Dissertation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/301771743
A Novel Cantilever Support System Feasibility Study Using Numerical

Methods
Research · May 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4446.8083
CITATION READS
1 1,107
1 author:
Daniel Gilmore
University of Leeds
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Gilmore on 02 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

School of
Civil Engineering
CIVE3709
Individual Research Project Dissertation
A Novel Cantilever Support System Feasibility Study

Using Numerical Methods
By
Daniel Martin Gilmore

Daniel Gilmore A Novel Cantilever Support System Feasibility CIVE3709
Study Using Numerical Methods
Dedication
In the writing of this report I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Raul Fuentes for the help
and guidance provided. I would also like to thanks my family and friends for their support
and guidance
1 – Abstract
This report is a feasibility study into using a novel type of Cantilever retaining wall using
arches. To evaluate the impact of the arches on a Cantilever wall many factors have been
looked at using 3D finite element modelling. Also, the feasibility of using such a structure has
been evaluated through looking at the potential design process, constructability and
economics to obtain an optimal solution. This report found that the arched Cantilever wall
provides a reduction in displacements both on the wall and behind the excavation compared to
a Cantilever wall. The design is also potentially cost effective against a propped Cantilever
wall. However this comes at the expense of greater land take and increased bending moments
in the wall. There are still uncertainties into the actual theory of the structure and the
interaction of the capping beam and the wall which need to be researched.
II
Table of Contents
Dedication .............................................................................................................................II
1 – Abstract ...........................................................................................................................II
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... VI
List of Tables....................................................................................................................... IX
List of Abbreviations and Symbols ...................................................................................XIII
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... XIII
Symbols ............................................................................................................................. XIII
Latin alphabet ................................................................................................................ XIII
Greek alphabet................................................................................................................ XV
2 - Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 – Cantilever Walls............................................................................................................ 1
2.2 - Theory of arches ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3 - Review of the Design and Construction of Cantilever Retaining Walls ....................... 6
2.3.1 - Current processes and methods of design............................................................... 6
2.3.2 – Construction technique of Cantilever Walls .......................................................... 9
2.3.3 – Construction Technique of Circular Cantilever walls.......................................... 11
2.3.4 – Actual Behaviour of Cantilever Walls ................................................................. 11
2.3.5 – Actual Behaviour of Propped Cantilever walls.................................................... 13
2.4 - Aims and Objectives .................................................................................................... 15
3 - Initial Research .............................................................................................................. 16
3.1 - Earth Forces ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 - Arch Forces and Reactions .......................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 - Linear Arch Geometry .......................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 - Parabolic Arch Geometry ..................................................................................... 19
3.2.3 - Vertical Reaction Force ........................................................................................ 20

III
3.2.4 - Horizontal Reaction Force .................................................................................... 20
3.2.5 - Linear Arch Forces on wall................................................................................... 22
3.2.6 - Parabolic Arch forces on wall............................................................................... 24
3.2.7 – Deflection ............................................................................................................. 26
3.2.8 - Volume of Excavated material.............................................................................. 28
3.3- Initial Research Results................................................................................................. 28
3.3.1 – Geometry.............................................................................................................. 28
3.3.2 – Moment, shear forces and axial forces................................................................. 30
3.3.3 – Deflections ........................................................................................................... 31
3.3.4 – Volume of Excavated Material ............................................................................ 32
3.3.5 – Impact on changes in span ................................................................................... 33
3.4 - Capping beam theory ................................................................................................... 34
3.4.1 - Interaction of the pre-stressing force and the capping beam ................................ 35
3.4.2 - Earth Pressures...................................................................................................... 36
3.4.3 – Other Effects ........................................................................................................ 36
4 – Initial PLAXIS 3D Models ........................................................................................... 37
4.1 - Models used ................................................................................................................. 37
4.2 - Results of models......................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 - Horizontal Displacement of wall .......................................................................... 46
4.2.2 - Bending Moments in the wall ............................................................................... 52
4.2.3 - Settlement behind excavation ............................................................................... 55
4.2.4 - Capping Beam....................................................................................................... 58
4.2.5 – Heave in the Excavation....................................................................................... 61
5 - Detailed PLAXIS 3D Models ........................................................................................ 62
5.1 - Detailed models methods............................................................................................. 63
5.2 - Results of detailed models ........................................................................................... 67

IV
5.2.1 - Horizontal displacement ....................................................................................... 68
5.2.2 - Bending Moments................................................................................................. 70
5.2.3 - Displacement behind the excavation .................................................................... 72
5.2.4 – Capping Beam ...................................................................................................... 73
6 - Discussion on use and Characteristics ........................................................................... 75
6.1 – Design Process and constructability............................................................................ 75
6.2 – Economics ................................................................................................................... 77
6.3 – Use in Construction projects ....................................................................................... 78
6.4 – Optimal solution.......................................................................................................... 78
7 - Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 79
8 - References...................................................................................................................... 81
Bibliography........................................................................................................................ 86
Appendixes.......................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix 1 - Original Aims and Objectives ........................................................................ 87
Appendix 2 - Initial Research............................................................................................... 88
Appendix 3 - Initial Models ................................................................................................. 94
Appendix 4 - Detailed Models ........................................................................................... 135
Appendix 5 – Economics ................................................................................................... 150
V
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 – The earth pressures acting on a retaining wall. Source: Knappett J. A. and Craig
R. F. 2012. ............................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2.2 – The relationship between earth pressures and horizontal movement. Source:
Terzaghi K, 1954................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2.3 – A propped Cantilever wall (using secant piles). Source: CMCS Ltd, 2001..... 3
Figure 2.4 - The mechanics and different types of arches. ................................................... 5
Figure 2.5 – The comparison of bending moments predicted used limit equilibrium and finite
element analysis for WIP models. Source: O’Brien A. S, 2010. .......................................... 8
Figure 2.6 – A Top Down Construction Sequence. Source: Deep Excavation LLC, 2015.10
Figure 2.7 – The Bottom Up Construction Sequence. Source: Railsystem.Net, 2015. ...... 11
Figure 2.8 – The different Cantilever walls and their deformation behaviour. Source: Long M,
2001b................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.9 – Displacement profile of a propped Cantilever wall for the National Gallery
Extension. Source: Long M. 2001a..................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.10 – The relationship between horizontal displacement and system stiffness for
propped Cantilever walls where h < 0.6H. Source: Long M. 2001b. ................................. 14
Figure 2.11 – The Relationship between horizontal displacement and excavation depth for
propped Cantilever walls where h > 0.6H. Source: Long M. 2001b. ................................. 14
Figure 3.1 – the geometry of a linear arch. ......................................................................... 17
Figure 3.2 – The geometry of a parabolic arch. .................................................................. 19
Figure 3.3 – The Detailed Geometry of the Linear Arch. ................................................... 22
Figure 3.4 – The Detailed Geometry of the Parabolic Arch. .............................................. 24
Figure 3.5 - The profile of a linear and parabolic arch, with an arch rise of 2m and a length of
15m...................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3.6 – The diagrams for the Axial and shear force and bending moment for an arch rise
of 2m. .................................................................................................................................. 31
VI
Figure 3.7 – The amount of additional material required to be excavated for different arch
rises...................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.8 - The variation of the reaction force and the maximum deflection (using the linear
arch equations) as the span of the arch differs. ................................................................... 34
Figure 3.9 – The force and stress diagrams for a stiff capping beam for a secant pile wall.35
Figure 4.1 - The Connectivity Plot for model 1 .................................................................. 38
Figure 4.2 - The Connectivity Plot for model 2 .................................................................. 39
Figure 4.3 - The Connectivity Plot for model 5 (note: blue arrows are locations of prestressing
on arch)................................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 4.4 - The percentage difference between straight and arched Cantilever walls over
depth (note: Difference is compared to the normal Cantilever wall). ................................. 46
Figure 4.5 - Showing the percentage difference between the maximum horizontal
displacements for a 1m and 2m arch rise (note: difference compared to 1m arch rise)...... 47
Figure 4.6 - Normalised horizontal displacement for models 4 and 5. ............................... 48
Figure 4.7 - Normalised horizontal displacement for models 6 and 7. ............................... 48
Figure 4.8 - The relative shear stress for a cross section through the middle of the excavation
for model 6 (a) and model 5 (b) with an excavation depth of 20m..................................... 49
Figure 4.9 - Comparison of case studies of Cantilever walls against results of models. Source:
Long M. 2001b.................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.10 - The horizontal displacement for the straight and arched profiles from model 2.
Note (a) and (c) are for an excavation depth of 8m and (b) and (d) are for an excavation depth
of 20m. ................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 4.11 - The percentage difference between a straight and arched Cantilever wall for
moments in the z-z and x-x direction (note: difference is compared to a normal wall for
models 1-3 and to a 1m arch rise for model 4).................................................................... 52
Figure 4.12 - Showing bending moments in the z-z direction for the wall for 10m for model 2.
............................................................................................................................................. 53
VII
Figure 4.13 – The Bending moments in the x-x direction for a straight wall with an excavation
depth of 20m........................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 4.14 - Vertical displacement behind the excavation wall for different arch rises (with
and without prestress) and Cantilever wall types................................................................ 56
Figure 4.15 - Vertical displacement behind the excavation wall for the different types of
prestress and no prestress for an arch rise of 1m................................................................. 56
Figure 4.17 - Horizontal displacements behind the excavation for different prestresses for a
2m arch rise. ........................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 4.18 – The bending moment diagram of the capping beam for the arch on PLAXIS 3D.
............................................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 4.19 - The maximum heave in the excavation against excavation depth. ............... 62
Figure 5.1 - The Connectivity Plot for Detailed Model 1. .................................................. 64
Figure 5.2 - The Connectivity Plot for Detailed Model 2. .................................................. 64
Figure 5.3 - The Geometry of the Detailed Models. ........................................................... 65
Figure 5.4 - The normalised horizontal displacements for the detailed models (note: P =
Prestress force applied, NP = No prestress force applied). ................................................. 69
Figure 5.5 - Comparison of the normalised horizontal displacements against literature Source:
Long M, 2001b.................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 5.6 - The vertical displacement behind the excavations for the National Gallery
Models................................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 5.7 - The horizontal displacement behind the excavations for the National Gallery
Models................................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 5.8– The maximum deflection of the capping beam. .............................................. 74
VIII
List of Tables
Table 3.1 - The radius of a linear arch compared to its arch rise for an arch with a 15m length.
............................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 3.2 - The maximum moments, axial force and shear forces for different arch rises. 30
Table 3.3 - The comparison between the equations used to calculate maximum deflection for
linear and parabolic arches. ................................................................................................. 32
Table 4.1 – Models considered for initial models............................................................... 38
Table 4.2 – London Clay properties (modelled as Mohr Coulomb, using undrained B
parameters). ......................................................................................................................... 41
Table 4.3 - Granular Soil Properties.................................................................................... 42
Table 4.4 - Cantilever Wall Properties (modelled as a linear elastic wall). ........................ 42
Table 4.5 - Capping Beam Properties (modelled as a linear elastic beam)......................... 42
Table 4.6 - The prestressing forces used for model 5. ........................................................ 44
Table 4.7 - The prestressing forces used in model 6........................................................... 45
Table 4.8 - The Percentage Difference between no prestress and the prestress average (model
4 and 5)................................................................................................................................ 55
Table 4.9 - Maximum deflection of capping beam (using 22° for the angle of resistance for the
active earth pressures). ........................................................................................................ 59
Table 4.10 - Maximum moments of the capping beam (Mmax)........................................... 60
4 and 5)................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 5.1 - The properties used in the detailed models....................................................... 65
Prestress force applied, NP = No prestress force applied). ................................................. 69
Table 5.2 - the percentage difference between bending moments of the wall and beam.... 71
Table 5.3 - The percentage difference between no prestressing and prestressing. ............. 71
IX
Table 5.4 - The percentage difference between bending moments and axial forces of the
beam. ................................................................................................................................... 75
Table 6.1 – The additional cost due to the arch. ................................................................. 77
Table A2.1 – The Co-ordinates for a linear and parabolic arch. ......................................... 89
Table A2.2 – The Bending Moment, Axial and Shear force Data. ..................................... 90
Table A2.3 – The additional volume excavated for a Parabolic and linear arch. ............... 91
Table A2.4 – The Impact on reaction force and maximum deflection due to changes in span.
............................................................................................................................................. 92
Table A3.1 – Model 1 Wall displacement data. .................................................................. 94
Table A3.2 – Model 2 Wall displacement data. .................................................................. 95
Table A3.3 - Model 3 Wall displacement data.................................................................... 95
Table A3.8 - Model 1 Wall displacement comparison...................................................... 100
Table A3.9 - Model 2 Wall displacement comparison...................................................... 101
Table A3.10 - Models 1and 2 Wall displacement comparison. ........................................ 101
Table A3.11 – Model 3 Wall displacement comparison. .................................................. 102
Table A3.12 – Models 2 and 3 Wall displacement comparison........................................ 102
Table A3.13 – Model 4 Wall displacement comparison. .................................................. 103
Table A3.14 - Model 5 Wall displacement comparison.................................................... 104
X
Table A3.19 – Model 1 Bending Moment and Axial Force data. ..................................... 111
Table A3.24 – Model 1 bending moment and axial force comparison. ............................ 117
Table A3.28 – Model 2 vertical displacements behind excavation data for 12m excavation
depth. ................................................................................................................................. 120
depth. ................................................................................................................................. 121
depth for 1m arch rise........................................................................................................ 123
Table A3.32 – Model 2 horizontal displacements behind excavation data for 12m excavation
depth. ................................................................................................................................. 128
depth. ................................................................................................................................. 133
Table A3.36 – The maximum heave in excavation data. .................................................. 134
Table A3.37 – The maximum heave in the excavation for model 5 data. ........................ 134
XI
Table A4.1 – The Long term soil properties of London Clay........................................... 135
Table A4.2 – Detailed Model 1 wall displacement data. .................................................. 136
Table A4.3 – Detailed model 2 wall displacement data.................................................... 136
Table A4.4 – Detailed Model 1 Bending moment and axial force data............................ 137
Table A4.5 – Detailed Model 2 Bending moment and axial force data............................ 138
Table A4.6 – Detailed Model 1 Vertical displacement behind excavation for 10m excavation
depth. ................................................................................................................................. 139
depth and 1m arch rise. ..................................................................................................... 141
depth and 2m arch rise. ..................................................................................................... 142
Table A4.9 – Detailed Model 1 horizontal displacement behind excavation for 10m
excavation depth................................................................................................................ 144
excavation depth and a 1m arch rise. ................................................................................ 146
excavation depth and a 2m arch rise. ................................................................................ 147
Table A4.12 – Maximum Capping beam displacement data. ........................................... 149
Table A5.1 – The Additional cost of an arched Cantilever wall....................................... 150
XII
List of Abbreviations and Symbols
Abbreviations
FEM = Finite element modelling or model

NA = Not applicable
NP = No prestress force applied
P = Prestress force applied
SLS = Serviceability limit state
UDL = Uniformly distributed load
ULS = Ultimate limit State
WIP = Wished in place
Symbols
Latin alphabet
A = Area of the capping beam

C’ = The effective cohesive strength
Cu = Cohesive undrained shear strength
D = Depth of Cantilever wall
dwater = Depth of water table to point considered
E = Modulus of elasticity
e0 = Voids ratio of soil or object considered
G = Shear modulus
K = Permeability for soil or object considered
K0 = Earth pressure at rest coefficient
Ka = Active earth pressure coefficient
I = The second moment of area of the segment considered
L = Length or span of arch
ത = The lever arm from the centre of the UDL to the point considered
‫ܮ‬
M = The moment of the point considered
XIII
MApprox = The approximate solution to Mw

