Final Thesis - Sahishnu Pokhrel

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
THESIS NO.: PUL076MSGtE011
Parametric Analysis of Flexible and Rigid Excavation Support System
by
Sahishnu Pokhrel
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

LALITPUR, NEPAL
SEPTEMBER, 2022
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, Institute of Engineering may make this thesis freely available for inspection.
Moreover, the author has agreed that the permission for extensive copying of this
thesis for the scholarly purpose may be granted by the Professor, who supervised the
work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of Department or concerning
M.Sc. Program Coordinator or Dean of the Institute in which the thesis work was
done. It is understood that recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and the
Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering in any
use of the material of the thesis. Copying or publication or the other use of this for
financial gain without the approval of the Department of Civil Engineering, Pulchowk
Campus, Institute of Engineering, and the author’s written permission is prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in this in
whole or in part should be addressed to:
Head of Department
Department of Civil Engineering
Pulchowk Campus, Institute of Engineering
Lalitpur, Nepal
ii
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommended to the Institute of
Engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled “Parametric Analysis of Flexible and
Rigid Excavation Support System” submitted by Sahishnu Pokhrel in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geotechnical
Engineering.
Supervisor, Dr. Ram Chandra Tiwari

Assistant Professor
Pulchowk Campus, Lalitpur, Nepal
External Examiner, Dr. Mohan Prasad Acharya

Senior Geotechnical Engineer
NEA Engineering Company Limited
Program Coordinator, Dr. Santosh Kumar Yadav

Assistant Professor
Pulchowk Campus, Lalitpur, Nepal
September, 2022
iii
ABSTRACT
Due to the rapid increase in congestion in major cities of Nepal like Kathmandu, it
becomes necessary to plan any excavation-related works properly so that there is less
impact on the existing facilities or constructions. For this purpose, earth retaining
structures, which may be either rigid or flexible, becomes a priority. The purpose of
this study is to analyze the behavior of excavation support systems: Cantilever and
Anchored Sheet Pile Walls from the flexible category and Secant Pile Wall from the
rigid category by numerical method.
In this study, the effect of embedment depth of the cantilever sheet pile wall is
studied. Single anchored sheet pile wall is considered and the analysis of the effect of
anchor inclination, location of the anchor with respect to the ground surface, depth up
to which excavation is done before anchor installation, embedment depth of sheet pile,
anchor load, free anchor length and grout length is studied. In case of secant pile wall,
its total length and diameter is considered for analysis. Further, the effect of soil
cohesion and ground water table level on the performance of sheet pile wall is also
studied. All the parametric analysis is done by using Plaxis 2D, V20. The results from
the study are analyzed and the design value of above mentioned parameters are
selected based on the stability and serviceability criteria.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my supervisors Assistant

Professor Dr. Ram Chandra Tiwari sir and Dr. Mohan Prasad Acharya sir for
providing professional guidance, continuous supervision, patience and valuable time
during the project.
I would also like to express my due respect to Department of Civil Engineering for
their constant coordination and support. My special thanks to Assistant Professor Dr.
Santosh Kumar Yadav, Program Coordinator, MSc Program in Geotechnical
Engineering, Pulchowk Campus for his constant encouragement. I would also like to
thank the Department Professors, Lecturers for their extensive support and assistance
throughout the project.
I would also like to give special thanks to my respected senior sirs and colleagues for
constantly supporting, encouraging and helping me to complete my research study.
Lastly, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my friends and family for their
invaluable support, cooperation and motivation to accomplish the study within the
time frame.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT.................................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................xii
ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION............................................................................1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................1
1.2 Area of Study..........................................................................................................2
1.3 Problem statement..................................................................................................2
1.4 Objective................................................................................................................3
1.4.1 General Objective................................................................................................3
1.4.2 Specific Objective...............................................................................................3
1.5 Limitations..............................................................................................................3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................4

2.1 Sheet Pile Walls......................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Sheet Pile Wall Failure Mechanism....................................................................5
2.2 Contiguous, Tangent and Secant Pile Wall............................................................6
2.3 Theoretical Aspects................................................................................................8
2.3.1 Classical Earth Pressure Theories.......................................................................8
2.3.1.1 Coulomb Theory...............................................................................................8
2.3.1.2 Rankine Theory................................................................................................9
2.3.2 Empirical Method..............................................................................................11
2.4 Classical design method for sheet pile wall.........................................................11
vi
2.4.1 Cantilever walls.................................................................................................11
2.4.1.1 Full method.....................................................................................................12
2.4.1.2 Simplified method..........................................................................................12
2.4.1.3 Gradual method..............................................................................................13
2.4.2 Single-anchored walls.......................................................................................14
2.4.2.1 Free earth support method..............................................................................14
2.4.2.2 Fixed earth support method............................................................................15
2.5 Numerical studies.................................................................................................15
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY.....................................18

3.1 Material and Soil Parameters...............................................................................19
3.1.1 Soil Properties...................................................................................................19
3.1.2 Calculation of Soil Parameters for Clayey Layer..............................................21
3.1.3 Calculation of Soil Parameters for Silty Layer.................................................22
3.1.4 Model Parameters of Sheet Pile, Anchor and Grout.........................................24
3.1.5 Model Parameters of Secant Pile.......................................................................25
3.2 Numerical Modeling.............................................................................................26
3.2.1 Project Properties..............................................................................................26
3.2.2 Geometry and Boundary Condition..................................................................27
3.2.3 Mesh generation................................................................................................28
3.2.4 Calculation.........................................................................................................29
3.3 Model Verification...............................................................................................33
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................35

4.1 Results of parametric analysis on sheet pile wall.................................................35
4.1.1 Effect of embedment depth in cantilever sheet pile wall..................................35
4.1.2 Effect of angle of inclination of ground anchor in anchored sheet pile wall....36
vii
4.1.3 Effect of installation position of ground anchor in anchored sheet pile wall....38
4.1.4 Effect of depth excavated before the ground anchor installation......................38
4.1.5 Effect of pre-stress force on anchor..................................................................39
4.1.6 Effect of free anchor length...............................................................................39
4.1.7 Effect of grout length........................................................................................40
4.1.8 Effect of embedment depth in anchored sheet pile wall...................................41
4.2 Results of parametric analysis on secant pile wall...............................................42
4.3 Comparison of Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall, Single Anchored Sheet Pile Wall and
Secant Pile Wall.........................................................................................................43
4.4 Effect of soil frictional angle on the selection of angle of inclination of anchor .44
4.5 Effect of soil cohesion in single anchored sheet pile wall...................................45
4.6 Effect of water table variation in single anchored sheet pile wall........................46
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.............................47

5.1 Conclusion............................................................................................................47
5.2 Further Studies.....................................................................................................48
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................49
APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................52
APPENDIX B..............................................................................................................56
APPENDIX C..............................................................................................................71
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Area of Study................................................................................................2

Figure 2.1 Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall............................................................................5
Figure 2.2 Anchored Sheet Pile Wall.............................................................................5
Figure 2.3 Potential failures in anchored walls (FHWA, 1999).....................................6
Figure 2.4 Contiguous Pile Wall....................................................................................7
Figure 2.5 Secant Pile Wall............................................................................................7
Figure 2.6 Tangent Pile Wall..........................................................................................7
Figure 2.7 Coulomb Wedge Analysis............................................................................9
Figure 2.8 Failure Wedges a) Active limit state and b) Passive limit state....................9
Figure 2.9 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion..................................................................10
Figure 2.10 Net earth pressure in a cantilever wall......................................................12
Figure 2.11 Full method...............................................................................................12
Figure 2.12 Simplified method.....................................................................................13
Figure 2.13 Gradual Method........................................................................................13
Figure 2.14 Net earth pressure in an anchored wall.....................................................14
Figure 2.15 Free earth support method........................................................................14
Figure 2.16 Fixed earth support method......................................................................15
Figure 3.1 Methodology...............................................................................................18
Figure 3.2 Summary of Laboratory Tests....................................................................20
Figure 3.3 Borehole Logsheet for BH-2.......................................................................20
Figure 3.4 Stress Strain Graph from Unconfined Compression Test...........................22
Figure 3.5 Variation of 𝜂𝐻,𝜂𝐵,𝜂𝑆, and 𝜂𝑅 (Das, 2015)...............................................23
Figure 3.6 Mesh dimensions for modeling sheet pile wall (Azizi, 1999)....................27
Figure 3.7 Project Properties........................................................................................27
Figure 3.8 Geometry of the model...............................................................................28
Figure 3.9 Generated Mesh.........................................................................................28
Figure 3.10 Construction stages for cantilever sheet pile wall.....................................32
Figure 3.11 Construction stages for anchored sheet pile wall......................................33
Figure 3.12 Wall Bending Moment Diagram...............................................................33
Figure 3.13 Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram................................................................34
ix
Figure 4.1 Graph of Factor of Safety verses d/h for different embedment depth of
sheet pile.......................................................................................................................35
Figure 4.2 Graph of 𝑢𝑥 verses d/h for different embedment depth of sheet pile.........36
Figure 4.3 Graph of FOS verses θ and ux verses θ.....................................................37
Figure 4.4 Graph of FOS verses z/h and 𝑢𝑥 verses z/h................................................38
Figure 4.5 Graph of FOS verses E/h and 𝑢𝑥 verses E/h..............................................38
Figure 4.6 Graph of FOS verses P and 𝑢𝑥 verses P.....................................................39
Figure 4.7 Graph of FOS verses L/h, 𝑢𝑥 verses L/h and Maximum Bending Moment
verses L/h......................................................................................................................40
Figure 4.8 Graph of FOS verses G/h, 𝑢𝑥 verses G/h and Maximum Bending Moment
verses G/h.....................................................................................................................41
Figure 4.9 Graph of FOS verses d/h and 𝑢𝑥 verses d/h...............................................41
Figure 4.10 Graph of FOS verses d/h for secant pile wall...........................................42
Figure 4.11 Graph of 𝑢𝑥 verses d/h for secant pile wall..............................................43
Figure 4.12 Comparative Graph of Horizontal Deflection verses Wall Elevation.......44
Figure 4.13 Comparative Graph of Bending Moment verses Wall Elevation.............44
Figure 4.14 Graph of FOS verses θ and 𝑢𝑥 verse θ for different angle of friction......45
Figure 4.15 Graph of FOS verses cohesion and 𝑢𝑥 verses cohesion...........................45
Figure 4.16 Graph of FOS and 𝑢𝑥 verses Water Elevation.........................................46
Figure B.1 Wall Deflection, m – Case C1....................................................................56
Figure B.2 Wall Bending Moment Diagram – Case C1...............................................56
Figure B.10 Wall Bending Moment Diagram – Case C5.............................................60
Figure B.11 Wall Deflection, m – Case C6..................................................................61
x
Figure B.13 Wall Deflection, m – Case C7..................................................................62
Figure B.15 Wall Deflection, m – Case C10................................................................63
Figure B.16 Wall Bending Moment Diagram – Case C10...........................................63
Figure C.1 Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall with 11m embedment depth (For 10m
excavation)...................................................................................................................71
Figure C.2 Recommended Anchored Sheet Pile Wall (For 10m excavation)..............71
Figure C.3 Secant Pile Wall with 1.2m diameter and 25m embedment depth (For 10m
excavation)...................................................................................................................71
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Results from Unconfined Compression Test...............................................22

