BLPC - 2001/234

A century of design methods for retaining walls The French point of view
I. Calculation-based approaches conventional and subgrade reaction methods
Luc DELATTRE Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses

Introduction
A very wide variety of design methods for retaining walls are in current usage. Technical documentation, whether textbooks or documents intended for engineers, contains methods that date from the beginning of the century as well as methods developed from the 1970s, completely empirical methods and methods that are based solely on theoretical models, methods which claim to take account of the in-service behaviour of structures while also being described as limit equilibrium methods and methods that actually take account of the behaviour of structures at failure, although this last group is small. However, the situation is not chaotic. It is simply the result of repeated attempts to deal with one of the most complex types of geotechnical structure, which is not only supported by the soil, as is the case with foundations, but also loaded by the soil. After a survey of the state of the art as it existed at the start of the twentieth century, this paper uses the bibliography in order to describe the development of design methods while explaining how each new generation of method provided responses to the general problem of retaining walls and by situating, when relevant, the problem in the engineering context of its day. This account will be presented in three parts. The first, i.e. this paper, deals with the theoretical approaches to the design of retaining walls, which have dominated in France from the start of the twentieth century until the present, and the so-called classical design methods which are based on them, and the subgrade reaction method. The second part will deal with the empirical approach to the design of retaining walls which was mainly developed in the English-speaking world from the 1930s. Lastly, the third part will deal with the contribution which finite element method has made, from the 1970s, to the design of retaining walls.

The question of the design of retaining walls

For retaining walls, the domination of masonry gravity walls until the beginning of the twentieth century led researchers, from the predecessors of Coulomb to Boussinesq, to concentrate on the active earth pressure exerted on structures of this type (Delattre, 1999). In this area, the success of eighteenth and nineteenth century engineers is undeniable, as their work still provides the basis for the design of structures in France and elsewhere in the world. The responses that were given at this time (Coulombs method and the theories of Rankine and Boussinesq in particular) provide a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem: gravity walls are rigid structures whose kinetics generally involve overturning of the structure under the action of sustained earth pressure, the latter being thus decompressed laterally and brought to active failure (Fig. 1). At the start of the century, the development of flexible structures that are supported by the soil and subject to deforma:tion (Delattre, 2000), added major new elements to the question of the soilstructure interaction. Passive earth pressure was now considered in addition to active earth pressure, in view of the soils response to the embedded portion of the structure. The kinematics of

33

rotation at the top of the wall in the case of an excavated structure were added to those of rotation at the base which apply in the case of walls that retain fill. Finally, new forms of interaction with flexible retaining walls were added to those that were known in the case of rigid gravity walls (Fig. 2).

Overturning of wall

Lateral decompression and settlement of supported soil

The successive identification of these new aspects of the soil-retaining wall interaction and the attempts to provide solutions (on the basis of the general techniques available at the time) each Fig. 1 - Kinetics of a retaining wall and the supported soil. constitute stages in the development of design methods for retaining walls. These developments took place in four directions (Fig. 3): initially, the approach seems to continued the tradition of research into retaining walls that started in the eighteenth century. This work made considerable use of existing theories of active earth pressure, in addition to statics and the strength of materials. This work led to the developed of so-called classical methods;
this first approach was joined fairly soon by the approach based on the concept of the modulus or coefficient of subgrade reaction, the basis of which was developed during the nineteenth century. This approach remained relatively undeveloped during the first half of the twentieth century as it required integration capabilities which only really became available to engineers with the advent of computing in the 1960s; very soon these theoretical approaches encountered limits as regards the representation of physical phenomena and an empirical approach developed which was to remain present throughout the twentieth century and play a role in the development of a frame of reference for the observed behaviour of structures which is in use to this day; later, retaining walls, like the other types of geotechnical structures, were to benefit from advances in the fields of mechanics and numerical design methods with the application, from the 1970s, of the finite element method.

This article covers work in the first two of the above directions, and furthermore analysis is restricted to developments related to the modelling of structures under in-service loading conditions*. Three major stages in the development of these methods have been identified. The first was the consideration of a flexible retaining wall with the introduction of modelling of the reaction of the soil to the embedded portion of the structure. Associated with this were developments with respect to the computation of passive earth pressure and the method used to analyze the equilibrium of the structure known as the free earth support method. The second stage involved consideration of the flexibility of the embedded portion of the retaining wall. This was the main issue for research in the field during the thirty years between 1930 and 1960 and generated a large number of propositions. The third stage was the comprehensive consideration of the relative flexibility of the wall and the soil, made possible by the subgrade reaction method.

From active earth pressure to passive earth pressure the free earth support method
The most simple method for designing anchored retaining walls, and probably the first to be developed, is the free earth support method. This assumes that the retaining wall is displaced in a rigid manner under the effect of active earth pressure and mobilizes both passive earth pressure along its embedded portion and stresses on the support in its upper portion (Fig. 4). This method made it
34
* In modern terminology these are known as serviceability limit state analysis methods.

Kinematics of a rigid retaining wall and the surrounding soil 1

4 2

1 Displacement of wall 2 Lateral decompression and settlement of supported soil 3 Lateral decompression and raising of soil in front of wall 4 Support (tieback, bracing)

Kinematics of an excavated retaining wall with evenly-spaced bracing installed during excavation

1 Displacement of wall: bracing of the wall (installed from the top downwards, as excavation progresses) leads to increasing displacement of the wall with depth in the supported zone. 2 Lateral decompression of the soil increasing with depth 3 Lateral compression and raising of the soil in front of the wall 2

Kinematics of a flexible retaining wall that is anchored at the top and embedded in the soil

1 Low lateral decompression of the supported soil in the vicinity of the support 2 2 High lateral decompression of the supported soil beneath the support 3

4 Reversal of the lateral compression-decompression regime at the base of the embedded portion of the wall

4 4

Fig. 2 - Soil-retaining wall interactions.

