tAG V

WA
SOME DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
S 'k S,,'k
CONSIDERATIONS
by G. S. LITTLEJOHN, BSc, PhD. CEng, MICE. FGS; B. JACK, CEng, MIStructE; and Z. SLIWINSKI, CEng, MICE"

This Paper introduces a method of estimating the
anchor loads required to support a multi-tied con-
tinuous wall. It involves a procedure which calculates
the position and magnitude of a resultant tie at any
stage of excavation by treating the wall as a single
tied structure.
Comparison of designs carried out by the Cemen-
tation method and experimental work indicates that
the results obtained provide a good estimate of the
horizontal forces. Also shown are the results ob-
tained by the generally used methods.
The new method has the advantage of being a
repetitive single-tied wall design, and it is amenable
to varying oil strata, which has always been a prob-
lem when implementing the trapezoidal method.
The Paper then describes the main design and
stability considerations associated with trench exca-
vation under bentonite, and gives recommendations
covering the main requirements for tremie concrete
for load-bearing diaphragm walls.
Methods of estimating anchor location, overall
stability and load carrying capacity with relevant
safety factors, are illustrated. Anchor construction
stages are described, together with the post-tension-
ing procedures and corrosion protection normally
recommended for sand anchors. Finally, the influence
of prestressed tie-backs on the lateral movements
and settlement of the retained soil mass is discussed.

DUE PRIMARILY TO the increasing
tendency to design buildings with a
number of basement floors, the form-
ation level of the excavation being often
at considerable depth below the foun-
dations of the neighbouring properties,
methods of temporary and permanent
earth suppcrt have been developed in
recent years to keep pace with the in-
creased efficiency of modern construc-
tion.
Fig. 1. General view of anchored diaphragm wall, by courtesy of Trollope and
Coils Ltd.—Guildhall Precincts Redevelopment
The diaphragm process of construct-
ing load-bearing walls in the ground
prior to main excavation, based on the
use of bentonite slurry to hold open the
excavaticn until concrete has been
placed, is such a method. The technique
is of special value in built-up areas
since diaphragm walls may be con-
structed in very close proximity to ex-
isting buildings, where other methods
of piling and trenching may be ruled out
by restrictions on access and noise, and
where a wall with high structural effi-
ciency and few joints is required. In
addition, settlements of the soil sur-
rounding the excavation are minimised
due to the ability of the bentonite to
reduce loss of ground during wall con-
struction and the strength and stiffness
of the wall itself. In some instances, the
diaphragm wall may serve as the ex-
terior wall for the permanent structure.
In many cases it is possible to
achieve appreciably increased effi-
ciency, as well as reducing settlements
during the main excavation, by using
prestressed soil anchors for supporting
the wall. Anchors provide intermediate
points of support at ono or more levels,
thereby reducing bonding moments,
w;'th consequent reductions in d'.men-
sions, reinforcement and depth of the
toe of the wall. Interior struts can be
eliminated, which in turn brings quite
large economic and constructional ad-
vantages. This is especially so in
cramped excavations, in wide cuts or
on sites where the contract programme
calls for the use of efficient excavation
and construction machinery (see Fig.
1).
Although both diaphragm wall and
soil anchor techniques have been
proved since the late 1950s, there is

«At the time of writing, all the authors were

with Cementation Co., Ltd. Dr. Littlejohn was a
consultant w.'th Cementation Ground Engineer-
ing, Ltd., but is now Lecturer in Geotechnics,
Dept. of Engineering, University of Aberdeen.
Mr. Jack, formerly a senior design engineer
with Cementation Technical Services Division,
has now started his own practice in Reigate as
consulting structural and foundation enoineers,
under the title Brian J. Jack. Mr. Sliwinski

I I
g
~I«
~4~ i ss
is working in a consultative capacity with
Cementation Piling and Foundations, I.td.