Table 3.2 Summary of Soil Parameters for Silty Layer...............................................24
Table 3.3 Properties of Sheet Pile Wall, Anchor Rod and Grout Body.......................25
Table 3.4 Project Properties.........................................................................................27
Table 3.5 Cases Considered.........................................................................................29
xii
ABBREVIATIONS
c Cohesion of soil
𝜙 Angle of friction of soil
E Modulus of elasticity
h Excavation Depth
d Embedment depth of wall
𝜃 Angle of inclination of anchor with respect to horizontal
z Depth at which anchor is installed measured from the top of sheet pile
wall
E Depth upto which soil is excavated before anchor installation
L Free Anchor Length
G Grouted Length of Anchor
𝛾 Unit weight of soil
P Pre-stress force on anchor
D Diameter of secant pile wall
𝜇 Poisson’s ratio
FOS Factor of Safety
𝑢𝑥 Deflection of the top of wall
xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
When excavation is being done on any landmass, if the excavated region is left
unsupported, the excavated section of soil begins to move from its original position.
Due to rapid urbanization in major cities, construction of underground infrastructures
such as deep basements, underground parking lots, subways, tunnels, and shopping
malls are increasing. The construction of these infrastructure involves deep excavation
and in many cases these needs to be carried out in a weak soil condition and in close
proximity to already-existing structures and infrastructure. Inappropriate selection of
support system and inadequate design can cause excessive ground deformations which
would inevitably harm nearby surface and subsurface structures, causing delays,
disagreements or even legal action, and cost overruns. Hence, it becomes vital to take
extra caution to design lateral supports at the excavated areas in order to avoid
disastrous effects.
The movement of ground due to excavation depends on the initial ground condition,
method of construction and the type of support system provided. The selection of a
particular type of support system depends greatly on the geotechnical characteristics
of the soil where excavation is performed, the safety of nearby structures and the
excavation surroundings as well as the history of performance of different support
systems in that area. The excavation support systems can be divided into several types
based on material used, load transfer mechanism, technology of production, system
rigidity, construction methods and so on. Based on system rigidity, it can be divided
into rigid and flexible system. The stability in rigid support system is achieved by the
utilization of a large volume of mass and it involves a rigid body movement.
However, flexible support system involves bending as well as rigid body movements.
Here, the requisite stability is provided using the wall's thickness, strength, and
stiffness. According to Strom & Ebeling (2001), lagging systems, sheet piles, and
soldier are considered flexible support systems whereas concrete walls; secant,
tangent, and contiguous pile walls; diaphragm walls; slurry wall are considered as
rigid support systems.
1
1.2 Area of Study
The study area is a newly proposed site for the construction of Thapathali Campus at
Balkhu, Kathmandu.
Figure 1.1 Area of Study
1.3 Problem statement

To lessen the impact of excavation on the existing facilities or constructions, earth
retaining structures, which may be either rigid or flexible, becomes a priority.
Selection of appropriate support system, optimization of the selected support system
parameters and evaluation of overall stability of the excavation is of great importance.
In order to prevent any catastrophic failure due to excavation related works, it is
necessary to select and design the support system based on the specific site condition.
For the safe and economic design of support system, it is also important to understand
the level of influence of various design parameters in the overall performance of the
excavation support system. Therefore, in this research a parametric analysis is done
using numerical analysis to study the effect of various parameters on the behavior of
different support systems for the given site condition.
2
1.4 Objective
1.4.1 General Objective

To study the effect of various parameters on the overall stability and serviceability of
the excavation support system.
1.4.2 Specific Objective

i. To study the effect of variation of geometric parameters of cantilever and single
anchored sheet pile wall on the factor of safety, lateral horizontal deformation
and bending moment of wall.
ii. To study the effect of pile diameter and embedment depth of the secant pile wall
on the factor of safety, lateral horizontal deformation and bending moment of
wall.
iii. To study the effect of soil cohesion and water table variation on the safety and
serviceability of flexible support system.
iv. To suggest an appropriate support system for the given site conditions.
1.5 Limitations
i. The study does not consider all soil types and possible strata variations. The
study has been conducted only for a particular soil profile.
ii. The effect of seismic loading has not been studied.
iii. The soil data that are considered in the analysis are obtained from the tests that
were primarily performed to design foundation. Hence, the parameters that are
required for support system design were not available that leads to the estimation
of some data based on soil type.
iv. The type of material model used for numerical modeling may not represent the
real behavior of the soil considered.
v. Parametric analysis of only the geometric properties of structural elements is
done. The effect of variation of structural material properties is not studied.
3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, different types of excavation support system are described. Various
theories, method of design and previous studies performed in the area of study are
described.
2.1 Sheet Pile Walls

For numerous projects, including floodwalls, cutoff walls, to prevent liquefaction in
the sand, cofferdams, braced cuts, and the continuous wall of waterfront
constructions, sheet pile walls are utilized to retain the bulk of soil during cutting or
filling of the embankment (Bilgin, 2010; Dawkins, 2001). For these uses, many types
of sheet pile walls, including precast concrete sheet piles, steel sheet piles, aluminum
sheet piles, and wooden sheet piles, are employed.
Cantilevered sheet pile walls and anchored sheet pile walls are the two categories for
sheet pile walls. The stability in the cantilever sheet pile wall (Figure 2.1) is provided
by the lateral passive resistance of the soil in which the wall is driven. Hence, the
stability of wall depends on the embedment depth and the type of soil. In the case of
an anchored sheet pile wall, the forces necessary for stability are provided by anchors
in addition to the lateral resistance of the soil (Figure 2.2). The anchor sheet pile wall
becomes more cost-effective when the height of the backfill material behind the
cantilever sheet pile surpasses approximately 6 m. Using anchors in sheet pile wall
reduces the lateral deflection, bending moment, and penetration depth of the wall
which ultimately results in the minimization of material used (Das, 2015), in contrast
to the needs for rigid retaining structures. To resist lateral earth pressure, many
anchors are employed for deeper excavation along the height of sheet pile walls in
various locations.
According to the results of the previous study, the length of the anchor, its location
relative to the ground, its inclination, and the number of anchors utilized along the
height of the sheet pile wall are some of the crucial factors that affect a structure's
stability (Krabbenhoft et al., 2005; Bilgin, 2012). The maximum displacement of
sheet pile walls and soil is decreased when these parameters are best chosen.
Additionally, it influences the anchor sheet pile wall system's economical design. The
4
sheet pile wall experiences the maximum displacement, and soil analysis is done to
allow the displacement up to an acceptable value. The value of horizontal
displacement is often taken into account in retaining structures up to 2% of the
maximum depth of excavation. According to Ou et al. (1993), Long (2001), and
Moormann (2004), underground projects typically choose this value of horizontal
displacement.
Figure 2.1 Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall Figure 2.2 Anchored Sheet Pile Wall
Sheet pile walls are constructed prior to excavation with the dual objectives of
resisting the ground pressure resulted by the excavation and limiting or preventing the
inlet of water. In addition to withstanding soil pressures and obstructing water inlet,
sheet pile walls can also withstand vertical loads transferred by other structural
components. Sheet pile walls are an efficient way to control ground movements
brought on by excavation.
An analytical model or conventional techniques that rely on the limit equilibrium

approach can be used to analyze and construct cantilever sheet pile walls and
anchored sheet pile walls. The finite element method is used by numerous researchers
used to investigate the safety, deformation, lateral earth pressure distribution, and to
perform stress-strain analysis for sheet pile walls (Bahrami et al., 2018; Cherubini,
2000; Emarah & Seleem, 2018; Finno et al., 2007; GuhaRay & Baidya, 2015; Grande
et al., 2002; Kumar & Dey, 2014; Sheng et al., 2006; Han et al., 2017).
2.1.1 Sheet Pile Wall Failure Mechanism

While designing a sheet pile wall, several possible failure modes need to be
considered. The failure can be a deep-seated failure, failure of sheet pile due to
5
overstressing, rotational failure due to insufficient embedment of sheet pile, failure of
a steel tendon, failure of ground and grout bond and failure of grout and tendon bond.
In deep-seated failure, the whole soil mass rotates along a single failure surface. The
potential failure conditions in anchored sheet pile wall are summarized in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 Potential failures in anchored walls (FHWA, 1999)
2.2 Contiguous, Tangent and Secant Pile Wall

In rigid support systems, the lateral yielding is less and hence are generally used to
minimize the lateral deflection of wall and settlement of soil behind the wall.
Contiguous, secant and tangent pile walls are relatively stiffer than sheet pile walls.
6
Contiguous pile wall consists of a series of piles arranged in a row with some gap
between them. The soil in between the pile is stabilized by using grouting techniques
to form a watertight structure. This type of pile wall is chosen for relatively stiff and
cohesive soil and when the water table is below the bottom of the pile. Secant pile
wall also consists of series of piles with center-to-center spacing equal to 0.8 – 0.9
times the pile diameter and particularly used when retention of water is required.
These type of pile are formed by overlapping reinforcing concrete piles thus creating
interlock. At first secondary piles are bored after which main piles are added to form a
resilient wall. Another type of pile wall is tangent wall where no piles overlap as the
piles are constructed adjacent (tangent) to each other. Hence, the center to center
spacing of tangent pile is equal to the pile diameter. These type of wall mentioned
above are illustrated in Figure 2.4, Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.4 Contiguous Pile Wall
Figure 2.5 Secant Pile Wall
Figure 2.6 Tangent Pile Wall
7
2.3 Theoretical Aspects
To design a retaining structure, it is essential to consider the earth pressure
distribution as well as the stress state at each point. Various theories exist in relation
to this issues.
2.3.1 Classical Earth Pressure Theories

Rankine and Coulomb theories are the classical earth pressure theories which are
often used to determine earth pressures.
2.3.1.1 Coulomb Theory

Coulomb theory is primarily based on the assumption of a sliding wedge which is the
triangular portion of soil between the wall and the failure plane. Hence, this theory is
also known as “Wedge Theory”. The rupture surface is assumed to be planar and it is
obtained by searching the plane on which maximum thrust acts. The theory primarily
relies on the equilibrium of wedges during failure.
In the active case, the failure wedge tends to move downward, whereas in the passive
case the wedge slides upward along the failure plane (see Figure 2.7). The vertical
displacements between the wall and the backfill soil are also included in these
movements. As a result, tangential stresses are created on the bank of the wall because
of the soil friction and adhesion. Due to this, the resultant force on the back of the
wall is inclined at some angle normal to the wall which is known as the angle of wall
friction, 𝛿. (Equation 2.1 and (Equation 2.2 gives the coulombs active and passive
lateral earth coefficients, respectively.
sin2(α + ϕ) (Equation 2.1)

Ka = sin(ϕ+δ) sin(ϕ−β)
sin2 α sin(α − δ) [1 + √ ]
cos(α−δ) cos(α+β)
sin2(α − ϕ) (Equation 2.2)

Kp =
sin(ϕ+δ) sin(ϕ+β)
sin2 α sin(α + δ) [1 − √sin(α+δ) sin(α+β) ]
Where,
α: Inclination of wall with respect to horizontal.
δ: Angle of friction between the wall and the soil.
8
β: Ground inclination in the back of the wall.
Figure 2.7 Coulomb Wedge Analysis
2.3.1.2 Rankine Theory