MActual = The actual solution to Mw
MEst = The approximate moment
Mw = The bending moment due to the earth forces
Mmax z-z = The maximum moment value in the vertical direction
Mmax x-x = The maximum moment in the horizontal direction
Ms = The moment due to the vertical reaction
N = Axial force of the point considered
Nmax = The maximum axial force on a structure
q = warch
r = Radius of arch
ܴത = Lever arm from centre of the load considered to the point considered
R = The total reaction force
RF = Failure ratio
RH = The horizontal reaction force
Rinter = The interface ratio for the soil or object considered
Rv = The vertical reaction force
S = The length of the arch from the point considered to the left hand support
SF = The shear force at the point considered
V = Volume of soil required to be removed
Warch = W
warch = The UDL placed on the arch due to the horizontal earth force
x = The distance in the x direction from the left hand support
y = The ‘height’ of the point from the supports
ymax = Arch Rise
XIV
Greek alphabet
α = The angle of the segment from the straight line between the two supports
β = The angle between the left hand support and the point considered from the centre of
rotation
γ1 = The angle between the gradient of the point and the x axis
γ2 = The angle between the x axis and the tangent at the centre of the UDL for the segment
considered
γ = Unit weight of soil or object considered
γsoil = Density of soil
γwater = Density of water
δ = The displacement at the crown
θ = The angle between the two supports
λ = Arch rise parameter
σ’v = Normal effective stress at a depth d
υ = Poisson’s Ratio of material or soil considered
Ф = Angle of Resistance for the soil
XV
2 - Introduction
2.1 – Cantilever Walls
Cantilever walls are part of a family of retaining walls which support the soil to unnatural, and
if not supported unstable angles (typically vertically). Cantilever walls work similarly to what
is shown in figure 1.1 where the embedded depth is used to resist the overturning moments
through the passive and active earth pressures. Cantilever walls like the one shown in figure
1.1 tend to be used in the construction of deep basements for buildings and for embankments.
This report will focus on using Cantilever walls in deep basements. As the height increases,
the displacements and bending moments in the wall also increases requiring a deeper
embedded depth and a thicker wall to provide equilibrium and to resist the higher bending
moments. This limits typical unsupported Cantilever walls tend to be in the range of 2-8m
with 12m being the maximum with a maximum economic depth of around 10m (Long M,
2001b) (Prieto-Portar L, 2008). This report will only focus on Cantilever walls like that
shown in figure 2.1 and not the Cantilever wall with a strip footing at the base.
D
H
Embedded depth
Figure 2.1 – The earth pressures acting on a retaining wall. Source: Knappett J. A. and Craig
R. F. 2012.
1
Active earth pressures are the horizontal stresses caused by walls which deflect away from the
soil, i.e. for the Cantilever wall supporting the soil at the top of the excavation, and passive
earth pressures are caused when the soil is being compacted by the wall, there is also at rest
earth pressures caused when the wall doesn’t move to a significant degree to activate either
(Knappett J. A. and R. F. Craig. 2012). The relationship between movement and stress is
shown in figure 2.2, as shown in the figure the passive earth pressure is the highest horizontal
pressure and active is the lowest in terms of magnitude.
Figure 2.2 – The relationship between earth pressures and horizontal movement. Source:
Terzaghi K, 1954.
Beyond an excavation depth of around 10m, most Cantilever walls tend to be propped as
shown in figure 2.3, propped Cantilever walls are in structure the same as Cantilever walls,
except with a prop applied to the structure to limit the deflection. Props can support
excavations for a variety of different depths mainly between 10-25m (Long M, 2001b). Whilst
props have advantages such as reducing the maximum deflection in the wall they also have
disadvantages such as increasing the cost of the wall and also pose safety and access
problems. The safety and access problems are because props are typically placed at the top of
the wall across the excavation as shown in figure 2.3, this can pose risks to the operatives
below due to the risks of removal and the risk of collapse and also restricts the access of plant
to the excavation. With these problems, any method of construction or type of construction
2
which can remove the props, providing it is economical and can reduce the displacements of
the wall and soil behind the wall it could be very beneficial to the construction of basements.
Figure 2.3 – A propped Cantilever wall (using secant piles). Source: CMCS Ltd, 2001.
One proposed solution to remove the props is to construct the Cantilever wall in a shape of an
arch and also potentially provide a pre-stressing force through a capping beam on top of the
wall. This in theory should provide a reaction force similar to a propping force and reduce the
maximum deflection compared to a Cantilever wall, whilst improving the safety and access to
the excavation compared to a propped Cantilever wall by making the props redundant. This
research project looked at the behaviour and feasibility of this form of construction by
investigating the mechanics of the arch and then by looking at the construction process and
the cost effectiveness of the structure compared to propped and unpropped Cantilever walls.
3
2.2 - Theory of arches
The arch is one of the three main structural theories (along with frames and beam and column
structures). An arch works by transmitting the forces placed on the structure through its ring
as shown in figure 2.4, if the ring is well designed will place the ring into compression, and
will reduce the maximum deflection compared to a straight beam. However there are some
drawbacks of arches such as require a large lateral restraint and, also they are a larger
structure than a beam structure (in the direction opposing to the span).
There are 3 different types of arches; a fixed arch, a two hinged arch and a three pinned arch
all of which are shown in figure 2.4 (Gambhir M. L. 2011). The fixed arch is an arch which is
supported by two fixed supports making it statically indeterminate to the order of 3 (a), a two
hinged arch is supported by pinned supports so is statically indeterminate to the order of 1 (b)
which has been shown to be stiffer over longer distances than the fixed arch (Dym, C et al.
2011). The three pinned arch uses pinned supports at its end and at the mid-point of the span,
this makes the structure statically determinate (c). For this project it was initially envisaged
that a support in the mid-span would be complex and difficult to construct and the wall would
be initially supported in the horizontal direction by a hydraulic jacks so a two hinged arch was
the most appropriate choice.
4
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2.4 - The mechanics and different types of arches.
For the shape of the arch itself there are many different shapes all of which have different
behaviours, advantages and disadvantages. Looking at uses of arches in civil engineering
projects, in particular bridge and dam construction, the two most common types of arches are
linear (arch of constant radius) arch which is mainly used in dams (Youssef T. F. [No date])
and a parabolic (an arch linked to a quadratic equation) arch which is mainly used for bridges
(Melbourne C. 2008). The parabolic and linear arches were chosen, and compared to see
which arch shape will give the optimal solution (this is discussed in section 3.2.1).
5
2.3 - Review of the Design and Construction of Cantilever Retaining Walls
To be able to compare the arched Cantilever wall to an unpropped and propped Cantilever
wall in terms of design, construction and behaviour, a current review of propped and
unpropped Cantilever walls needs to be undertaken. Also to help propose a construction
technique for the arch, a review of the construction technique of circular walls has been done.
2.3.1 - Current processes and methods of design
The current processes for design for Cantilever walls use a variety of written and computer
methods. Most design methods for propped and unpropped Cantilever walls design for
Ultimate Limit State design (ULS) first and then calculate the Serviceability limit state design
(SLS) (Knappett J. A. Craig R. F., 2012). There are also other methods of design such as the
observational method design which allows for the construction of structures with low factors
of safety providing that there is a fall back design with a higher factor of safety and that the
structure is constantly monitored, this form of design process is becoming more common in
the construction industry (Yeow H and Feltham I, 2008), however this report will look at the
former method of design.
Ultimate limit state design is the design of the structure to withstand a factor of safety in the
case of overloading or accidental loading. The factors involved in ULS design are bending
moments, shear forces, overturning and buckling. For Serviceability Limit state design, the
design is mainly focused on the appearance of the structure. The factors in SLS are mainly
deflection, cracking and durability (Mosley B. et al, 2012)
For computer methods, programmes such as PLAXIS 3D, PLAXIS 2D, CRISP and SAFE are
used. These can calculate both ULS and SLS design through using finite element modelling
(FEM) where the soil behaviour is simplified into a series of nodes connected to each other by
bars, these FEM programmes are now commonly used but some have been showed to be very
conservative particularly in predicting horizontal displacements as shown in figure 2.9 (Long
M, 2001a).
6
The written methods or limit equilibrium method for ULS design are, according to Craig’s
Soil Mechanics the calculation of the earth pressures using rankings theory, Coulomb’s theory
or Terzaghi and Peck design charts (Knappett J. A. and Craig R. F. 2012). Other key
references used by designers are; CIRIA C580 (Gaba el al, 2013), BS8002 (British Standards
Institution, 1994) and the Piling Handbook (Arcelor Mittal, 2008) (Anderson, S. 2012). The
ULS design of Cantilever walls must be checked for different failure mechanisms, such as
“Loss of overall stability, Pull-out of anchorage, rotational failure, lack of vertical equilibrium
and structural failure of wall or support system” (Pickles A, 2012. Page 990). For SLS design
the main factor is the deflection or displacement of the wall and the soil behind the
excavation, to predict the wall movements design charts such as Clough and O’Rourke or
Peck design charts are used (Clough and O’Rourke, 1990) (Peck, 1969).
For the calculation of the Propped Cantilever wall, the methods are similar to the Cantilever
wall. The only additional calculation for a propped Cantilever wall is of the prop forces and
its impact on the structure. These calculations can be very difficult to do so by written
methods as the system becomes statically indeterminate after 1 prop, for multiple props there
are some simplified techniques have been proposed such as the equivalent tie support method
and the subgrade reaction support method. These methods make simplifications such as
ignoring the soil-structure interaction or assume limit equilibrium. These methods have been
compared to a FEM model and found to give more conservative values, but however the
limitations to each of the methods which have to be looked at before designing with these
methods (Carrubba P and Colonna P, 2000).
The design of the Cantilever wall must take into account the construction technique, this was
shown in studies looking at the effects of construction on a FEM model. This applies
particularly for FEM, which showed that for wished in place (WIP) walls, where the
construction sequence isn’t modelled and instead the wall is simply placed into the model, the
earth pressures were higher than what were predicted using current limit equilibrium methods
and the actual earth pressures obtained by the monitoring of excavations. Modelling WIP
walls also resulted in higher predicted bending moments as shown in figure 2.5 which
resulted in uneconomic designs (O’Brien A. S, 2010) (Gunn and Clayton, 1992). The effect
of the construction technique was also shown to be the case for Propped Cantilever retaining
7
walls, particularly for the prop forces and the forces placed on the permanent supports after
construction (Richards D J and Powrie W, 1994). When the construction technique is
modelled in the Finite Element Model the results for both the wall and props appear to be
similar to that predicted by the written methods (O’Brien A. S, 2010) (Carrubba P and
Colonna P, 2000). However for displacements when 2D finite element models are used they
can overestimate the settlements by a considerable factor as shown for the National Gallery
Extension in London and other case studies (where it displacements have been over predicted
by 80% in some cases), where 3D effects of excavation could of played a role in reducing the
displacements (Long M. 2001a).
Figure 2.5 – The comparison of bending moments predicted used limit equilibrium and finite
element analysis for WIP models. Source: O’Brien A. S, 2010.
Based on the settlements of Cantilever walls some authors state that the design of Cantilever
retaining walls is too conservative, using real world case studies it appears that the settlement
is independent of the system stiffness (Long M, 2001b). This lack of relationship with
stiffness and settlement was also discovered by Goh (1993) who through Finite Element
Modelling (FEM) discovered that with different wall stiffness’s the behaviour of the
horizontal earth pressures (which are proportional to settlements) remained the same (A.T.C
Goh, 1993). However, this paper looked at Cantilever walls with a base so that behaviour
may be different for Cantilever walls discussed in this report. King (1995) also supports the
idea that Cantilever sheet-pile walls in cohesion less soils (like sand) are designed
conservatively and proposed a new design method that takes into account the depth of all the
8
sheet pile, based on laboratory experiments. This method gave lower bending moments and
higher critical depths than the current design methods (CIRIA report no. 104) and (Bowles,
1988) (King G. K. W. 1995).
2.3.2 – Construction technique of Cantilever Walls
The construction technique and sequence of Cantilever walls depends on many factors such as
use of props, construction of superstructure and the type of wall used. This report will outline
the main different approaches to constructing the wall and the advantages and disadvantages
of the methods.
For the Cantilever wall, the main factors that affect the construction technique and process
are; Top Down Construction, Bottom Up Construction and type of wall (Devriendt M, 2012).
Generally, to construct a Cantilever wall, the piles or sheet piles are installed into the ground
to formation level to form a wall, then the ground in the centre of the sheet piles is excavated
to formation level (during the excavation is typically when the props are installed) (Richards
D J and Powrie W, 1994).
The Top Down construction sequence, involves starting the construction sequence of the
superstructure before the excavation and construction of the substructure, this is shown in
figure 2.6. For Top Down construction the sequence is as follows; the walls and columns are
placed into the ground (step a), then the ground floor is constructed (step b), then the
excavation of the substructure is done as the super structure is built (step c). This has many
advantages, such as ground floor beam will act as permanent strut reducing the number of
temporary props also, there is typically lower ground movements during and after the
completion of the building due to the permanent strut (Devriendt M, 2012). There is also the
potential for large time savings, by being able to construct both the super and sub structure at
the same time, (a high-rise in Los Angles had reported savings of 2 months compared to
Bottom Up construction (Thompson J. and Zadoorian C. 2008)). However this technique also
increases the bending moments in the wall (Richards D J and Powrie W, 1994) and also
restricts access to the excavation to a hole in the ground floor slab (as shown in figure 2.6 step
c).
9
Figure 2.6 – A Top Down Construction Sequence. Source: Deep Excavation LLC, 2015.
A Bottom Up construction sequence is the opposite of Top Down Construction. The typical
construction sequence is shown in figure 2.7 which, although for a railway tunnel its sequence
is the same for a basement. The sequence of Top Down construction is that the walls are
inserted into the ground (step 1), the ground is excavated (step 2), and then the super structure
is constructed from the basement up (step 3). This construction allows for greater access to
the excavation and construction of the basement. But this sequence also can use more
temporary props to support the excavation space compared to Top Down construction
(Devriendt M, 2012).
10
Figure 2.7 – The Bottom Up Construction Sequence. Source: Railsystem.Net, 2015.
There are many different forms of wall used for Cantilever walls. The main types used are;
diaphragm walls, secant pile walls, contiguous pile walls, sheet pile walls, combi sheet walls
and soldier pile walls (Fernie R et al, 2012). All of these types of walls have different
construction processes and structural behaviour. All of the types of walls contain a capping
beam on top to help distribute the load from the columns placed on the wall to the wall. These
types of walls are the same for both propped and Cantilever walls. It is beyond the scope of
this paper to go into detail comparing each type of wall although, this report uses diaphragm
walls.
2.3.3 – Construction Technique of Circular Cantilever walls
For circular walls the construction techniques and types of wall are the same as a straight
wall, however there are additional factors that need to be considered. The main factor is the
impact of approximating the circle, this is because the excavating tools in the case of
diaphragm walls are rectangular so a perfect circle isn’t possible, with typical cuts for
diaphragm walls of around 3m (Virollet B et al. [No date]).
2.3.4 – Actual Behaviour of Cantilever Walls
The settlement behaviour of a Cantilever wall is impacted by different mechanisms many of

these are due to construction and design issues, these have been shown through case studies
(Long M. 2001b). Due to the many different combinations and factors affecting settlement,
the settlements on different retaining walls vary widely. For a Cantilever wall as shown in
figure 2.8 (set 4), the maximum horizontal displacements take place at the top of the wall. A
11
database of Cantilever retaining walls showed that the maximum horizontal deflection was
around 0.5% δh/H - ~0% with an average value of 0.36% δh/H (Long M, 2001b).
Figure 2.8 – The different Cantilever walls and their deformation behaviour. Source: Long M,
2001b.
For London Clay (which is the main soil type used for the models used in sections 4 and 5)
the average value for lateral deflection of retaining walls is around 0.17% δh/H (Long M,
2001a) and (Yeow H. C. and Feltham I. 2008). The deflections in the walls lower than the
general trend found from other case studies (Long M. 2001b), this is due to its high modulus
of elasticity which averages around 1250 times the cohesive undrained strength (Yeow H. C.
and Feltham I. 2008).
12
2.3.5 – Actual Behaviour of Propped Cantilever walls
For propped retaining walls, the maximum horizontal displacement of the wall tends to occur
around the middle of the excavation as shown in figure 2.9. Finite element analyses and real-
world data has shown, that there is zero or minimal displacement at the top of the wall, and
lower maximum horizontal displacement but at the expense of higher bending moments in the
wall (Richards D. J and W. Powrie, 1994) and (Long M, 2001b).
Figure 2.9 – Displacement profile of a propped Cantilever wall for the National Gallery
Extension. Source: Long M. 2001a.
For propped Cantilever walls a report by Long (2001b), which looked at a database of real life
case studies divided the data up into three sections as shown in figure 2.8, it was found that
for propped Cantilever walls there is a large scatter of data but found that when h < 0.6H there
is little relationship with system stiffness and excavation depth to displacements (Normalised
lateral settlement) as shown in figure 2.10. When, h > 0.6H there is an inverse relationship
between lateral settlement and excavation depth as shown in figure 2.11. It was proposed that
this was related to improved design methods and construction techniques for deeper
excavations, particularly where lateral settlement can be a problem, the relationship between
13
lateral settlement and system stiffness is also found to be in line with the Clough & O’Rourke
line as shown in figure 2.10 (Clough and O’Rourke, 1990) and (Long M. 2001b).
Figure 2.10 – The relationship between horizontal displacement and system stiffness for
propped Cantilever walls where h < 0.6H. Source: Long M. 2001b.
Figure 2.11 – The Relationship between horizontal displacement and excavation depth for
propped Cantilever walls where h > 0.6H. Source: Long M. 2001b.
14
2.4 - Aims and Objectives
The purpose of this project is to evaluate and investigate the behaviour of the arched
Cantilever and also to see if the wall is feasible in terms of cost, constructability and design
process. Also another purpose is to predict its future use in construction projects. These tasks
were done to achieve the aims listed below:
1. To evaluate the behaviour of an arched Cantilever wall
2. To comment on its feasibility, limitations and potential use of this type of structure
3. To comment on an optimal solution for the arch which gives the best compromise
between design, constructability and cost
These aims will be achieved by (with the aim it relates to):