~
» isi i
14
I I
 published information on walls
by prestressed tie-backs.
supported
The purpose of this article is to discuss
the main design and con-
jn some detail
struction aspects associated with an
anchored diaphragm wall in sand, which
WALL
DESIGN
by B. J. JACK
When studying the support of exca-
vations. the following topics have to
be considered: (i) the type of soil to be
retained, (ii) the type of wall to be
used, and (iii) the method of design.
The first stage is the collection and
interpretation of soils data. In this con-
nection the design engineer has to de-
cide the type of soils investigation re-
quired to facilitate the design of the
permanent structure and provide the
construction engineer with sufficient in-
formation to build the work. These two
separate requirements can quite often
lead to different soils tests and affect
the distribution of boreholes throughout
the site. The role of the soils engineer in
this kind of problem cannot be over-
emphasised; he and the wall designer
should co-ordinate from the initial con-
cepts of the work right through to final
design stage and even into the con-
struction period.
Once the soils investigation has been
carried out and test results are avail-
able, both for the permanent and tem-
porary works construction, the design
engineer must choose what type of wall
is to be employed for the support of the
excavation. These days, a wide variety
cf methods is available, varying from
planking and strutting through to the
use of diaphragm walls which can be
incorporated in the permanent struc-
ture. Having chosen the method or a
number of methods of retaining the soil,
the design engineer is now faced with
the problem of how to determine the
structural stresses, tie bar forces, etc.
The design of walls to support deep
excavations is an art rather than a
science, but nevertheless it is essential
that a logical approach is taken in the
design. Shallow excavations can utilise
cantilever or single-tied walls, for
which much valuable information has
been supplied by Rowe in his experi-
mental work. By a careful study of the
soil parameters, wall flexibility, etc., in
~hase designs the engineer can make a
fair estimation of the behaviour of the
structure in practice.
At present little direction is available
cn continuous multi-tied wall design,
where cable anchors or struts are incor-
porated in the support system. For deep
walls using planking and strutting, the
methods recommended are generally
based on the "trapezoidal" pressure
distribution which was originated by
are likely to be considered by the prac-
tising engineer, and to emphasise that
whilst design procedures for excava-
tions supported by soldiers and plank-
ing are readily available, the design of
continuous walls supported by tiers of
Terzaghi. This method was established
from experiments carried out on an ex-
cavation in Berlin through cohesicnless
material supported by soldier piles and
planking. It should be remembered,
however, that the pressure distribution
was based on an envelope enclosing
assumed parabolic distributions at each
stage of excavation, the size and shape
being calculated equal to the magnitude
and distribution of the actual measured
strut forces. This trapezoidal pressure
distribution is valid only under certain
conditions since the actual earth pres-
sures are a function of the degree and
type of freedom for lateral expansion of
the retained soil.
It is evident that the soil pressures
existing behind contiguous piles, steel
sheet piling and diaphragm walling will
be different to those of a soldier pile
construction as the earth support pro-
vided by the material to be excavated
at any stage acts on the full wall face
and not on small areas, which is the
case when using soldier piles. The bear-
ing pressure will be less, reducing the
wall's lateral movement, thus effecting
the redistribution of earth pressure.
Design parameters
Rowe's work on single tied walls has
clearly shown that one of the most im-
portant factors in this type of design is
the wall's flexibility, which tends to re-
duce the maximum bending moments
and increase the tie bar forces through
arching of the ground. It is quite logical
that the smaller the deflection, the
smaller will be the arching effect and it
is reasonable to expect that where the
wall continues below the excavation
level, a high degree of fixity will produce
a less effective span, a smaller wall de-
flection and less redistribution of soil
pressures due to arching. It therefore
seems inappropriate to use the "trape-
zoidal" method when designing walls of
this type, because in these instances
one would expect a more triangular
pressure distribution.
If an extreme case is considered
where a continuous diaphragm or sheet
piled wall is constructed in the ground