35

Schmitt (1995) Simon (1995) Monnet (1994) Clough et O'Rourke (1990) Balay (1985) Bjerrum et al. (1972) Peck (1969) Haliburton (1968) Clough et Woodward (1967) 3 Mnard et al. (1964) Rowe (1955) Terzaghi (1955) Brinch-Hansen (1953) Rowe (1952) Tschebotarioff (1948) Peck (1943) Terzaghi (1936) 4 Rifaat (1935) Baumann (1935) Blum (1931) Bute simple Winkler (1867) 2 Fig. 3 - Major directions and principal stages in the development of design methods for retaining walls. The left side of the diagram shows serviceability limit state analysis methods (from right to left (1): classical methods, (2): subgrade reaction method, (3): finite element method (*) and (4): empirical methods) and the right side of the diagram (5) shows ultimate limit state analysis methods.
(*) The finite element method has undergone much development since the 1970s, so much so that all the major references could not be included here. Only the first references concerning the application of the finite element method to retaining structures have been shown.

T 1 : pa = Ka cosa . 'v 2 : pp = 1/Fb . Kp cosp . 'v T: support reaction (tieback, bracing) F: resultant of pressure 1

36

Fig. 4 - Kinematics of an anchored rigid retaining wall and the resulting pressure distributions (case of a homogeneous frictional soil).

possible to make immediate use of the results concerning active earth pressure that were provided by retaining wall theory but soon encountered limits due to the inadequacy of the knowledge at the time concerning passive earth pressure. Thus while Vauban (Kerisel, 1993) or at a later date Poncelet (1840) already used passive earth pressure to prevent partially embedded gravity walls built in the clay of the North of France from sliding on their base, passive earth pressure did not, generally, play a decisive role in the stability of gravity retaining walls. Coulomb (1776) mentioned the concept in his essay, but failed to describe to what use it might be put. Later, Boussinesq only solved his equations for active earth pressure. However, in the case of embedded retaining walls, the role of passive earth pressure is of prime importance and the concept has been the subject of numerous developments. Extension of Coulombs method In the first justifications of the equilibrium of embedded retaining walls, calculation of the passive earth resistance was based on Coulombs method: it was simply an extension to the calculation of passive earth pressure of the active earth pressure calculation method in use at the time, indeed Coulomb himself had envisaged an extension of this type. However, this calculation method was very soon found to be wanting, from both the experimental and theoretical standpoints. On the basis of experimental observations and for the sake of simplicity, Coulomb had limited application of the rules of Maximi and Minimi for active earth pressure to flat rupture surfaces. Debate concerning this fundamental hypothesis, particularly at the end of the nineteenth century, demonstrated that it was acceptable in the case of most of the active earth pressure problems faced by engineers at the time. It is still widely accepted a century later. However, the hypothesis of flat rupture surfaces is open to question when passive earth pressure is considered. It has thus been shown that the use of broken lines, arcs of circles, logarithmic spirals, combinations of flat surfaces and logarithmic spirals, or combinations of flat surfaces and arcs of circles in order to model rupture surfaces provides lower Minimi for passive resistance than those obtained with flat surfaces. Of such methods, that developed by Ohde (1938), which combines flat surfaces and logarithmic spirals, has become the standard comprehensive method (Fig. 5).

4 2

4 2

Fig. 5 - Modelling of the rupture surface (passive case) with a combination of flat surfaces and logarithmic spirals (after Terzaghi, 1943).

The Boussinesq-Caquot method

The application of Boussinesqs work (1882) on the equilibrium of soil masses behind retaining walls was, initially, mainly concerned with the problem of active earth pressure. Two principal reasons can be suggested for this. First, as has already been stated, engineers at the time were more concerned by active earth pressure than passive earth pressure; second, Boussinesqs equations were only solved, and this in an approximate manner, for certain active earth pressure configurations.

37

The value of this method became apparent gradually, as the problem of passive earth pressure gained importance and the shortcomings of Coulombs method became clearer. However, the difficulty of solving the equations that resulted from this method stood in the way of its implementation. Thus, during the first half of the twentieth century it was not possible to apply Boussinesqs method to passive earth pressure, as Boussinesqs equations were not solved, for passive earth pressure, until Caquot (1934). The publication of tables of active and passive coefficients calculated using this method (Caquot and Kerisel, 1948) and its extension to the case of cohesive soils (Theorem of corresponding states, Caquot, 1934) and to the case of loaded retained soil masses (passive and active earth pressures in a surcharged non-cohesive weightless medium. Lherminier and Absi, 1962a, 1962b, 1965, 1969) made this the standard method for calculating passive and active earth pressures, at least in France (Kerisel and Absi, 1990).

The question of the fixity of the embedded portion

Blums method for the design of anchored retaining walls*
The rather basic free earth support method was shown to be inadequate as soon as a connection was made between the loading exerted by the soil and the deformation of the retaining structure, with reference to its real deformability, as it was by Blum (1931)**. In the case of a retaining wall anchored by a row of tiebacks near its top, Blum analyzed, for different depths of embedment, the distributions of the pressures acting on the structure, the bending moments and the horizontal deflection of the structure. His analysis was essentially qualitative and based on the interdependence of the distributions (the deflection of the retaining wall has points of inflexion where the moment is zero, as does the plot of moments where the pressure is zero and the mobilized pressure is related to the lateral deflection of the wall). This analysis allowed Blum to observe that those structures with a short embedded depth will simply be supported by the soil and that increasing the embedment depth mobilizes fixity in the soil (Fig. 6). Among all the possible configurations, Blum considered that the best compromise with regard to the fixity of the retaining wall is obtained for embedment such that the tangent to the deflected wall at its toe passes through the anchorage point. Greater embedment depths do not lead to a significant increase in the fixity of the wall, while smaller embedment depths result in a reduction in the fixity moment. The problem thus posed can be solved graphically, but the process is nevertheless relatively long***. To simplify computation, Blum stated that in the case of an embedded retaining wall, the point at which the bending moment is equal to zero is fairly close to the point at which the resultant pressure is zero. He therefore proposed that for computation the bending moment should be considered to be zero at the point of zero pressure (the so-called approximate loading of the equivalent beam, Fig. 7b). In view of the small difference that is observed between the position of the point where the bending moment is zero and the point of zero resultant pressure, it is assumed that no significant error is introduced into the estimation of the maximum bending moment and the support reaction. In addition, with the aim of simplifying calculation of the embedment depth, Blum proposed that the distribution of resultant passive pressures acting on the fixed portion of the wall should be modelled by a single force, applied to the walls axis of rotation (Fig. 7c). A comparison between the embedment depth obtained with this idealized loading method that obtained with the approximate loading method shows that the ratio between them depends simply on the mobilization of the resultant of passive pressure acting behind the wall whose ratio to active pressure acting
* Blum proposed a similar development for the analysis of unanchored retaining walls. ** The xed earth support method is attributed to Blum (1931), however, Baumann (1935) gives Lohmeyer (1930) credit for a similar method. *** The graphical solution method, known as the elastic line method, is now used in a numerical form.

