally move forward sufficiently to ensure the development of active pressures over much of the back ofthe wall, Rowe (1952) has estimated that, for typical anchored sheet-pile walls, the elastic yield of the anchor cable is of the order of H/1600, while the yield of the anchor block will be about ‘/800, where His the height of the wall All but the softest materials would be expected to achieve active conditions at these displacements see, for example, the South African Code of Practice “Lateral support in surface excavations’ (1972), Table 34 ‘A large number of methods have been proposed forthe design of anchored sheet-pile walls, or ‘anchored bulkheads’ as they are sometimes known. Many hhave fallen into disuse, either because thelr fundamental principles have been {questioned or because their complexity has made them unpopular. Examples ‘of methods commonly in use follow. SHEET-PILE WALLS, i 10.1 Free earth support method According to Tschebatarioff (1973) this isthe oldest and most conservative design procedure. Old it may be, but as the example calculations at the end ‘of this section show, it often gives an economical design, with smaller depths ‘of embedment but larger bending moments, than the fixed earth support method (soe section 10.42), Despite its age i is still in use (albeit in a modified form) in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and the United States of America, Figure 10.10 shows a typical layout for an anchored sheet-pile wall. In the tee earth support method the sheets are assumed to be rigid, rotating about point B where support is provided by an unyielding anchor. The depth of pile embedment is calculated on the basis of achieving moment equilibrium at the anchor level. The anchor force is then calculated on the basis of horizontal force equilibrium, and the point of maximum bending moment is determined from zero shear force on the shear force diagram. Following the work of Rowe (1952), the design bending moment used to select the sheet-ple section 1s obtained by reducing the maximum bending moment by a lactor which depends on the relative flexibility ofthe sheet piling with respect to the soil Figure 10.11 shows typical pressure distributions and the basis of design by the free earth support method, Assumptions (0 Shooting ie rigid, compared withthe soi (ii) Sheets rotate about the tie level at failure, but the anchor does not yield (ii) Despite (i), active earth pressures occur over the full height ofthe retained soil anchor yield is normally sficint to give full active pressure atthe top ofthe wal, : sacae Love ‘ {e ie Ape ee opener Ld { Figure 1010 Genera layout for anchored shee-ile wall. 214 PARTIC PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES Figure 1011 Basis offre earth support method of design for anchored shell wall ‘The design process is as follows: (a) Determine soil parameters for the likely height of the sheets. The elle- tive angle of wall fiction should be taken as zero ifthe wall i subject to vibration. Otherwise, Terzaghi (1954) recommends 8, = 44" (on the passive side) (on the active side) CP2 (1951) gives a value of 6, of 15° between steel and sand, and states that 6, should be taken as 34, (b) Estimate tidal range, and the ikely lag between the groundwater level in the retained soil and infront of the wall (Table 101) (6) Caleulate the elective horizontal earth pressure using active earth-pressure coefficients on the back of the wall. (a) Caleulate the effective horizontal earth pressure using passive earth- pressure coeficients on the front of the wall--these pressures should be divided by a factor of safety of 2. (6) Calculate the out-of-balance pressure distribution on the wall due to unequal water pressure on either side. Figure 10.1 shows two possible out-ofbalance water-pressure distributions, depending on whether cor not the bottom of the sheet piling penetrates impermeable ground. SHEET-PILE WALLS 2s ‘Table 10.1 gives the recommendations for groundwater on sheet-pile walls according to BS 6349:Part I (1984). (0 Take moments about the level at which the anchor tie is attached to the sheets, and determine the necessary depth of penetration of the sheet piling to give moment equilibrium. (g) Resolve horizontally to determine the force applied to the tie, (h) Calculate the