and struts are inserted at close centres
as the excavation proceeds, little or no
redistribution of soil pressures will
take place and the resulting pressure
diagram will be of a triangular form. The
actual values will depend on the type of
prestressed and inclined soil anchors
entails a fundamental difference because
construction methods play a more sig-
nificant part in determining the forces
which result in the
and displacements
wall and anchors.
wall used. In the case of steel piling
where the wall is driven into the
ground, the pressures before excava-
tion at either side may be considered
"at rest", whereas with diaphragm wall
construction where an excavation is
opened up and the ground stabilised by
the use of bentonite some yielding of
the soil occurs, tending to reduce the
"at rest" pressures to those approach-
ing the active state. Therefore, even
within the field of continuous retaining
walls different parameters will have to
be employed depending upon the type
of construction, spacing of props, etc.
The stress distribution, which gov-
erns the design, depends upon the
walling material used, the method of
construction and the centres at which
the struts or ties are installed, since it
is the effective span at any one stage of
construction that will determine the de-
flection, and consequently the re-
distribution of soil pressures. One of the
most important factors in this respect
is the strength of the soil in front of the
wall mobilising the passive pressure,
as this determines the additional di-
mension below excavation level making
up the effective span.
In the case of multi-tied walls, as
stage by stage excavation proceeds the
passive pressure producing the effective
span at any one stage can be assessed
approximately, but as excavation pro-
ceeds past a particular stage the ground
which was restraining the wall is re-
moved and further deflection can take
place. The amount of passive resistance
built up at any intermediate stage,
when removed, must be added to the
active pressures on the wall, since in
the previous stage it was subtracted to
produce the resultant pressure diagram
and hence the tie bar forces above. If
this is done, then the final soils distri-
bution achieved will be of a triangular
form with exaggerated "bumps" at each
tie level, the amount of additional pres-
sure at a tie being dependent upon the
passive resistance built up at the in-
stallation stage of that tie.
With regard to the soil parameters
which should be used in determining
the passive pressure which is available
at any particular stage of excavation, it
is considered that the design should be
evaluated for two conditions, firstly
using the immediate or undrained soil
parameters, and secondly with the
drained soil parameters, as it has been
shown that the latter condition can
arise in a very short time period. This
approach is, therefore, applicable not
only to the design of works of a per-
manent nature such as underpasses, but
also for temporary works where, as in
basement construction, the wall is only
exposed during the construction period.
Since the drained parameters approach
the ultimate strength cf the soil, the
factor of safety when using these para-
Ground Engineering 15
 (a)
R,
T,
Pp Pa'epth
of
F.O.S. 1 previously.
Fig. 2
meters can be reduced below that nor-
mally employed, and values of 1.1 to
1.2 are recommended for consideration.
Design method
design method for
The following
multi-tied walls has been developed by
Cementation to incorporate the effects
of the temporary support produced by
the passive pressure at intermediate ex-
cavation stages.
It involves a procedure which calcu-
lates the position and magnitude of a
resultant tie at any stage of excavation
by treating the wall as a single tied
structure.
The method requires that the follow-
ing assumptions are made:
(i) The mobilising and resisting soil
forces are those determined using
Rankine's earth pressure theory.
(ii ) At failure there is an unique point
of rotation in the plane of the wall.
j
(iii The wall is only of sufficient length
to mobilise a factor of safety of
unity against rotation at any stage
of excavation.
The first assumption is made to sim-
plify the calculations, and is the usual
one made when calculating earth pres-
sures in the design office.
The second assumption —
that the
point of rotation occurs in the plane of
—
the wall enables the following simple
procedure to be used in calculating the
additional tie bar forces produced when
the passive pressure is "transferred" to
the active side during the next stage of
excavation.
Consider the equilibrium conditions
of the system shown in Fig. 2 (a) and
(b). From Fig. 2 (a)
XH = 0 is satisfied when:
T, = P,' PB'..............
(1)
ZM = 0 is satisfied when:
MP ——M,