38

Pressures A

Moments

Wall deflection

Fig. 6 - Influence of the embedment depth on the pressures acting on the retaining wall, the bending moments to which it is subjected and the wall deflection (after Blum, 1931).

39

a A H

y B0 O

b B0 T

h' = b-y O T t E F t' f.t .f.t F C B0 t0 T0

E gwl gwr

a H: T: t: y: b: a: B0: A: C: gwl: gwr:

b free height of the wall embedment depth "net" embedded depth level of point where the moment is zero level of point with zero resultant pressure upper support reaction

= t / t0 1,7 1,6 d 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,2 1,1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v = gwr / gwl

f: :

shear stress at the point where the moment of zero upper support reaction resultant of active pressure acting behind the wall and active pressure acting in front of the wall net passive pressure at foot of screen net resultant of active pressure acting behind the wall and active pressure acting in front of the wall divided by the net embedment depth net passive pressure passive pressure at toe of wall net resultant of active pressure acting behind the wall and active pressure acting in front of the wall divided by the net passive pressure

Fig. 7 - Blums method for the design of anchored sheet piles. a. Resultant distribution of earth pressures on an anchored and embedded retaining wall. b. Approximate loading for the embedded portion. c. Idealized loading .

in front of the wall, is denoted by n* (Fig. 7d). This led Blum to propose the idealized load solution increased by a factor of 20% as the design value for embedment depth.

Tschebotarioff
A major criticism that can be levelled at Blums method is that it has no direct experimental basis. In contrast, the work conducted by Tschebotarioff between 1941 and 1949 largely consisted of tests conducted on reduced scale models of retaining walls (Tschebotarioff, 1948). These tests mainly involved flexible retaining walls embedded to 30% of their total height in moderately dense to dense sand and supported near the top. The principle findings relate to the distribution of lateral pressure applied to the wall by the supported earth and the distribution of pressures in the embedded portion of the wall, at different degrees of backfilling and excavation of the retaining wall (Fig. 8). In qualitative terms, for the embedment depths used in the experiments, Tschebotarioffs results confirm Blums hypotheses. Thus, fixity of the wall in the soil is achieved through large mobilization of passive earth pressure in the upper part of the embedded portion of the wall and the toe of
40
* This coefcient in fact describes the relative exibility of the retaining wall in the soil.

After fill

Redistribution of pressures after vibration of ground Fill

Normal relaxation of support

No relaxation of the support Excavation

Fig. 8 - Pressure distributions measured after various construction procedures (after Tschebotarioff and Brown, 1948).

passive pressure acting behind the wall. The latter is always much smaller than suggested by Blums diagrams, as its values are similar to the earth pressure at-rest. Fixity produces a point where the bending moment is zero which is closer to the dredge line than the level where the resultant pressure is zero (Blums hypothesis). This finding led Tschebotarioff to propose a new method for the design of flexible retaining walls set in sand and anchored near the top which was based on the principle (1) of an embedded portion equal to 30% of the total height and (2) a hinge in the wall at the dredge line level (Fig. 9).

H Ap H = 0,7 H (2) (3) (1) +M Rb -M D = 0,43H ['( )H] H ( )H (HKA) Ap

(A) H: total height of wall : density of soil KA: active pressure coefficient Ap: upper support reaction Rb: shear stress at the base of excavation (1), (2), (3): plots of the moments for different embedment depths

(B)

Fig. 9 - Influence of the degree of fixity of the wall on the distribution of bending moments (A) and diagram showing the principle of Tschebotarioffs method (B), which corresponds to the distribution (2) of bending moments.

Rowe
Tschebotarioffs experimental results demonstrated, qualitatively, the phenomenon of fixity in the case of flexible retaining walls embedded in moderately dense to dense sand. By conducting a series of tests, which also used reduced-scale models with materials of different relative densities (gravels, sands, ash, wood chips), Rowe (1952) attempted to analyze this phenomenon in greater detail. His results confirmed that because of the mobilization of fixity in the

41

soil, the stresses (maximum bending moment, support reaction) in flexible retaining walls are lower than in a perfectly rigid wall (free earth support method). On the basis of detailed analysis of his results, Rowe showed (Fig. 10) that for walls with an embedment depth equal to approximately 30% of their total height, the reduction in stresses depended mainly on the flexibility of the wall H4 (expressed by the parameter = ------ where H denotes the total height of the retaining wall, E is EI its elasticity modulus and I is its inertia) and the relative density of the soil. Furthermore it was almost unaffected by the other factors that applied during the tests (internal angle of friction and density of the soil, loads acting on the ground surface, relative position of the support at the top of the wall). Rowe also showed that the stress reductions can exceed those calculated using Blums or Tschebotarioffs methods. This led him to describe additional reductions in stresses due to the mobilization of passive earth pressure above the anchorage height, the mobilization of a shearing force at the base of the structure and the influence of the anchorage, the embedded portion of the wall and the flexibility of the wall on the vertical stresses applied to it.
Maximum moment (percentage of the maximum value computed using the free earth support method 100 80 60 40 20 0 -4 -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 Log Points based on the results from Tschebotarioffs tests Dense Loose Fig. 10 - Rowes experimental results (1952). Plots of average values for 250 tests H - characterizes the flexibil = -----EI ity of the wall.
On this diagram, is expressed in foot5/ pound.inch2.
4

Sand Gravel Wood chips Loose ash

qs H H T (1/2 - )H

(2/3 - )H

Ps + Pw

Pa

H: total height of wall T: stress in upper support Pa: effective earth pressure Ps: pressure due to loads acting on surface Pw: hydraulic pressure resulting from water level difference Pp: effective passive pressure Ts: friction at base of wall R: resultant support force at toe of wall (R = Pp + Ts)

(1 - )H

Pp R 1/3(1 - )H Ts Fig. 11 - Loading diagram used by Rowe for the free earth support calculation.