This theory uses the soil mass stress state to determine the lateral earth pressure on a
frictionless wall. A plastic equilibrium stress state of soil, known as Rankine limit
state, is assumed. The soil has met the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion in these
surfaces.
a) b)
Figure 2.8 Failure Wedges a) Active limit state and b) Passive limit state
Only two soil friction angles results failure under this criteria, for respective active
and passive limit state. For the active and passive limit states different failure wedge
is formed which is determined by these angles. In Figure 2.9, the major stress in the
active state 𝜎𝐼 is equal to the vertical stress 𝜎𝑣 whereas the minor stress 𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼 is equal to
the horizontal stress 𝜎ℎ. In the passive state, 𝜎𝐼 = 𝜎ℎ and 𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 𝜎𝑣. A line drawn
9
from the pole to the point where Mohr circle touches the failure envelope determines
the failure surface.
Figure 2.9 Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
Therefore, either an active state or a passive state can lead to the failure state.
Considering a horizontal ground surface, the effective stress at each point of soil, is:
𝜎′ = 𝜎′ 𝐾𝑎 − 2𝑐√𝐾𝑎 (Active case) (Equation 2.3)
𝐻 𝑉
𝜎𝐻′ = 𝜎′ 𝑉𝐾𝑝 + 2𝑐√𝐾𝑝 (Passive Case) (Equation 2.4)
The failure plane makes an angle of 45° −

𝜙 for the active limit state, whereas for
2
𝜙
passive limit state it makes an angle of 45° + with the direction of major principle
2
plane. Rankine earth pressure coefficients 𝐾𝑎 and 𝐾𝑝, for the case of horizontal surface
and homogeneous soil are given in (Equation 2.5 and (Equation 2.6.
1 − sinϕ π ϕ
Ka = = tan2 ( − ) (Equation 2.5)
1 + sinϕ 4 2
1 + sinϕ π ϕ
Kp = = tan2 ( + ) (Equation 2.6)
1 − sinϕ 4 2
The Rankine hypothesis, which is known to be relatively conservative, is appropriate

for the active state but not for the passive state. The simplification obtained,
particularly for simple cases, is its biggest advantage.
1
2.3.2 Empirical Method
In this method, the performance of the excavation is interpolated by using different
charts and correlations established by scientists on the basis of previously published
data related to excavation. An average earth pressure distribution was first suggested
by Terzaghi (1943) which is tentatively uniform with depth and consists of a small
reduction at the excavation top and bottom. Terzaghi and Peck in 1967 and Peck in
1969 proposed an apparent earth pressure diagram for the design of struts in a braced
excavation system. Henkel (1971) modified the equation used to determine the
maximum earth pressure ordinate in Terzaghi and Peck apparent earth pressure
diagram for soft to medium clay. Similarly, the apparent earth pressure diagram
proposed by Terzaghi and Peck was modified by FHWA-RD-97-130 (1998) for sand
and stiff to hard clays. A detailed description of basic principles and design analysis
of a anchored system is provided by FHWA (1999).
2.4 Classical design method for sheet pile wall

Sheet pile walls can be designed using several methods. The initial proposals originate
from the early 20th century, and are continuously reviewed. The terms "classical
methods" and "limit-stage design methods" are both used to refer to analytical
techniques (King, 1995). Whatever nomenclature is used, in either cantilever or
anchored sheet pile walls, the establishment of horizontal force and moment
equilibrium is required to describe the state of failure and the depth of embedment
below the dredge line. The following list includes the main analytical methods.
2.4.1 Cantilever walls

As seen in Figure 2.10, a reaction force that appears at the base of cantilever wall,
allowing stability. The reaction in the opposite direction increases as embedding depth
is increased, however, to ensure stability, this is not strictly necessary. A sufficient
embedment depth is necessary for cantilever sheet pile walls to be stable. The
classical limit equilibrium methods make an effort to simulate sheet pile walls under
failure conditions. They vary from one another in a number of assumptions, but the
reach of failure state in the entire length of the wall is common in all. The three
primary analytical approaches (full, simplified, and gradual) for cantilever walls are
discussed here.
1
Figure 2.10 Net earth pressure in a cantilever wall
2.4.1.1 Full method

This method is also known as the UK method. This method has been detailed by
Padfield & Mair (1984) thoroughly. The active limit state is reached in the back of the
wall above the rotation point while the passive limit state is considered to be attained
in between the dredging line and the rotation point in the front of the wall. An
overturn in the normal pressure direction is supposed to occur at the rotation point,
below which the passive pressure is completely transferred behind the wall and the
active to the front. As a result, a sharp change in the earth's pressure distribution
occurs as in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11 Full method
2.4.1.2 Simplified method

A simplification to the full method is advised by Padfield & Mair (1984). As seen in
Figure 2.12, a concentrated force, R, acting on point O can be used to replace the earth
pressure that exists below the point of rotation. The computed value of d is
significantly less than the value obtained through the full method. This value of d is
1
raised by 20%, making the reference embedding length 1.2d. It is assumed that the
zone below the point of rotation experiences passive earth pressure, R, and it must be
verified that the additional length 0.2d can produce the value of R. Although it
produces findings that are similar to those of the other approaches, the simplified
method is slightly more conservative Padfield & Mair (1984)
.
Figure 2.12 Simplified method.
2.4.1.3 Gradual method

In 1932, Krey proposed a slightly different approach, which Bowles (1988) later
reviewed, and which does not rely on the theory of a sudden change in the earth's
pressure distribution. This method makes the assumption that there is a transition
zone, as depicted in Figure 2.13, where the direction of net earth pressure changes
from the front to the wall’s back.
Figure 2.13 Gradual Method
It is assumed that this transition, which takes place around the rotation point, is linear.
The height z serves as the unknown to determine the embedment depth because the
earth pressure at the base of the wall is known.
1
The general rectilinear net pressure method or USA method (Day, 1999) are other
names for the gradual method (Robert A Day, 2001). They are all updated version of
the Krey approach that was first put forth in 1932.
2.4.2 Single-anchored walls

As shown in Figure 2.14, anchored walls with a single row of anchors are able to
reach equilibrium without taking into account a passive reaction at the bottom of the
rear of the wall. Nevertheless, based on the design approach, this reaction might be
taken into account. Studies on the position, inclination, and load of the tie rod are
ongoing.
Figure 2.14 Net earth pressure in an anchored wall
The analytical methods for the design of anchored walls include free earth support
method and the fixed earth support method which are discussed below. The main
difference between these two methods is the hypothesis in which they are based.
2.4.2.1 Free earth support method

The assumption on which this approach is based is that the depth of embedment of the
wall is not sufficient to provided fixity at the bottom of the wall.
Figure 2.15 Free earth support method
1
It is also assumed that the passive pressure acting in front of the wall is not sufficient
enough to resist the rotation as well as lateral deflection of the lower end. As a result,
a free movement occurs at the bottom of the wall has free movement, and a minimal
embedment depth is obtained to satisfy equilibrium.
2.4.2.2 Fixed earth support method

In this method, the embedment depth is increased enough to provide the fixity
required against rotation and deformation. An overturn in the normal earth pressure is
achieved until the deflected shape at the bottom approximates verticality. The earth
pressure distribution, hence, is nearly identical to the cantilever situation (Figure
2.16).
Figure 2.16 Fixed earth support method
The maximum value of reference embedment depth is achieved with this method. It
necessitates an additional equation, which is often established by predicting the
location of the zero net pressure (also known as the zero bending moment or inflection
point O). Although alternative assumptions have been proposed, it is common to find
such a spot in the middle of the embedment depth. A correlation is shown between Ka
and the distance from the point of inflection to the dredge level by Blum (1931).
2.5 Numerical studies

The Finite Element approach was first used in the early 1980s. The geometry was
coarsely discretized, and the outcomes were limited. In order to determine the effects
of stiffness of wall and prop, prop spacing, pre-stress, and elastic soil stiffness on
ground deformations brought on by excavation, Mana & Clough (1981) conducted a
numerical parametric analysis. In 1989, Clough et al. developed a chart to correlate
1
the lateral displacement of wall during excavation in soft to medium clay with the
system stiffness and factor of safety against base heave. A parametric study is
performed by Clough (1990) for excavations in stiff clay to investigate the effect of
prop spacing and stiffness of wall. To investigate the effect of prop stiffness, soil wall
and pre-excavation coefficient, Powrie & Li (1991) carried out a series of
experiments. The use of a finite element analysis for modeling the top-down
construction of a seven-story, underground parking garage was done by Whittle et al.
in 1993. Jen (1998) investigated the influence of the geometry of excavation, support
system and stress history on the ground movements. For a cantilever wall, Fourie &
Potts (1989) compared limit equilibrium analysis with finite element analysis. The
behavior of the soil under drained conditions was represented by an elastoplastic
constitutive law. As demonstrated by Day & Potts (1993), sheet pile walls can be
represented by beam elements when using a finite element model. An extensive
assessment of available analytical methods was provided by Bica et al. (1989). King
(1995) has suggested a new analytical technique for the evaluation and design of sheet
pile walls under failure scenarios. This approach has gained relatively more popularity
and is referred frequently. Since the method is based on limit equilibrium, it
essentially entails a semi-empirical process. Since it does not necessitate geometrical
simplifications of the earth pressure distribution, it offers an alternative to the current
limit state approaches. The net earth pressure over the sheet pile wall was examined
by the finite element study conducted by Day (1999). Osman & Bolton (2004)
introduced the idea of mobilizable soil strength and proposed a new approach for the
design of cantilever sheet pile walls with an aim to address the soil's real and non-
linear behavior.
In 1952, Rowe presented the findings from fifteen models of flexible walls retaining
cohensionless soil. A study of the anchor inclination on multiple-anchored sheet pile
walls was given by Plant (1972). Milligan (1983) performed experimental
investigation on sheet pile walls that were anchored close to the top. Radiographic
method was used to measure the displacement for cantilever sheet pile walls by
Bransby & Milligan (1975). A research supported on the finite element method was
done by Richards & Powrie (1994). A parametric study was done by Bilgin & Erten,
(2009) to study the effect of wall height, condition of soil, location of anchor, sheet
1
pile stiffness, anchor stiffness and anchor number on the deformation of soil and wall.
Bilgin (2010) performed a numerical parametric study to study the effect of
construction method of sheet pile wall. A parametric study was performed to study
the lateral earth pressure coefficient for single-level anchored sheet pile wall by Bilgin
(2012). The analysis of piles supporting adjacent buildings was performed by
Ramadan et al. (2013) to reduce the excavation induced ground movements.
1
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the materials and the methodology followed to carry out the
present study. This study involves the parametric study of cantilever sheet pile wall,
anchored sheet pile wall and secant pile wall by using commercial software Plaxis 2D
Version V20. The analysis is carried out taking the soil data from the newly proposed
site of the Thapathali campus at Balkhu, Kathmandu. The general outline of the
research methodology is as follows:
Literature Review
Determination of Soil Parameters
Modeling of the support system
Parametric variation of various components of support
Obtaining outputs for different cases considered and comparing the results
Analysis of the results obtained
Conclusion and recommendations