(about position of T,)
From Fig. 2 (b)
ZH = 0 is satisfied when:
Ti+T =P"—P"
XM = 0 is satisfied when:
M p " = M 4 " (about the
centroid
of T, and T, j
If we now consider a resultant tie R,
in Fig. 2 (b) acting at the centroid of
T, and T,'hen:
R,=T,+T,=P —P„"
Substituting for T, from equation (1)
then P; — P,'+T, = P "— Pp"
which gives the amount of pressure
transferred to T, when excavation pro-
ceeds to the point for the insertion of
16
(b) (c)
Pa'ressures.
.Sr-t
T,. Fig. 2 (c) shows
this represented
diagramatically.
The remaining problem now is to cal-
culate the position and magnitude of
R,. As T, is unknown, then both the
position and magnitude of R, are un-
known. By assuming one, the other
may be calculated and the initial as-
sumption checked. Since the lever arm
of R, to the position of factor of safety
of unity is usually small in comparison
to its magnitude it is necessary that
this dimension is calculated to a high
degree of accuracy and the following
iteration procedure is recommended to
ensure a convergence upon the correct
answer.
Fig. 3 shows the case where the ex-
cavation level has been reduced to a
position for the insertion of the fourth
tie.
Considering the equilibrium of the
system
ZH = 0 is satisfied when:
T( =R„— R methods of this nature must be used.
M = 0 is satisfied when
(R.xj —(Ts.y) = 0 .........
(2)
where y = D — x —1
Substituting in (2)
i(xj = (R.x)—T (D —x —1)
= (R.x.)—TsD+Ts.x+Ts.1
Substituting in Newton-Raphson's
iteration formula,
n+1
R.x —TsD+ Ts.x+ Ts.1
n R+T
where x, is the new estimate
and xn is the previous estimate of X
of X
(This process is continued until the re-
quired accuracy is reached.)
This method can now be followed
through a typical design by considering
the action of the wall as excavation pro-
ceeds. The first stage of excavation is
usually a cantilever having an exposed
height of the order of 2— 5 m. The bend-
ing moments in the wall under this con-
dition can be determined by the usual
methods, but it should be noted that
the maximum bending moment occurs
below the first tie level and not at the
tie level, as is often assumed when de-
signing walls of this nature.
After the installation of the first tie,
the second stage of excavation pro-
ceeds down to the level required for the
insertion of the second tie. Under this
condition a single-tied retaining wall
exists for which, as mentioned previ-
ously, knowledge of the interaction of
the soil and the wall flexibility is avail-
able. However, when the second tie is
installed very little information is avail-
able on the redistribution of the soil
In this design method, it is
assumed that there is a point of rota-
tion as in the single-tied wall, but this
point does not occur at a tie level but at
some intermediate level between the
first and second ties. Since this level
cannot readily be determined its posi-
tion has to be estimated, as outlined
This procedure may be continued
down through any number of ties.
Comparison with existing design
methods
Comparison of designs carried out by
the Cementation method and experi-
mental work indicates that the results
obtained provide a good estimate of the
horizontal forces and Fig. 4 shows this
method compared with model experi-
ments carried out by Rowe and Briggs
for two, three and four tied walls. Also
shown are the results obtained for
analyses carried out by the generally
used methods.
Fig. 5 shows the method compared
with a full scale experiment and designs
for this project submitted by various
engineers.
Field evidence from other tests on
full scale walls is encouraging but
modifications
to the method will be
built in if necessary in the form of flexi-
bility coefficients when the complete
results of full scale and model tests,
currently being carried out by Cementa-
tion, are available.
It is considered that until a method
of design is produced which takes into
account the full interaction of the wall
and the soil flexibilities, then empirical
The approach described takes account
of varying soil strata, wall flexibility and
method of excavation, and should en-
able the design engineer to make a bet-
ter assessment of the wall's behaviour
than by assuming a trapezoidal pressure
distribution for a continuous wall, for
which it was not originally envisaged.
The main advantages of the new
method may be listed as:
(i) It is a repetitive single-tied wall
design with which most engineers
Original ground level
f I
4~44'44 4444 44'4444 44~
J
R
——~
Tr
—
R4
Excavation level
for the insertions
of tie T4
Fig. 3
R = Previous resultant tie force
R
II
= New resultant tie forco
I = Previous resultant tie force level
I
ll
= New resultant tie force level
T,1 T,s T,s & Tt = Individual tie forces
 Tie forces Tie forces Tie forces
TI 6H'00 per ft TIIIHi .100perft Tl 5 H: x 100 per ft