shear force diagram for the sheets, in order to find the position of maximum bending moment—start at the top of the wall (i) Calculate the maximum bending moment at the point of zero shear force. {j) In sands or gravels, calculate the relative flexibility of the sheets and the soil, and reduce the bending moment as appropriate (see below). (k) Increase the depth of penetration by 20% to allow for ‘the effects of ‘unintentional excess dredging, unanticipated local scour, and the presence of pockets of exceptionally weak material’ (Terzaghi, 1954). (0) Increase the tie force by 10% to allow for horizontal arching (CP2) (m) Design anchors, and select tie section (see section 10.4.3 below) Since, atthe outset, the depth of penetration ofthe sheeting is unknown, the calculations for moment equilibrium about the anchor tie level, 4 can only be completed if (i) a depth is assumed, o (i) the pressure distributions at the base of Figure 10.11 are expressed in terms of the unknown depth, d (as in Figure 10.10). In practice itis normally easier to adopt the second approach. The condition ‘of moment equilibrium then leads to a cubic equation of the form Ad! + Ba +Cd+D=0 where A, B, C and D are known numerical coefficients. The simplest way to determine the correct value of dis by trial and error substitution, starting with a likely value (say d/H = 0.40—Figure 10.10) Rowe's moment reduction method, Chapter 7 (Part I) explained the influence of sheet-pile flexibility on the magnitude and distribution of bending moments ina sheet-pile wall. Rowe (1952, 1957) carried out model tests and provided charts to allow the maximum bending moment calculated from the free earth support method to be reduced in line with his experimental findings. In theory Rowe's reduction factors can be used for any soil type, but Skempton (1953), mindful ofthe fact that they result from model tess, suggested that the amount of reduction should be as follows: Sands: use } moment reduction from Rowe Silts: use 4 moment reduction from Rowe Clays: use no moment reduction —— igure 1032 Moment reduction factors proposed by Rowe (952) and metricated in CTRIA Report Surcharge, @ \ Dredge Line Figure 12.13 Desiton of geometry for prsiminry design chars, SHEET-PILE WALLS 217 218 EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES Rowe identified the stiffness ofthe sheet piling as we El where H is the full length of sheet piling (ie. retained height plus depth of embedment), E is Young's modulus and 1 is the second moment of area of the sheet piling. Figure 10.12 shows Rowe's moment reduction curves for sand. To use these curves, select the relevant soil condition and wall height, plot a curve ‘of bending moment v log() by multiplying the maximum free earth support bending moment forthe particular wall by the values of M/M, for different pp in Figure 10.12, Next select various possible sheet pile sections and calculate Tog(p) and Myox = f/y for each, where f is the permitted maximum steel stress and yi the distance from the neutral axis to the edge ofthe section. Plot the position of each of these sections on the curve. Sections giving points above the operating curve are wasteful, which those below the curve will be overstressed. Ideal sections will fall directly on the curve Using the free earth support method, coupled with Rowe's moment reduc- tion method, Haggerty and Nofal (1992) have produced charts for the pre- liminary design of anchored sheet-pile walls. The charts give all the necessary design output for sheet-piling driven into a uniform free-draining granular soil. The effective strength parameters are considered uniform, and the water level is assumed to be the same on both sides of the wall. Although not explicitly stated by Haggerty and Nofa, it appears that their charts are derived for a factor of safety on passive pressure (ie. by the CP2 method) equal to 2 Figure 10,13 shows the geometry assumed by Haggerty and Nofal. Figures 10.14(a) and (b) show the normalized depth of embedment (D/z.) ‘and the normalized maximum bending moment (Myu/()-23))after reduction using Rowe's method, It can be seen that the normalized depth of embedment is not much alfected by the position of the anchor. The bending moment to be allowed for in design decreases as the anchor position drops (i.e. 2/24 