 Research about arch construction and select one or more different arch types and
calculate reactions, bending moments, shear forces and deflection for a variety of
different types, arch rises and spans using structural mechanics (Aim 1 and 3)
 To create a theory of how the arch interacts (or changes) the theory of a capping beam
and to evaluate its advantages and disadvantages (Aim 1)
 To measure the bending moments, shear and axial forces, deflections and overall
behaviour of the structure using PLAXIS 3D over a variety of different arch rises and
excavation depths and compare it against the theory of the arched capping beam, the
arch values calculated using structural mechanics and a normal ‘straight’ Cantilever
retaining wall using homogenous soil layers and case studies. (Aim 1 and 2)
 To select an arch type for each scenario (Aim 2 and 3)
 Cost the additional expenses/savings of an arched Cantilever wall compared to a
propped Cantilever wall (Aim 2)
 To comment on the feasibility of construction, design and use in construction projects
of both types of arch and comment on the construction process of the arched
Cantilever wall (Aim 2)
15
3 - Initial Research
To predict how the arch is going to behave in PLAXIS 3D, there was some initial research
done into the reaction forces, bending moments, shear forces, axial forces and maximum
deflections in a two pinned arch and how it varied for different lengths and arch rises suing
structural mechanics. The research in this section was primarily aimed predicting the
behaviour of the capping beam which is assumed to provide the main effect of arching. In this
section the words arch and capping beam are used to mean the same.
3.1 - Earth Forces
To find the structural behaviour of the arch, first the horizontal force of the earth that acts on
the capping beam (in the form of a Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL)) needs to be
calculated. The author has used ranking theory, according to Craig’s soil mechanics as shown
in figure 2.1, to calculate the horizontal pressures as it allows for an accurate and simple
calculation of the force (Knappett J. A and Craig R. F. 2012). For the initial research the soil
assumed was sand (a non-cohesive soil) with a Cantilever wall which will move sufficiently
to activate the active earth stress along its whole depth. It is assumed that the arch supports
half the depth of the Cantilever wall, the equation for warch becomes as shown in equation 3.1:
ௗ
‫ ݓ‬௔௥௖௛ = ଶ ݇௔ ߪ′௩ (3.1)
Where:
warch = The UDL placed on the arch due to the horizontal earth force. (KN/m)
஽
݀= ଶ
D = Depth of Cantilever wall (m)

ଵି௦௜௡фᇲ
Ka = Active earth pressure coefficient (݇௔ = )
ଵାୱ୧୬ фᇲ
Ф’ = Angle of Resistance for the soil (degrees) [note: required in radians for excel]
σ’v = Normal effective stress at a depth d (ߪ′௩ = ݀ߛ௦௢௜௟ − ݀௪ ௔௧௘௥ߛ௪ ௔௧௘௥)
γsoil = Density of soil (KN/m3)
γwater = Density of water (KN/m3)
16
dwater = Depth of water table to point considered (m)
For simplicity in future calculations, Warch = W. For the initial research the soil had a ф =
35° (0.61 radians) and the water table was below the excavation so wasn’t considered, this
resulted in warch = 27.4KN/m.
3.2 - Arch Forces and Reactions
This part shall propose equations based on structural mechanics theory and published
literature for the geometry, reaction forces, bending moments, shear forces, axial forces,
deflections and additional amount of soil that would be needed to be excavated compared to a
normal ‘straight’ Cantilever wall.
3.2.1 - Linear Arch Geometry
A linear arch, also known as an arch of constant radius is shown in figure 3.1, as an arch with
constant radius which rotates about a centre of rotation. It is effectively a segment of a circle.
Linear Arch
(Arch rise)
Figure 3.1 – the geometry of a linear arch.
17
To work out the geometry and to evaluate the effect of changing the span and the length
variables like the radius and angle between the two supports had to be worked out in terms of
L and ymax (denoting the span and arch rise respectively). Using this principle the equation for
the radius was worked out using Pythagoras theorem to give equation 3.2:
೗ మ
ቀ ቁ ା௬೘ ೌೣమ
మ
‫=ݎ‬ (3.2)
ଶ௬೘ ೌೣ
Where:
r = Radius of arch
ymax = Arch rise
L = Length or span of arch
To calculate the angle between the two supports looking from the centre of the radius (i.e. the
centre of rotation), the left half of the span was considered and the angle calculated from the
left hand support to the crown and then doubled to get the total angle as shown in equation
3.3:
௥ି௬೘ ೌೣ
ߠ = 2 cos ିଵ ቀ ቁ (3.3)
௥
Where:
θ = The angle between the two supports
To work out the bending moment and shear forces along the arch to understand its behaviour
it was necessary to know the y co-ordinate at a given x co-ordinate, using the equation of a
circle and rearranging the equation was given in equation 3.4:
18
௅ ଶ
‫ݕ = ݕ‬௠ ௔௫ − ‫ݎ‬+ ට ‫ݎ‬ଶ − ቀ‫ ݔ‬− ଶቁ (3.4)
Where:
y = The ‘height’ of the point from the supports
x = The distance in the x direction from the left hand support
3.2.2 - Parabolic Arch Geometry
As shown in figure 3.2 a parabolic arch is an arch which points and rise are determined by a
parabolic equation (typically a quadratic equation) this arch tends to have a smaller surface
area than a linear arch as it tends to have a steeper gradient to reach the crown.
Parabolic Arch
Crown
Figure 3.2 – The geometry of a parabolic arch.
To determine the equation of the arch the X and Y axis where set at the left hand support (see
figure 3.2), this report used a quadratic equation for the arch as it gave the desired shape of an
arch. The equation of the arch used is as shown in equation 3.5:
19
‫ݔܽ = ݕ‬ଶ + ܾ‫ ݔ‬+ ܿ (3.5)
Where:
ିସ௬೘ ೌೣ
ܽ= ௅మ
ସ௬೘ ೌೣ
ܾ= ௅
ܿ= 0
As c = 0, it shall be ignored from any future calculations.
3.2.3 - Vertical Reaction Force
For the vertical reaction force by taking moments about the right hand support it was found
that the vertical reaction is not dependent on the rise of the arch and is the same for both types
of arches as shown in equation 3.6:
௪௟
ܴ௩ = (3.6)
ଶ
Where:
L = Span of arch (m)
Rv = Vertical reaction force (KN)
3.2.4 - Horizontal Reaction Force
As the arch is statically indeterminate normal equations of equilibrium could not be used,
hence the principle of virtual work had to be used to get the horizontal force. Equation 3.7
was obtained from the ICE Manual of Bridge Engineering (Melbourne C, 2008 pg. 314):
20
ಲ ೏ೞ ಽ
∫ಳ ெ ೞ௬ಶ಺ ∫బ ெ ೞ௬ௗ௫
ܴு = ೗ మ೏ೞ = ಽ (3.7)
∫బ ௬ ಶ಺ ∫బ ௬మ
Where:
Ms = The moment due to the vertical reaction (‫ܴ = ܯ‬௩‫)ݔ‬
RH = Horizontal Reaction Force (KN)
Using these values and converting equation 3.7 for the parabolic arch as shown in section 3.14
gave equation 3.8:
ೌಽర ್ಽయ
ோೡ( ା )
ܴு = ర
ೌ ಽ ೌ್ಽ ್ ಽయ
మ ఱ ర
య
మ (3.8)
ା ା
ఱ ర య
For the horizontal reaction force, it was initially envisaged that there would be different
equations for both linear and parabolic arches; however after many attempts with different
equations for the linear arch none would give a set of reliable and realistic figures. As no
reliable equations was found it was decided to use the parabolic equation as for low arch rises
the profile for both it is the same (see section 3.3.1) (for the linear arch, the horizontal
reaction force uses the A and B coefficients obtained using the equations for the parabolic
arch (using equation 3.5)) for the total reaction force the author used Pythagoras theorem to
obtain equation 3.9:
ܴ = ට ܴ௩ଶ + ܴு ଶ (3.9)
Where:
R = The total reaction force
21
3.2.5 - Linear Arch Forces on wall
For the moments, shear forces and axial forces for the linear arch they were calculated using
the principles outlined in figure 3.3, for the moments it was taken as the anti-clockwise
direction (sagging bending moment) as positive the equation used is shown in equation 3.10.
Figure 3.3 – The Detailed Geometry of the Linear Arch.
‫ܴ = ܯ‬௩‫ ݔ‬− ܴு ‫ ݕ‬− ܹ ܴതܵ (3.10)
Where:
M = The bending moment at the point considered
ܴത = lever arm from centre of the load considered to the point considered where the equation is
shown in equation 3.11:
22
ೣ
(ଵି୲ୟ୬(ఊభ)మା୲ୟ୬
(ఊభ)(௬మି௬భ)
ܴത = మ
(3.11)
ୡ୭ୱ
(ఊభ)
S = The length of the arch from the point considered to the left hand support (as shown in
equation 3.12):
ܵ = ܴߚ (3.12)
ߛଵ = The angle between the gradient of the point and the x axis (equation 3.13):
೗
గ ௫ି
ିଵ
ߛଵ = − cos ቆ ቇ
మ
(3.13)
ଶ ௥
β = The angle between the left hand support and the point considered from the centre of
rotation (equation 3.14):
௥ି௬೘ ೌೣ ௬
ߚ = ߨ − 2 ቆtanିଵ ቆ ೗ ቇ + tanିଵ ቀ௫ቁቇ (3.14)
మ
For the shear force, the angles of the forces acting on the location had to be worked out this
was done using the principle as shown in figure 3.3, the positive direction was taken as
looking in the positive y direction, the equation for the shear force is given in equation 3.15:
ܵ‫ܴ = ܨ‬௏ cos ߛଵ − ܴு sin ߛଶ + ܹ ܵܿ‫ߛ(ݏ݋‬ଶ − ߛଵ) (3.15)
Where:
SF = The shear force at the point considered
ϒ2 = The angle between the x axis and the tangent at the centre of the UDL for the segment
considered (equation 3.16):
23
గ ௫ି௟
ߛଶ = ଶ − cosିଵ ቀ ଶ௥ ቁ (3.16)
For the axial force the same equation for the shear force is used (equation 3.15) but the
cosines are converted into sin and vice versa.
3.2.6 - Parabolic Arch forces on wall
Using the Geometry in figure 3.4 the bending moments, shear forces and axial forces will be
calculated for a parabolic arch. To get the bending moments at each point the following
equation was used (by taking moments from the left hand support) as shown in equation 3.17.
ߛଵ
ߛଶ
Figure 3.4 – The Detailed Geometry of the Parabolic Arch.
24
ത
‫ܴ = ܯ‬௩‫ ݔ‬− ܴு ‫ ݕ‬− ܹ ܵ‫ܮ‬ (3.17)
Where:
ത = The lever arm from the centre of the UDL considered from the left hand support (as
‫ܮ‬
shown in equation 3.19).
ଵ
ܵ = ସ ‫(ܣ‬2‫√ݔܣ‬4‫ܣ‬ଶ‫ݔ‬ଶ + 1 + sinhିଵ(2‫))ݔܣ‬ (3.18)
ത = ට1 + (ௗ௬)ଶ ௑ = ඥ1 + (‫ ݔܣ‬+ ܾ)ଶ ௫

‫ܮ‬ (3.19)
ௗ௫ ଶ ଶ
For the deflection on the linear arch a simplified equation for the moment was used this used
the hypotenuse of the distance between the point considered and the centre of the UDL. The
equation is as shown in equation 3.20:
௫మା௬మ
‫ ܯ‬ா௦௧ = ܴ௩‫ ݔ‬− ܴு ‫ ݕ‬− ‫ ݓ‬ቀ ቁ (3.20)
ଶ
Where:
MEst = The approximate moment (used in section 3.2.7).
The equation for the shear force is as shown in equation 3.21:
ܵ‫ܴ = ܨ‬௩ܿ‫ ߙݏ݋‬− ܴு ‫ߛ݊݅ݏ‬ଵ + ܹ ܵܿ‫ߛݏ݋‬ଶ (3.21)
Where:
ߛଵ= Is shown in equation 3.22:
ௗ௬
ߛଵ = tanିଵ ௗ௫ = tanିଵ(2ܽ‫ ݔ‬+ ܾ) (3.22)
25
ߛଶ = Is shown in equation 3.23:
ௗ௬ ௫
ߛଶ = tanିଵ ൬ௗ௫ ቀଶ , ‫ݕ‬ቁ൰− ߛଵ = tanିଵ(ܽ‫ ݔ‬+ ܾ) − ߛଵ (3.23)
As stated in section 3.2.5, the axial force is the same as the shear force equation except with
the opposite trigonometry identities. Where N = the Axial force (KN).
3.2.7 – Deflection
For the deflection of the arch, it was assumed that the crown had the highest value of
deflection (the mid-point of the span (see figure 3.1)). This report used an equation which
gives an estimate for deflection for small arch rises which is shown in equation 3.24 (Dym C
et al. 2011, table 1 pg. 52):
ఱഊమ
௤௥మ
ߜ= మ
ఴഊమ
ቀா஺ ቁ (3.24)
ଵା
ఱ
Where:
q=w
E = Modulus of Elasticity of the capping beam
A = Area of the capping beam
δ = The displacement at the crown
λ = Arch rise parameter (as shown in equation 3.25) (Dym C et al. 2001):
ఉ ర௥మ
ߣଶ = (3.25)
ௗమ
For the parabolic arch, Euler–Bernoulli bending theory was used which states that the bending
moment is proportion to the rate of change of the deflection as shown in equation 3.26:
26
೏మഃ
ாூୀெ ಶೞ೟ (3.26)
೏ೣమ
Where:
ௗమఋ
= The rate of change of deflection
ௗ௫మ
E = Modulus of Elasticity of the structure considered

I = The Second moment of area of the segment considered
After integrating equation 3.28 twice and using the equation 3.20 for the moment it was found
that for the arch the equation is as given in equation 3.27:
ଵ ோೡ൫௫యି௅మ௫൯ ௔൫௅య௫ି௫ర൯ ௕൫௅మ௫ି௫య൯ ௔మ൫௅ఱ௫ି௫ల൯ ௔௕൫௅ర௫ି௫ఱ൯