42

From this Rowe (1952) derived a new design method for embedded retaining walls. This method begins with a free earth support design calculation, which is modified to take account of the mobilization of a shearing force at the base of the wall (Fig. 11). The stresses thus calculated are then corrected using design charts obtained from tests (Fig. 10) to take account of the flexibility of the wall and the density of the soil.

The subgrade reaction method

A solution to the problem of fixity of the embedded portion
The forerunners

Rowes design method for embedded retaining walls (1952) was a major advance over Blums method (1931) as it made direct use of the two factors which govern the fixity of the wall, namely its flexibility and the stiffness of the soil (which is related to its density). However, these factors are introduced during the final stages of design of the wall as correction factors, after a calculation in which neither the flexibility of the wall nor the stiffness of the soil are fundamentally present. The flexibility of the wall and the stiffness of the soil only became really central to the modelling of the behaviour of the embedded portion of retaining walls with the introduction of the subgrade reaction method. This method, which can be applied to all interactions between a solid and a mass of soil, lays down that the opposing reaction of the soil to the solid consists of a distribution of pressures along the interaction surface, whose intensity p at a point is expressed by an equation of the form p = ky, where y denotes the displacement of the interaction surface at the point in question and k is a coefficient of subgrade reaction (Winkler, 1867). The first civil engineering applications of the subgrade reaction method were Zimmermanns calculations (1888) of the stresses in railway sleepers*. Subsequent development of the method involved foundations and rafts. It was introduced, very soon, into the field of retaining walls by Rifaat (1935) and Baumann (1935)**. Development of this method was nevertheless hampered by practical implementation problems. Before the advent of computing, this was necessarily analytical and many different approaches were proposed (Rifaat, 1935; Blum, 1951; Richart, 1957). These methods were, however, not sufficiently direct to be readily applied in standard engineering without computer technology.
Rowe

The first genuinely practical results with regard to use of the subgrade reaction method for the design of retaining structures are due to Rowe (1955), who published design charts for reducing the stresses computed by the free earth support method for a wide range of retaining walls (Fig. 12). In order to draw these design charts, Rowe (1955) undertook a theoretical study of the influence of the relative flexibility of an anchored retaining wall on the stresses applied to the structure when this is installed in a cohesionless medium. The study was conducted by calculation using the coefficient of subgrade reaction, employed analytically, on the basis of the following hypotheses: the pressure exerted by the earth on the unembedded portion of the wall is the active pressure; the reaction of the earth mobilized at a point on the front surface of the wall is expressed by the formula: z -y p = m --D where m is a soil stiffness coefficient which does not depend on the dimensions of the structure, D is the embedment depth of the wall, z is the depth of the point in question, y is the displacement of this point,
* Terzaghi (1955), p. 298. ** Terzaghi (1955), p. 314.

43

z - is a linear function of which implies that the soils coefficient of subgrade reaction k h = m --D depth under the dredge depth. Furthermore, Rowe imposes no limits on the stresses applied to the soil at the front surface of the retaining wall: the elastoplastic behaviour model, which implies that the soil pressure acting on the wall will be between the active and passive earth pressures, was introduced at a later date (Haliburton, 1968). Rowe expressed the stresses calculated in this manner as a function of the stresses calculated using the free earth support method, of the flexibility of the retaining wall and dimensionless ht h - , = --p a r a m e t e r s = --H H q and q 0 = ------ (Fig. 12): H
the relative flexibility of the retaining wall is defined by the product of the stiffness of the soil
Maximum moment in wall Percentage of maximum value computed using the free earth support method 100 q b 0 80 0 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,1 60 0,2

40

20

0 0 1 2 Log m 3 4

H4 Fig. 12 - Rowes reductions in bending moments (1955). - of the m and the flexibility -----EI On this diagram, is expressed in foot5/pound.inch2 and m is expressed in pounds/foot3. Log m retaining wall; can be converted into a quantity with no units by adding 2.2 to the values read off from the x-axis. h h t - , = --and = --H H q - characterize respectively the percentage of the height of the wall that is embedded, the q 0 = -----H position of the anchorage, and the relative intensity of the uniform loads acting on the ground surface. On the basis of his results, Rowe argued that the parameters that played a decisive role in the H4 - and the ratio between its free behaviour of the retaining wall were its relative flexibility m -----EI height and its total height, the role of other factors being secondary. He therefore proposed a two stage calculation method, similar to the purely experimentally-based method proposed in 1952:
calculation of the stresses in the retaining wall using the free earth support method; reduction in these stresses using design charts based on the subgrade reaction method (Fig. 12).

From the fixity of embedment to the soil-wall and support-wall interaction

The role of computing

The formation of equations for the subgrade reaction method resulted in a fourth order differential equation. Solving this was for a long time a major problem that hindered application of the method for retaining wall design. The appearance and development of the computer and computer processing in the 1960s facilitated numerical integration of the equations and radically changed the nature of the problem. Firstly, practical use of the subgrade reaction method was facilitated, and secondly, it became possible to solve problems that were more complex than those considered previously.

44

The soil-wall and support-wall interaction

Until the 1960s, research concerned the interaction of the embedded portion of the retaining wall with the soil, the problem tackled being how best to take account of its fixity when estimating the stresses in the structure. The development of new techniques for integrating the equilibrium equation for the retaining walls allowed the subgrade reaction method to be applied to other aspects of the problem. Thus, Turabi and Balla (1968) supplemented subgrade reaction modelling of the fixity of the embedded portion of the retaining wall by modelling the action of the supported soil and the supports. The active earth pressure acting on the retaining wall thus depended on its deflection, being equal to the earth pressure at-rest when there is no deflection of the wall and falling in a linear manner when the retaining wall moves away from the supported soil. This modelling, however, had one serious shortcoming with regard to taking account of active and passive failure. The reason for this is that, like previous attempts at modelling the interaction of the embedded portion of the retaining wall, the pressure of the soil acting on the wall is simply modelled by means of a linear function of the displacement of the wall but is not limited by the pressures corresponding to passive and active failure. It can therefore take on values that are higher than that of the passive earth pressure or lower than the active earth pressure. This approach could, if necessary, remain acceptable for the interaction of the embedded portion of the wall, in view of the fact that, under the service conditions that apply for an analysis using the subgrade reaction method, the structure only mobilizes the passive earth pressure over a limited amount of the embedment depth*. However, this approach may rapidly become unacceptable for modelling the stresses in the soil that is supported by the wall, as active failure is very soon reached, even under service conditions. Haliburton (1968, Fig. 13) was responsible for the introduction of a non-linear soil response model
a) distribution of soil reactions on the wall

b) plot of the reaction of the soil on the wall at a given point P Pp Kh Pa y Pa: soil pressure at active failure Pp: soil pressure at passive failure Kh: coefficient of subgrade reaction y Fig. 13 - Interaction model used for the subgrade reaction method.