increases), such that itis approximately halved when 2/2 is 04. ‘Additional information is available on the eect of surcharge on the maximum, bending moment applied to the sheet piling (Figure 10.14(c), and the magni- tude of the anchor pull (Figure 10.14(d)) Figure 10.14(e) shows that the influence of increasing surcharge is an almost linear increase in the maximum bending moment. Haggerty and Nofal report that similar relationships were found for all calculated output. This fact may be useful in the preliminary design stages, if the precise magnitude of surcharge remains unknown, ‘maximum bending moment for anchord Walle From Hagerty and Noa, 152) anchored shes pile rum bowing roowent applied to thst thes Example calculation 103 ‘Check the design ofa sheet pile wall to retain 6 m of sll as follows: SHPET-PILE WALLS 219 Data tt supe ine MOD ‘a Ei @ 10 5 Bo ‘ hs a no . ‘ 300 i 70 so a 40 ‘re Wall subject to vibration Etective strength parameters Bulk uni weight meh eee Levels Soil deserption Nm) CaN) 6 (ere) above ground i tod Loowe fine sand, 1 o 2 below ground water 0 sep 6 s 2 foe Z o 4 “The active and passive earth pressures for this sol profile have already been caleulated, sing a factor of safety of 2 on the pasive pressure cocfficients. in Appendix B. The results, in the required format for the fee earth support method, ae shown below. 220 EARTH PRESSURE AND FARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES Check for passive pressure © 10 +87 10x02 871.0% 1) ») MG 14x 10%!2 (97-39 3 ante !4(14 218) emo vos( 25084) e119 23042128) 40250224) ne ; sjaratet) enn 8 eats 155099 4435. 1874-3754 42955 44675 4106 ++ 30880+ 3207 + 5520048234 5814043480 asters esse ss Factor of safety on Ky = 728117 aa Depth of embedment is satisfactory (but has not been checked for allowance for future scour, me) (sa (a (20) s+(22%2) c054(™2%) 2 x20 + (829) 20 (278), so SHPET-PILE WALLS 21 =2f(150280) 4, (46741518 ad OE Joe (SE )o9] NB, correct factor of safety for moment equilibrium must be used to calculate the force $594 1154362 4 174 + 84649334728 = 0$814[326 +2978] = 1296KN/m spacing of ties Increase by 10% t allow for horizontal arching Fy = 145kNim Calelate maximum bending moment on sheets Draw shear force diagram to find point of zero shear force (= point of max, bending moment) Linearly interpolating to find point where SF =0 59x20 Depth ofmax. bending moment = 40,4 22° S4m below top of sheet Sta gr Ax pit fo seat oe ening momen Verse 10405) 31)»22(s—t0s2) = 1296154 sens aio( 420422) etna (s4-ane) eras ae(ssey'S sss. (a0) eae 4248) +1460 ~ 386) x 8 A 20% 2% 3 22 [BARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES 1524133 ~ 570243394 1064 56843554281 064378417 = 367kN/m Run of wall, Moment reduction ‘The eiical area of sheet piling (below dredge level iin clay. Following skempton (1953), no reduction is applied Example calculation 104 (yo Data oS Leva MoD) mayo ° 10 5 00 ¢ 60) lo | saps oe Bulk wie weight * Levee Soil description Nm) (west) ioe Leow sly sand @ wo tod enue sant z a Earth pressure coeficients Assume 0, = 49%, 0,=2 Soil type Active side Passive side Loose sity sand 301 ‘Table B2 for K, Dense sand Earth pressures Atlevela: Active side 4-0 Autevel bs Active side 14, = 10% 20= 200kNim? wa0 0, = 200kN/m? 9, = 200 x 0301 = 6OKN/m? Atlevele: Active side In loose sity sand 2, =70%200= 1400kN)m* 160% 100 = 600KNim" 9, = 140.0 ~ 600=800kNjm* 7, =800 « 0301 ‘Table BS for Ky 60KN ma? 2AIKN | SHPET-PILE WALLS 23 In dense sand 17, = 800 «0.200 = 160kN on? Passive side Atleveld #00 + 100D°KN)m? f= 0.200(8000 1000) = 160 52007 je! Passive side 0 x 100 + 2000! = 60.0 + 2000°KN/m* 60.0 + 1000+ 600-4 1000°kN/m* 00D N/m? 3+ 1000) = 5200 kj" ‘There is no out of balance water pressure Pressure diagram Determine dx of penetrate, D ME 600! ! 