Figure 3.1 Methodology
For the confirmation of the topic of research study, literature review is the foremost
step. The good literature review can help to select objectives of the study and guide to
carry research efficiently and effectively. The procedure to be followed, task to be
carried out, area to focus on, previous research made, scopes, etc can easily be
obtained from the references of the literature review.
For this study different articles, journals, publications, books and other sources were
consulted. Based on this topic was finalized and the objectives were set up. Different
previous studies made on these topics were reviewed and the possible way to give
justice to the objectives for the successful completion of the study was identified. The
1
procedures were laid down so that the sequence can be maintained. The research
documents which are closely related to our topic of interest and synchronizing with
our objectives are shortlisted and reviewed for the guidance for this research to be
carried out smoothly.
3.1 Material and Soil Parameters

The soil properties and properties of the support system which needs to be entered in
Plaxis are first determined.
3.1.1 Soil Properties

The soil data is from the proposed construction site of the Thapathali Campus at
Balkhu, Kathmandu. The soil investigation has been conducted by G.S. Soil &
Materials Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in 2018 A.D. and it comprises percussion drilling,
Standard Penetration Test (SPT), and some laboratory tests. The summary of tests that
were conducted can be summarized as follows.
i. Field Investigation: A total of seven boreholes were drilled up to a depth of 20m

at two locations and 15 m at five locations and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT)
were carried out in these boreholes at average intervals of 1.5m. A 63.5 kg
hammer falling from a height of 760 mm was used to drive a split spoon sampler
with an internal diameter of 35mm and an external diameter of 50mm.
ii. Water Table Monitoring: The water level in the borehole was measured at least
24 hours after the borehole was drilled. The water table was found at a depth of
4.2m at boreholes BH-1 and BH-2 and 4m at boreholes BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-
6, and BH-7.
iii. Laboratory Investigation: The laboratory tests that were conducted include
Natural Moisture Content and Bulk Density test, Specific Gravity Test, Grain
Size Analysis, Atterberg Limits Test, Direct Shear Test, and Unconfined
Compression Test.
The summary of the results of laboratory tests conducted is given Figure 3.2. Since,
the results obtained from above mentioned tests are almost similar for seven
boreholes, only the results from Borehole number 2 (BH-2) are considered in our
analysis. The SPT data obtained for BH-2 is shown in Figure 3.3 . The soil strata
1
consists of brownish coloured silty soil up to a depth of 3m and grey coloured clayey
soil from depth of 3m to 20m. Since, the borehole is drilled only up to 20m, while
making plaxis model it is assumed that this clayey layer extends up to an infinite
depth.
Figure 3.2 Summary of Laboratory Tests
Figure 3.3 Borehole Logsheet for BH-2
For the analysis of the model, Mohr-Coulomb Model is used as material model as the
tests required to obtain the data required for modelling soil by using advanced
material models like hardening soil model and Modified Cam Clay model are not
2
performed. Due to lack of sufficient data, it is not possible to investigate the suitability
of particular material model and hence, we are bound to use Mohr-Coulomb material
model in our study.
3.1.2 Calculation of Soil Parameters for Clayey Layer

a)
Calculation of γunsat and γsat
The bulk density (𝛾), natural moisture content (w), and specific gravity (G) of soil at a
particular depth are obtained from the laboratory tests conducted at that point.
Unsaturated unit weight of soil, 𝛾𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡 = bulk density, 𝛾
We have,
𝛾𝑤(𝐺 + 𝑆𝑟𝑒)
𝛾= (Equation 3.1)
1+𝑒
Putting, 𝑤𝐺 = 𝑆𝑟𝑒,
𝐺𝛾𝑤(1 + 𝑤)
𝛾= (Equation 3.2)
1 + 𝑤𝐺
𝑆𝑟
Substituting the values of 𝛾, 𝛾𝑤, 𝐺, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤, the value of the degree of Saturation, 𝑆𝑟 is
obtained.
𝑤𝐺
𝑒= (Equation 3.3)
𝑆𝑟
From the above equation, the void ratio (e) is calculated. Finally, the saturated unit
weight of soil is obtained as follows:
𝛾𝑤(𝐺 + 𝑒)
𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 = (Equation 3.4)
1+𝑒
b)
Calculation of Modulus of Elasticity (E)
The modulus of elasticity of soil is obtained from the Unconfined Compression Test
conducted. A curve is obtained by plotting the axial strain percentage on X-axis and
normal stress on the Y-axis. The slope of a line connecting the origin and point on the
curve corresponding to normal stress equal to 50% of peak stress is taken as the
elastic modulus of the soil material. The result obtained from Unconfined
Compression Test is shown in Table 3.1. From Figure 3.4, the value of elastic
modulus for the soil is found to be 28266 KN/m2.
2
Table 3.1 Results from Unconfined Compression Test
Stress, 0.6
Strain %
kg/cm2
0 0 0.5
0.005 0.01
0.01 0.02 0.4
0.015 0.05
0.02 0.06
0.3
0.025 0.09
0.03 0.11
Stress, 0.2
0.04 0.13
0.051 0.15
0.061 0.17 0.1
0.071 0.19
0.081 0.23 0
0.091 0.27 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.101 0.35 Strain, e in %
0.121 0.41 Figure 3.4 Stress Strain Graph from Unconfined
0.131 0.48 Compression Test
0.141 0.49
0.152 0.45
0.162 0.4
c)
Determination of cohesion and angle of friction
The cohesion and the angle of friction is obtained from the direct shear test. From the
test, it is found that the soil cohesion is 12.1 KPa and frictional angle is 24.2°.
3.1.3 Calculation of Soil Parameters for Silty Layer

Since the only test that has been carried out on silty layer is Standard Penetration Test,
several empirical correlation with SPT value are used to determine the required soil
parameters. The field SPT is first expressed to an average energy ratio of 60% (i.e.
𝑁60).
𝑁𝜂𝐻𝜂𝐵𝜂𝑆𝜂𝑅
(Equation 3.5)
𝑁60 =
60
Where,
𝑁60 is standard penetration number corrected for field conditions,

N is field penetration number,
2
𝜂𝐻 is efficiency of hammer in percentage,
𝜂𝐵 is borehole diameter correction,
𝜂𝑆 is correction for sampler, and 𝜂𝑅 is correction for rod length.
The value for 𝜂𝐻,𝜂𝐵,𝜂𝑆, and 𝜂𝑅is selected from Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5 Variation of 𝜂𝐻,𝜂𝐵,𝜂𝑆, and 𝜂𝑅 (Das, 2015)
a) Determination of unsaturated and saturated unit weight of soil

The unsaturated unit weight is calculated as:
𝛾𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡 = 16 + 0.1𝑁 (Equation 3.6)
The saturated unit weight is calculated as:

𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 = 8.8 + 0.01𝑁 + 10 (Equation 3.7)
b) Calculation of angle of friction

Several empirical correlations with SPT value are available to determine the friction
angle.
𝜙 = (0.3𝑁60)0.5 + 27 (Peck et.al.,1953) (Equation 3.8)
𝜙 = 27.1 + 0.3𝑁60 − 0.00054 (𝑁60)2 (Wolff,1980) (Equation 3.9)
0.34 (Kulhawy and
𝑁60
𝜙 = tan−1 ( 𝘍 ) 𝜎 Mayne,1990) (Equation 3.10)
12.2 + 20.3 ( 0)
𝑝𝑎
2
Using above three correlations, it is found that result from (Equation 3.10 is different
from the other two. Hence, the average of (Equation 3.8 and (Equation 3.9 is taken as
frictional angle value.
c) Calculation of modulus of elasticity

The value of modulus of Elasticity for silty soil is calculated from Equation 3.11 by
(Bowles, 1988).
𝐸 = 300(𝑁 + 6) Equation 3.11
d) Poisson’s ratio
The Poisson’s ratio is taken as 0.3.
The summary of soil parameters for silty layer is given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Summary of Soil Parameters for Silty Layer
Parameter Value Unit

𝛾𝑢𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡 16.6 kN/m3
𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 18.9 kN/m3
Modulus of Elasticity, E 3600 kN/m2
Cohesion, c 0 kN/m2
Frictional Angle, 𝜙 28.61 Degree
Dilatancy Angle, 𝜓 0 Degree
3.1.4 Model Parameters of Sheet Pile, Anchor and Grout

As the effect of structural parameters is not considered in the present study, same set
of structural material properties given in Table 3.3 below have been used for all the
cases considered. While modeling, sheet pile wall is modeled as a plate element,
anchor as a node to node anchor, and grout as an embedded beam. The properties of
structural elements are given in Table 3.3.
2
Table 3.3 Properties of Sheet Pile Wall, Anchor Rod and Grout Body
Parameter Name Value Unit
Sheet Pile Wall
Material Type Type Elastic, Isotropic

Normal Stiffness EA 5.46 × 106 kN/m
Flexural Rigidity EI 63.4 × 103 kNm2/m
Anchor Rod
Material Type Type Elastic -

Normal Stiffness EA 5.0 × 105 kN
Spacing out-of-plane Ls 2.5 m
Grout Body
Type Elastic
Material Type
Stiffness E 7.07×106 kN/m2
Unit Weight Ƴ 0 kN/m3
Diameter D 0.3 M
Pile Spacing Lspacing 2.5 M
Tskin.start.max 400 kN/m

Skin Resistance
Tskin.end.max 400 kN/m
3.1.5 Model Parameters of Secant Pile

A secant pile wall has been chosen for the analysis because the water table in our case
is quite high and for this condition secant pile wall provide is more effective. As per
(Sluis et al., 2014) , the choice of modeling a pile row in PLAXIS 2D as plate element
𝐿𝑠
or embedded beam row element depends on the ratio, where 𝐿 is the spacing of
𝐷 𝑠
pile and D is its diameter. According to him, for 𝐿𝑠 < 2 , the pile row can be modelled
𝐷
2
𝐿𝑠
as a plate element whereas for higher ratio it should to be modelled as embedded
𝐷
beam row.
The modulus of elasticity of concrete depends on the grade of concrete used. A

concrete grade M35 has been considered for secant pile wall for which E value is
given in Equation (3.12 as per (Cement & Concrete Sectional Committee, 2000).
Equation (3.12)
𝐸 (𝑀𝑃𝑎) = 5000√𝑓𝑐𝑘
Where, 𝑓𝑐𝑘 is the characteristic strength of concrete in N/mm2.
The modulus of elasticity of steel is 210000 Mpa. For modeling plate element,
equivalent EA and EI values have to be entered. At first equivalent properties of the
reinforced concrete pile are determined by taking the area of reinforcement equal to
one percent of the pile’s sectional area. The obtained value is then divided by the
spacing of pile to obtain the equivalent properties of plate. Same grade of concrete
and same reinforcement percentage is considered for both primary and secondary pile
wall. The center to center spacing of secant pile is taken equal to 0.85 times the pile
diameter. In this way, equivalent plate properties are used to model secant pile wall,
which is actually a 3D element, in Plaxis 2D.
3.2 Numerical Modeling

The modeling is done using two dimension FEM Software Version. The test results on
borehole BH-2 has been considered for numerical analysis.
3.2.1 Project Properties

