Design of Gravity Walls

& Sheet Pile Walls

Technical University of Kenya

Department of civil engineering
Dr. Eng. Alphonce A. Owayo.
Design of gravity walls
Limit states
During the design of gravity walls, the following limit
states should be considered.
(1) Slip of the surrounding soil (Fig. 1a). This effect
can occur in cohesive soils and can be analyzed as
for a slope stability problem.
(2) Bearing failure of the soil beneath the structure (Fig. 1b).
The over turning moment from the earth's thrust causes
high bearing pressures at the toe of the wall. These
values must be kept within safe limits - usually not more
than one-third of the supporting soil's ultimate bearing
capacity.
(3) Overturning. For a wall to be stable the resultant thrust
must be within the base. Most walls are so designed that
the thrust is within the middle third or the base.

Jan-April 2023 2
(4) Forward sliding (Fig. 1c). Caused by insufficient
base friction or lack of passive resistance in front of
the wall.
(5) Structural failure caused by faulty design, poor
workmanship, deterioration of materials, etc.
(6) Excessive deformation of the wall or ground such that
adjacent structures or services reach their ultimate limit
state.
(7) Unfavorable seepage effects and the adequacy of any
drainage system provided.

Bearing pressures on soil

The resultant of the forces due to the pressure of the soil
retained and the weight of the wall subject the foundation to
both direct and bending effects.

Jan-April 2023 3
Fig. 1 Limit states for earth retaining
structures (adapted from BS8002: 1994).

Jan-April 2023 4
Fig. 2 Bearing pressures due to a retaining
wall foundation.

Jan-April 2023 5
Let R be the resultant force on the foundation, per
unit length, and let R v, be it’s vertical component (Fig.
2a) considering the unit length of the wall.
𝐵2
Section modulus of foundation =
6
Maximum pressure on base = Direct pressure+ pressure due
to bending

Jan-April 2023 6
The formulae only apply when Rv, is within the middle
third; when Rv, is on the middle third (Fig. 2b); then
e=B/6

If the resultant R lies outside the middle third (Fig. 2c)

the formulae

Base resistance to sliding

Granular soils and drained clays.The base resistance
to sliding is equal to Rv tan 𝛿 where 𝛿 is the angle of
friction between the base of the wall and its supporting
soil, and Rv; is the vertical reaction on the wall base.
In limit state design, the sliding limit state
Jan-April 2023 7
will be satisfied if the base resistance to sliding is
greater than, or equal to, Rh, the horizontal component
of the resultant force acting on the base. In the factor
of safety approach, the ratio (Rv tan 𝛿 )/Rh. is
determined to establish the factor of safety against
sliding. (In the case of a drained clay any value of
effective cohesion, c’w will be so small that it is best
ignored.)

Undrained clays
The adhesion between the supporting soil and the base of a
gravity or rein forced concrete wall can be taken as equal to
the value cw used in the determination of the active pressure
values and based on the value of cu.
Resistance to sliding = cw x Area of base of wall

Jan-April 2023 8
EXAMPLE 1. The proposed design of a cantilever retaining
wall is shown in Fig. 3. The unit weight of the concrete is
24 kN/m3 and the soil has unit weight 18 kN/m3. The soil
peak strength parameters are 𝜙 ′ = 38°, c' = 0 and the safe
bearing capacity of the soil is 250 kN/m
Check the safety of the proposed design:
(a) in accordance with BS 8002;
(b) by the traditional (CP2) method. (Assume coefficient of
′
friction between base of wall and soil to equal tan𝜙𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 )

Jan-April 2023 9
The soil behind the wall carries a uniform surcharge of
intensity 10kN/m2.
Check the safety of the proposed design:
(a) in accordance with BS 8002;
(b) by the traditional (CP2) method. (Assume coefficient of
′
friction between base of wall and soil to equal tan𝜙𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 )
Solution
(a) BS 8002
Sliding
tan 38°
Design 𝜙 ′ = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 ( ) = 33°
1.2

Fig.3 Example 1.

Jan-April 2023 10
Jan-April 2023 11
 FOS sliding= 131.2/81.2 = 1.62

Jan-April 2023 12
FOS overturning= 454.2/147.7 = 3.08

FOS bearing capacity= 250/153.6 = 1.63

Jan-April 2023 13
Jan-April 2023 14
Jan-April 2023 15
Design of sheet pile walls
A sheet pile wall is a flexible structure which depends for
stability upon the passive resistance of the soil in front of and
behind the lower part of the wall. Retaining walls of this
type differ from other walls in that their weight is negligible
compared to other forces involved. Design methods usually
neglect the effect of friction between the soil and the wall,
but this omission is fairly satisfactory when determining
active pressure values; it should be remembered, however, that
the effect of wall friction can almost double the Rankine
value of Kp. According to Terzaghi (1943), the value of Kp
should be taken as twice the Rankine value for soils with a
𝜙 value equal to or greater than 25° , whilst for soils with less
than 25° the rapid fall-off in the effects of wall friction
indicate that Kp should be taken as equal to the Rankine
value.