60604 +1041 ~60 59 «2604 1600(60+2) 273 2 +2009 (6042<0)-s00 «9 (6043«0) ° 24005 2\00*3 10+ 1080+ 2172 + 9600'+ 800 + 600 20190011000 7190? = 143007 + 9900+ 324 204 [FARTHE PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES. ‘Trial solutions D'=20m Residual 1.5m Residual D=17m_ Residual = Required depth of penetration = 1.21.7 Determine the force for anchor, Fy wea) Fant! (842) cog 2 (nae “arr 2 Increase by 10%, to allow for horizontal arching = S1KN/m Run Determine maxim bending moment arp merr ee . (i) SF =~ 30-+468=488kNin je [At depth of 3m x SF a -(S260 2960108260) 25 ay 258kNim At depth of $m se-as-( 60+ 60+ (40/60/24 2 = =43kNim Max. BM. occurs at 481m below top of sheet At this depth o) = 17.5kN/m= ‘Maximum bending moment =60%"9(48—10'”) 2 3 ~46848 10) r60( =") (241 — 60,48 ~ tO) 60 3124-1978 44834276 =945KNovon Ron Rowe's moment reduction method should be used to reduce this value for sheet pile 10 rom seomery of wall a= SHEET-PILE WALLS 25 226 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES 945kNim Run, = 90m Figure 10.12 but driven to sufficient depth that it may be considered fixed at its toe. Blum’s general method deals with rigidly and flexibly anchored walls, and with cantilever walls. In these methods the stresses on the wall immediately above logsoe Mu the toe (F) are replaced by a single force some distance up the wall (F.) and MMe otis een) the sheet piling is considered to be held vertical at this point (Figure 10.15). a om we ‘The depth of penetration ofthe sheeting i found by repetitive calculation ae =92 Pa until the displacement atthe anchor level is correct relative to the point of os +029 a8 fixity (at the toe). For routine design the anchor is assumed to be unyielding, a ton ae and tis relative displacement must therefore be zero. Unless earid out by Sanat computer, this technique i tedious; therefore a number of simplieations are Egg 21 x 10° N/mm? in common use. These are based on Blum’s ‘equivalent beam method’, Misimum perminibe ses in mid ste, f = 165 Nin? The ied earth support method is advocated by BS CP2 for routine design, Selecting the weakest Larssen sections but in practice, following the work of Rowe (1952) and Terzaghi (1954), most scotechiealenginers in the UK now use a form ofthe fee earth support . Coats method modifledto take account of wall exbilit. This hs occurred because sein mT) MED mE tg ‘epeated stulics have shove fie CP2 metal to toque eaussive depts oe te (ct) (kN Roay mt) of penetration and steel weights compared with the requirements of other ime 3 es countries national codes. 6 s at tae Trial calculations are reported in CIRIA report No. 54 (1974) for methods according to CP2, the German Committe for Waterfront Structures, the tts tg ene we se jena Zz = scene Shey I can be sen that any setion will be adequate. The 10A-10B)/2 will be ‘the most economical sine itt closest t0 the applied Bending moment curve. Although thes sections are capable of sustaining the applied bending ‘moments experience may dictate that stronger sections are required to ‘void damage 104.2 Fixed earth support method seston mn ‘This method is derived from the work of Blum (1931, 1950, 1951), and is in Widespread use in continental Europe. The shect piling is considered flexible, Figure 118 sof xed earth support method for design of anchored shee wal, SHEET-PILE WALLS 2 Danish Code, and Rowe's modification of the free earth support method. Similar comparisons, but not tied to the specific requirements of codes of practice, have been carried out by Edelman, Joustra, Koppejan, van der Veen ‘and van Weele (1988) and Lamboj and Fang (1970). In practice itis difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from these studies, because the detailed requirements of codes can have a more significant influence on such factors aas depth of embedment, structure weight, and cost, than the fundamental differences between the methods. For example, CIRTA report $4 noted that design to the German Recommendations results in generally more economic structures compared to the other methods investigated, but that this probably results from the combination of Krey's (1963) overoptimistic passive earth- pressure coefficients (calculated on the basis of a planar failure surface) and ‘an overconservative penetration depth calculation obtained from the fixed carth support method. Under conditions of similar assumptions (ie. ignoring the individual requirements of the codes) Rowe's modification of the free arth support method is much more economical than the CP? and German ‘methods, and is simpler to use than most other methods. On the other hand, the use of the fixed earth support method with reasonable passive earth- pressure coefficients, such as in CP2, leads to the least economical depths and sections of sheet piling, “Methods of