which included thresholds that correspond to active and passive failure. The proposed model is also able to deal with elastic supports or imposed deflections. Haliburton thus demonstrated new potential applications of the subgrade reaction method to the design of retaining walls. In particular, this method differs from classical methods in that it makes it possible to consider various boundary conditions and the position of supports at a number of different levels. Furthermore, it is able to
* With regard to the interaction of the embedded portion in sand, it should be noted that the fact that coefcients of subgrade reaction are considered to increase with depth means that low values of passive earth pressure, in the upper part of the soil, go together with low coefcient of subgrade reaction values. The extent to which the passive pressures can be exceeded is thereforerelatively limited. Rowe (1955) noted, however, that when modelling highly exible sheet pile walls embedded in very stiff sand, such an approach can lead to zones where the passive stresses are considerably exceeded, which leads to an overestimation of the xity of the wall.

45

analyze the stress distributions obtained for various configurations of the structure, allowing the engineer to experiment with different embedment depths and different positions of support. The standard method in retaining structure engineering The possibilities of the subgrade reaction method, which were clearly apparent in the work of Haliburton (1968), were quickly put to use for the design of real structures. Thus, from the early 1970s, Boudier et al. (1970), then Fages and Bouyat (1971a; 1971b) and Rossignol and Genin (1973) developed dedicated software programs for the design of retaining walls using the subgrade reaction method. It is also important to note that these developments were primarily concerned with the design of diaphragm walls, which were frequently anchored by active tiebacks that prevented the development of active failure states. Thus, this design method was applied in the context of new construction techniques (Delattre, 2000) rather used to replace prevailing methods for existing techniques. Wider application of the technique during the 1970s led to the development of new application software, including DENEBOLA (Balay et al., 1982). It also led to the design hypotheses undergoing some formalization, in particular the rules concerning the values of the coefficient of subgrade reaction (Balay, 1985).

Choice of the values for design parameters

Application of the subgrade reaction method to retaining structures differs from application to foundations because the soil provides both the loading and surrounding medium, while generally in the case of foundations loading is independent of the soil. In order to implement the method, two problems must be dealt with separately. Firstly, for each stage of construction, the loading applied to the retaining wall must be calculated, with the assumption of zero deflection. The retaining walls equilibrium position must then be found, with reference to the mobilization of subgrade reactions which are described by subgrade reaction coefficients and thresholds that correspond to the active and passive failure states. In practice, the question of the loading applied to the retaining wall brings in the concepts of soil compression and decompression coefficients, while the problem of subgrade reaction curves is simply a question of subgrade reaction coefficients, with passive and active earth pressure thresholds making use of previous developments for classical methods.
Coefficient of lateral decompression or compression of the soil

The principal loading of retaining walls is applied by the soil. Starting from the initial equilibrium condition that applies before the wall is installed, this loading has two components. One direct component comes from the stresses applied to the wall by the fill, or (in the opposite case) the stresses which are removed as a result of excavation. An indirect component of loading is transmitted to the retaining wall by the soil that lies below the fill or the excavation. Little debate surrounds the assessment of the direct component of this loading. In the case of fill, with zero deflection of the retaining wall, the stresses are evaluated on the basis of the coefficient of earth pressure at-rest K0, while in the case of excavation, they are defined a priori. With regard to the stresses that are transmitted by the foundation soil, in the case of loading applied by fill Balay and Harfouche (1983) also proposed to evaluate the loading transmitted by the soil beneath the retaining wall on the basis of its coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0. In the case of a reduction in loading caused by excavation, Balay and Harfouche (1983) proposed two alternatives. The first, referred to as irreversible considers that the horizontal stress remains unchanged so long as it remains less than the passive stress. The second, referred to as reversible considers that unloading takes place in accordance with the slope K0 of first loading (as long as the stress does not become lower than the passive stress).

46

Monnet (1994) proposed, in the case of unloading, that the reduction in horizontal stress should be calculated as a fraction of the reduction in vertical stress: h = K d where Kd denotes a coefficient of soil decompression. On the basis of an analysis of the results of other authors work on the behaviour of soil undergoing decompression under oedometric conditions, Monnet proposed the following equation for Kd 1 - ( 1 sin ) ( 3 3 sin ) . K d = -2 It is noteworthy that this expression leads to a linear stress path for unloading, the slope of which is fairly close to that described by Mayne and Kulhawy (1982) for second loading.
Determination of coefficients of subgrade reaction

To design a retaining wall with classical design techniques it is necessary to select a stress diagram for the structure. This obliges the engineer to consider the deformations to which the soil will be subjected with reference to the type of structure that is planned (rigidity of the retaining structure and the supports, nature of the soil and envisaged construction procedure). It is on the basis of these factors that the engineer will be able to make the hypothesis that a given part of the retained soil mass remains close to the at-rest state, while another undergoes decompression and therefore approaches an active state. In contrast to classical methods, the subgrade reaction method means that such questions do not necessarily have to be answered. The hypotheses do not relate to deformations (which are computed) but to the distribution of stiffness. It is this which is included in the calculation in order to determine equilibrium. Analysis of the design hypotheses should therefore deal with the distribution of the coefficients of subgrade reaction acting on the wall, the stiffness of supports and the stiffness of the retaining wall.
Terzaghi The two most important contributions to the evaluation of the coefficient of subgrade reaction were made by Terzaghi (1955) and Mnard et al. (1964).