Jan-April 2023 16
 Cantilever walls
Sheet pile walls are flexible and sufficient yield will
occur in a cantilever wall to give totally active earth
pressure conditions (Fig. 4).
Let the height of the wall be h, and suppose it is required to
find the depth of penetration, d, that will make the wall
stable. For equilibrium the active pressure on the back of the
wall must be balanced by the passive pressure both in front
of and behind the wall. If an arbitrary point C is chosen and it
is assumed that the wall will rotate outwards about this
point, the theoretical pressure distribution on the wall is as
shown in Fig. 4b.
Limit state design method
In BS8002: 1994 the design procedure is to reduce the shear
strength by the disturbing and restoring moments about C,
together with the horizontal forces established using the
pressure distribution shown in Fig 4e. The
Jan-April 2023 17
Fig. 4 Pressure distribution on sheet pile wall.

Jan-April 2023 18
method generates two equations containing the
unknowns d and d0 which are solved by repeated
iteration until the correct values are obtained (see
example2)
Traditional methods
Various traditional methods of design exist. Each involves the
determination of an overall factor of safety for passive
resistance, Fp, based on different lateral earth pressure
distributions. The methods are described in detail by Padfield
and Mair (1984).
(1) Gross pressure method
The method is also referred to as the CP2 method, after the
Institution of Structural Engineers' original Code of Practice
published in 1951. It is very unlikely that the full passive
resistance for the soil in front of the wall will be developed.
Common practice is to divide the total theoretical value of
thrust Kpγd2/2 by a factor of safety, traditionally taken as
Fp= 2.0. The effective passiveJan-April
resistance
2023 in front of the wall 19
is therefore assumed to have a magnitude of Kpγd2/4 and is
of trapezoidal distribution, the centre of pressure of this
trapezium lying between d/2 and d/3 above the base of the
pile (for ease of calculation the value is generally taken as
d/3). Recently it has become more common to use lower
values of Fp for low values of 𝜙 ′ . Padfield and Mair (1984)
recommend the following values:

Jan-April 2023 20
Calculations are considerably simplified if it is assumed that
the passive resistance on the back of the wall, Pp1, acts as a
concentrated load, R, on the foot of the pile, leading to the
pressure distribution shown in Fig 4d from which d can be
obtained by taking moments of thrusts about the base of the
pile. The value of d obtained by this method is more nearly
the value of d0 in Fig. 4a, the customary practice being to
increase the value of d by 20 per cent to allow for this
effect.
(2) Net available passive resistance method
The method is also referred to as the Burland, Potts and
Walsh method after Burland et al. (1981 ). They advocate a
modified pressure distribution. (Fig. 4e) with the effect that
the factor of safety is applied to the net available passive
resistance.

Jan-April 2023 21
3) Strength factor method
This is based on the gross pressure method distribution but
with a factor of safety applied to the shear strength of the
soil. i.e.

By factoring the strength parameters, K, is increased and K0

is decreased leading to modified pressure distributions relative
to those obtained using the gross pressure method.
( 4) Net total pressure method
This is advocated by British Steel in the British Steel Piling
Handbook (1997) where the net horizontal pressure distribution
is used (Fig 4f). The pressure distribution is derived by
subtracting the active earth and water pressures from the
passive earth and water pressures.
Jan-April 2023 22
EXAMPLE 2
Calculate the minimum depth of embedment, d, to provide
stability to a cantilever sheet pile wall, retaining an excavated
depth of 5 m using:
(a) BS 8002 method;
(b) CP2 method.

Solution
(a) BS 8002 method
In accordance with the methods set out in BS 8002, we
apply a surcharge of 10kN /m2, and allow for a future
unplanned excavation of 10 per cent of the clear height (=
0.5m) in front of the wall (Fig. 5a). The pressure distribu
tion is then as shown in Fig. 5b.

Jan-April 2023 23
 Fig. 5 Example 2 Part (a) BS 8002 method.