design in use in the UK or USA assume an unyielding anchor, for simplicity (although this need not be an essential part of the method). ‘The not total pressure diagram (Figure 10.15) is obtained by using active pressure coefficients for all soil behind the wall and full passive pressure ‘coefficients for sol in front of the wall ie. below dredge level). Suitable values cof wall friction (typicaly 5'= $ on the active side, and 6’ = 34 on the passive side) (Terzaghi, 1954) may be used in the absence of vibration. Groundwater pressures included in the manner suggested by Terzaghi (1954) (Figure 10.1) ‘At this stage the necessary depth of sheeting is unknown, and the position of, point C (which will be approximately 15%, of the depth of embedment above the actual toe of the sketch) must be assumed. Elastic line method, The general method used for fixed earth support design is the elastic line method’. In this method the position of point Cis assumed, and the sheet pile is assumed to become tangential to the vertical at this point, Successive integration with respect to depth of the net total pressure ‘lagram leads successively 1 the shear foree diagram, the beudinng moment diagram, the slope diagram, and the deflection diagram. The position of point C is adjusted until the deflection of the anchor (point A) relative to point C is zero, From this the necessary depth of sheeting may be obtained, singe Blum demonstrated that the total required depth of penetration is #$u-+ (1.05 to 1.20)x (see Figure 10.16) ‘Typically, for convenience, the total required depth of penetration is taken 228 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES ome ost] Figure 1116 Relationship between rouired pile depth andthe position of he substitute force ne f= 1.20u+%) as in Tschebotarioff (1973), for the simplified equivalent beam method to be described below, but the actual required depth can be found from F, 27 AK, 6086, — K,.0085,) where wand x are defined in Figure 10.17 yis the average buoyant density (j—y4) between the top of the sheet-ple wall and point C Fis the replacement force at C K, co86, and K, cos; represent the components of earth pressure normal to the wall, | isthe height of the wall (including embedment to point ©), plus ‘an allowance of q/K,.) for any surcharge (q) imposed at the top of the wall, Although in the past the elastic line method has been solved by hand calcula- tion, or graphically, it is now considered too time-consuming for routine use. however, # relatively simple task Wo program a desk-top computer to provide these solutions. In the absence of an available computer program, a number of simplifying ' ute SHEET-PILE WALLS 29 Figure 1417 Blum’ equivalent beam method assumptions can be made. All of these are variations of Blum's equivalent ‘beam method Blum's equivalent beam method. Blum’s equivalent beam method (Blum, 1931) uses the same simplifying assumptions with regard to the stresses at the toe of the pile as were used for the ‘elastic line” method above—the stresses at the pile toe are replaced by a single force some distance above the toe. By carrying out example calculations on uniform soil profiles, Blum was able (o establish the relationship between the depth to the point of sheet-pile contraflexure (y) (where the bending moment is zero—point B in Figure 10.16) and the fee height ofthe wall (h, from the dredge level tothe top of the wall), as follows. eve angle of ection Ratio (depth o point of comafexure) ‘sa roe height of wall 8). 3 om ss ois w 808 cs 003 w e007 IL is reported by Tschebotarioff (1973) that these values were based on the useof K, = (I sin g'V(1 +sin 9 (ie. the Rankine value, for 6’ = 0),and K, 230 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES. 2/K,. Blum is supposed to have used this value for the passive earth-pressure coefficient, not because he allowed for the influence of wall friction, but because tests by Franzius (using a hinged wall in a relatively narrow box) hhad given similar results. ‘Once the point of contraflexure is known, an imaginary hinge can be inserted at that point on the sheet-pile wall, and analysis becomes trivial (Figure 10.17) The procedure is: (@) By horizontal resolution of forces on span GB, and by taking moments about B, determine the magnitude of the anchor force