Discussion concerning experimental studies of the behaviour of structures that are embedded in the soil (Rifaat, 1935; Loos and Breth, 1949), and concerning studies dealing with geotechnical structures of other types, supplemented by theoretical considerations regarding the coefficient of subgrade reaction concept, led Terzaghi (1955) to formulate general rules for deciding on coefficient of subgrade reaction values for use in calculations. For the design of retaining walls, Terzaghi proposed use of a coefficient that increases linearly with depth for structures embedded in sand and a constant coefficient of subgrade reaction in the case of stiff clays. Furthermore, he demonstrated that the coefficient of subgrade reaction falls the greater the surface area of soil that is subjected to stress and the lower the stiffness of the soil. This analysis led Terzaghi to express the coefficient of subgrade reaction by the following equation: z k h = l h --D in the case of sand and 1 k h = k h1 --D in the case of stiff clay. Where z denotes the depth considered, D is the characteristic length which depends on the embedment depth of the structure and the manner in which it functions, lh is a constant that charac47

terizes sands, on the basis of their density and the presence of a water table, and kh1 is a constant that characterizes clays on the basis of their consistency.
Mnard

Mnards contribution applied the theory developed by Mnard and Rousseau (1962) * for calculating the settlement of shallow foundations on the basis of elastic theory and empirical adjustments. Transposing the results obtained to the opposing reaction of the soil led Mnard to express the coefficient of subgrade reaction with the following equation (Mnard et Rousseau, 1962; Mnard et al., 1964): EM k h = ---------------------------------------a ------ + 0,133 ( 9a ) 2 where
EM denotes the pressuremeter modulus of the soil, a is the characteristic length which depends on the embedment depth of the structure and its mode of operation, and is a rheological coefficient that depends on the nature of the soil.

General application of this method in the 1970s led to some formalization of design assumptions, in particular the rules for deciding on coefficient of subgrade reaction values (Balay, 1985). With regard to the coefficients of subgrade reaction for the embedded portion of the retaining wall, these recommendations used the proposals made by Mnard et al. (1964), with a correction for cases where the embedded depth of the structure exceeded its height above the ground. In addition, Mnards proposals were extended to the upper part of retaining structures (i.e. the reaction of supported earth) with specific provisions for the reaction of the soil affected by the prestressing of tiebacks. These provisions were derived from finite element analysis of the reaction of an elastic block to a structure that is loaded at certain points and are based on observations of several actual retaining structures (Gigan, 1984).
A topic that is still much debated

The seminal work of Terzaghi (1955) or Mnard and Rousseau (1962) began by applying the subgrade reaction method to the simplest structures (shallow foundations) and then proposed extensions first to laterally loaded deep foundations then to retaining walls. In practice, the proposals made for shallow foundations no longer generate much in the way of discussion. This is not true, however, in the case of retaining walls for which the issue of the distribution of coefficients of subgrade reaction is still the subject of much debate. Recent proposals have followed two main directions. The first (Simon, 1995) consists of adopting a more flexible approach than Balay for estimating the characteristic lengths a for application in Mnards formulae. The mass of earth that is loaded by the retaining wall is divided into as many parts as its operating mode requires, the compressed zones and decompressed zones needing to be clearly identified when applying Mnards formulae. The second direction (Schmitt, 1984, 1995, 1998) is based on the nonlinear nature of the response of the soil to the retaining wall. Thus, the coefficients of subgrade reaction proposed by Mnard would be an acceptable approximation when the wall undergoes considerable displacement, but would seem to underestimate the real reaction of the subgrade in the case of smaller deformations. This analysis, which is supplemented by additional analysis that, like Simons, deals with the value of the characterisitc length a taking into account, in particular, the flexural stiffness of the retaining wall, led Schmitt to proposed considerably higher coefficients of subgrade reaction than those derived from Mnards research.
48
* See also Cassan (1978, tome 2), p. 65.

Chadeissons alternative

Chadeissons alternative* (in Monnet, 1994) consisted of establishing the value of the coefficient of subgrade reaction with reference to the shear strength of the soil, characterized by the cohesion and the internal angle of friction. This proposal, which takes the form of a design chart, in principle has no basis apart from experience. Subsequently, some justification was provided by Monnet (1994), who also proposed developments to the method, while Londez et al. (1997) gave an example of the use of Chadeissons design chart on a real structure.
Hybrid methods

The limits of the subgrade reaction method have led some authors to propose hybrid methods in which the reaction of the soil on the retaining wall is computed as construction work progresses by considering that the soil mass behaves in an elastic manner. The reaction of such a mass to displacement of the retaining wall can therefore be based on developments of elasticity theory (Vaziri and Troughton, 1992; Vaziri, 1995, using Mindlins, equations and additional developments; Papin et al., 1992, in Potts, 1992; Creed and OBrien, 1991, using numerical methods), this reaction being, of course, limited by the usual active and passive thresholds.

Conclusions
The approach that consisted of calculating the in-service equilibrium of retaining walls was applied throughout the twentieth century to all the developments of the technique and all the different forms it took, from rigid to flexible retaining walls, whether of cantilever design or anchored by a single row of passive tiebacks or later by several rows of tiebacks. From the beginning of the twentieth century until the 1970s, this technique was centred on the stresses to which structures are subjected. The issue of the deformation of the structure and the adjacent soil was therefore not tackled, at least explicitly. Research in this area was essentially concerned with two aspects of the soil-retaining wall interaction:
firstly, it continued the work on passive and active failure that had been done in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Consequently, extensions of the methods of Coulomb and Boussinesq were made available to engineers enabling them to analyze both active and passive earth pressure; secondly, they attempted to provide an answer to the question of the embedment of the wall in the soil, which is of fundamental importance for determining the stresses to which the wall as a whole is subjected. The answer came gradually, and resulted in a whole set of calculation methods each of which attempted to embrace a wider perspective than those used previously. As a result, these methods do not share the same domain of application, which can be quite limited in the case of the most basic methods.