ߜ = ாூቆ + ܴு ቀ + ቁ+ ܹ ∆ ቀ + +
଺ ଵଶ ଺ ଺଴ ଶ଴
஻ మ൫௅య௫ି௫ర൯ା௅య௫ି௫ర
ቁቇ (3.27)
ଶସ
Where:
∆ = A moment correction factor for the difference between approximate value of Mw and the
actual bending moment (using the estimation for Mw as explained in equation 3.20 and the
actual as used in equation 3.19) as shown in equation 3.28:
ெ ಲ೎೟ೠೌ೗ ത
ௐ ௌ௅
∆= = ೣమ ೤మ
(3.28)
ெ ಲ೛೛ೝ೚ೣ ௐ൬ ା ൰
మ మ
Where:
Mw = The bending moment due to the earth forces (the UDL)
MApprox = The approximate solution to Mw
MActual = The actual solution to Mw
27
3.2.8 - Volume of Excavated material
To determine the main component of the additional costs of this wall compared to a normal
‘straight’ Cantilever wall, the volume of the additional soil needed (compared to a straight
Cantilever wall) to be excavated for the arch was calculated. The equation used the area of a
segment for a circle and then multiplied it by the depth to get the total volume the equation is
shown below (equation 3.29):
௥మ
ܸ= (ߠ − sin ߠ)‫ܦ‬ (3.29)
ଶ
Where:
V = Volume of soil required to be removed
To get the additional amount of soil needed to be removed for the parabolic arch the area
excavated for the arch was obtained by integration then multiplied by the depth of the
excavation, the equation is as shown in equation 3.30:
௅ ௔௅య ௕௅మ
ܸ = ‫∫ ܦ‬଴ ܽ‫ݔ‬ଶ + ܾ‫ ܦ = ݔ‬ቀ ଷ + ቁ (3.30)
ଶ
3.3- Initial Research Results
The relationships between the different types of arches and the different arch rises over
different factors are evaluated in this section. These results are mainly from the formulas in
section 3.2.
3.3.1 – Geometry
For analysis the main values used were L = 15m, and D = 4.5m which made d = 2.25m.
The initial results gave a very useful understanding of the mechanics of the arch and also the
limitations of the first assumptions which were looked at in the PLAXIS modelling.
28
One of the main relationships discovered, was as shown in figure 3.5, that for small arch rises
ସ
(less than ଵହ ݉ ௥௜௦௘/݉ ௟௘௡௚௧௛(i.e. this case when ymax ≤2m gave a similar answer) the arch rise
௬೘ ೌೣ
equation is obtained byܽ‫ܿݎ‬ℎ‫= ݁ݏ݅ݎ‬ ೗ ) the linear and parabolic arches are very similar in
మ
profile (using equations 3.4 and 3.6) (the results were also similar for bending moments and
shear forces as well) this allowed for verification of the answers for each different arch type to
check for errors.
2.00
1.80
1.60
y co-ordinate (m)
1.40
1.20
1.00
Linear Arch
0.80
0.60 Parabolic Arch
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
x co-ordinate (m)
Figure 3.5 - The profile of a linear and parabolic arch, with an arch rise of 2m and a length of
15m.
This similarity will mean that for construction projects either the parabolic or linear arch
method can be used to get the co-ordinates of the arch. As the centre of rotation for the linear
arch can be very far away from the arch itself as shown in table 3.1, it is thought that setting
out engineers will not use the centre of rotation to set out and instead use a chord of the circle,
this might make it more accurate and easier to use a parabolic arch which is also used for the
setting out of arch bridges (Melbourne C. 2008).
29
Table 3.1 - The radius of a linear arch compared to its arch rise for an arch with a 15m length.
Arch Rise (m) Radius (r) (m)
0.5 56.5
1 28.6
1.5 19.5
2 15.1
For further analysis to allow for comparison between parabolic and linear arches and also to
give a realistic estimate of the amount of arch rise to be used on a construction site it is
thought to limit the arch rise to the limit of the similar geometry (as discussed above).
3.3.2 – Moment, shear forces and axial forces
Another finding was that as the arch rise increases the maximum bending moment and axial
force decreases as shown in table 3.2, with the shear force remaining fairly constant.
Table 3.2 - The maximum moments, axial force and shear forces for different arch rises.
Arch rise (m) Maximum Moment Maximum axial Maximum Shear Force
(KNm) (equation 17) force (KN) (KN) (equation 20)
0.5 449 -366 342
1 440 -166 343
1.5 425 -91 343
2 405 -48 344
The axial and shear force and bending moment diagram is shown in figure 3.6, the figure
shows the maximum values for the axial and shear force are at the crown of the arch but the
bending moment which maximum is next to the crown, also as shown in the figure the
moment is zero at the ends of the span which is as expected for a two pinned arch.
30
450
400 Axial
Force
350 (KN)
Magnitude of force
300
250
Shear
200 Force
150 (KN)
100
50
Bending
0 Moment
0 5 10 15 (KNm)
Distance from left hand support (m)
Figure 3.6 – The diagrams for the Axial and shear force and bending moment for an arch rise
of 2m.
3.3.3 – Deflections
For the deflection, there was a disparity between using the linear and parabolic arch equations
(equation 23 and 26) as shown in table 3.3 (using a modulus of Elasticity of 17x106 KN/m2
(Richards D. J. and Powrie W. 1994) and a size of capping beam of 0.35m square (which is as
used in section 4 and recommended by the IStructE (Wells J, 2009))). This disparity will be
checked using PLAXIS 3D in section 4, however both equations gave lower values than a
ହௐ ௅ర
straight beam of 13593mm (obtained using the equation = ) validating that arches give
ଷ଼ସாூ
lower deflections as presented in section 2.2.
31
Table 3.3 - The comparison between the equations used to calculate maximum deflection for
linear and parabolic arches.
Maximum Deflection at the crown (mm)
Arch Rise(m) Linear equation (equation 23) Parabolic equation (equation 26)
0.5 50.74 496
1 13.76 488
1.5 6.45 474
2 3.86 455
2.5 2.67 430
3 2.02 400
3.5 1.64 364
Also, as shown in table 3.3, as the arch rise increases, the amount of deflection in the crown
decreases, but the rate of change in deflection decreases, this shows that the main benefits of
the arching behaviour can be exploited with low arch rises.
3.3.4 – Volume of Excavated Material
For the soil excavated the relationship is as shown in figure 3.7 (using equations 3.29 and
3.30). The figure shows that the difference between the two arches is negligible (as shown in
the similarity of geometry as presented in section 3.3.1). Also as the arch rise increases, the
parabolic arch requires less excavated material due to differences in shapes, hence for large
arch rises it may be beneficial to use a parabolic arch. However to avoid the excessive cost of
excavation, whilst still getting many of the effects of arching as shown in section 3.3.2 and
3.3.3, it is recommended to use a small arch rise of around 1 - 2m instead.
32
250
Volume of material to be excavated (m3)
200
150
Parabolic
Arch
100
Linear
Arch
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Arch Rise (m)
Figure 3.7 – The amount of additional material required to be excavated for different arch
rises.
3.3.5 – Impact on changes in span
As the spans increase but the arch rise remains constant, there appears to be an exponential
relationship between span and increase in reaction forces and deflection (using equations 3.6,
3.8 and 3.9 for reactions and equation 3.24 for deflections), as shown in figure 3.6. In this
example the arch rise was taken as 1m, and the geometry and properties of the capping beam
was kept to those used in section 3.3.3.
As shown in figure 3.6, the reaction force increases quite rapidly, with the reaction force
increasing by a factor of 10 whilst the length has increased by a factor of 3 (comparing 10m
with 30m). Also, as shown in figure 3.8 the rate of change for the deflection is higher than the
rate of change than the reaction force so it is expected that for large spans SLS requirements,
may become more of a limiting factor than ULS requirements.
33
2500 1800
Maxiumum Deflection of beam (mm)

1600
Reaction
2000 1400 Force
Reaction Force (KN)
1200 Required
1500 (KN)
1000
800
1000
600
500 400
Max
200 deflection
(mm)
0 0
7 17 27 37 47
Span of arch (m)
Figure 3.8 - The variation of the reaction force and the maximum deflection (using the linear
arch equations) as the span of the arch differs.
3.4 - Capping beam theory
Using the results discussed in section 3.3, a theory of how a capping beam would interact with
the arch actions and any beneficial/negative actions which would originate from this has been
evaluated. It was assumed that there would be a prestressing force applied to the capping
beam through a hydraulic jack. For the duration of the construction phase and it was assumed
that the capping beam has column loads placed on it and is distributing the loads to the wall.
This theory will help understand the results from the PLAXIS software and will help foresee
any construction/design improvements/complexities compared with the current use of
Cantilever walls.
34
3.4.1 - Interaction of the pre-stressing force and the capping beam
For the interaction of the pre-stressing force and the capping beam it is predicted that is will
act very similar to a pre-stressed beam. It is predicted that the pre-stressing force will reduce
the amount of tensile reinforcement required to distribute the load of the column to the piles,
however this is assuming that the capping beam is very stiff (i.e. ߜ‫ ≈ ݒ‬0) and that the pre-
stressing force acts in the centre of the capping beam if the pre-stressing force was placed at
an eccentricity below the centroid of the beam then this effect would be increased, this
behaviour is shown in figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9 – The force and stress diagrams for a stiff capping beam for a secant pile wall.
Assuming that the prestressing is applied in the same direction as the reaction force it is
predicted that the bending moment and the axial force in the capping beam will increase
which will happen if the reaction forces in sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 were increased.
It is thought that the arched capping beam will make the capping beam act similar to a prop,
as the arch will provide an increased amount of resistance to the movement of the beam due to
the earth than a capping beam placed on a straight Cantilever wall. This idea will be shown by
analysing the horizontal displacements of the wall looking for the maximum displacements in
35
the centre of the retaining wall and there should be a reduction in the horizontal and vertical
displacement of the soil behind the excavation.
3.4.2 - Earth Pressures
In section 3.1 it was assumed that the earth pressures were active earth pressures which are
what is used for a typical design for a Cantilever wall, as a Cantilever wall will deflect away
from the soil when the soil is placed behind it sufficiently to activate active earth pressures
(Knappett J. A. and Craig R. F. 2012). However for the arched Cantilever wall, the
assumption that the capping beam will act as a two hinged arch means that the displacement
at the supports is 0mm potentially activating at rest earth pressures at and around the support.
This effect will be further increased with the impact of the pre-stress force which will
potentially reduce the deflection more increasing the proportion of the structure which is
subject to at rest earth pressures. The higher earth pressures will increase the moment and
axial forces in the structure and also, potentially increase the deflection at the crown.
Also the effect of the arch deformation on the cross-section of the Cantilever wall will have
an impact on what earth pressures are activated along the cross section this effect will have a
large effect on the design of the Cantilever wall. These effects mentioned will have to be
modelled in PLAXIS 3D as it will be very time consuming and difficult to estimate the 3D
behaviour in excel.
3.4.3 – Other Effects
It is thought that the effect of arching on the wall could reduce deflections further than that
predicted by section 3.3.3 this would show up as an increase in moments spanning the wall
and would have a bending moment similar to that predicted for an arch.
36
4 – Initial PLAXIS 3D Models
To verify the results of the section 3 and to obtain results to compare the performance of an
arched Cantilever wall to a normal Cantilever wall PLAXIS 3D was used. PLAXIS 3D is a 3
dimensional finite element software specifically for Geotechnical Engineering (Brinkgreve,
R.B.J. et al. 2013).
4.1 - Models used
To understand the behaviour of the arched Cantilever wall, some initial models were used to
get comparisons to a normal straight Cantilever wall (models 1-3). Also, models were used to
see the impact of increasing the arch rise, span, prestress force and soil type has on the arched
Cantilever wall. This section used the geometry limits as used in section 3.3. For this section
the construction phases of the wall was considered not to make a big difference in the
comparison so was ignored and instead the walls were WIP (the effect of the construction
sequence and the type of Cantilever wall is considered in section 5).
The models used are listed in table 4.1. All models used the same overall dimensions of
analysis of 100m width by 100m length by 100m depth, the large dimensions was used to
reduce the effect of the ends of the analysis so to improve its reliability. The excavation was
placed in the middle of the soil in a square formation as is shown in figure 4.1 for model 1,
figure 4.2 for models 2 and 3, and figure 4.3 for models 4 - 7. The arch rises considered were
1m and 2m, this was determined to be the most realistic values considering site constraints
and as discussed in section 3.3.1 will allow for comparison of both the linear and parabolic
arch equations.
37
Table 4.1 – Models considered for initial models.

Model number Model Description
1 Comparing a 15m arched (with 1m arch rise) and normal Cantilever
wall, in London Clay.
2 Model 1 but distance increased to 30m and arch rise increased to 2m.
3 Model 2 in Granular soil.
4 Comparing a 1m and 2m arch rise for a 30m arched Cantilever wall, in
London Clay.
5 Model 4 but with prestresses applied.
6 Model 5 in a Granular soil.
7 Model 4 in Granular soil.
42m
1m
15m
42m 15m 43m
42m
Y
X
Figure 4.1 - The Connectivity Plot for model 1
38
35m
1m
29m
35m 30m 35m
35m Y
X
`
Figure 4.2 - The Connectivity Plot for model 2
34m
2m
29m
35m 30m 1m 35m
34m
Y
X
Figure 4.3 - The Connectivity Plot for model 5 (note: blue arrows are locations of prestressing
on arch)
39
The focus of the section will look at the walls spanning in the x-axis. The walls on the y-axis
were not considered as it was assumed that the arch would have an effect on the behaviour of
the walls, but it would not have an effect on its opposing wall. The models were all modelled
over a time period of 100 days to get an indication of the displacements over a typical
construction phase. For the finite element mesh a course mesh was used, to reduce the
calculation times (with a relative size of 1.4) with a polyline angle tolerance and surface angle
tolerance of 1° to follow the arch. The course mesh after modelling was considered to give
accurate results to allow for comparisons to be made.
To get a wide range of results and also to see if it is possible for the arched Cantilever to
exceed normal Cantilever wall limits a the excavation depths were done from 2-20m (with a
step size of 2m) for models 1-3 ,and 8-20m for models 4-6.
Models 1, 2, 4 and 5 used London clay (the properties of which can be seen in table 4.2).
Models 3, 6 and 7 used a granular soil (the properties are shown in table 4.3). All models had
a water table at 50m below ground level to avoid complications of ground water flowing into
the excavation, and all used the same capping beam and wall properties for all excavation
depths the properties of which can be shown in tables 4.5 and 4.4 respectively.
All models used a Cantilever wall which was similar to a diaphragm wall (the properties are
as shown in table 4.4). The walls were modelled as a large plate spanning the whole width and
depth of the excavation depth considered. Also a capping beam was placed on the top of the
diaphragm wall to reduce the movement of the wall and also to transmit the prestress force,
the properties of which are shown in table 4.5. All models used an embedment ratio
ு
(ܴ௘௠ ௕௘ௗ = ா௠ ௕௘ௗௗ௘ௗ஽௘௣௧௛) of 1 (i.e. a 6m excavation depth had an additional 6m of
Cantilever wall in the ground to stabilise the wall). Also both the walls and capping beam
were modelled with reinforced concrete of grade C35/45 (fck=35 N/mm2).
40
Table 4.2 – London Clay properties (modelled as Mohr Coulomb, using undrained B
parameters).
Property (Notation) Units of Value (Source or notes)
Measurement
Cohesive Shear Strength KN/m2 80+8z (Long M , 2001a)
(Cu)
Earth Pressure Coefficient 1.4 (Long M , 2001a)
at rest (K0)
Unit weight (γ) KN/m3 19.8 (Rigby Jones J, 2010)
Permeability (K) m/s 0 (Rigby Jones J, 2010)
Poisson’s ratio (υ) 0.495 (Rigby Jones J, 2010)
Interface ratio (Rinter) 0.7 (Rigby Jones J, 2010)
Initial Voids ratio (e0) 1.7 (Average Value from Gasparre A et al,
2007)
Failure ratio (Rf) 0.85 (Hight D W el al. 2007)
Particle size <2µm 0.55 (Approx. value from Gasparre A et al,
2007)
Particle size 2µm-50µm 0.15 (Approx. value from Gasparre A et al,
2007)
Particle size >50µm 0.3 (Approx. value from Gasparre A et al,
2007)
Modulus of Elasticity (E) KN/m2 1250Cu
(E=100000+10000z)
(Values from Project Lateral and KX Hub
Shaft) (Yeow H and Feltham I, 2008)
Source: Long M. 2001a, Rigby Jones J. 2010, Gasparre A et al. 2007 and Yeow H and
Feltham I. 2008
41
Table 4.3 - Granular Soil Properties.

Property (Notation) Unit of measurement Value
Modulus of Elasticity (E) MPa 40
Poisson’s Ratio (υ) 0.33
Angle of resistance (ɸ) Degrees 30°
Cohesive strength (Cu) KN/m2 0
Unit Weight (γ) KN/m3 15.7
Earth Pressure coefficient at rest (K0) 0.5
Failure Ratio (Rf) 0.9
Source: Goh A. T. C. 1993
Table 4.4 - Cantilever Wall Properties (modelled as a linear elastic wall).

Property (Notation) Unit of Value (Source or notes)
measurement
Wall Thickness (T) m 1.2 (Richards D. J, and Powrie W. 1994)
Modulus of Elasticity (E) GPa 17 (Richards D. J, and Powrie W. 1994)

Poisson’s ratio (υ) 0.2 (Goh A.T.C, 1993)
Unit Weight (γ) KN/m3 22.0 (Goh A.T.C, 1993)
Source: Richards D. J. and Powrie W. 1994 and Goh A. T. C. 1993
Table 4.5 - Capping Beam Properties (modelled as a linear elastic beam).

Property (Notation) Unit of Value (Source or notes)
measurement
Width and Length m 0.35
Area (A) m2 0.1225
Second Moment of Area m4 1.25E-3
(I)
Unit Weight (γ) KN/m3 25
Modulus of Elasticity (E) GPa 17 (Richards D. J, and Powrie W. 1994)
Source: Richards D. J. and Powrie W. 1994.
42
For the prestressing force five different types were chosen. For prestressing it was assumed
that this could be done using a locking collar hydraulic cylinder jack, this device can
mechanically lock and hold its force which makes it ideal for excavations, this type of jack is
used in lifting bridge sections during construction which requires a stable, constant jack to
provide a large force. All prestress forces were obtained from a UK based supplier and it was
assumed that the jacking force could be directly converted into a prestressing force (Hydra-
Capsule Ltd, 2014).
The first type was the maximum possible jacking force at 5101KN (520 tonnes), the second
type used a much reduced prestress at 1766KN (180 tonnes), the third type used a more
common prestress at 981KN (100 tonnes) and the last looked at if the prestress was the same
as the reaction force to see if there is a change in behaviour if the prestress force is higher than
the reaction force. Most of the models for prestressing directed the prestressing in the same
direction as the reaction forces; however the final case (case 5) looked at placing the
prestressing in the direction of the beam. The prestressing forces and directions are shown in
table 4.6 for model 5 and table 4.7 for model 6. The prestress was modelled as a point force
acting on the node at the end of the span of the arches. This is a simplified way of modelling
the prestressing force without using complex modelling to model the hydraulic jack and is
thought to be a good representation of its impact on the arch.
43
Table 4.6 - The prestressing forces used for model 5.

Magnitude of 1m arch rise 2m arch rise
prestress force (KN) Direction of prestress (axis)
x y R x y R
Type 1 4646 2106 5101 3779 3426 5101
Type 2 1609 729 1766 1308 1186 1766
Type 3 894 405 981 727 659 981
Type 4
H (m) x y R x y R
8 2385 1081 2619 1192 1081 1609
10 3726 1689 4091 1863 1689 2515
12 5365 2432 5890 2683 2432 3621
14 7303 3311 8019 3651 3311 4929
16 9538 4324 10472 4769 4324 6437
18 12070 5473 13253 6036 5473 8148
20 14900 7452 16660 7452 6756 10059
Type 5 5058 657 5100 4936 1286 5101
Source: Hydra-Capsule Ltd, 2014
44
Table 4.7 - The prestressing forces used in model 6.