Here, the plain strain model is used to model the situation under consideration. The
dimension of the model is fixed as per Figure 3.6. The project properties used in the
study are given in Table 3.4.
2
Figure 3.6 Mesh dimensions for modeling sheet pile wall (Azizi, 1999).
Table 3.4 Project Properties

𝑋𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑋𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑌𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑌𝑚𝑎𝑥
0 100 0 70
Figure 3.7 Project Properties
3.2.2 Geometry and Boundary Condition

After defining the project properties, soil stratigraphy has to be defined. It is done by
creating a borehole, adding and assigning respective materials and levels for different
soil layers. The ground water table level is 4.2 m below the original ground surface.
The next step is defining structural elements. The sheet pile wall is modeled as a plate
element. The material data sets according to the Table 3.3 is assigned to the plates
created and positive and negative interfaces are also assigned. Modeling of ground
anchor is done by the combination of a node to node anchor which simulates the free
2
anchor length and an embedded beam which simulates the grouted part. The
corresponding material properties for anchor and grout bodies are assigned as per
Table 3.3. At the edges of the model, boundary conditions are applied by normally
fixing the vertical boundaries so that the lateral displacement is zero and the bottom
horizontal boundary is fully fixed to assign a zero displacement in vertical and
horizontal direction whereas the top horizontal boundary is free.
Figure 3.8 Geometry of the model
3.2.3 Mesh generation

Generating mesh using a very fine mesh option provides better result accuracy,
however, the computation time also increases greatly. So, adopting a decision to
sacrifice some accuracy level in order to maintain a better balance over time, a
medium mesh option is used in this study to generate the mesh. The mesh generated
for cantilever and anchored sheet pile wall is shown in Figure 3.9 .
a) Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall b) Single Anchored Sheet Pile Wall
Figure 3.9 Generated Mesh
2
3.2.4 Calculation
The number and sequence of phases in a particular calculation depend on the case
considered. Table 3.5 shows the list of cases considered for the parametric analysis.
Here, h is the depth of excavation,
d is the embedment depth of the sheet pile,
θ is the angle of inclination of the ground anchor with respect to horizontal,
z is the depth measured from the wall top to the level at which the ground anchor is
installed
L is the free anchor length, and
G is the grouted length (fixed anchor length)
Table 3.5 Cases Considered

Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall
𝑑
Cases ℎ
ℎ
C1 1m Varying from 0.7 to 1.4
C2 2m varying from 0.8 to 1.5
C3 3.5m varying from 0.7 to 1.2
2
Anchored Sheet Pile Wall
𝑑 𝑧 𝐸 𝐿 𝐺
Cases ℎ 𝜃 𝑃
ℎ ℎ ℎ ℎ ℎ
varying
Equal
C7 10m 1 0.2 from 00 1.3 0.4 200 kN
to 𝑧
to 400 ℎ
varying
Equal
C8 10m 1 0.4 from 00 1.3 0.4 200 kN
to 𝑧
ℎ
to 400
varying
Equal
C9 10m 1 0.6 from 00 1.3 0.4 200 kN
to 𝑧
to 400 ℎ
varying
from Equal
C10 10m 1 250 1.3 0.4 200 kN
0.2 to to 𝑧
ℎ
0.8
varying
C11 10m 1 0.2 250 from 𝑧 1.3 0.4 200 kN
ℎ
to 0.8
varying
Equal from 50
C12 10m 1 0.2 250 1.3 0.4
to z/h to 500
kN
3
𝑑 𝑧 𝐸 𝐿 𝐺
Cases ℎ 𝜃 𝑃
ℎ ℎ ℎ ℎ ℎ
varying
Equal
C13 10m 1 0.2 250 from 0.4 200 kN
to 𝑧
ℎ 0.5 to 2
varying
Equal from
C14 10m 1 0.2 250 1.3 200 kN
to 𝑧 0.05 to
ℎ
0.6
varying
from Equal
C15 10m 0.2 250 1.3 0.3 200 kN
0.8 to to 𝑧
ℎ
1.5
varying
Equal
10m 1.3 0.4 from 00 1.3 0.4 200 kN
to 𝑧
to 400 ℎ
C16
Variation of angle of soil friction (cohesion value is taken constant i.e.
12.1kN/m2 for all values of ϕ)
Equal
10m 1.3 0.2 250 1.3 0.3 200 kN
to 𝑧
ℎ
C17
Variation of soil cohesion (ϕ value is taken constant i.e. 24.2° for all values of
c)
Equal
10m 1.3 0.2 250 1.3 0.3 200 kN
C18 to 𝑧
ℎ
Varying the water table elevation from 70m to 45m.
Secant Pile Wall
Cases Diameter, D in m 𝑑
ℎ
C19 1 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3
C20 1.2 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3
3
Cases Diameter, D in m 𝑑
ℎ
C21 1.6 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3
C22 1.8 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3
For the cantilever sheet pile wall, the first stage is the initial phase in which the
generation of initial stresses occurs. The second stage involves the construction of
sheet pile walls. Activation of plates and interfaces is done in this stage. When
excavation level is above water table, third step is the excavation upto the final
excavation depth. When the final excavation level is below water table, the third step
involves the excavation above the water table level. In the fourth step, the soil is
excavated up to the final excavation depth including the dewatering of the excavation.
The dewatering is simulated by lowered ground water table which is defined in Flow
Condition mode by drawing a new water level.
Figure 3.10 Construction stages for cantilever sheet pile wall
In the case of the anchored sheet pile wall, the first and second phase is the same as
described above. For the case, when anchor level is above water table level, third step
involves excavation upto the anchor level. Fourth step is the activation of ground
anchor. Then, in the fifth step excavation upto the water table level is done.
Excavation upto the final excavation level is done in the sixth step including
dewatering. If the ground anchor installation level is below the borehole water level,
then in the third step excavation upto water table level is done. In fourth step,
excavation upto the anchor level including dewatering is done. Ground anchor is
3
activated in the fifth step. In the sixth step, excavation upto final excavation level
including dewatering is done. In all cases, 1m excavation is done at a time.. The last
stage in all cases is the calculation of the factor of safety.
Figure 3.11 Construction stages for anchored sheet pile wall
3.3 Model Verification

A paper on “Numerical studies of anchored sheet pile wall behavior constructed in cut
and fill conditions” by Omer Bilgin (Bilgin, 2010) is taken as reference for model
verification. All the steps mentioned in (Bilgin, 2010) have been repeated and the
outputs are then compared.
14
12
10 Present Study
8 12m
Present Study
6 10.5m
Elevation,
Bilgin 12m
4
2 Bilgin 10.5m
0
-200 0 200
-2
-4
-6
Wall Bending Moment, kNm/m
Figure 3.12 Wall Bending Moment Diagram
3
Figure 3.12 shows the comparison of maximum bending moment of wall at final two
stages of the excavation and Figure 3.13 shows the comparison of lateral earth
pressure produced at final excavation stage for DL12 case. A good agreement has
been depicted from the comparison of our result and that of (Bilgin, 2010).
14
12
10
8
6
Elevation,
4
2
0
-200 -100 -2 0 100 200
-4
-6
Lateral Earth Pressure (kPa)
Present Study Present Study

Bilgin Bilgin
Figure 3.13 Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram
3
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, the results obtained from the Plaxis for different cases listed in Table
3.5 are analyzed and the effect of various parameters on the factor of safety and
horizontal displacement of the topmost edge of excavation is studied in detail.
4.1 Results of parametric analysis on sheet pile wall

The results obtained from the parametric study of cantilever and anchored sheet pile
wall are discussed here.
4.1.1 Effect of embedment depth in cantilever sheet pile wall

The influence of embedment depth in cantilever sheet pile wall has been studied for
six different excavation depth. The obtained result is shown in graphical form in
Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 below. Here, ux is the horizontal displacement of the top of
wall. The graphs obtained shows that the factor of safety increases with the increase in
embedment depth of sheet pile wall. It can also be seen that for each value of h, a
minimum value of 𝑢𝑥 is obtained beyond which further increase in ratio does not
affect the value of 𝑢𝑥.
2.2
1.8
1.6
F
1.4
1.2
1
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
d/h
h=1m h=2m h=3.5m

h=5m h=7m h=9m
Figure 4.1 Graph of Factor of Safety verses d/h for different embedment depth of
sheet pile
3
180
160
140
120
100
ux (×10-3
80
60
40
20
0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
d/h
h=1m h=2m h=3.5m
h=5m h=7m
Figure 4.2 Graph of 𝑢𝑥 verses d/h for different embedment depth of sheet pile
For excavation depth of 1m and 2m, a slightly different nature of graphs are obtained.
This is because, the soil profile consists of silty layer upto 3m depth from top. Hence,
for 1m and 2m depth of excavation, the passive resistance is provided either
completely by the silty layer or partly by silty and partly by bottom clayey layer
depending on the embedment depth. In case of excavation depth of 7m and 9m, there
is not much influence of embedment depth on the factor of safety. This suggests that
in our case the cantilever sheet pile can’t provide required stability for depth above
and equal to 7m even on increasing the embedment depth.
4.1.2 Effect of angle of inclination of ground anchor in anchored sheet pile wall
Three cases (C7, C8 and C9) are studied to observe the effect of the angle of
inclination of ground anchor in anchored sheet pile wall. Figure 4.3 shows the results
obtained on varying θ from 0° to 40°for respective cases. In all the cases, it has been
found that maximum value of factor of safety and minimum value of horizontal
displacement is obtained for a range of θ = 10° to θ = 30°.
3
1.5 25
1.45 20
1.4
15
1.35 0
15
ux (×10-3
1.3
F
1.25 0
1.2 -5 0
1.15
10 20 30 40
1.1
0 10 20 30 40 -10
θ θ
a) For 𝑧 = 0.2
ℎ
1.59 25
1.54 24
1.49 23
ux (×10-3
F
1.44 22
1.39 21
1.34 20
0 10 20 30 40
θ
b) For 𝑧 = 0.4
ℎ
1.54 105
1.52
100
1.5
1.48 95
ux (×10-3
F
1.46
90
1.44
1.42 85
1.4 80
3
0 20 40
θ
0 20 40
0 20 40
θ θ
c) For 𝑧 = 0.6
ℎ
Figure 4.3 Graph of FOS verses θ and ux verses θ
3
4.1.3 Effect of installation position of ground anchor in anchored sheet pile wall
The variation of factor of safety and horizontal displacement based on the installation
position of ground anchor from the ground surface is shown in Figure 4.4.
1.56 480
1.54 400
1.52 320
1.5 240
ux (×10-3
F
1.48 160
1.46 80
0
1.44
0 0.4 0.8 -80 0 0.4 0.8
z/h z/h
Figure 4.4 Graph of FOS verses z/h and 𝑢𝑥 verses z/h
The results shows that there is slight increase in factor of safety when the ground
anchors are installed near to the final depth of excavation. However, there is a sharp
increase in horizontal displacement when 𝑧 is greater than 0.4.
ℎ
4.1.4 Effect of depth excavated before the ground anchor installation