F,, and the force at the hinge, Fy, (b) Take moments about C, to determine the correct length BC for which the moments about C ate zero, Stresses below C are ignored. For a uniform soil, with ¥ o Fe(D’ ym y' Ky. sf HY-KO OS” Ky) oy w-y - yAK,— Yk, FP By BIOS LK Ky Kohl) For moment equilibrium Fy V7IK,—K) w-» (NB. If B is taken to be at the zero net pressure point, use Fy for Fy) (©) Determine the final depth of embedment (which will also give a factor of safety against failure by forward movement of the piling) approximately D=120. For uniform ground conditions, the Grundbau Taschenbuch (1955) gives the more accurate equation based on the force at C, F, (see under ‘Elastic Tine method). (4) Determine the point of maximum bending moment from the position of zero shear force, by drawing the shear force diagram for span GB. (¢) Determine the maximum bending moment. SHEET-PILE WALLS 231 020 ey tara 200 igre 1018 Comparison of position of or nt pressure and point of contefenre in Blum's ‘uivalnt beam method Prat 198), &5$ ee —— low a} \ tae 0 = igre 1019 Tschebotaifs hinge-at-the-dedge-ine procedure. 22 [PARTIE PRESB AND FARTH-RFTAINING STRICTURES ‘The principal problem with this method is the determination of a correct point of contraflexure when soil conditions are non-uniform. For uniform ‘ground conditions B lies approximately level with the point of zero net pressure, N (see Figure 10.15). Current practice in France assumes that the point of contraflexure and the point of zero net pressure will always be approximately coincident, Given uniform ground conditions and realistic assumptions, the correlation is quite good (Figure 10.18), but the Grundbau Taschenbuch (1955) notes that one should “beware however of wrongly apply- ing this method to non-uniform ground. Here the use of the equation (for (D'—y) based on Fy], which is no longer applicable, together with a false estimate of the position of point B, may lead to serious errors For these conditions the elastic line method is recommended by the Grund ‘bau Taschenbuch, although in countries other than Germany the zero net pressure point method is used. For sheet piling penetrating clean medium-dense or dense sands, Tschebo- ‘arioff has proposed the so-called "hinge-et-the-dredge-tine’ procedure, which is based upon observations both in the fcld and the laboratory, that the point of contraflexure for this condition approximates to the dredge level. This method is only valid for limited soil types, although it can be modified slightly, but itis extremely quick to use. Figure 10.19 gives the basis of design Horizontal force resolution on span GB, coupled with determination of moment equilibrium about B for span GB, leads to the anchor tie force, F. For the point of zero shear force between 4 and B, the maximum bending ‘moment is calculated. The depth of penetration is fixed at 43%, of the supported height af Example calculation 10.5 For the same profil as used in te ree earth support example, calculate the necessary depth of embedment by the fixed earth support method. For this depth of embedment caleulate the force and maximum bending moment inthe sheets Data ower gre prion net MoD ae 3 Be eer i ito SRE : 8 Siye@ | Saye Passe se Aste side Wal sobjeted to vibration SHEET-PILE WALLS fective strength parameters Levels Soil esrption GN) CaNim)__eeares) above pound 18 tod Loose ne san, 1 ° 2 below ground Fy tof Firm to stl eay, 2 ts s Fiog _Demegrn z a 234 uG 233 ‘The active and passive pressures for this case have already been calculated, using factor of safety of 2 on the passive presure coefcients, atthe end of chapter & “The factor of safety for Sm embedment was 3.44 by the fee earth support method. Rworking the results fora factor of safety of uni sw blow, = oe we S| piso an / oo dh we 2 Caleulae the force at A “Taking the assumption that the point of contra flexure i at point N Ft Pym OE + 8D 10% HBT + 143) x10 $4143 +340) 15 Ro +4040 +359) x05 4086+ 460) «20 + YOu 432) x20 S94 11443624174 +86 4343 = 1899 KN/m Ror ‘he total net pressure diagram is [PARTH. PRESSURF AND FARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES 10 10 10 — 3110 Bray 7 mS 48710010 102 143-07 x Pact 41143-8772 10 1s 4143 x1s(104!8 vax ts(104!S) 0-14 ) +4840 ~ 1439460 -20-3 x 15) 04-35-84) +4855 ~340)4.60~35~3 05) x1 08 | raw —an6y u's! 1 3862S os a6) BP BE 9621460 ~ 1.0) 223435543964 236 4144403469 +0.13- 1659 Example calculation 106 4 Data Lol MoD ¢ = 60 of sheet 15 5 = 2023kNm/m Rn of wall 236 [EARTH PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES. Levels Sol desiption ‘Bulk unit weight é Nie (aegee) ate Looe sity and 20 20 tod Dene sand Ey » Earthpressure coofcents Assume 6, = 1,3, 3, and use a factor of safety of 2 on K,, Soll eype Active ide Passive side 1. Loose sity sand K,=0301 Table B2 2 Dense sand K, 50.200 3 Tables B2 and BS Earth pressures Atlevelan Alleveli: ¢,= 10 200=200 N/m? uno = 200kNim? = 200 « 0301 = 6OkN/m? = 60kNim* Aleve: Active side (0x 20= MOOKN im? = 60 « 10 = ¢0.0kNim* 17, 1400 ~ 600 800KN jm? Ti loose sity sand 10.0 0301 = 241 kN? In dense sand = 800% 0200 160kN jm? Passive side Atleveld: Active side ‘a, 1400 4-200’ kien? = 600 + L0D'kNim* 1780.04 10D'kN/m? @° =0.200(800 + 100) =160-420°EN/a Pasive side 4, = 600+ 20D°kNim? 10D kN im? 105 x 10D" = 1080 kN/m* SHEET-PILE WALLS 237 f__, 2 [Net total pressure diagram = Peo = 015m (Zero net 1030) presse pot) Determine the force for anchor, Fy 10 (60+ 244) 2) Pet Fy 60x12 OOF 69 Ria) Fat Fy OOK TH ous +1600 Fpt Fy= 3049004 12 = 942 kN)? 00x! +(™ =89) 682015) +160%° 5 z 3 x outs 3 ~615F, 20 1945 4 1134+ 1161 +012~1615F,=0 Fg 40.5kN/m Run — Increase by 10%, 10 allow fot horizontal arching. F, Fy=942— 486 = 49.7 EN/m Run i406 km Run Dermine deth of enbednent, D (0 -01s)/ 9-018 mG oro -r9x(228)(2™4) 9.700015) 238 [EARTHE PRESSURE AND EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES 1030? —3145D'—2958=0 Solving the quadratic equation D’= 1.85m Required depth of penetration = 1.2 x 1.85 +031 = 2.5m (36% of ‘supported height) Determining maximum bending moment [At 4m below ground level 60% 10 SF 2405 - (cosa ass 5) 50 2 304405 —316=59kNim Run AC45m below ground level 604604065/5004 = (2202830024160) 96 115 ~39.5 = ~20KN/m Run enth of maximim hending moment ey roses ta ev 18 level Maximum bending moment 19, = 60% 8437-2 x 10) yaa} x19) (een 3 ceomgen) FHI 1365441 +192 = 71k Kon o) 1043 Design of anchor systems In order to provide support for a sheet-pile wall, itis necessary to design tie rod, anchor and connections. Failure of shect-pile walls commonly results cither from failure ofthe tie rod, or of the anchor itself, bu it may also result from poor detailing in the anchor system. SHEET-PILE WALLS 239 ‘The tie force calculated from either the fixed or the free earth support ‘method is normally inereased to allow for (i) the application of unforeseen surcharges (i) unequal yield of anchors, leading to horizontal arching between anchors (ii) the catastrophic consequences of the failure of any single anchor While CP2 suggests that the tie force should be increased by 10%, other sourees indicate much greater values. Teng (1962) and the USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual (USSI, 1975) suggest that the tie rod force calculated by the free earth support method should be increased by 30%, for the tie rod itself, while splices and other places where stress concentrations may occur should be designed for a SO-100% increase. On this basis Ty b (1 + f/100) Tees where Ty is the earth support value of anchor force (per metre run), isthe horizontal spacing of the anchor tie rods, fis the % increase (30) ‘and 2 is the inclination of the tie rod to the horizontal ‘At the sheet piling, the connection between the tie bar and the sheets is normally made via a wale, which often consists of two steel channel sections ; t igee 1020 Typical wale and anchor ro deta (USGL, 1975) 240 [EARTH PRESS FE AND PARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES. bolted together back to back over the tie rod. In most cases this will be located above the high-water table. Ti rods are often spaced at about 3m centres. Figure 10.20 shows a typical layout given by the USS Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual, using an inside wale. Outside wales are structurally better, but are not normally used because they prevent a clear outside face Wales are designed as single-span simply supported beams, with a maximum bending moment of }.T.b?. Attention should be paid to the design of details such as the washer on the anchor wale Possible anchor systems are shown in Figure 810. A common