Magnitude of 1m 2m
prestress force (KN) Direction of prestress (axis)
x y R x y R
Type 1 4646 2106 5101 3779 3426 5101
Type 2 1609 729 1766 1308 1186 1766
Type 3 894 405 981 727 659 981
Type 4
H (m) x y R x y R
8 5914 791 5967 2917 1081 3111
10 9240 1238 9323 4558 1238 4723
12 13310 1782 13429 6564 1782 6802
14 18110 2426 18272 8934 2426 9258
16 23650 3168 23861 11670 3168 12092
18 29940 5473 30436 14770 4010 15305
20 36960 4950 37290 18230 4950 18890
Type 5 5058 657 5101 4936 1286 5101
Source: Hydra-Capsule Ltd, 2014
4.2 - Results of models
After running the models, the behaviour of the walls, capping beam and excavation was
analysed, this analysis mainly looked at the displacements of the wall, capping beam and
behind the excavation, bending moment, shear and axial forces and the heave in the
excavation.
This section will make simple observations about these behaviours and propose reasons for
the difference in the behaviours; it is beyond the scope of this paper to find the true reason for
the behaviours.
45
4.2.1 - Horizontal Displacement of wall
As predicted in section 2, the arch reduces the maximum displacement in the retaining wall,
compared to ‘straight’ normal retaining walls. The reduction varies between 20-25% on
average as shown in figure 4.4. Also as shown in the figure the percentage difference tends to
approach to a limiting value for both soil types (the large percentage differences from model 3
for the excavation depths of 2-8m are due to the small values of the displacements).
40
20
Percentage Difference (%)
0
0 5 10 15 20
-20
Model 1
-40
Model 2
-60 Model 3
-80
-100
-120
Excavation Depth (m)
Figure 4.4 - The percentage difference between straight and arched Cantilever walls over
depth (note: Difference is compared to the normal Cantilever wall).
The data has also shown that the higher the arch rise, the lower the maximum horizontal
displacement, as shown in figure 4.5. This shows an opposite relationship than that of figure
4.4 as the percentage difference decreases before approaching a value. There is also an impact
on the maximum horizontal displacement with what soil type used (with the percentage
difference approaching a value of 20-15.5% for granular soils and 15-11.5% for London
Clay), this was also predicted in section 3.3.3.
46
Model 4
30
Model 5,
Prestress Type 1
25 Model 5,
Prestress Type 2
Model 5,
20 Prestress Type 3
Model 5,
Prestress Type 4
15 Model 5,
Prestress Type 5
Model 6,
10 Prestress Type 1
Model 6,
Prestress Type 2
Model 6,
5 Prestress Type 3
Model 6,
Prestress Type 4
0 Model 6,
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Prestress Type 5
Excavation Depth (m) Model 7
Figure 4.5 - Showing the percentage difference between the maximum horizontal
displacements for a 1m and 2m arch rise (note: difference compared to 1m arch rise).
The impact of prestressing seems to make no/little on reducing the horizontal displacement in
London Clay and a large adverse impact in Granular soils, this is shown in figure 4.6 for
London Clay and figure 4.7 for granular soils. For London Clays the reduction is around 8-
0.5% and for granular soil the deflections increase by an order of 3.
47
Model 4, 1m
0.09
Normalised Horizontal displacment (δh/h) (%)
Prestress Type
0.085 1, 1m
Prestress Type
0.08 2, 1m
Prestress Type
3, 1m
0.075 Prestress Type
4, 1m
Prestress Type
0.07
5, 1m
Model 4, 2m
0.065
Prestress Type
0.06 1, 2m
Prestress Type
2, 2m
0.055 Prestress Type
3, 2m
Prestress Type
0.05
4, 2m
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Prestress Type
Excavation Depth (m) 5, 2m
Figure 4.6 - Normalised horizontal displacement for models 4 and 5.
.
0.45
Model 7, 1m
Normalised Horizontal displacment (δh/h)
0.4
Prestress Type
0.35 1, 1m
Prestress Type
0.3 2, 1m
Prestress Type
0.25 3, 1m
(%)
Prestress Type
0.2 4, 1m
Prestress Type
0.15 5, 1m
Model 7, 2m
0.1
0.05 Prestress Type
1, 2m
0 Prestress Type
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2, 2m
Prestress Type
Excavation Depth (m) 3, 2m
Figure 4.7 - Normalised horizontal displacement for models 6 and 7.
48
The reason for the small impact in London Clay could be due to the high stiffness of the soil
as shown in table 4.2 which will prevent excessive deflections. For granular soil, the increase
due to the prestress was unexpected but is believed to be due to the failure of the soil as
shown in figure 4.8 (a), which shows a large proportion of the soil behind the retaining wall
has reached the maximum value for shear stress and has yielded which will result in higher
displacements. The behaviour of the granular soil is a different to that of London Clay (b)
where only the soil below the excavation has yielded and the areas surrounding the excavation
have a low proportion of stress. The increase in the yielded area may be due to the low system
stiffness of the wall, which when calculated using the equation given by Long (2001b) gave a
value of 2.72 for all excavation depths which, when compared to case studies of propped and
unpropped Cantilever walls is low (Long M, 2001b) this will of caused the wall to flex
excessively. As the data is believed to be unrealistic of real world cases (a stiffer wall would
be used), the data from model 6 is not used in any additional comparisons in section 4.
(a) (b)
Figure 4.8 - The relative shear stress for a cross section through the middle of the excavation
for model 6 (a) and model 5 (b) with an excavation depth of 20m.
49
Comparing the PLAXIS results to case studies shows that the overall the horizontal deflection
is considerably lower than what would be expected as shown in figure 4.9 (Long M, 2001b),
and also lower than other case studies looking at London Clay (Yeow H. and Feltham I. 2008)
(Long M, 2001a). Reasons for this could be having a lower water table which will have taken
out the effects of seepage and also the small size of the excavations used will affect the
magnitude of the displacements. Also, the use of a homogenous layer of London clay which
isn’t typical for areas containing London clay (most contain a layers of made ground and
gravel which is much less stiffer than London clay), to obtain better results a case study will
be looked at in section 5 to check the validity of the results.
2.5 Long, 2001

Normalised Horizontal Displacmeent
Model 1, straight
Model 1, Arch
2
Model 2, straight
Model 2, Arch
1.5
δh/h (%)
Model 3, Straight
Model 3, arch
1 Model 4, 1m
Model 4, 2m
0.5 Model 5, 1m
Model 5, 2m
Model 6, 1m
0
Model 6, 2m
0 5 10 15 20
Model 7, 1m
Model 7, 2m
Figure 4.9 - Comparison of case studies of Cantilever walls against results of models. Source:
Long M. 2001b.
Looking at the horizontal displacement profile as shown in figure 4.10, shows that for small
excavation depths (a) the wall acts like a Cantilever wall as described in section 2.3.5, but as
the excavations become deeper (b) the arch acts more like a propped Cantilever wall as
described in section 2.3.6. This behaviour is reflected slightly in the straight retaining wall (c
and d) so it is thought that some of the behaviour might be due to the effects of the corners of
the excavation. The behaviour of the arch shows that the arching does have an effect and
50
provides support similar to a prop which was predicted in section 3.4.1. Prestressing seems to
cause the corners of the excavation to have displacements near to zero as predicted in section
3.4.2. The lack of displacement at the corners may be the reason for why the results of
prestressing show little difference as presented before, as the beam and plate is flexing due to
their low stiffness’s as shown in the tables 4.4 and 4.5. The arch displacement at the corners
for all models is near zero which shows that the assumption that the behaviour of the wall and
capping beam can be approximated as an arch with 2 supports is justified and correct.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 4.10 - The horizontal displacement for the straight and arched profiles from model 2.
Note (a) and (c) are for an excavation depth of 8m and (b) and (d) are for an excavation depth
of 20m.
51
4.2.2 - Bending Moments in the wall
For the bending moments in the retaining wall, the data shows that moments in both the z-z
and y-y direction are higher for the arch than a normal Cantilever wall. This is shown in
figure 4.11 which shows that for the maximum moment in the z-z direction, percentage
difference is constant for depths greater than 6m. The maximum moment in the z-z direction
typically occurs either just above or below the point where the wall meets the top of the soil in
the excavation as shown in figure 4.12. For London clay the arch results in bending moments
which are around 5-25% higher than the ‘straight’ retaining wall (models 1 and 2) and for
granular soil the percentage difference decreases linearly from 10m from ~+40% to ~-20% so,
for granular soils (model 3). The behaviour of the z-z is similar to that shown for a propped
retaining wall using a K0 = 0.5 (Potts, D. M. and Fourie A. B. 1984) which indicates that the
arch may act as a prop which is predicted in section 3.4.1.
250 Model 1,
Mmax z-z
Model 2,
200
Mmax z-z
Model 3,
150 Mmax z-z
Model 4,
100 Mmax z-z
Model 1,
50 Mmax x-x
Model 2,
Mmax x-x
0
0 5 10 15 20 Model 3,
Mmax x-x
-50 Model 4,
Mmax x-x
Figure 4.11 - The percentage difference between a straight and arched Cantilever wall for
moments in the z-z and x-x direction (note: difference is compared to a normal wall for
models 1-3 and to a 1m arch rise for model 4).
52
Figure 4.12 - Showing bending moments in the z-z direction for the wall for 10m for model 2.
The maximum moments in the x-x direction is sensitive to changes in span length and that
there is less of a correlation for some models as shown in figure 4.11. It is believed that
PLAXIS 3D has joined the edges of the retaining walls together which will represent a
behaviour similar to a diaphragm wall which is why the bending moment diagram is similar
to that of a beam spanning between 2 fixed supports as shown in figure 4.13. For model 1 the
percentage difference appears to show an increase in bending moments of around 100-165%
and shows no correlation to excavation depth as shown in figure 4.11. For model 2, there
appears to be a correlation, showing an increase in bending moments of around 85% (when
the excavation depth of greater than 6m) as shown in figure 4.11. For model 3, the moment
varies initially (from 2-10m) between 95%-110% increase then declines linearly as also
shown in the figure, this is a similar relationship to the moments in the z-z direction. As
shown in figure 4.13 The bending moments appear to be similar to that of an arch this also
shows evidence that the wall’s arch has an effect as predicted in section 3.4.3 however the
moments at the corners suggests that a fixed arch might be more appropriate for predicting the
behaviour of the wall rather than a two pinned arch used in section 3.
53
Figure 4.13 – The Bending moments in the x-x direction for a straight wall with an excavation
depth of 20m.
As the arch rise increases the maximum moments in the z-z and x-x direction appear to reduce
as shown in figure 4.11 for model 4 which shows an average 5% reduction for moments in the
z-z direction and a 20% reduction in the x-x direction.
Prestressing the wall causes little effect for the maximum moments in the z-z direction. The
prestress mainly reduces the moment however the data varies between a reducing and
increasing effect as shown in table 4.8, it is thought that this effect is unreliable so can be
ignored for design. For moments in the x-x direction the effect seems very dependent on the
arch rise as shown in the table 4.8 as for 1m it makes no impact where as for 2m it makes a
large impact. It is thought this could be due to the corner effects with the side walls as the 2m
arch rise will be more parallel with the side walls than the 1m so any movements of the side
wall in the y-y direction due to the prestressing could cause an increase in the bending
moments. This effect is thought to be an impact of modelling and is not thought to be an
impact if the prestress was modelled more accurately. This impact decreases as the depth of
the excavation increases which could show that the capping beam has less impact on the
retaining wall as the depth increases.
54
4 and 5).
H 1m 2m
(m) Mmax z-z Mmax Mmax beam Nmax Mmax Mmax Mmax Mmax z-z
(KNm) x-x (KNm) beam z-z x-x beam (KNm)
(KNm) (KN) (KNm) (KNm) (KNm)
8 Omitted due -2 35 1507 -3 21 70 953
to
inaccuracy
10 -5 -1 64 1261 -3 20 64 856
12 -7 -1 46 1096 -3 22 60 935
14 -5 -1 48 973 7 17 42 1363
16 1 -1 45 938 3 11 33 1392
18 -3 0 49 946 -5 3 30 1203
20 0 0 52 999 2 0 29 1127
4.2.3 - Settlement behind excavation
The displacements behind the excavation in the vertical and horizontal direction for soil in the
middle of the excavation (so x co-ordinate is 50m) for a 12m excavation depth are shown in
the figures below (figures 4.14 and 4.15 for the vertical displacement and figures 4.16 and
4.17 for the horizontal displacement). The figures show that the amount of vertical and
horizontal displacement for an arch is lower compared to a normal wall and also increasing
the arch rise results in lower displacements, this is as discussed in section 4.2.1. It is also
shown in figures 4.14 and 4.15 that prestressing has little effect in minimising the amount of
vertical deflection regardless of the magnitude, the prestress force. This is similar to the
behaviour as presented in section 4.2.1.
55
1.5 1m,
Prestress
1.0 Average
Vertical Displacement (mm)
0.5 2m,
Prestress
0.0
Average
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.5
Straight
-1.0
-1.5
1m, No
-2.0 Prestress
-2.5
2m, No
-3.0 Prestress
Distance from Excavation (m)
Figure 4.14 - Vertical displacement behind the excavation wall for different arch rises (with
and without prestress) and Cantilever wall types.
0.5
No
Prestress
0.0
0 10 20 30 Prestress
Vertical Displacment (mm)
-0.5 Type 1
Prestress
-1.0 Type 2
-1.5 Prestress
Type 3
-2.0 Prestress
Type 4
-2.5
Prestress
Type 5
-3.0
Distance From Excavation (m)
Figure 4.15 - Vertical displacement behind the excavation wall for the different types of
prestress and no prestress for an arch rise of 1m.
56
However, for the displacements in the horizontal direction as shown in figure 4.16,
prestressing has a significant impact on reducing the horizontal deflection with 65% reduction
in horizontal displacement for the average prestress for a 2m arch compared to a straight
Cantilever wall. It can also be seen that in figure 4.17 the magnitude of the prestress has a
greater impact on the horizontal displacement more than the orientation of the force
(comparing type 5 to type 1), this is a similar relationship to what was discovered in section
4.2.1. It is thought that the prestress has a greater impact on the capping beam and top of the
wall more than the whole structure. This impact means that the prestress will help to hold
back top layer of the soil giving lower horizontal deflections, but has little impact on the
displacement of the wall below causing the soil to move downwards towards the centre of the
wall this would explain the behaviour presented in section 4.2.1 that the arch acts as a prop.
12 Straight
Horizontal Displacment (mm)
10 2m, No
prestress
8
1m,
Prestress
6
Average
2m,
4 Prestress
Average
2 1m, No
Prestress
0
2m, No
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Prestress
Figure 4.16 - Horizontal displacement behind the excavation.
57
7
No prestress
6
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
Prestress
5 Type 1
4 Prestress
Type 2
3
Prestress
Type 3
2
Prestress
1 Type 4
Prestress
0
Type 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 4.17 - Horizontal displacements behind the excavation for different prestresses for a
2m arch rise.
4.2.4 - Capping Beam
Comparing the predicted maximum displacements of the capping beam with the values from
the models can be seen in table 4.9. As the table shows neither the linear method nor the
parabolic method came close to predicting the displacements with the parabolic method
predicting deflections much larger than the length of the beam itself this indicates that the
beam would have failed if the original assumptions used in section 3.1 that the capping beam
supports half the wall, were correct. It is thought that the load the capping beam supports is
more complex than half the excavation depth and instead is a function of the relative stiffness
of the structure. What can be shown in table 4.9 is that as the excavation depth increases, the
displacement it reaches a limiting value (11mm for a 1m arch rise and 9mm for a 2m arch
rise), this limiting value correlates with the maximum deflection in the wall moving towards
the centre of the wall as discussed in section 4.2.1. The limiting value shows that the resisting
force after the beam has displaced sufficiently may be greater than that of the wall resulting in
greater deflections in the wall changing the displacement profile.
58
Table 4.9 - Maximum deflection of capping beam (using 22° for the angle of resistance for the
active earth pressures).
Depth of 1m arch rise 2m arch rise difference
Excavation (%)
(m) compared
to linear
Linear Parabolic Actual Linear Parabolic Actual 1m 2m
(Eqn. (Eqn. 26) [Model (Eqn. (Eqn. 26) [Model
23) (mm) 4] 23) (mm) 4] (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
8 678 25098 7 0 -428 6 91 97
10 1078 39215 9 0 -668 7 88 96
12 1553 56470 10 0 -963 8 84 95
14 2113 76862 10 1 -1310 8 79 94
16 2760 100391 11 1 -1711 9 74 92
18 3493 127057 11 1 -2166 9 69 90
20 4313 156860 11 1 -2674 9 62 88
For the moments, axial forces and shear forces on the capping beam, it is thought that
PLAXIS 3D couldn’t model the bending moment or shear and axial force diagrams of an
arch, the bending moment diagram from PLAXIS 3D is shown in figure 4.18. The results
from the PLAXIS compared to the predicted area as shown in table 4.10 where the values in
the PLAXIS 3D where many orders below that predicted. Another reason for the lower values
might indicate that the beam is perhaps less stiff than expected which will result in a lower
amount of bending moments and axial forces and an increase in displacements as seen above.
59
Table 4.10 - Maximum moments of the capping beam (Mmax).