Jan-April 2023 24
5b

Jan-April 2023 25
Jan-April 2023 26
Jan-April 2023 27
Jan-April 2023 28
5b 5c

=0

6
Jan-April 2023 29
Fig. 6 Example 2 Part (b) CP2 method.

Jan-April 2023 30
Jan-April 2023 31
 Anchored and propped walls
When the top of a sheet pile wall is anchored, a
considerable reduction in the penetration depth can be
obtained. Due to this anchorage the lateral yield in the upper
part of the wall is similar to the yield in a timbered trench,
whereas in the lower part the yield is similar to that of a
retaining wall yielding by rotation. As a result the pressure
distribution on the back of an anchored sheet pile is a
combination of the totally active and the arching-active cases,
the probable pressure distribution being indicated in Fig. 7b.
In practice the pressure distribution behind the wall is
assumed to be totally active. The anchor or prop force
required can be obtained by equating horizontal forces: T = Pa
- Pp, from which a value is obtained per metre run of wall.
The resulting value of T is increased by 25 per cent to
allow for flexibility in the piling and arching in the soil.
Anchors are usually spaced at 2-3 m
Jan-April 2023 32
Fig. 7 Free earth support method for anchored
sheet piled walls.

Jan-April 2023 33
intervals and secured to stiffening wales. Anchorage can be
obtained by the use of additional piling or by anchor blocks
(large concrete blocks in which the tie is embedded). Any
anchorage block must be outside the possible failure plane
(Fig. 8a), and when space is limited piling becomes necessary
(Fig. 8 b); if bending is to be avoided in the anchorage pile,
then a pair of raking piles can be used (Fig. 8c).
Depth of embedment for anchored walls
The penetration depth can be either the depth that is just
sufficient to balance lateral forces without taking account of
fixity (the free earth support method) or else the depth which
gives full fixity at the base of the pile with an
accompanying increase in penetration depth and a reduction
in the bending moments on the pile (the fixed earth support
method).

Jan-April 2023 34
Fig. 8 Anchorage systems for sheet pile walls.

Jan-April 2023 35
Free earth support method
It is assumed that rotation occurs about the anchor point and
that sufficient yielding occurs for the development of active
and passive pressures. The pressure distribution assumed in
design is shown in Fig. 7, the wall being considered free to
rotate about its base (the point B). By taking moments about
the tie rod at D an expression for the penetration depth, d,
can be obtained, the actual penetration depth being taken as
equal to 1.2d. The four methods of assessing the ratio of
restoring moments to overturning moments described for
cantilever walls are also used for anchored walls.

Jan-April 2023 36
Fixed earth support method
The pressure distribution assumed for design work is shown
in Fig. 9, with a point of contraflexure, introduced by the
assumption of fixity. The wall can therefore be regarded as
two walls, AO and OB, entirely separate from each other,
this form of analysis being called the equivalent beam
method. Analysis by the elastic line method (Terzaghi, 1943)
gives the following positions for O (depending upon the
value of 𝜙 for the soil) where h is the height of the wall
and x is the dimension shown in Fig. 9a.

Jan-April 2023 37
Fig. 9 Fixed earth support method for anchored
sheet piled walls. .

Jan-April 2023 38
For most backfills the average value of 𝜙 is 30° . Hence if x is
assumed equal to 0.1 h little error will generally be involved.
Reduction of design moments in anchored sheet pile walls
Rowe (1952) conducted a series of model tests in which he
showed that the bending moments that actually occur in an
anchored sheet pile wall are less than the values computed by
the free earth support method. This difference in values is due
mainly to arching effects within the soil which create a
passive pressure distribution in front of the wall that is
considerably different from the theoretical triangular
distribution assumed for the analysis. Because of this
phenomenon the point of application of the passive resistive
force occurs at a much shallower depth than the generally
assumed value of d/3 (where d = depth of penetration of the
pile). Rowe later extended his work to cover clay soils (1957,
1958) and suggested a semi-empirical approach, covering the
main soil types, whereby the values
Jan-April 2023 39
computed by the free earth support method for both the
moments in the pile . and the tension in the tie can be
realistically reduced. The method involves the use of two
coefficients, rd and rb, and worked examples illustrating the
use of the method have been prepared by Harden (1974).
More recently, numerical studies performed by Potts and
Fourie (1984) have confirmed Rowe's findings for normally
consolidated clays. However, their studies showed that
Rowe's results do not stand for over consolidated clays and
they have produced separate design charts for this case.
EXAMPLE 3
If an anchor is placed 1 m below the ground level behind
the sheet pile wall described in Example 2, calculate the
minimum depth of embedment, d, to provide stability using:
(a) BS 8002 method;
(b) CP2 method.

Jan-April 2023 40
Solution
(a) BS 8002 method
As before, we apply a surcharge of 10 kN/m2, and allow for a
future unplanned excavation of 0.5 m in front of the wall (Fig.
10a). The pressure distribution is then as shown in Fig. 10b.

Fig. 10 Example 3 Part (a) BS 8002

method.