However, this approach was relatively uninterested in the interaction between the retaining wall and the supported soil. The hypothesis that was applied until the early 1970s was that of active failure, with the resultant actions on the wall assessed using the Coulomb, Rankine or Boussinesq methods or their extensions. Thus, if we consider the different forms of interaction between the soil and the retaining wall, we have to conclude that design methods failed to provide a firmly-based solution to the problem of arching in the case of flexible retaining walls and the question of the dependency of active earth pressure on the general kinematics of the retaining wall. General application of the subgrade reaction method from the 1970s put an end to previous approximations concerning the fixity of the retaining wall in the soil by proposing a solution that took account of the properties of both the soil and the retaining wall. In addition, it made it possible to consider new types of interaction between the retaining wall and the supported soil in addition to the straightforward active earth pressure approach that had dominated previously. As a conse* Initially this involved rules developed during the 1970s by the rm of contractors Soltanche, with reference to structures that were built by the company. They were published by Monnet (1994).

49

quence of the development of active tiebacks, loading of the supported portion of the wall could depend on soil states which are intermediate between active and passive failure. The general application of the subgrade reaction method should not, however, make us forget that it fails to deal with the soil-retaining wall interaction in a completely satisfactory manner. Thus, like the classical methods which preceded it, it is not able to take account of arching in the vicinity of supports or the general kinematics of the retaining wall and provides only a very approximate estimate of the deformations to which the structure is subjected. Furthermore, the evaluation of the parameters used by the method (in particular the coefficient of subgrade reaction and the coefficient of decompression) remains a genuine difficulty. These aspects, which are inadequately dealt with or ignored by classical methods and the subgrade reaction method, explain the position of empirical and semi-empirical methods. They also allow us to glimpse the benefits that might accrue from an application of finite element methods to retaining walls, as these are able to take into account of more aspects of the soil-structure interaction. These two topics will be covered by two further articles for publication in this journal.

REFERENCES BALAY J., Recommandations pour le choix des paramtres de calcul des crans de soutnement par la mthode aux modules de raction, Note dinformation technique, Paris, LCPC, 1985, 24 pages. BALAY J., HARFOUCHE L., Programme DENEBOLA pour le calcul des soutnements par la mthode des modules de raction, Notice dutilisation, Paris, LCPC, 1983, 82 pages. BALAY J., FRANK R., HARFOUCHE L., Programme DENEBOLA pour le calcul des soutnements par la mthode des modules de raction, Bulletin de liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, 120, juillet-aot 1982, pp. 3-12. BAUMANN P., Analysis of sheet-pile bulkheads, Trans. ASCE, Vol. 100, 1935, pp. 707-797. BLUM H., Einspannungsverhltnisse bei Bohlwerken, Berlin, W. Ernst & Sohn, 1931, 32 pages. BLUM H., Beitrag zur Berechnung von Bohlwerken, Berlin, W. Ernst & Sohn, 1951, 27 pages. BJERRUM L., FRIMANN CLAUSEN C.J., DUNCAN J.M., Earth pressure on flexible structures A state of the art report, Comptes-rendus du Ve CEMSTF (Madrid), Ed. SEMSC, Vol. 2, 1972, pp. 169-196. BOUDIER J., COLIN C., MASTIKIAN L., Calcul de stabilit des parois sur ordinateur Exemples dapplication, Travaux, 429, 1970, pp. 40-45. BOUSSINESQ J., Note sur la dtermination de lpaisseur minimum que doit avoir un mur vertical, dune hauteur et dune densit donnes, pour contenir un massif terreux, sans cohsion, dont la surface est horizontale, Annales des Ponts et Chausses, Tome 3, 1882, pp. 623-643. BRINCH HANSEN J., Earth pressure calculation, Copenhague, The Danish Technical Press, The Institution of Danish Civil Engineers, 1953, 271 pages. CAQUOT A., Equilibre des massifs frottement interne Stabilit des terres pulvrulentes ou cohrentes, Paris, Gauthier-Villars, 1934. CAQUOT A., KRISEL J., Tables de bute, de pousse et de force portante des fondations, Paris, Gauthier-Villars, 1948. CASSAN M., Les essais in situ en mcanique des sols Tome 2: Applications et mthodes de calcul, Paris, Eyrolles, 1978, 331 pages. CLOUGH G.W., OROURKE T.D., Construction induced movements of in situ walls, Proc. of the Conf. on Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Ithaca (New York), Cornell University, 1990, pp. 439-470. CLOUGH R.W., WOODWARD R.J., Analysis of embankment stresses and deformations, Proc. ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 93, SM4, 1967, pp. 529-549. COULOMB C.A., Sur une application des rgles de maximis et de minimis quelques problmes de statique relatifs larchitecture, Mmoires de lAcadmie des Sciences prsents par des savants, 7, 1776, pp. 343-382. CREED M.J., OBRIEN J.M., Simplified finite element analysis of an embedded retaining wall, Comptes-rendus du Xe CEMSTF (Florence), Rotterdam Balkema, Vol. 2, 1991, pp. 687-690.

50

DELATTRE L., Comportement des crans de soutnement Exprimentations et calculs, Thse de doctorat de lENPC, Paris, ENPC, 1999, 498 pages.