form of anchor isthe deadman, which usually consists of eonerete blocks or cont tous euntiete beams. This type of anchor fs most sultable fOr instal relatively good ground Available resistance of deadman anchors. Ifthe wall or block does not extend to ground level, as is commonly the case to allow the installation of services, it may still be considered for the purposes of calculation to extend to ground level, provided H,/H > § (Figure 10.21 (a). If this condition is not met, then wma Loa wnat SVs! ‘etre arom Joe (0) Poon of anchor anve 0 wat Figure 1021 Geomety of anchor blocks or beams, SHEET-PILE WALLS 2a it must be designed using bearing capacity theory (Smith, 1957), or Krebs- ‘Ovesen's method (Krebs-Ovesen, 1964). For an anchor beam .\ ( a,)s where F 2, B = centre to centre spacing of ties. , and Q, are the passive and active total forces onthe front and back ote beam, The passive force Q, can only inchude wall ition ithe implied ‘ertical forcescan be resisted by the wall Rowe and Peaker (1965) zecommend that o be taken as zero, For anchor blocks, side friction is included inthe passive 2one @, ) tan gt r=(2—0, \5+20,0% (¢ 0, )B+ 209 where Q, =7H1/6.Ko.tan(45 + 6/2) for a granular soil. ‘The use of cohesive soil is not recommended in front of anchors. CP2 (1951) uses K, in this equation, It also notes, very logically that Blocks should not provide more anchorage than a continuous beam of the same height. Geometry, The position of attachment ofthe tie to the anchor block should be at the centre of net pressure (ie, ifthe beam were fo go to the surface, it ‘would be at $of the beam height). Ifthe beam does not extend to the surface, the connection should be made at between H/3 and H/2 from the base of the block. ‘The connection should be detailed so as to avoid moment transfer from the beam to the anchor tendon should differential settlement oceur. This ‘may mean using washers on a threaded bar, in which case attention should be paid to detailing of each component in order to prevent the anchor tendon from pulling through the block. ‘Anchor blocks and beams must be set well back from the wall to avoid ‘overlap of the active zone (behind the wall) with the passive zone (in front ‘of the block). Agcording to CP2 (1951), for walls driven to give end fixity, X= {01+ While for free-ended walls (Figure 10.21(b)) X=(H4D) [f wall friction is used on either the active back of the wall or the passive front ‘of the anchor block or beam this assumption will be on the unsafe side since the rupture surfaces will be curved. In addition, the factor of safety of a failure surface involving the wall and the anchor should also be checked (see Figure 10.21) If the pressure on space demands that the anchors are so close 1c Rankine cones overlap, « reduction of available anchor to the wall that 242 [EARTH PRESSURE AND FARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES Figure 1022 Redtionin availble anchor reste for anchors plied closet the wall force must be made. Terzaghi (1943) recommends a reduction of (Py ~ Pa (see Figure 10.22) where P, and P, are the passive and active forces on the vertical plane ab, obtained from the effective Rankine pressures on that plane If additional resistance is needed the tie may be sloped down (away from the wall) by up 10 10". The soil in which the anchor is embedded should preferably be well-compacted clean granular fill. If there is soft compressible soil beneath the ties, they should either be placed in a duct or supported on piles approximately every 3m along their length. Self settlement of the surrounding soil can otherwise lead to un- expected increases in tie forces, and subsequently to tie failure. If there is a layer of soft clay at or below dredge level it may be necessary to use an ‘A-frame anchor (see Figure 8.10), in order to ensure overall stability, 11. Excavation support ‘The excavation of ground, for example to allow the construction of basements for new buildings, is a commonplace activity in inner city arcas, where land is at a premium. In these areas itis normally necessary to provide a support system, in order to minimize the amount of excavation and to ensure that adjacent property is not damaged. Thus the analysis of such an excavation should pay particular attention to ©

    You might also like