The effect of depth excavated before the ground anchor installation can be observed in
Figure 4.5. The trend of effect on factor of safety suggests a decrease in FOS with
𝐸
increased ratio and also, there is the sharp increase in the horizontal displacement
ℎ
with late installation of anchor. This is because the anchored sheet pile wall behaves
as a cantilever wall before the installation of anchors.
1.452 400
1.448 300
1.444 200
ux (×10-3
F
1.44 100
0
1.436 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.2 E/h 0.7 -100 E/h
Figure 4.5 Graph of FOS verses E/h and 𝑢𝑥 verses E/h
3
4.1.5 Effect of pre-stress force on anchor
The value of pre stress force on anchor is varied from 50kN to 500kN and the result
obtained is summarized in Figure 4.6. The result clearly suggests that there is not
much influence of pre-stressing force on factor of safety, however, the horizontal
displacement at wall’s top decreases almost linearly with the increase in pre-stressing
force.
2
20
1.8 10
1.6 0
ux (×10-3
0 200 400 600
F
1.4 -10
1.2 -20
-30
1
0 200 400 600 -40 P
P
Figure 4.6 Graph of FOS verses P and 𝑢𝑥 verses P
4.1.6 Effect of free anchor length

The increase in free anchor length of ground anchor results increase in FOS and
decrease in horizontal displacement and maximum bending moment as seen in Figure
4.7. However, it is found that after 𝐿
> 0.8 the slope at which horizontal
ℎ
𝐿
displacement and maximum bending moment is very low compared to that for <
ℎ
0.8.
1.65 23
1.6
18
1.55
13
1.5
ux (×10-3
F
1.45 8
1.4 3
1.35
-2 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9
1.3
0.48 0.88 1.28 1.68 -7
L/h L/h
4
145
135
125
115
Moment,
Maximum Bending
105
95
85
75
65
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9
L/h
Figure 4.7 Graph of FOS verses L/h, 𝑢𝑥 verses L/h and Maximum Bending Moment
verses L/h
As per (FHWA, 1999), in order to prevent the transfer of load from anchor bond zone
to the “no-load” zone (zone between the wall and critical failure surface), the anchor
bond zone should be placed sufficiently, a minimum distance of h/5 or 1.5m, behind
this zone. By graphically drawing the Mohr failure envelope and Mohr circle, the
failure surface is determined for the given soil condition. Based on this, it is found
that the no load zone, in our case, is extended upto around 6m. So, for our case of 10m
excavation depth, the minimum unbonded anchor length required is 8m.
4.1.7 Effect of grout length

The increased grout length results increase in FOS, decrease in 𝑢𝑥 and maximum
bending moment as shown in Figure 4.8 below.
1.5 100
1.45
1.4 80
1.35
60
1.3
ux (×10-3
F
1.25 40
1.2
20
1.15
1.1 0
0 0.5 0 0.5
G/h
-20
G/h
4
200
180
160
140
Maximum
120
Bending
100
80
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
G/h
Figure 4.8 Graph of FOS verses G/h, 𝑢𝑥 verses G/h and Maximum Bending Moment
verses G/h
𝐺
It can be clearly seen that, for > 0.1, the rate at which ux and maximum bending
ℎ
moment decreases is very low compared to the rate for 𝐺

< 0.1. The FOS increases
ℎ
rapidly upto the ratio of 0.2. This shows that a minimum bond length of 2m is
required to ensure the transfer of applied tensile load to the surrounding soil. A
minimum grout length is governed by the anchor force and the ultimate load transfer
capacity of soil.
4.1.8 Effect of embedment depth in anchored sheet pile wall

With the increase in embedment depth, the factor of safety increases whereas the
horizontal displacement is decreased which can be seen in Figure 4.9 below
respectively. The slight increases in horizontal displacement may be because of the
effect of wall slenderness ratio which increases with the increase in embedment depth.
1.55 -0.6
-0.8
1.5 -1
-1.2
1.45
F
-1.4
ux (×10-3
1.4 -1.6
-1.8
1.35 -2
0.75 0.95 1.15 1.35 0.8 1.05 1.3 1.55
d/h d/h
Figure 4.9 Graph of FOS verses d/h and 𝑢𝑥 verses d/h
4
From the results obtained above it is found that, for the given soil profile, if a single
anchored sheet pile is used for supporting the excavation of 10m, then an anchor
needs to be installed 2m below the original ground level with an inclination angle of
25° with respect to the horizontal. A free anchor length of 13m, grout length of 3m
and a pre-stress force of 200 KN is required. The sheet pile needs to be embedded
13m below the dredge level. This results a factor of safety, horizontal deflection at top
of wall and maximum horizontal displacement equal to 1.508, -1.781 mm and 75.18
mm respectively.
4.2 Results of parametric analysis on secant pile wall

The results from the parametric analysis on secant pile wall are shown in Figure 4.10
and Figure 4.11. From this result, it has been observed that there is much less
influence of pile diameter on the factor of safety whereas plays a vital role in reducing
the lateral deflection of the pile wall. On the other hand, the increase in embedment
length of pile wall increases the factor of safety. But in case of lateral deflection, for
all values of D, minimum value is obtained for 𝑑 =1.5 to 2 after which the deflection
ℎ
starts to increase.
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4 D=1m
F
D=1.2 m
1.3 D=1.6 m D=1.8
1.2
1.1
1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d/h
Figure 4.10 Graph of FOS verses d/h for secant pile wall
4
205
185
165
ux (×10-3
145
125
105
85
65
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d/h
D=1m D=1.2 m D=1.6 m D=1.8
Figure 4.11 Graph of 𝑢𝑥 verses d/h for secant pile wall
4.3 Comparison of Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall, Single Anchored Sheet Pile Wall
and Secant Pile Wall
In this section, the results obtained from our analysis of cantilever sheet pile wall,
single anchored sheet pile wall and secant pile wall are compared for an excavation
depth of 10m. It is observed that using the single anchored sheet pile wall instead of a
cantilever one increased the factor of safety by 44.168% and reduced maximum
displacement by 95.49%. Using a secant pile wall of diameter 1.2m and embedment
depth 25m increased the factor of safety by 4.31% and maximum horizontal
displacement by 64.804% than that of an anchored sheet pile. Whereas, using a secant
pile wall of diameter 1.8m and embedment depth 25m increased the factor of safety
by 5.5% and maximum horizontal displacement by 5.081% than that of an anchored
sheet pile wall. Hence, considering both safety, serviceability and economy, single
anchored sheet pile wall is found to perform better in our case. However, there are
several criteria that affect the selection of particular support system such as the
availability of sufficient right of way, vibrations and disturbances produced while
4
driving sheet pile wall, corrosion effect and so on, which are not considered in our
present study.
69.0
64.0
59.0
Wall Elevation,
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall Anchored Sheet Pile Wall
Secant Pile Wall, D=1.2m 54.0
49.0
44.0
-2.010 -1.510 -1.010 -0.510 -0.010
Horizontal Deflection, m
Figure 4.12 Comparative Graph of Horizontal Deflection verses Wall Elevation
70.0
65.0
60.0
Wall Elevation,
55.0
50.0
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall
45.0
Anchored Sheet Pile Wall
40.0
Secant Pile Wall, D=1.2m
35.0
-250.00 250.00 750.00 1250.00
Bending Moment, kN m/m
Figure 4.13 Comparative Graph of Bending Moment verses Wall Elevation
4.4 Effect of soil frictional angle on the selection of angle of inclination of anchor
This analysis is performed to study the effect of soil friction on the selection of angle
of inclination of anchor. Figure 4.14 shows that for all values of angle of soil friction,
ϕ, higher values of factor of safety and lower values of deflection are obtained for
4
θ = 10° to 30° same as the result obtained in Section 4.1.2 Effect of angle of
inclination of ground anchor in anchored sheet pile wall. As expected, greater ϕ
values results greater factor of safety and lower displacement.
2 135
1.9
1.8 115
1.7 95
1.6
ux (×10-3
1.5 75
1.4
F
55
1.3
1.2 35
1.1 15
0 10 20 30 40
-5
θ 0 20 40
Phi=18 phi=25 θ
phi=30 Phi=18 Phi=25 Phi=30
Figure 4.14 Graph of FOS verses θ and 𝑢𝑥 verse θ for different angle of friction
4.5 Effect of soil cohesion in single anchored sheet pile wall

The analysis is performed for the single anchored sheet pile wall designed for a soil
with cohesion 12.1 kN/m2 and ϕ =24.2 °. In this analysis, only the value of soil
cohesion is changed, keeping the value of ϕ equal to 24.2 °.
2.2 35
2.1
30
2
1.9 25
1.8 20
1.7
ux (×10-3
15
F
1.6 10
1.5
5
1.4
1.3 0
1.2 -5 0 10 20 30
4 14 24 -10
Cohesion, kN/m2 Cohesion, kN/m2
Figure 4.15 Graph of FOS verses cohesion and 𝑢𝑥 verses cohesion
4
Figure 4.15 shows that with the increase in cohesion, the factor of safety increases
linearly whereas the value of 𝑢𝑥 decreases moderately for higher values of c depicting
the stiffer nature of soil. The deflection of wall is highly increased for cohesion values
lower than the designed one. This indicates how crucial it is to determine soil
properties accurately for the design of support system.
4.6 Effect of water table variation in single anchored sheet pile wall
The water table elevation is varied from 70m to 45m and the results obtained are
shown in Figure 4.16. The figure indicates that the factor of safety increases for lower
water table. However, the trend of increase of FOS when water elevation is decreased
from ground level upto dredge level (60m) is different from the trend it follows when
water elevation further decreases from dredge level to 45m. Also, the decrease in
water elevation below 55m doesn’t affect the factor of safety of sheet pile wall. Figure
4.16 suggests that decrease in water table beyond dredge level doesn’t result much
effect on the lateral displacement of the top of wall.
50 2.2
40
2
30
1.8
20
ux (×10^-3
10 1.6
F
0
1.4
-10
-20 1.2
45 50 55 60 65 70
-30 1
Water Elevation, m
ux (×10^-3 m) FOS
Figure 4.16 Graph of FOS and 𝑢𝑥 verses Water Elevation
4
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
For the soil considered in this study, cantilever sheet pile wall seems to perform well
for excavation depth upto 5m with a minimum embedment depth equal to 1.1 times
the excavation depth, above which anchored sheet pile is required.
For single anchored sheet pile wall, angle of inclination between 10° and 30° results
greater value of factor of safety and lower value of deflection. Installation of anchor
close to the final excavation depth and late installation of anchor results more
deflection. Pre-stress force on anchor has negligible role on factor of safety but
significant contribution is seen in the deflection control. The obtained results from
varying unbonded anchor length and grout length support the concept of choosing the
length of unbonded anchor based on the location of critical potential surface and the
grout length based on the soil’s ultimate load transfer rate, respectively, as suggested
by (FHWA, 1999). So, if a single anchored sheet pile is used for supporting the
excavation of 10m in the given geotechnical conditions, an anchor needs to be
installed 2m below the original ground level with an inclination angle of 25° with
respect to the horizontal. A free anchor length of 13m, grout length of 3m and a pre-
stress force of 200 KN is required. The sheet pile needs to be embedded 13m below
the dredge level.
In case of secant pile wall, increasing the length of pile wall is found to be more
effective than increasing its diameter from safety consideration. However, increasing
the diameter is beneficial to control the lateral deflection when allowable deflection
limit is not achieved for embedment depth greater than 1.5 to 2 times the retention
height.
Finally, on comparison single anchored sheet pile wall is found to perform better in
our case considering both safety, serviceability and economy. Further, the increased
cohesion of soil has a great impact on the overall stability and serviceability of the
support system. The position of ground water table affect both the factor of safety and
lateral displacement of sheet pile wall but the effect is negligible when the GWT is
half of the excavation depth below dredge level.
4
5.2 Further Studies
The following areas, which are the limitations of our present study, are recommended
for further studies.
i. Advanced material models such as hardening soil model, hardening soil small
strain model, etc. can be used to obtain more realistic behavior of the
excavation.
ii. Since, only drained analysis is performed in our study, undrained analysis can be
done in further studies and the results can be compared.
iii. Further analysis can be done considering surcharge loading, seismic loading as
well as vehicular loading.
4
REFERENCES
Bahrami, M., Khodakarami, M. I., & Haddad, A. (2018). 3D numerical investigation