Depth of Excavation (m) 1m arch (KNm) 2m arch (KNm)
Predicted Actual Predicted Actual
8 5687 30 5579 13
10 13466 31 13358 11
12 22975 38 22867 11
14 34212 43 34104 14
16 47178 48 47070 16
18 61872 51 61764 17
20 78296 53 78188 18
Figure 4.18 – The bending moment diagram of the capping beam for the arch on PLAXIS 3D.
With the addition of prestressing, as was predicted in section 3.4.1, the axial force in the beam
increases by a considerable percentage due to the force placed on it due to the prestressing as
shown in table 4.11. The table also shows that there is an increase in bending moments as
well which again was predicted in section 3.4.1.
60
4 and 5).
H (m) 1m 2m
Mmax beam (KNm) Nmax beam (KN) Mmax beam (KNm) Nmax beam (KN)
8 35 1507 70 953
10 64 1261 64 856
12 46 1096 60 935
14 48 973 42 1363
16 45 938 33 1392
18 49 946 30 1203
20 52 999 29 1127
4.2.5 – Heave in the Excavation
For the heave at the base of the excavation it appears that the granular soil has a much higher
heave than London clay, and that the London Clay is sensitive to small changes in geometry,
as shown in the difference between models 2 and 4 and 5, and also model 1 with the rest of
the models in figure 4.19. It is also shown in the figure that there is no relationship between
prestressing and heave as shown in figure 4.19, as there is no difference between the heave for
model 5 and 6 and 4 and 7 respectively. For both London Clay and granular material the data
in figure 4.19 appears to have a linear behaviour for all models. The lower settlement heave
for London clay may be due to the modelling of the area as Undrained and over a short time
period which wouldn’t allow for consolidation to happen hence the only displacements
happening are the result the elastic behaviour caused by the unloading, and also as London
clay has a higher modulus of elasticity than the granular soil which would result in a lower
amount of heave for the London Clay than the granular soil. These results indicate that the
arched Cantilever wall will slightly increase the maximum heave in the excavation.
61
180 Model 1
Maximum heave in the excavation (mm)
160
140 Model 2
120
Model 3
100
80
Model 4
60
40 Model 5
(average
20 Prestress values)
0 Model 7
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4.19 - The maximum heave in the excavation against excavation depth.
5 - Detailed PLAXIS 3D Models
After the initial results showed that the arched Cantilever wall had a reduction in
displacements and behaved like a propped Cantilever wall, it was decided to conduct a more
realistic model, using an adaptation of the National Gallery Extension in London. This section
will model the construction sequence and also following on from section 4; will look at the
impact of prestressing.
The National Gallery Sainsbury Wing extension was built to the west of the National Gallery
in Central London (The National Gallery, [No Date]). The building included a 10m deep
basement and had a rectangular plan area of approximately 40m x 60m. The ground
conditions contained a mixture of soils including made ground, Thames Terrace Gravels and
London Clay. The water table was quite high due to the low lying ground with the ground
level at +13m above ordinance datum. The basement had the effect of the foundations and
loading of the National Gallery Building acting upon it. The basement was constructed using
a propped secant pile wall with one prop placed at the top of the wall (Long M. 2001a).
62
5.1 - Detailed models methods
To evaluate the impact of the arch two models will be used. Detailed model 1 compared a
normal Cantilever wall and an arch with a 2m rise. Detailed model 2 looked at the effect of
the different arch rises, where one side had a 1m rise and another side had a 2m rise. All
arches were modelled with and without prestressing using prestressing type 5 from table 4.6,
this prestress was used as it gave the lowest horizontal deflections and also is considered the
easiest to construct. The prestressing was modelled the same way in section 4 as it was
determined to be too detailed to model the exact nature of the prestressing for this report.
To keep the geometry similar to the models in section 4 to allow for comparison, the same
plan area of 30m x 30m for the excavation was used, the dimensions of the model was 100m
width 100m length by 100m depth to also mirror the geometry used in section 4. To model the
impact of the existing National Gallery the foundations were modelled as well as a surcharge
of 60KN/m2 placed on the foundation to model the loading of the building (Long M. 2001a)
also the soil profile was modelled as can be seen in figure 5.3. The connectivity plots and soil
profile is shown in figures 5.1-5.3. The property of the soils, foundation and retaining wall is
shown in table 5.1.
63
National Gallery Foundations

(Loading is also applied here)
27m
6m
Made 2m
Ground
30m
35m 30m 8m 35m
National Gallery Foundations 27m

(Loading is also applied here) Y
X
Figure 5.1 - The Connectivity Plot for Detailed Model 1.
33m
2m
30m
1m
34m
Y
X
Figure 5.2 - The Connectivity Plot for Detailed Model 2.
64
Figure 5.3 - The Geometry of the Detailed Models.
Table 5.1 - The properties used in the detailed models.
Property Value (Source or notes) [Assume source is Long M, 2001a except

(Notation) where noted]
[Unit of Made Terrace London Clay Retaining National
measurement] Ground gravels (Short Term) Wall Gallery
[Modelled as [Modelled as [Modelled Foundations
Mohr- a Mohr- as linear [Modelled
Coulomb Coulomb elastic] as linear
soil, using soil, elastic]
drained soil Undrained B]
parameters]
Unit Weight 18 20 20 24 36
3
(γ) [KN/m ]
Earth pressure 0.5 0.7 1.40 1 1
at rest
coefficient
(K0)
65
Property Made Terrace London Clay Retaining National

(Notation) Ground gravels (Short Term) Wall Gallery
[Unit of Foundations
measurement]
Modulus of 20 20 1Cu (8) (if 15000 1000
Elasticity (Simpson, Cu was in
(taken as Eh) B, et al. terms of
(E) [MN/m3] 1980) KN/m2)
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2
(υ)
Shear 8 . 3 8.3 28.57 6250 416.7
Modulus(G)
[MN/m3]
Angle of 30 35 0
resistance (ф) (Simpson,
[Degrees] B, et al.
1980)
Cohesion (Cu) 0 0 80+8z
[KN/m2] (Simpson,
B, et al.
1980)
Source: Long M. 2001a, Simpson B. et al. 1980.
The historic nature of the area was modelled (particularly the impact of the National gallery),
to obtain an approximation of the effective stresses acting on the soil. The historic impact of
the area was modelled in the sequence as shown below using the plastic calculation type (with
the time period used):
66
 Initial phase (no loading) (0 days)

 The National Gallery (100 years) (Note: the London clay specified in table 5.1 was
changed to a long term model of London clay outlined in table A4.1.
 Construction sequence of the excavation (the detailed sequence is shown below) (note:
all displacements from the above sequences were zeroed to be able to compare the
results)
To be able to compare these results with the results in section 4 the walls will be a diaphragm
wall, which was modelled as plates with a width of approximately 5m, going down to the full
length of the excavation required. The embedment ratio was also kept the same as the initial
models a simplified construction sequence was modelled as shown below (with the time
modelled), all the results were calculated using the plastic calculation type:
 Half of the diaphragm walls are excavated (in a sequence of every other wall) and
placed at the full embedment depth (5 days).
 The other half of the diaphragm walls are excavated and placed at the full embedment
depth (5 days).
 The area to be excavated is excavated to the full excavation depth and pumps are
placed which can pump 100m3/day are placed at the midpoint of every wall (1 day).
 The excavation is left and prestressing is applied to those models with prestressing
(100 days).
5.2 - Results of detailed models
The detailed models were calculated and the results are shown in the section below. Overall,
the behaviour of the models was similar to that of the initial models as shown in section 4.2.
However these results were more similar to that published in research, giving greater
reliability that the results in sections 4 and 5 are an accurate representation of real life.
67
5.2.1 - Horizontal displacement
The horizontal displacement, as shown in figure 5.4 overall, had a higher maximum
displacement than that quoted in section 4.2.1. These values are similar to that quoted in a
FEM of the National Gallery Extension, with a normal Cantilever wall giving higher values
than measured on site, which had a maximum normalised horizontal displacement of 0.1%
(Long M. 2001a. Pg. 416, figure 14), but the prestressed arch gave values much below that at
around 0.075%. As figure 5.4 shows, the arches results in lower maximum horizontal
displacements and. the greater the rise the lower the displacements this is presented in section
4.2.1.
However, this model shows that prestressing has a very noticeable effect on the horizontal
displacement and shows that as the excavation depth increases the prestress effect on the
maximum horizontal displacement reduces. The reduction in the advantage could be due to
the reduction in stiffness of the retaining wall causing the wall to flex, which would reduce
the impact of the prestressing as discussed in section 4.2.1. The impact of prestressing is more
amplified than that presented in section 4.2.1. It was thought that the soil profile, in particular
the made ground caused the amplification, which has a lower modulus of elasticity than
London Clay, as shown in table 5.1 this would have allowed for more variation in
displacement.
68
0.18 Straig
Normalised Horizontal displacement
ht
0.16
Arch,
0.14 NP
0.12 Arch,
(δh/H) (%)
0.1 P
0.08 1m,
NP
0.06
1m, P
0.04
0.02 2m,
0 NP
8 10 12 14 16 2m, P
Excavation depth (m)
Prestress force applied, NP = No prestress force applied).
The behaviour of the retaining walls (i.e. location of the maximum horizontal displacement) is
similar to that described in section 4.2.1. When comparing the results to the data published by
Long (2001b) as shown in figure 5.5, the data is similar to case studies and as a result looks
more realistic, the data also correlates well with the reports on excavations in London Clay
(Yeow H. and Feltham I, 2008). The data also shows that the straight Cantilever wall has little
changes in displacements due to the prestressing (~0.01mm). This shows that the assumption
made in section 4.1 that the opposing walls do not interact with each other was a valid
assumption.
69
1 Long, 2001
Normalised Horizontal Displacmeent
0.9
Detailed Model 1,
0.8 Normal wall
0.7 Detailed Model 1,
Arch 2m NP
(δh/H) (%)
0.6
Detailed Model 1,
0.5 Arch 2m P
Arch 1m NP
0.3
Detailed Model 2,
0.2 Arch 1m P
Arch 2m NP
0
0 5 10 15 Detailed Model 2,
Excavation Depth (m) Arch 2m P
Figure 5.5 - Comparison of the normalised horizontal displacements against literature Source:
Long M, 2001b.
5.2.2 - Bending Moments
The overall bending moments of the detailed models were similar to that of the initial models
as presented in section 4.2.2, with the arch showing higher bending moments than a normal
Cantilever wall and the higher the rise, the lower the bending moments this is shown in table
5.2. However there are some results which are contrary to that as described in section 4.2.2.
One of the results which run contrary as shown in table 5.2, is the effect of prestressing in the
detailed models causes a considerable increase in bending moments in the z-z direction (as
shown for detailed model 1) and also for moments in the x-x direction between the different
arch rises (as shown in detailed model 2). One of the possible reasons for these values is the
impact on the granular soil which wasn’t investigated in the initial models due to inaccuracies.
The impact of the loading could play a role in the increase in moments compared to the initial
model as the crown of the 2m arch will be closer to the foundations than a 1m arch.
70
Table 5.2 - the percentage difference between bending moments of the wall and beam.
Model 1 (comparing a straight Model 2 (comparing an arch rise
and arch rise of 2m) (%) of 1m and 2m) (%)
H (m) Prestressing Mmax z-z Mmax x-x Mmax z-z Mmax x-x
8 N -23 19 -27 -9
8 Y 24 11 -24 7
10 N -12 43 -17 6
10 Y 27 36 -13 6
12 N 14 70 5 8
12 Y 33 64 10 7
14 N 20 88 19 7
14 Y 25 83 20 5
16 N 37 95 29 -9
16 Y 36 91 29 -10
Comparing the prestressing of the arches, as shown in table 5.3, shows that the increase in
bending moments in the z-z direction is dependent on the arch rise, also shown is that the
percentage difference decreases as the excavation depth increases. This may be due to the
reducing impact of prestressing as described in section 4.2.4. Also the orientation of the
prestressing may have an impact as described in section 4.2.2.
Table 5.3 - The percentage difference between no prestressing and prestressing.

2m arch rise (%) 1m arch rise (%)
H Mmax z-z Mmax x-x Mmax z-z Mmax x-x
8 60 -6 -14 -19
10 43 -4 -10 -3
12 16 -3 -5 -2
14 3 -3 -1 0
16 -1 -2 0 0
71
5.2.3 - Displacement behind the excavation
The horizontal and vertical displacement behind the centre of the excavation, with a depth of
10m is shown in figures 5.6 and 5.7 respectively. The values given were much higher the
initial models as shown in section 4.2.3. The behaviour is believed to be affected by the
foundations of the national gallery which is shown by the sharp reduction in displacement
beyond 8m away from the excavation and also the role of the made ground increasing
displacements. The values quoted for the vertical deflection are similar to those quoted using
other FEM analyses of the national gallery extension (Long M, 2001a). For the horizontal
displacement there is no data given for the extension.
1 Straight
0
0 10 20 30 40
-1
Vertical Displacmenet (mm)
1m Arch (no
-2 prestress)
-3
-4 1m Arch
(Prestress)
-5
-6 2m Arch (No
-7 Prestress)
-8
2m Arch
-9 (Prestress)
Figure 5.6 - The vertical displacement behind the excavations for the National Gallery
Models.
72
16 Straight
14
Horizontlal Displacement (mm)
12 1m Arch (no
prestress)
10
8 1m Arch
(Prestress)
6
2m Arch
4 (No
Prestress)
2
2m Arch
0 (Prestress)
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 5.7 - The horizontal displacement behind the excavations for the National Gallery
Models.
This data also shows that arching has a noticeable effect on the displacement, with a 25%
reduction in the maximum vertical displacement for a 2m arch rise compared to the straight
wall and 8% reduction for a 1m arch rise. For the vertical displacement prestressing makes no
impact as shown in figure 5.6, but for the horizontal displacement, prestressing makes a
noticeable impact as shown in figure 5.7 showing additional evidence that the arch acts
similar to a propped Cantilever wall. All of the behaviours described were seen in section
4.2.3.
5.2.4 – Capping Beam
For the capping beam deflection, the results as shown in figure 5.8 were similar to that shown
in section 4.2.4. The figure shows that with prestressing has a significant impact on reducing
the amount of deflection in the beam approximately a 25% reduction. Also, as discussed in
section 4.2.4 the beam reaches a maximum value as the wall displacement profile changes.
73
18 1m, No Prestress
Maximum Capping Beam deflection
16
14
1m, Prestress
12
10
(mm)
8 2m, No Prestress
6
4 2m, Prestress
2
0 2m, No Prestress
8 10 12 14 16 (Detailed model 2)
Figure 5.8– The maximum deflection of the capping beam.
The results for the bending moments, shear forces and axial forces were inaccurate as also
presented in section 4.2.4, so the results cannot be interpreted. The impact of prestressing as
shown in table 5.4 the behaviour is as expected that as the prestress is applied it results in a
massive increase in the axial force and the bending moment as the prestress force is applied as
discussed in section 4.2.4. Due to the use of multiple soil layers in the soil profile it is not
possible to compare the exact values of the displacement, moments, shear and axial forces
with the initial research found in section 3.3 and section 4.
74
Table 5.4 - The percentage difference between bending moments and axial forces of the
beam.
Model 2 (comparing Comparison of Prestressing [Model 2] (%)
an arch rise of 1m and
2m) (%)
H Prestressin Mmax Nmax beam H 2m 1m
(m) g beam (m)
8 N 4 50 Mmax Nmax Mmax Nmax
beam beam beam beam
8 Y 77 -31 8 184 1297 -15 2932
10 N 2 6 10 219 1093 -8 1790
10 Y 7 -32 12 177 1256 18 1621
12 N 5 -16 14 150 1876 65 1649
12 Y 56 -32 16 137 3062 121 1785
14 N 11 -40
14 Y 40 -32
16 N 17 -59
16 Y 30 -32
6 - Discussion on use and Characteristics
6.1 – Design Process and constructability
From this feasibility study it appears that the arched Cantilever wall in general appears to
have a more complex design than a normal Cantilever wall. However, as the models were
only looking at the overall behaviour it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the
actual theory of the structure, what factors influence it hence, it is not possible to propose a
design procedure on how to design it. This report can only suggest factors and relationships to
consider.
75
The main difference between an arched and a normal Cantilever wall is that for an arched
Cantilever wall, the 3D effects of the arching need to be considered into the normal cross-
section design. It is thought that this can be done by using the design process for a propped
Cantilever wall, with the prop force being the similar in magnitude to the shear force. Due to
the higher bending moments (as discussed in section 4.2.2), it is considered not appropriate to
design it as a straight Cantilever wall, and so the use 3D FEM programs are required. For the
ULS design of the wall it is still considered to design it as a two pinned arch if the two corners
are not bonded with each other, but as a fixed arch if the corners are bonded to each other, as
discussed in section 4.2.2. The design assumptions of the arch will depend on the construction
technique, sequence and wall type used.
Looking at both the bending moments and horizontal displacement it looks like ULS design
for an arched Cantilever wall may take more precedent over SLS design, particularly as the
arch rise increases as the maximum displacement decreases and the maximum moment
remains relatively constant. However, to choose the arch rise, the SLS case must be looked at
first as well as the site constraints. For the capping beam it is thought that the current process
of ULS design before SLS design will still be used (Wells J, 2009). However, more work still
needs to be undertaken on the role of the capping beam on the arched Cantilever wall. For
prestressing the capping beam it is thought the current design process of SLS design before
ULS design will still be adequate.
For the construction process, to get the true arch shape for the wall as used sections 3-5 will
be impossible, it is proposed that the arch is instead approximated by a series of straight walls
for diaphragm walls, it is predicted that the approximations will be similar to that of circular
diaphragm walls as discussed in section 2.3.4 (Virollet, B. et al, [No date]). The
approximations will potentially have an impact on arching effect seen resulting in higher
displacements than quoted in this report, however is beyond the scope of this report to
estimate the impact of approximating the arch (including the effects of the tolerances), will
have on the increase in displacements.
76
6.2 – Economics
The main economic reason for using the arched Cantilever wall would be to remove the prop,
however this comes at the expense of requiring more land, excavating more material and
having a longer wall which will require more piles/walls and concrete and steel. To help
evaluate the additional cost CESMM4 has been used (McGill R, 2012).
Considering the 2 arches in the Detailed model 2 (30m long, excavation depth 14m with a 1m
and 2m arch rise respectively) compared to a normal Cantilever wall, the additional costs is
shown in table 6.1. Table 6.1 shows that the additional cost is negligible (considering most
projects using excavation depths of 14m will have total budgets of many millions of pounds).
Unfortunately as the cost of props is highly variable and depends on the site and location the
author of the report was unable to obtain or used a figure, but it is thought that if the cost of
the props were included as well as the non-quantifiable benefits such as improved health and
safety conditions and improved construction access that the arch would deliver a cost saving.
Table 6.1 – The additional cost due to the arch.