987654321 9876543211 987654321 I

Tie No. 1 sxsi~m Surface level Tie No.1 ~ssa ~ Surface

'/////
level Tie No. I Surface level
'////////'//
aaaa i/ // ///// ~xx
x
v

Tie No. 2
CZZZ
Tie No. 2

Tie No. 2 Tie No. 3 exxavva

essed
C

Tie No. 3
IZZKKZ
Tie No. 4
CZZZZ

Excavation level ~ Excavation level

/r/////////////
~ Excavation level
/ /////////////
~
Wall with two ties (a) Wall with three ties (b) Wall with four ties (c)

Experimental results
Fig. 4 TschebotarioR's method
Terzaghi's method
T = Actual tie force Brinch Hansen's method
7 = Density
H = Total height retained Cementation's method I I

0.00 ft Fig. 5. Comparison of strut loads on retaining wall

s i (Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Gravel, sand, 4 ft
silt & claY
[ American Society of Engineers, May, 1970)
10 ft
110 2l 35
WL —10 ft Notes 1) Strut length 12 ft =
C 0 d'-=10' During construction it was found that penetration below -60 ft
could not be achieved. The actual load on S5, therefore, is
21 ft higher as the wall tends to cantilever over S5
Silt
110 8 30
—20 ft
C 400 x( - 10'n
CW 200 I I II 9 — ——I
II II 4 s

'St
—30 ft
Key G.R. Golder
ii 18ft G.D. -Gould
I

135 8 38 „ =9 ll~ II= i~t 4 T Tschebotarioff

d'5 W.A. Wilson "A"
II II II

C 0 'Ss —40 ft W.B. Wilson "B"

C 0 C C.L Cementation Co.. Ltd
10 ft A Actual
=~=a t 1 ——
J ~7~v= i ii II=II —l~
—50 ft
6R
il i il li~
6ft —60 ft
0 100 200 300 500 600 700

Strut load in kips

are familiar and should involve no (v) Although the procedure is simple, have to be varied as construction takes
difficulties in implementing. it produces results which comply place. For this purpose it is necessary
(ii) It is amenable to varying soil strata closely with experimental data for a quick and rapid design method to
— always a problem when imple- available to date. be available and it is noteworthy that
menting the trapezoidal method. The necessity of close co-ordination Cementation have produced a computer
(rii) It allows struts or ties to be in- between the design, soils and con- program that can analyse continuous
serted at levels chosen by the en- struction engineers throughout all multi-tied walls supporting soils of vary-
gineer to take full advantage of the stages of the work is again emphasised ing characteristics and which enables
initial cantilevering abilities of dia- because whenever the problem of quick amendments to be made to the
phragm walls —
difficult, if at all foundations is being studied, especially design based on the soil conditions ex-
possible, when using the trape- in the field of retaining walls, the design posed as the wall is being constructed.
zoidal method. may have to be amended as the work (To be continued)
(rv) It allows the wall penetration to proceeds. The limited number of bore-
be calculated based on a rota- holes which can be put down on any In the second part of this Paper,
tiona! criteria as well as the direct site is generally insufficient to provide a Z. Sliwinski considers wall construction,
summation of horizontal forces complete picture of the ground strata while the third, by G. S. Littlejohn, deals
used in the trapezoidal method. and tie bar positions and forces may with anchor design.

Ground Engineering 17