of the effect of wall penetration depth on excavations behavior in sand.
Computers and Geotechnics, 98, 82–92.
Bica, A. V. D., Blum, H., Clayton, C. R. I., Rowe, P. W., Krey, H., & Brinch Hansen,
J. (1989). Limit equilibrium design methods for free embedded cantilever walls
in granular materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 86(5),
879–898.
Bilgin, Ö. (2010). Numerical studies of anchored sheet pile wall behavior constructed
in cut and fill conditions. Computers and Geotechnics, 37(3), 399–407.
Bilgin, Ö. (2012). Lateral earth pressure coefficients for anchored sheet pile walls.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 12(5), 584–595.
Bilgin, Ö., & Erten, M. B. (2009). Analysis of anchored sheet pile wall deformations.
In Contemporary topics in ground modification, problem soils, and geo-support
(pp. 137–144).
Blum, H. (1931). Einspannungsverhältnisse bei Bohlwerken. Berlin, Germany: Wil.
Ernst Und Sohn (in German).
Bowles, J. E. (1988). Foundation analysis and design.
Bransby, P. L., & Milligan, G. W. E. (1975). Soil deformations near cantilever sheet
pile walls. Geotechnique, 25(2), 175–195.
Cement, & Concrete Sectional Committee, C. E. D. 2. (2000). Indian Standard Plain
and reinforced concrete--code of practice (IS 456 : 2000). In New Delhi:
Cherubini, C. (2000). Probabilistic approach to the design of anchored sheet pile
walls. Computers and Geotechnics, 26(3–4), 309–330.
Clough, G. W. (1990). Construction induced movements of in situ walls. Design and
Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, 439–470.
Dawkins, W. P. (2001). Investigation of wall friction, surcharge loads, and moment
reduction curves for anchored sheet-pile walls.
Day, R A. (1999). Net pressure analysis of cantilever sheet pile walls. Geotechnique,
49(2), 231–245.
Day, R A, & Potts, D. M. (1993). II ~ I ~ EOIZUf _ I3QB. 15, 125–143.
5
Day, Robert A. (2001). Earth pressure on cantilever walls at design retained heights.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering,
149(3), 167–176.
Emarah, D. A., & Seleem, S. A. (2018). A numerical study of anchored sheet piles
subjected to different types of sandy soils backfill. HBRC Journal, 14(3), 422–
430.
FHWA, F. (1999). Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4: Ground anchors and
anchored systems. In Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-
IF-99-015 (pp. B1--B10).
Finno, R. J., Blackburn, J. T., & Roboski, J. F. (2007). Three-dimensional effects for
supported excavations in clay. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133(1), 30–36.
Fourie, A. B., & Potts, D. M. (1989). Comparison of finite element and limiting
equilibrium analyses for an embedded cantilever retaining wall. Geotechnique,
39(2), 175–188.
Grande, L., Soreide, O. K., & Tefera, T. H. (2002). Large scale model testing on the
moment distribution and deformation behaviour of a sheet pile wall. 2nd
International Conference on Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil
Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 389–394.
GuhaRay, A., & Baidya, D. K. (2015). Reliability-based analysis of cantilever sheet
pile walls backfilled with different soil types using the finite-element approach.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 15(6), 6015001.
Han, J. Y., Zhao, W., Chen, Y., Jia, P. J., & Guan, Y. P. (2017). Design Analysis and
Observed Performance of a Tieback Anchored Pile Wall in Sand. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8524078
King, G. J. W. (1995). Analysis of cantilever sheet-pile walls in cohesionless soil.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 121(9), 629–635.
Krabbenhoft, K., Damkilde, L., & Krabbenhoft, S. (2005). Ultimate limit state design
of sheet pile walls by finite elements and nonlinear programming. Computers \&
Structures, 83(4–5), 383–393.
Kumar, N., & Dey, A. (2014). Behavior of Rigid Cantilever Sheet Pile Walls:
Numerical and Finite Element Analysis. Indian Geotechnical Conference,
5
Netherlands, 18–20.
Long, M. (2001). Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep
excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
127(3), 203–224.
Mana, A. I., & Clough, G. W. (1981). Prediction of movements for braced cuts in
clay. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 107(6), 759–777.
Milligan, G. W. E. (1983). Soil deformations near anchored sheet-pile walls.
Geotechnique, 33(1), 41–55.
Moormann, C. (2004). Analysis of Wall and Ground Movements Due to Deep
Excavations in Soft Soil Based on a New Worldwide Database. Soils and
Foundations, 44(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.44.87
Osman, A. S., & Bolton, M. D. (2004). A new design method for retaining walls in
clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(3), 451–466.
Ou, C.-Y., Hsieh, P.-G., & Chiou, D.-C. (1993). Characteristics of ground surface
settlement during excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30(5), 758–767.
Padfield, C. J., & Mair, R. J. (1984). Design of retaining walls embedded in stiff clay
(Issue Monograph).
Plant, G. W. (1972). Anchor inclination-its effect on the performance of a laboratory
scale tied-back retaining wall. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
53(2), 257–274.
Powrie, W., & Li, E. S. F. (1991). Finite element analyses of an in situ wall propped
at formation level. Geotechnique, 41(4), 499–514.
Richards, D. J., & Powrie, W. (1994). Finite element analysis of construction
sequences for propped retaining walls. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering, 107(4), 207–216.
Sheng, D., Sun, D.-A., & Matsuoka, H. (2006). Cantilever sheet-pile wall modelled by
frictional contact. Soils and Foundations, 46(1), 29–37.
Sluis, J., Besseling, F., & Stuurwold, P. (2014). Modelling of a pile row in a 2D plane
strain FE-analysis. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17017-51
Strom, R. W., & Ebeling, R. M. (2001). State of the practice in the design of tall, stiff,
and flexible tieback retaining walls.
5
APPENDIX A
Case C1 Case C2
𝑑 𝑑
FOS ux (×10-3 FOS ux (×10-3
ℎ m) ℎ m)
0.7 1.046 91.216 0.8 1.23 40.813
0.8 1.309 45.788 0.9 1.383 16.708
0.9 1.378 26.015 1 1.534 9.674
1.1 1.487 11.535 1.1 1.651 6.641
1.2 1.594 8.711 1.5 2.188 2.918
1.3 1.695 7.639
1.4 1.908 6.861
Case C3 Case C4
𝑑 𝑑
FOS ux (×10-3 FOS ux (×10-3
ℎ m) ℎ m)
0.7 1.43 5.576 0.8 1.302 26.264
0.8 1.528 4.596 1 1.404 24.932
1 1.69 4.128 1.2 1.515 25.163
1.2 1.822 4.102 1.4 1.641 25.322
Case C5 Case C6
𝑑 𝑑
FOS ux (×10-3 FOS ux (×10-3
ℎ m) ℎ m)
0.8 1.127 156.317 1 1.083 749.962
1 1.221 153.988 1.2 1.076 765.65
1.2 1.267 153.559 1.4 1.088 784.196
1.4 1.267 155.785 1.6 1.108 821.523
1.6 1.29 163.986 2 1.109 883.196
5
Case C7 Case C8
𝜃 FOS ux (×10-3 𝜃 FOS ux (×10-3
m) m)
0 1.197 22.887 0 1.354 24.311
10 1.452 0.804 10 1.486 21.492
20 1.476 -3.584 20 1.479 20.82
25 1.448 -3.806 25 1.499 20.984
30 1.485 -3.435 30 1.482 21.499
40 1.437 -0.325 40 1.463 24.497
Case C9 Case C10

𝜃 FOS ux (×10-3 𝑧
FOS ux (×10-3
m) ℎ
m)
0 1.416 86.652
0.2 1.448 -3.806
10 1.471 84.364
0.4 1.499 20.984
20 1.497 85.383
0.6 1.513 86.556
25 1.513 86.556
0.8 1.543 385.174
30 1.53 88.731
40 1.506 102.221
Case C11 Case C12

𝐸
𝑃 FOS ux (×10-3
m)
FOS ux (×10-3 500 1.446 -32.469
ℎ m) 400 1.443 -23.089
0.2 1.448 -3.806 250 1.444 -8.656
0.4 1.443 3.472 200 1.448 -3.806
0.6 1.442 54.737 150 1.444 1.948
0.8 1.437 345.733 50 1.442 14.574
5
Case C13 Case C14
𝐿 𝐺
FOS ux (×10-3 FOS ux (×10-3
ℎ m) ℎ m)
2 1.597 -6.392 0.05 1.109 86.884
1.8 1.552 -5.813 0.1 1.257 9.871
1.5 1.477 -4.681 0.2 1.439 2.026
1.3 1.448 -3.806 0.3 1.474 -1.663
1 1.455 -0.92 0.4 1.448 -3.806
0.8 1.433 0.536 0.5 1.472 -5.297
0.6 1.354 8.345 0.6 1.477 -6.377
0.5 1.325 20.241
Case C15 Case C16, ϕ = 18°

𝑑
FOS ux (×10-3 θ FOS ux (×10-3
ℎ m) m)
0.8 1.386 -0.774 0 1.126 124.899
0.9 1.414 -1.368 10 1.219 71.553
1 1.474 -1.663 20 1.248 68.574
1.3 1.508 -1.781 25 1.249 70.988
1.5 1.526 -1.402 30 1.259 75.263
1.8 1.574 -0.733 40 1.226 92.691
0.8 1.386 -0.774
Case C16, ϕ = 25° Case C16, ϕ = 30°
θ FOS ux (×10-3 θ FOS ux (×10-3

m) m)
0 1.435 53.517 0 1.661 44.287
10 1.562 47.186 10 1.828 38.791
20 1.619 45.255 20 1.894 36.284
5
25 1.624 46.017 25 1.909 36.716
30 1.617 47.815 30 1.905 37.783
40 1.601 56.625 40 1.875 43.895
Case C17 Case C18
𝑐, kN/m2 FOS ux (×10-3 Water Table

FOS ux (×10-3
m) Elevation, m m)
5 1.242 31.839
70 1.239 42.722
10 1.433 1.935
68 1.409 11.476
15 1.597 -3.594
65.8 1.508 -1.781
20 1.764 -5.702
64 1.575 -7.028
25 1.924 -6.721
62 1.63 -11.545
30 2.081 -7.149
60 1.683 -15.787
58 1.833 -17.562
56 1.94 -18.222
53 2.023 -18.489
50 2.052 -18.501
47 2.057 -18.499
45 2.058 -18.488
5
APPENDIX B
Deflection and Bending Moment Diagram for Different Cases