1m arch rise 2m arch rise
Additional Volume excavated (m3) (Equation 28) 280 560
Additional Cost from more excavations £5,863 £11,726
Additional Wall (m) (Equation 12) 0.089 0.354
Additional Wall (m3) 1.492 5.952
Additional Cost from Longer wall £549.31 £2,191.44
Total Additional Cost £6,268 £13,462
Source: (McGill R, 2012).
77
6.3 – Use in Construction projects
Because of the primary use of an arched Cantilever wall is to minimise horizontal

displacements, it is envisaged that it will mainly be used for Bottom Up construction projects
as horizontal displacements are the critical design factors as discussed in section 2.3.3
(Devriendt M, 2012). It is also predicted that for projects with very critical deflection
tolerances (particularly if they are in granular soils) that prestressing would be used
particularly for horizontal movement behind the excavation.
There are also benefits in the construction for the arched Cantilever wall, as the removal of
the props will allow for tasks such as waterproofing the wall to be undertaken more easily
over the whole length of wall. Also the improved construction access it could be used for
projects which require large plant machinery in the excavation or want to reduce health and
safety risks.
6.4 – Optimal solution
For the arch Cantilevered wall the optimal solution will be site specific taking into account all
that was discussed in sections 4 and 5. It is predicted that to get the maximum benefits in
terms of horizontal displacement walls which are capable of transmitting moments along their
cross section (like diaphragm walls) are to be used. However to get an economic solution the
depths would have to be a lot deeper for diaphragm walls than that considered (Fernie R. et al,
2012).
78
7 - Conclusion
The aim of this research project was to do a feasibility study into an arched Cantilever wall.
This was to be done through looking at the data obtained from initial research using structural
mechanics and also data obtained from the initial and detailed models using 3D FEM
programs. From this data comments were made on the design process, economics, predicted
use in construction projects and the optimal solution. Overall, it appears that the arched
Cantilever wall is a feasible solution to removing props in Cantilever retaining walls and
could make an impact to the excavation of deep basements.
The key findings of this research project are shown below (and the aim they relate to of the
aims and objectives in section 2.3):
1. The arched Cantilever wall provides reductions in the displacements of the

wall as well as the displacements behind the excavation compared to an
unpropped Cantilever wall with a reduction in the displacement of the wall by
25%. (aim 1)
2. The reducing effect in displacement increases as the arch rise increases and if a
prestress is applied, however the effect is very dependent on the type of soil
(aim 1).
3. There is an increase in moments in both the vertical and horizontal direction
due to arching; however the magnitude is very dependent on the soil type and
excavation depth (aim 1).
4. The capping beam seems to act like a prop as the deflection profile of the wall
changes into that of a propped Cantilever wall as the excavation depth
increases, however the role of the capping beam appears to diminish as the
excavation depth increases, more research is needed into the role of the
capping beam (aim 1).
5. The exact theory of the wall is still unknown so it is not possible to determine
what specific factors impact the behaviour of the wall (aim 1)
6. For small arch rises the linear and parabolic arch behaviour and appearance is
the same (aim 1).
79
7. More work will have to be undertaken using other types of wall to see if the
arch can still make an impact (aim 1)
8. For the arched Cantilever wall, the ULS design of the structure will take
precedent over the design than the SLS design. However the SLS design will
be taken into account when selecting the arch rise (aim 1 and 2).
9. The Arched Cantilever wall can deliver construction benefits (particularly
waterproofing) and also improvements in the health and safety conditions and
access to the excavation (aim 2).
10. If the cost of the removal of the props and other non-quantifiable benefits such
as improved health and safety conditions were included, it is predicated that
the arched Cantilever wall will make a cost saving over a propped Cantilever
wall, however to get the cost saving the excavation depth will have to be
deeper (aim 2).
11. Small arch rises (around 1-2m) give the majority of the benefits of arching
whilst only having a small amount of additional excavations compared to a
Cantilever wall (aim 3).
12. The optimal solution will be site specific, however it is envisaged that to get an
economic solution for the models considered (diaphragm walls) that the
excavation depth will have to be much deeper than that used in sections 4 and
5 (aim 3).
80
8 - References
Anderson, S. 2012. Manual of Geotechnical Engineering Chapter 62: Types of Retaining

Walls.[Online] London: Institution of Civil Engineers. [Accessed: 14th April 2015] Available
from: http://0-www.icevirtuallibrary.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/content/book/101195
ArcelorMittal (2008). Piling Handbook (8th Ed).[Online] Available at:

www.arcelormittal.com/sheetpiling/page/index/name/arcelor-piling-handbook (cited by
Anderson, S. 2012)
Autodesk, 2014. Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional Documentation. [Online]

[No place]: Autodesk. [Accessed: 13th April 2015] available from:
http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/robot-structural-analysis-
products/downloads/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/ENU/123112/files/robot-structural-analysis-
pro-documentation-html.html
Brinkgreve R.B.J. et al. ed. 2013. Plaxis 3D 2013 manual. [Online] Netherlands: Plaxis bv.
[Accessed: 14th April 2015]. Available from: http://www.plaxis.nl/plaxis3d/manuals/
British Standards Institution. 2001. BD 37/01. Highway Structures Approval Procedures And
General Design. Milton Keynes: BSI Standards
British Standards Institution.1994. BS 8002: Code of Practice for Earth Retaining Structures.
London: British Standards Institution.
Carrubba P and Colonna P. 2000. A comparison of numerical methods for multi-tied walls.
Computers And Geotechnics, 27 (2). Pp 117-140.
Clough G. W. and O’Rourke. T. D., 1990. Construction induced movements of in situ walls.
Proceedings of the ASCE conference on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining
structures. Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 25, ASCE, New York, 439–470. (cited by Long M,
2001b)
81
CMCS Ltd. 2001. A177 – BBC Broadcasting House. [Online] [Accessed: 22nd April 2015]
Available from: http://www.cmcsltd.co.uk/Webpages/Projects.aspx#
Davison L and Springman L, 2000 Shear Strength. [Online] [Accessed: 9th March 2015]
Available From: environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/SoilMech/shear/shear.htm
Davison L and Springman L, 2015. Typical Values of Undrained Stiffness. [Online]

[Accessed: 9th March 2015] Available From:
environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/foundations/foundations.htm#SETTLESTRESS
Deep Excavation LLC. 2015. Figure 3: Top/down basic construction. [Online ] [Accessed:
22nd April 2015] Available from: http://www.deepexcavation.com/en/support-systems-
topdown
Devriendt M, 2012. Manual of Geotechnical Engineering Chapter 63 Principles of Retaining

Wall design. [Online] London: Institution Of Civil Engineers [Accessed 11th March 2015]
Available from: http://0-www.icevirtuallibrary.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/content/book/101195
Dym, C. and Williams, H. (2011). Stress and Displacement Estimates for Arches. J. Struct.
Eng., 137(1), 49–58.
Ergun, M. U. [No date]. Deep Excavations. [Online] Ankara: Middle East Technical
University. [Accessed: 13th April 2015] Available from:
http://ejge.com/Bouquet08/UfukErgun/UfukErgun_ppr.pdf
Fernie R. et al. 2012.Manual of Geotechnical Engineering Chapter 85: Embedded

walls.[Online] London: Institution of Civil Engineers. [Accessed: 14th March 2015] Available
from: http://0-www.icevirtuallibrary.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/content/book/101195
82
Gaba, A. R., Simpson, B., Powrie, W. and Beadman, D. R. (2003). Embedded Retaining
Walls – Guidance for Economic Design. Publication C580. London: CIRIA. (Cited by
Anderson S, 2012)
Gambhir, M. L. 2011. Fundamentals of Structural Mechanics and Analysis. New Delhi: PHI
Learning Private Limited.
Gasparre A et al, 2007. The influence of Structure on the Behaviour of London Clay,
Géotechnique. 57(1). Pp 19-31
Geotechdata.info. 2013. Soil Permeability coefficient. [Online] [Accessed: 26th March 2015]
available from : http://www.geotechdata.info/parameter/permeability.html
Glass, P. R. and Powderham, A. J. 1994. Application of the observational method at the

Limehouse Link. Géotechnique. 44(4) pp. 665-679.
Goh A. T. C. 1993. Behaviour of Cantilever Retaining Walls. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering.119(11) pp. 1751-1770.
Gunn and Clayton. 1992. Installation effects and their importance in the design of earth-
retaining structures. Géotechnique. 42(1), pp 137-141
Hight D W et al, 2007. Characteristics of the London Clay from the Terminal 5 site at
Heathrow Airport. Géotechnique. 57(1) pp 3-18
Hydra-Capsule LTD, 2014. Locking Collar Hydraulic Cylinders available for Hire. [Online]
[no place]: Hydra-Capsule LTD. [Accessed: 11th April 2015] Available from:
http://www.hydra-capsule.com/locking-collar-jacks
King G. J. W. 1995, Analysis of Cantilever sheet-pile walls in cohesion less soil Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering - ASCE, 121(9), pp 629–635
83
Knappett J. A. and Craig R. F. 2012. Craig’s Soil Mechanics. 8th ed. Oxon: Spoon Press.
Long M , 2001a. A Case History of a deep basement in London Clay. Computers and
Geotechnics. 28(2) pp 397-423
Long M. 2001b.Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due to Deep
Excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromenal Engineering ,pp 203-224
McGill R, 2012. CESMM4 Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement. [Online]

London: Institute of Civil Engineers. [Accessed: 21st April 2015] Available from: 0-
www.icevirtuallibrary.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/content/book/102863
Melbourne, C. 2008. ICE Manual of Bridge Engineering. [Online]. 2nd Edition. London:
Institute of Civil Engineers. [Accessed: 26th February 2015] Available from:
http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/book/100519
Mosley B. et al. 2012. Reinforced Concrete Design to Eurocode 2. 7th ed. New York:
Palgrave Maxmillan.
O'Brien, A. 2010 Embedded Retaining Walls — A European Perspective on Design

Developments and Challenges. Earth Retention Conference 3: pp. 37-54.
Peck, R. B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground. Proc., 7th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engrg., 225–281. (cited by Long M, 2001b)
Pickles A, Manual of Geotechnical Engineering Chapter 64 Geotechnical design of retaining

walls.[Online] London: Institution of Civil Engineers. [Accessed: 24th February 2015]
Available from: http://0-www.icevirtuallibrary.com.wam.leeds.ac.uk/content/book/101195
Potts D M and Fourie A B. 1984. The Behaviour of a propped retaining wall: results of a
numerical experiment. Géotechnique. 34(3) pp. 383-404.
84
Prieto-Portar L. 2008. Foundation Engineering Lecture #23 Types of retaining walls. [Online]
[Accessed: 25th February 2015] Available from:
http://www.researchgate.net/publictopics.PublicPostFileLoader.html?id=548f1ee1d3df3e9817
8b4579&key=3b597c11-bd0d-4ad7-ab04-89609564c7a2.
RailSystem.Net, 2015. Conventional bottom-up sequence of construction. [Online] [Accessed:

22nd April 2015] Available from: http://www.railsystem.net/cut-and-cover/
Richards D. J and Powrie W. 1994. Finite element analysis of construction sequences for
propped retaining walls. Proceedings of the ICE – Geotechnical Engineering. 107(4) pp.
207-216.
Rigby-Jones J. PLAXIS analysis of a basement excavation in central London. [Online]

[Accessed: 9th March 2015] Available from: kb.plaxis.nl/sites/kb.plaxis.nl/files/kb-
publications/Iss28%20Art3%20-%20Analysis%20of%20a%20Basement%20Excavation.pdf
Skempton, A. 1964. Long term stability of clay slopes. Géotechnique. Pp. 77-101.
Simpson B. et al. The measurement, selection and use of design parameters for stiff clays. 7th
ECSMFE, Brighton, 1980 (cited by Long M, 2001a)
Soufiani N. 2011. London Clay. [Online] [No place]: Nima Soufiani. [Accessed: 24th April
2015] available from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52713813/London-Clay#scribd
Terzaghi, K. 1954. Anchored bulkheads. Transactions of the American Society of Civil

Engineers, 119, 1243–1281. (cited by Devriendt M, 2012)
The National Gallery, [No date]. About the building. [Online] [Accessed: 12th April 2015]
available from: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/history/about-the-building/about-
the-building/*/viewPage/6
85
Thompson J. and Zadoorian C. 2008. A Case Study for Up-Down Design and Construction
Methodology for a High-Rise Development in Los Angeles, California. In: Structural
Engineers Association of California 77th Annual Convention. 23-27 September 200, Big
Island, Hawaii. Sacramento: Structural Engineers Association of California, pp. 1-8.
Virollet B. et al. [No date]. Recent Advances in Large Diameter Diaphragm wall shafts.
[Online] Pittsburgh: Nicholson Construction. [Accessed: 12th April 2015] available from:
http://www.nicholsonconstruction.com/techresources/techPapers/PDF/Large%20Diameter%2
0Diaphragm%20Wall%20Shafts.pdf
Wells J. 2009. Design of capping beams. TheStructuralEngineer. 87(23/24), pp. 23-26.
Yeow H and Feltham I, 2008. Case Histories back analyses for the application of the
Observational Method under Eurocodes for the SCOUT project. 6th International Conference
on Case histories in Geotechnical Engineering, August 11-16 2008, Arlington,VA. London:
Ove Arup and Partners, pg. 1-13
Yimsiri, S. 2001.Pre-failure deformation characteristics of soils: Anisotropy and soil fabric.

Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.
Youssef T. F. [No Date] Dams & Reservoirs. [Online] [Accessed: 28th April 2015] Available
from: http://osp.mans.edu.eg/tahany/dams1.htm
Bibliography
Long M , 2001a. A Case History of a deep basement in London Clay. Computers and
Geotechnics. 28(2) pp 397-423
Long M. 2001b.Database For Retaining Wall and Ground Movements Due to Deep
Excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromenal Engineering ,pp 203-224
86
Richards D. J and Powrie W. 1994. Finite element analysis of construction sequences for
propped retaining walls. Proceedings of the ICE – Geotechnical Engineering. 107(4) pp.
207-216.
Yeow H and Feltham I, 2008. Case Histories back analyses for the application of the
Observational Method under Eurocodes for the SCOUT project. 6th International Conference
on Case histories in Geotechnical Engineering, August 11-16 2008, Arlington,VA. London:
Ove Arup and Partners, pg. 1-13
Appendixes
The appendix listed below includes the data used in the sections above for the graphs. There is
also data included on the attached CD-ROM which includes the excel spreadsheets of the
results and structural mechanics section and also the output from the PLAXIS 3D results. For
the actual models used for PLAXIS 3D the data was too large to include in a CD-ROM so the
data is instead available on request at cn12dmg@leeds.ac.uk.
Appendix 1 - Original Aims and Objectives
Project Title - A novel Cantilever support system feasibility study using numerical
Methods
Project Supervisors - Raul Fuentes (Principal) and Barry Clarke (Co-Supervisor)
Summary
This project will conduct a feasibility study into Cantilever walls using arches to support it.
The aim of this is to eliminate or reduce the amount of props used in Cantilever construction
which hampers construction in the excavation and limits the dimensions for non-propped
Cantilever walls. This feasibility study will determine the behaviour of the arched Cantilever
wall, optimise it for constructability and feasibility and comment on its feasibility in
comparison to propped Cantilever walls for different scenarios.
87
Aims
1. To design an arched Cantilever wall
2. To comment on its feasibility and limitations of this type of structure
3. To comment on an optimal solution for the arch which gives the best compromise
between design, constructability and cost
Objectives
 Research about arch construction and select one or more different arch types and
calculate prestress forces, bending moments, shear forces and deflection for a variety
of different types, deviations and spans (by 4th February) (Aim 1 and 3)
 To measure the forces, deflections and behaviour of the structure using PLAXIS 3D
(by 16th February) (Aim 1 and 2)
 To design an arched Cantilever wall for all selected arch types (using average
dimensions and soil parameters) using manual methods (by 23rd February) (Aim 1)
 To design a typical Cantilever wall and compare the structure to the arched Cantilever
wall (by 23rd February) (Aim 2)
 To cost both structures and comment on the most cost effective structure (by 25th
February) (Aim 2)
 To estimate the behaviour and limitations of the arched Cantilever wall over different
lengths and depths (by 9th March) (Aim 2 and 3)
 To comment on the feasibility of construction of both types and to create a template
method statement for the construction of it (by 16th March) (Aim 2)
 To select an arch type for each scenario (by 20th March) (Aim 2 and 3)
Appendix 2 - Initial Research
Data from this section comes from the “Arch Forces 15m” spreadsheet, located on the
attached CD.
88
A2.1 – Co-ordinates of arches
Table A2.1 – The Co-ordinates for a linear and parabolic arch.