DELATTRE L., Un sicle dcrans de soutnement Revue bibliographique sur lvolution des techniques, Bulletin des laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, 227, juillet-aot 2000, pp. 51-61. FAGES R., BOUYAT C., Calcul de rideaux de parois moules ou de palplanches Modle mathmatique intgrant le comportement irrversible du sol en tat lasto-plastique, Travaux, 439, 1971a, pp. 49-51. FAGES R., BOUYAT C., Calcul de rideaux de parois moules ou de palplanches Modle mathmatique intgrant le comportement irrversible du sol en tat lasto-plastique Exemple dapplication Etude de linfluence de paramtres, Travaux, 441, 1971b, pp. 38-46. GIGAN J.-P., Exprimentation dun rideau de palplanches ancr par tirants actifs, Bulletin de liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, 129, janvier-fvrier 1984, pp. 5-20. HALIBURTON T.A., Numerical analysis of flexible retaining structures. Proc. ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 94, SM6, 1968, pp. 1233-1251. KRISEL J., History of retaining walls design, Proc. of the Conf. Retaining Structures (Instn of Civ. Eng., Cambridge, 20-23 juillet 1992), Londres, Thomas Telford, 1993, pp. 1-16. KRISEL J., ABSI E., Tables de pousse et de bute des terres, Paris, Presses des Ponts et Chausses, 3e d., 1990, 240 pages. LHERMINIER R., ABSI E., Equilibre limite dun coin dans un milieu non pesant, Annales de lITBTP, 179, 1962a, pp. 1081-1086. LHERMINIER R., ABSI E., Tables numriques de pousse en milieu pulvrulent non pesant, Cahiers de la Recherche, 16, 1962b, Paris, Eyrolles. LHERMINIER R., ABSI E., Equilibre limite dun coin dans un milieu non pesant Dtermination des lignes de discontinuit, Annales de lITBTP, 210, 1965, pp. 817-821. LHERMINIER R., ABSI E., Tables numriques de bute en milieu pulvrulent non pesant, Cahiers de la Recherche, 28, 1969, Paris, Eyrolles, 54 pages. LOHMEYER, Der Grundbau, 4e ed., Vol. 2, 1930. LOOS W., BRETH H., Modellversuche ber Biegebeanspruchung von Pfhlen und Spundwnden, Bauingenieur, 24, 1949, Heft 6. LONDEZ M., NAMUR S., SCHMITT P., Analyses des mesures de dformations dune paroi moule Colombes, Comptes-rendus du XIVe CIMSTF (Hambourg), Rotterdam, Balkema, Vol. 2, 1997, pp. 1323-1326. MAYNE P.W., KULHAWY F.H., K0 OCR Relationship in soil. Proc. ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 108, GT6, 1982, pp. 851-872. MNARD L., BOURDON G., HOUY A., Etude exprimentale de lencastrement dun rideau en fonction des caractristiques pressiomtriques du sol de fondation, Sols-Soils, 9, 1964, pp. 11-27. MNARD L., ROUSSEAU J., Lvaluation des tassements Mthodes nouvelles, Sols-Soils, 1, 1962, pp. 13-28. MONNET A., Module de raction, coefficient de dcompression, au sujet des paramtres utiliss dans la mthode de calcul lastoplastique, Revue franaise de Gotechnique, 65, 1994, pp. 67-72 OHDE J., Zur Theorie des Erddruckes unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Erddruckverteilung, Die Bautechnik, 1938, Heft 10/11, 13, 19, 25, 37, 42, 53/54. PAPIN J.W., SIMPSON B., FELTON P.J., RAISON C., Numerical analysis of flexible retaining walls, Proc. Numerical Methods in Eng. Theory and Applications 85 Conference (Swansea), 1992, pp. 789-802. PECK R.B., Earth Pressures Measurements in Open Cuts Chicago Subway, Trans. ASCE, 108, 1943, pp. 10081036. PECK R.B., Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground, Comptes-rendus du VIIe CIMSTF (Mexico), Ed. SMMS, Vol. dtat de lart, 1969, pp. 225-290. PONCELET J.V., Mmoire sur la stabilit des revtements et de leurs fondations, Paris, Mm. de lofficier du gnie, 13, 1840, pp. 7-226. POTTS D.M., The analysis of earth retaining structures, Proc. of the Conf. Retaining Structures (Instn of Civ. Eng., Cambridge, 20-23 juillet 1992), Londres, Thomas Telford, 1992, pp. 167-186. RANKINE W.J.M., On the stability of loose earth, Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Vol. 147, 1857. RICHART F.E. JR, Analyis for sheet-pile retaining wall. Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 122, 1957, pp. 1113-1138. RIFAAT I., Die Spundwand als Erddrckproblem. Mitteilungen aus dem Institut fr Baustatik, Eidgen, Techn. Hochschule Zrich, 5, 1935, Leipzig und Zrich.

51

ROSSIGNOL P., GENIN M.-J., Calculs de rideaux de parois moules avec le programme Paroi: exemples dapplication, Travaux, 465, 1973, pp. 65-67. ROWE P.W., Anchored sheet-pile walls, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Pt I, Vol. 1, 1952, pp. 27-70. ROWE P.W., A theoretical and experimental analysis of sheet-pile walls, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Pt I, Vol. 4, 1955, pp 32-69. SCHMITT P., Etude exprimentale de la sollicitation exerce par le sol sur les ouvrages de soutnement souples, Revue franaise de Gotechnique, 28, 1984, pp. 27-40. SCHMITT P., Mthode empirique dvaluation du coefficient de raction du sol vis vis des ouvrages de soutnement souples, Revue franaise de Gotechnique, 71, 1995, pp. 3-10. SCHMITT P., De llasticit linaire au coefficient de raction: thories, observations et ordres de grandeur, Revue franaise de Gotechnique, 85, 1998, pp. 79-87. SIMON B., Commentaires pour le choix des coefficients de raction pour le calcul des crans de soutnement, Revue franaise de Gotechnique, 71, 1995, pp. 11-19. TERZAGHI K., Distribution of lateral pressure of sand on the timbering of cuts, Proc. First Int. Conf. Soil Mech. (Harvard), Vol. 1, 1936, pp. 211-215. TERZAGHI K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1943, 510 pages. TERZAGHI K., Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade raction, Gotechnique, 4, 1955, pp. 297-326. TSCHEBOTARIOFF G.P., Large scale model earth pressure tests on flexible bulkheads, Proc. ASCE, janvier 1948, pp. 9-48; Trans. ASCE, 1949, pp. 415-455, 524-539. TSCHEBOTARIOFF G.P., BROWN P.P. (1948), Lateral earth pressure as a problem of deformation or of rupture. Comptes-rendus du IIe CIMSTF, Vol. II, 1948, pp. 81-86. TURABI D.A., BALLA A., Distribution of earth pressure on sheet-pile walls, Proc. ASCE, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 94, SM6, 1968, pp. 1271-1301. VAZIRI H.H., TROUGHTON V.M., An efficient three-dimensional soil-structure interaction model for analysis of earth retaining structures, Revue canadienne de Gotechnique, 29, 1992, pp. 529-538. VAZIRI H.H., Theory and application of an efficient computer program for analysis of flexible earth-retaining structures, Computers and Structures, Vol. 16, 1, 1995, pp. 177-187. WINKLER E., Die Lehre von Elastizitt und Festigheit, Prague, H. Dominicus, 1867. ZIMMERMANN H., Die Berechnung des Eisenbahn Oberbaues, Berlin, 1888.

52