CASE: C1
70.0
d/h=0.7 d/h=0.8 d/h=0.9 d/h=1.1 d/h=1.2 d/h=1.3 69.5

d/h=1.4
69.0
Wall Elevation,
68.5
68.0
67.5
-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02
Figure B.1 Wall Deflection, m – Case C1
70.0
69.5 d/h=0.7
d/h=0.8
69.0
d/h=0.9
Wall Elevation ,
68.5 d/h=1.1
d/h=1.2
68.0 d/h=1.3
d/h=1.4
67.5
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

Figure B.2 Wall Bending Moment Diagram – Case C1
5
CASE: C2
70.0
69.5
69.0
d/h=0.8 68.5
68.0
d/h=0.9 67.5
Wall Elevation,
67.0
d/h=1 66.5
66.0
d/h=1.1 65.5
65.0
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01
70.0
69.5
69.0
68.5
68.0 d/h=0.8
Wall Elevation,
67.5
67.0 d/h=1
66.5
66.0 d/h=0.9
65.5
65.0 d/h=1.1
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
5
CASE: C3
70.0
d/h=0. 7 69.0
d/h=0. 8 68.0
d/h=1
67.0
d/h=1. 2 66.0
Wall Depth,
65.0
64.0
63.0
62.0
-0.010 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0.000
70.0
69.0
68.0
67.0
d/h=0.7
Wall Depth,
66.0
65.0 d/h=0.8
64.0
d/h=1
63.0
62.0 d/h=1.2
0.00 20.00 40.00

5
CASE: C4
70.0
d/h=0.8 68.0
66.0
d/h=1.2
64.0
Wall Elevation,
d/h=1
62.0
d/h=1.4
60.0
58.0
-0.030 -0.025 -0.020 -0.015 -0.010
69.0
67.0
65.0 d/h=0.8
Wall Elevation,
63.0
d/h=1
61.0
d/h=1.2
59.0
d/h=1.4
57.0
-10.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00
Maximum Bending Moment, kN m/m
6
CASE: C5
69.0
d/h=0.8 d/h=1 d/h=1.2 d/h=1.4 d/h=1.6
67.0
65.0
63.0
61.0
Wall Elevation,
59.0
57.0
55.0
53.0
51.0
-0.210 -0.160 -0.110 -0.060 -0.010
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0
d/h=0.8
62.0
Wall Elevation,
d/h=1
60.0 d/h=1.2
d/h=1.4
58.0 d/h=1.6
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-50.00 50.00 150.00 250.00
6
CASE: C6
d/h=1 d/h=1.2 d/h=1.4 d/h=1.6 d/h=2 67.0
62.0
57.0
Wall Elevation,
52.0
47.0
42.0
-1.010 -0.810 -0.610 -0.410 -0.210 -0.010
67.0
62.0
d/h=1
d/h=1.2
57.0
Wall Elevation,
d/h=1.4
d/h=1.6
52.0 d/h=2
47.0
42.0
-100.00 100.00 300.00 500.00 700.00
6
CASE: C7
70.0
68.0
Angle=0
66.0
Angle=10
64.0
Angle=20
62.0
Angle=25
60.0
Wall Elevation,
Angle=30
58.0
Angle=40
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-0.080 -0.060 -0.040 -0.020 0.000
70.0
68.0
66.0
Angle=0
64.0
Angle=10
Wall Elevation,
62.0
Angle=20
60.0
Angle=25
58.0 Angle=30
56.0 Angle=40
54.0
52.0
50.0
-200.00 -100.00 0.00 100.00
6
CASE: C10
70.0
z/h=0.2 z/h=0.6 z/h=0.4 z/h=0.8 68.0
66.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
Wall Elevation,
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-0.500 -0.400 -0.300 -0.200 -0.100 0.000
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0
62.0 z/h=0.2
Wall Elevation,
60.0 z/h=0.6
58.0 z/h=0.4
56.0 z/h=0.8
54.0
52.0
50.0
-200.00 0.00 200.00
6
CASE: C11
70.0
68.0
E/h=0.2 E/h=0.4 E/h=0.6 E/h=0.8
66.0
64.0
62.0
Wall Elevation,
60.0
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-0.400 -0.300 -0.200 -0.100 0.000
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0 E/h=0.
2
62.0
E/h=0.
Wall Elevation,
60.0 4
E/h=0.
58.0 6
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-200.00 -100.00 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00
6
CASE: C12
70.0
68.0
P=500
P=400 66.0
P=250 64.0
P=150 62.0
P=50
60.0
Wall Elevation,
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-0.080 -0.060 -0.040 -0.020 0.000 0.020
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0
P=500
62.0
P=400
Wall Elevation,
60.0 P=250
58.0 P=150
56.0 P=50
54.0
52.0
50.0
-250.00 -150.00 -50.00 50.00 150.00
6
CASE: C13
70.0
68.0
L/h=2
L/h=1.8 66.0
L/h=1.5 64.0
L/h=1 62.0
L/h=0.8
60.0
L/h=0.6
Wall Elevation,
L/h=0.5 58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-0.100 -0.080 -0.060 -0.040 -0.020 0.000
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0
L/h=2
62.0
L/h=1.
Wall Elevation,
60.0 8
58.0 L/h=1.
5
56.0 L/h=1
54.0 L/h=0.
52.0 8
50.0
-250.00 -150.00 -50.00 50.00 150.00
Moment, kN m/m
6
CASE: C14
70.0
68.0
G/h=0.1
G/h=0.2 66.0
G/h=0.3 64.0
G/h=0.4
G/h=0.5 62.0
G/h=0.6 60.0
Wall Elevation,
0.05
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
-0.150 -0.100 -0.050 0.000
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0 G/h=0.1
62.0 G/h=0.2
Wall Elevation,
60.0 G/h=0.3
58.0
G/h=0.4
56.0
G/h=0.5
54.0
52.0
50.0
-250.00 -150.00 -50.00 50.00 150.00
6
CASE: C15
70.0
d/h=0.8
d/h=0.9
65.0
d/h=1
d/h=1.3
d/h=1.4 60.0
d/h=1.8
Wall Elevation,
55.0
50.0
45.0
-0.090 -0.070 -0.050 -0.030 -0.010 0.010
67.0
62.0 d/h=0.8
d/h=0.9
57.0
Wall Elevation,
d/h=1
52.0 d/h=1.3
d/h=1.4
47.0 d/h=1.8
42.0
-250.00 -150.00 -50.00 50.00 150.00
6
CASE: C17
70.0
65.0
60.0
c=5kN/m2
c=10kN/m2
Wall Elevation,
c=15kNm2 55.0
c=20kN/m2
c=25kN/m2 50.0
c=30kN/m2
45.0
-0.180 -0.130 -0.080 -0.030 0.020
70.0
c=5kN/m2
65.0 c=10kN/m2
c=15kN/m2
c=20kN/m2
60.0
c=25kN/m2
Wall Elevation,
c=30kN/m2
55.0
50.0
45.0
-500.00 -300.00 -100.00 100.00 300.00
7
Case C18
70.0
GWT=70m
GWT=68m 65.0
GWT=64m
60.0
Wall Elevation,
GWT=62m
GWT=60m
55.0
GWT=58m
GWT=56m
50.0
GWT=53m
45.0
-0.180 -0.130 -0.080 -0.030 0.020
GWT=70m 70.0
GWT=68m
65.0
GWT=64m
GWT=62m 60.0
GWT=60m
Wall Elevation,
55.0
GWT=58m
GWT=56m 50.0
GWT=53m
45.0
-500.000 0.000 500.000
7
APPENDIX C
Figure C.1 Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall with 11m embedment depth (For 10m
excavation)
Figure C.2 Recommended Anchored Sheet Pile Wall (For 10m excavation)
Figure C.3 Secant Pile Wall with 1.2m diameter and 25m embedment depth (For 10m
excavation)

Final Thesis - Sahishnu Pokhrel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Final Thesis - Sahishnu Pokhrel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

THESIS NO.: PUL076MSGtE011

Parametric Analysis of Flexible and Rigid Excavation Support System

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Supervisor, Dr. Ram Chandra Tiwari

External Examiner, Dr. Mohan Prasad Acharya

Program Coordinator, Dr. Santosh Kumar Yadav

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my supervisors Assistant

1.2 Area of Study..........................................................................................................2

1.3 Problem statement..................................................................................................2

1.4.1 General Objective................................................................................................3

1.4.2 Specific Objective...............................................................................................3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................4

2.1.1 Sheet Pile Wall Failure Mechanism....................................................................5

2.2 Contiguous, Tangent and Secant Pile Wall............................................................6

2.3 Theoretical Aspects................................................................................................8

2.3.1 Classical Earth Pressure Theories.......................................................................8

2.3.1.1 Coulomb Theory...............................................................................................8

2.3.1.2 Rankine Theory................................................................................................9

2.3.2 Empirical Method..............................................................................................11

2.4 Classical design method for sheet pile wall.........................................................11

2.4.1.1 Full method.....................................................................................................12

2.4.1.2 Simplified method..........................................................................................12

2.4.1.3 Gradual method..............................................................................................13

2.4.2 Single-anchored walls.......................................................................................14

2.4.2.1 Free earth support method..............................................................................14

2.4.2.2 Fixed earth support method............................................................................15

2.5 Numerical studies.................................................................................................15

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY.....................................18

3.1.1 Soil Properties...................................................................................................19

3.1.2 Calculation of Soil Parameters for Clayey Layer..............................................21

3.1.3 Calculation of Soil Parameters for Silty Layer.................................................22

3.1.4 Model Parameters of Sheet Pile, Anchor and Grout.........................................24

3.1.5 Model Parameters of Secant Pile.......................................................................25

3.2 Numerical Modeling.............................................................................................26

3.2.1 Project Properties..............................................................................................26

3.2.2 Geometry and Boundary Condition..................................................................27

3.2.3 Mesh generation................................................................................................28

3.3 Model Verification...............................................................................................33

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................35

4.1.1 Effect of embedment depth in cantilever sheet pile wall..................................35

4.1.5 Effect of pre-stress force on anchor..................................................................39

4.1.6 Effect of free anchor length...............................................................................39

4.1.7 Effect of grout length........................................................................................40

4.1.8 Effect of embedment depth in anchored sheet pile wall...................................41

4.2 Results of parametric analysis on secant pile wall...............................................42

4.5 Effect of soil cohesion in single anchored sheet pile wall...................................45

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.............................47

5.2 Further Studies.....................................................................................................48

Figure 1.1 Area of Study................................................................................................2

Table 3.1 Results from Unconfined Compression Test...............................................22

Figure 1.1 Area of Study

1.3 Problem statement

1.4.1 General Objective

1.4.2 Specific Objective

2.1 Sheet Pile Walls

An analytical model or conventional techniques that rely on the limit equilibrium

2.1.1 Sheet Pile Wall Failure Mechanism

Figure 2.3 Potential failures in anchored walls (FHWA, 1999)

2.2 Contiguous, Tangent and Secant Pile Wall

Figure 2.4 Contiguous Pile Wall

Figure 2.5 Secant Pile Wall