Jan-April 2023 41
Jan-April 2023 42
(b) CP2 method
The pressure distribution is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11 Example 3 Part (b) CP2 method

Jan-April 2023 43
Jan-April 2023 44
 Treatment of ground water conditions
In order to carry out the stability analysis of a retaining wall
involving ground water it is necessary to know the values of
the water pressures acting on both sides of the wall. If there
is a water level on one side of the wall only the problem is
simple to analyze and is illustrated in Example 4. If there are
water levels on both sides of the wall but at the same
elevation then the two water pressure diagrams act equal and
therefore balance out. Hence, apart from allowing for the fact
that the soil below the water is submerged, no special
treatment is necessary. With different water levels on both
sides of the pile, seepage can occur. An approximate method
to allow for this is to assume that the difference in the
hydrostatic pressures on each side of the pile at its base is
distributed linearly around the length of the pile that is within
the water zone, i.e. h + 2D where h is the height of the pile
above dredge level and O is the depth of pile penetration.
Jan-April 2023 45
EXAMPLE 4
Determine an approximation for the water pressure
distribution on each side of the sheet pile wall shown in Fig.
12a.
Solution
With the assumption that the hydrostatic pressures are
linearly distributed around the length of the pile within the
water zone, the formula for u, the water pressure on both
sides of the pile base, is

The assumed diagrams for water pressure on each side of the

wall are shown in Fig. 12b and the net water pressure
diagram is shown in Fig. 12c.

Jan-April 2023 46
Fig. 12 Example 4

Jan-April 2023 47
 Overview of Blum’s Method
An alternative to the free earth support method – and one that is
more popular in Europe than in the U.S. – is the fixed earth
support method. The method was originally developed by Dr.
Hermann Blum. To illustrate the concept, we present a “simple”
example. Consider an anchored sheet pile wall with a single
support, uniform granular soil and no water as shown in Fig.13.
Let us assume that the toe of the sheet is a fixed end for structural
purposes; this is Blum’s first condition, and this sets Blum’s
method apart from the free earth support method. If we neglect the
anchor, the system will be a simple cantilever with two distributed
forces, the active pressure
(I)
and the passive pressure

(II)

Jan-April 2023 48
where x is the distance from the top of the sheet pile wall. The
moment at any point due to the active pressure is and the passive
pressure
(III)

and the passive pressure

(IV)

Now let us add a simple support at the point of the support. The
moment due to this force at any point in the beam is given by the
equation
(V)

Jan-April 2023 49
Fig. 13 Anchored Sheet Pile Wall to
Illustrate Blum’s Method

Jan-April 2023 50
With the addition of the support, the system is statically
indeterminate. The moment equations, however, can be solved if
we treat each of the three forces acting on the beam (active
pressure, passive pressure and support) separately and then sum
the resulting deflections they produce at the support. We will use
the dummy unit load method to determine these deflections. This
method states that the deflection at a point can be determined by
the equation.

(VI)
where
m = moment due to the dummy unit load
M = moment due an actual moment
E = modulus of elasticity of the material
I = moment of inertia of the sheeting
For the active pressure and the anchor force, one must
integrate from the support (x = ρH) to the end of the beam (x
Jan-April 2023 51
= H + D). For the passive force, one must integrate from the
excavation line (x = H) to the end of the beam. If we integrate the
deflection at the anchor caused by each of these forces, sum the
three resulting deflections, set them equal to zero, and solve for
the anchor force, we have

(VII)

We now note that we still have two unknowns: the anchor force T
and the depth of penetration D. It is at this point that we introduce
Blum’s other condition: the moments about the toe equal zero,
even though the toe is fixed. There is a reaction at the toe, which
represents the residual of the net force on the wall. It is generally
accounted for in design by increasing the penetration D of the
wall beyond the excavation line by 20%.

Jan-April 2023 52
The moments at the end can be obtained by substituting x = H + D
in to Equation (III), Equation (IV) and Equation (V). If we then
sum these moments, set the summation equal to zero, and as
before solve them for the anchor force, we obtain

(VIII)

Obviously, we can solve this equation and the previous one

together and determine the result for T and D; however, from a
practical standpoint, only a numerical solution is possible. If we
add the water table, the complexity increases. Blum’s assumption
of a fixed end has been widely criticized (especially in the U.S.),
but it should be kept in mind that Blum’s assumption is more of a
design objective than an assumption of actual conditions. If the
sheet were to be lengthened, the maximum moment—which can
also be obtained from the above equations—would be lowered
with the increased penetration of the sheet. A longer sheet would
Jan-April 2023 53
also be more resistant to overturing failure. This concept, although
applied first to steel sheeting, has potential with non-metallic
sections, where maximum allowable moments tend to be lower.

Jan-April 2023 54