Y (m) [2m arch rise]
X (m) Linear arch (Equation 4) Parabolic Arch (Equation 5)
0 0.000 0.000
1 0.525 0.498
2 0.960 0.924
3 1.312 1.280
4 1.588 1.564
5 1.791 1.778
6 1.925 1.920
7 1.992 1.991
7.5 2.000 2.000
8 1.992 1.991
9 1.925 1.920
10 1.791 1.778
11 1.588 1.564
12 1.312 1.280
13 0.960 0.924
14 0.525 0.498
15 0.000 0.000
Note:
a -0.036
b 0.533
r (m) 15.063
89
A2.2 – Bending Moment, Axial and Shear force Data
Table A2.2 – The Bending Moment, Axial and Shear force Data.
x (m) Axial Force (KN) Shear Force (KN) Bending Moment (KNm)
0 3 107 0
1 13 138 111
2 23 171 204
3 31 203 280
4 38 235 338
5 44 267 379
6 47 298 401
7 48 329 405
7.5 48 344 400
8 48 329 405
9 47 298 401
10 44 267 379
11 38 235 338
12 31 203 280
13 23 171 204
14 13 138 111
15 3 107 0
note: Arch rise = 2m
Span of arch = 15m
Linear arch used
90
A2.3 – Additional Volume of soil data
Table A2.3 – The additional volume excavated for a Parabolic and linear arch.
Amount of soil Excavated (m3)
Arch Rise (m) Linear Arch (Equation 28) Parabolic Arch (Equation 29)
0.5 23 23
1 45 45
1.5 68 68
2 91 90
2.5 115 113
3 139 135
3.5 164 158
4 190 180
4.5 216 203
5 244 225
5.5 272 248
6 302 270
6.5 333 293
7 364 315
7.5 398 338
91
A2.4 – Change in span data
Table A2.4 – The Impact on reaction force and maximum deflection due to changes in span.
Span (m) R (KN) (Equation 9) Max deflection (mm) (Equation 23)
7 90 0.7
8 106 1.2
9 123 1.9
10 142 2.8
11 161 4.1
12 182 5.7
13 205 7.9
14 229 10.5
15 255 13.8
16 282 17.7
17 310 22.5
18 340 28.2
19 372 34.9
20 406 42.8
21 440 51.9
22 477 62.5
23 515 74.5
24 555 88.2
25 596 103.8
26 640 121.3
27 684 140.9
28 731 162.9
29 779 187.3
30 828 214.4
31 880 244.3
32 933 277.2
33 987 313.4
92
Span (m) R (KN) (Equation 9) Max deflection (mm) (Equation 23)

34 1044 353.0
35 1102 396.2
36 1161 443.3
37 1223 32.0
38 1286 35.6
39 1350 39.5
40 1417 43.7
41 1485 48.2
42 1554 53.1
43 1626 58.3
44 1699 63.9
45 1773 69.9
46 1850 76.3
47 1928 83.1
48 2008 90.4
49 2089 98.2
50 2172 106.4
Note:
Size of capping beam is 0.4m square
Arch rise is 1m
93
Appendix 3 - Initial Models
Data from this section comes from the “displacement, moment data” , “Horizontal
Displacement Behind the Excavation” and “Vertical Displacement Behind the Excavation”
Spreadsheets, located on the attached CD.
A3.1 – Wall Displacement Data
Data from this section comes from the “displacement, moment data” spreadsheet
Table A3.1 – Model 1 Wall displacement data.

Model 1
Straight 1m, Arch
H
H (m) h (m ) δh (m) δh/h (%) (m) h (m ) δh (m) δh/h (%)
4 2 0.000462 0.023115 4 2 0.000381 0.019025
8 4 0.001246 0.03115 8 4 0.000954 0.023858
12 6 0.001772 0.029533 12 6 0.001311 0.02185
16 8 0.002539 0.031738 16 8 0.00189 0.023625
20 10 0.003367 0.03367 20 10 0.002539 0.02539
24 12 0.004235 0.035292 24 12 0.003211 0.026758
28 14 0.005216 0.037257 28 14 0.003897 0.027836
32 16 0.006199 0.038744 32 16 0.004559 0.028494
36 18 0.007087 0.039372 36 18 0.005224 0.029022
40 20 0.007783 0.038915 40 20 0.005854 0.02927
94
Table A3.2 – Model 2 Wall displacement data.

Model 2
Straight 1m, Arch
H (m) h (m) δh (m) δh/h (%) H (m) h (m) δh (m) δh/h (%)
4 2 0.0008652 0.04326 4 2 0.000892 0.044575
8 4 0.002666 0.06665 8 4 0.002509 0.062725
12 6 0.004887 0.08145 12 6 0.00434 0.072333
16 8 0.007159 0.089488 16 8 0.005955 0.074438
20 10 0.009447 0.09447 20 10 0.007138 0.07138
24 12 0.01105 0.092083 24 12 0.008718 0.07265
28 14 0.01286 0.091857 28 14 0.0104 0.074286
32 16 0.01489 0.093063 32 16 0.01206 0.075375
36 18 0.01691 0.093944 36 18 0.01365 0.075833
40 20 0.01902 0.0951 40 20 0.01514 0.0757
Table A3.3 - Model 3 Wall displacement data.

Model 3
Straight Arch
4 2 0.000112 0.005615 4 2 0.000227 0.011325
8 4 0.000888 0.022195 8 4 0.001887 0.047175
12 6 0.002727 0.04545 12 6 0.004166 0.069433
16 8 0.005566 0.069575 16 8 0.006553 0.081913
20 10 0.008621 0.08621 20 10 0.008654 0.08654
24 12 0.01143 0.09525 24 12 0.01022 0.085167
28 14 0.01445 0.103214 28 14 0.01196 0.085429
32 16 0.018 0.1125 32 16 0.01423 0.088938
36 18 0.02198 0.122111 36 18 0.01665 0.0925
40 20 0.02644 0.1322 40 20 0.0193 0.0965
95

Model 4
1m, arch 2m, arch
16 8 0.007267 0.090838 16 8 0.006011 0.075138
20 10 0.008775 0.08775 20 10 0.007275 0.07275
24 12 0.01011 0.08425 24 12 0.008851 0.073758
28 14 0.01191 0.085071 28 14 0.01053 0.075214
32 16 0.01374 0.085875 32 16 0.01219 0.076188
36 18 0.01554 0.086333 36 18 0.01378 0.076556
40 20 0.01725 0.08625 40 20 0.01527 0.07635

Model 5
Arch Rise
1m, Arch 2m, Arch
h (m) Prestress Type δh (m) δh/h (%) δh (m) δh/h (%)
8 1 0.006 7.7E-02 0.005 0.06045
10 1 0.007693 7.7E-02 0.006512 0.06512
12 1 0.00956 8.0E-02 0.008283 0.06903
14 1 0.01151 8.2E-02 0.0101 0.07214
16 1 0.01346 8.4E-02 0.01185 0.07406
18 1 0.0153 8.5E-02 0.01351 0.07506
20 1 0.01708 8.5E-02 0.01504 0.07520
8 2 0.006651 8.3E-02 0.005623 0.07029
10 2 0.008213 8.2E-02 0.006959 0.06959
12 2 0.009808 8.2E-02 0.008641 0.07201
14 2 0.0117 8.4E-02 0.01038 0.07414
16 2 0.01359 8.5E-02 0.01206 0.07538
18 2 0.01541 8.6E-02 0.01369 0.07606
20 2 0.01714 8.6E-02 0.01517 0.07585
96
1m, Arch 2m, Arch

8 3 0 0.0E+00 0 0.00000
10 3 0 0.0E+00 0 0.00000
12 3 0.009948 8.3E-02 0.008723 0.07269
14 3 0.01181 8.4E-02 0.01044 0.07457
16 3 0.01368 8.6E-02 0.01212 0.07575
18 3 0.01548 8.6E-02 0.01373 0.07628
20 3 0.0172 8.6E-02 0.01521 0.07605
8 4 0.005955 7.4E-02 0 0.00000
10 4 0.007919 7.9E-02 0.006861 0.06861
12 4 0.009451 7.9E-02 0.008423 0.07019
14 4 0.01129 8.1E-02 0.01011 0.07221
16 4 0.01315 8.2E-02 0.01177 0.07356
18 4 0.01497 8.3E-02 0.01335 0.07417
20 4 0.0167 8.4E-02 0.01485 0.07425
8 5 0.006195 7.7E-02 0.004575 0.05719
10 5 0.007607 7.6E-02 0.006333 0.06333
12 5 0.009501 7.9E-02 0.00816 0.06800
14 5 0.01145 8.2E-02 0.01 0.07143
16 5 0.01342 8.4E-02 0.01178 0.07363
18 5 0.01525 8.5E-02 0.01346 0.07478
20 5 0.01704 8.5E-02 0.01501 0.07505
97

Model 6
Arch Rise
1m, arch 2m, arch
8 1 0.02207 0.275875 0.01708 0.2135
10 1 0.02994 0.2994 0.02439 0.2439
12 1 0.03892 0.324333 0.0322 0.268333
14 1 0.04859 0.347071 0.04046 0.289
16 1 0.05876 0.36725 0.04899 0.306188
18 1 0.06947 0.385944 0.05794 0.321889
20 1 0.08087 0.40435 0.0675 0.3375
8 2 0.02333 0.291625 0.01931 0.241375
10 2 0.03054 0.3054 0.02594 0.2594
12 2 0.03929 0.327417 0.03349 0.279083
14 2 0.04888 0.349143 0.04154 0.296714
16 2 0.05894 0.368375 0.04985 0.311563
18 2 0.0696 0.386667 0.05864 0.325778
20 2 0.08081 0.40405 0.06805 0.34025
8 3 0.02426 0.30325 0.02006 0.25075
10 3 0 0
12 3 0.03962 0.330167 0.03374 0.281167
14 3 0.0491 0.350714 0.04177 0.298357
16 3 0.05911 0.369438 0.05004 0.31275
18 3 0.06972 0.387333 0.05879 0.326611
20 3 0.08093 0.40465 0.06818 0.3409
8 4 0.02119 0.264875 0.01852 0.2315
10 4 0.02843 0.2843 0.02482 0.2482
12 4 0.03694 0.307833 0.0317 0.264167
14 4 0.04623 0.330214 0.03929 0.280643
16 4 0.05623 0.351438 0.0474 0.29625
98
1m, arch 2m, arch

18 4 0.06693 0.371833 0.05602 0.311222
20 4 0.0784 0.392 0.06535 0.32675
8 5 0.02164 0.2705 0.01658 0.20725
10 5 0.02961 0.2961 0.02403 0.2403
12 5 0.03861 0.32175 0.03195 0.26625
14 5 0.04832 0.345143 0.04032 0.288
16 5 0.05851 0.365688 0.04891 0.305688
18 5 0.06918 0.384333 0.05788 0.321556
20 5 0.08058 0.4029 0.0675 0.3375

Model 7
1m 2m
H h δh δh/h (%) H h δh δh/h (%)
16 8 0.00744 0.093 16 8 0.006563 0.082038
20 10 0.01013 0.1013 20 10 0.008658 0.08658
24 12 0.0123 0.1025 24 12 0.01019 0.084917
28 14 0.01467 0.104786 28 14 0.01212 0.086571
32 16 0.01757 0.109813 32 16 0.01433 0.089563
36 18 0.02063 0.114611 36 18 0.01668 0.092667
40 20 0.02401 0.12005 40 20 0.01929 0.09645
99
A3.2 – Wall Displacement comparison
Data from this section comes from the “displacement, moment data” spreadsheet
Table A3.8 - Model 1 Wall displacement comparison.

Model 1
h (m) Difference (%)
2 17.69
4 23.41
6 26.02
8 25.56
10 24.59
12 24.18
14 25.29
16 26.46
18 26.29
20 24.78
Average difference (%) 24.43
100
Table A3.9 - Model 2 Wall displacement comparison.

Model 2
h (m) Difference (%)
2 -3.04
4 5.89
6 11.19
8 16.82
10 24.44
12 21.10
14 19.13
16 19.01
18 19.28
20 20.40
Average difference (%) 15.42
Table A3.10 - Models 1and 2 Wall displacement comparison.

Comparison of Models 1 and 2
H (m) Arch difference (%) Straight difference (%)
2 134.30 87.15
4 162.92 113.96
6 231.05 175.79
8 215.08 181.96
10 181.13 180.58
12 171.50 160.92
14 166.87 146.55
16 164.53 140.20
18 161.29 138.61
20 158.63 144.38
Average difference (%) 174.73 147.01
101
Table A3.11 – Model 3 Wall displacement comparison.

Model 3
H (m) Difference (%)
2 -101.69
4 -112.55
6 -52.77
8 -17.73
10 -0.38
12 10.59
14 17.23
16 20.94
18 24.25
20 27.00
Average difference (%) -18.51
Table A3.12 – Models 2 and 3 Wall displacement comparison.

Comparison of Models 2 and 3
h (m) Arch difference (%) Straight difference (%)
2 -74.59 -87.02
4 -24.79 -66.70
6 -4.01 -44.20
8 10.04 -22.25
10 21.24 -8.74
12 17.23 3.44
14 15.00 12.36
16 17.99 20.89
18 21.98 29.98
20 27.48 39.01
Average difference (%) 2.76 -12.32
102
View publication stats

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A Novel Cantilever Support System Feasibility Study Using Numerical

Research · May 2016

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Individual Research Project Dissertation

A Novel Cantilever Support System Feasibility Study

Daniel Martin Gilmore

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... VI

List of Abbreviations and Symbols ...................................................................................XIII

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... XIII

Symbols ............................................................................................................................. XIII

Latin alphabet ................................................................................................................ XIII

2.1 – Cantilever Walls............................................................................................................ 1

2.2 - Theory of arches ............................................................................................................ 4

2.3.1 - Current processes and methods of design............................................................... 6

2.3.2 – Construction technique of Cantilever Walls .......................................................... 9

2.3.3 – Construction Technique of Circular Cantilever walls.......................................... 11

2.3.4 – Actual Behaviour of Cantilever Walls ................................................................. 11

2.3.5 – Actual Behaviour of Propped Cantilever walls.................................................... 13

2.4 - Aims and Objectives .................................................................................................... 15

3 - Initial Research .............................................................................................................. 16

3.1 - Earth Forces ................................................................................................................. 16

3.2 - Arch Forces and Reactions .......................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 - Linear Arch Geometry .......................................................................................... 17

3.2.2 - Parabolic Arch Geometry ..................................................................................... 19

3.2.3 - Vertical Reaction Force ........................................................................................ 20

3.2.4 - Horizontal Reaction Force .................................................................................... 20

3.2.5 - Linear Arch Forces on wall................................................................................... 22

3.2.6 - Parabolic Arch forces on wall............................................................................... 24

3.2.7 – Deflection ............................................................................................................. 26

3.2.8 - Volume of Excavated material.............................................................................. 28

3.3- Initial Research Results................................................................................................. 28

3.3.2 – Moment, shear forces and axial forces................................................................. 30

3.3.3 – Deflections ........................................................................................................... 31

3.3.4 – Volume of Excavated Material ............................................................................ 32

3.3.5 – Impact on changes in span ................................................................................... 33

3.4 - Capping beam theory ................................................................................................... 34

3.4.2 - Earth Pressures...................................................................................................... 36

3.4.3 – Other Effects ........................................................................................................ 36

4 – Initial PLAXIS 3D Models ........................................................................................... 37

4.1 - Models used ................................................................................................................. 37

4.2 - Results of models......................................................................................................... 45

4.2.1 - Horizontal Displacement of wall .......................................................................... 46

4.2.2 - Bending Moments in the wall ............................................................................... 52

4.2.3 - Settlement behind excavation ............................................................................... 55

4.2.4 - Capping Beam....................................................................................................... 58

4.2.5 – Heave in the Excavation....................................................................................... 61

5 - Detailed PLAXIS 3D Models ........................................................................................ 62

5.1 - Detailed models methods............................................................................................. 63

5.2 - Results of detailed models ........................................................................................... 67

5.2.1 - Horizontal displacement ....................................................................................... 68

5.2.2 - Bending Moments................................................................................................. 70

5.2.3 - Displacement behind the excavation .................................................................... 72

5.2.4 – Capping Beam ...................................................................................................... 73

6 - Discussion on use and Characteristics ........................................................................... 75

6.1 – Design Process and constructability............................................................................ 75

6.2 – Economics ................................................................................................................... 77

6.3 – Use in Construction projects ....................................................................................... 78

6.4 – Optimal solution.......................................................................................................... 78

Appendix 1 - Original Aims and Objectives ........................................................................ 87

Appendix 2 - Initial Research............................................................................................... 88

Appendix 3 - Initial Models ................................................................................................. 94

Appendix 4 - Detailed Models ........................................................................................... 135

Appendix 5 – Economics ................................................................................................... 150