University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore

Dam Engineering

Lateral Earth Pressures on Anchored-Pile Walls

Submitted To

Dr. Khalid Farooq

Submitted By

Uzair Mujahid

2018-MS-CEG-01

Submission Date

May 2, 2019

1
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is aimed to address the issues faced in designing of Anchored-Soldier-Pile-Walls. States of
lateral earth pressures with the particular focus given to the influence of the phenomenon of soil-structure-
interaction in determination of lateral earth pressures are discussed. In addition to this various empirical
studies have been included to give a detailed insight into the matter in hand. Furthermore, prevailing
industrial practices for the designing of such structures and various sophisticated approaches with their
merits and demerits are included herein.

2
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2. DETERMINATION OF STATE OF STRESS..................................................................................................... 5
2.1. State of Lateral Earth Pressure: ......................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Soil-Structure Interaction and Finite Element Modelling: ................................................................. 5
2.3. Comparison of Coulomb and Rankine Lateral Earth Pressure Theories: ........................................... 5
2.4. Seismic Design Considerations: ......................................................................................................... 6
3. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF WALL AND GROUND MOVEMENTS DUE TO DEEP EXCAVATIONS ..................... 8
3.1. Study of the Most Critical Case (Soft Soil): ........................................................................................ 8
4. PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF ANCHORED SYSTEMS ........................................... 10
4.1. EVALUATION OF EARTH PRESSURES FOR WALL DESIGN ................................................................. 10
4.1.2. Background ............................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.3. Recommended Apparent Earth Pressure Diagram for Sands ................................................... 11
4.1.4. Recommended Apparent Earth Pressure Diagram for Stiff to Hard Fissured Clays ................. 12
4.1.5. Earth Pressure in Soft to Firm Clayb ......................................................................................... 14
5. MODELS AND DESIGN METHODS ........................................................................................................... 16
5.1. Rigid Method.................................................................................................................................... 16
5.2. WINKLER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................... 17
5.3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING ............................................................................................................ 18
6. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 19
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 20

3
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

Lateral earth pressure has been a question of concern for designing of Excavation Support Systems,
Basement Walls and other Retaining Structures. In this report, various issues posed to the assessment of
lateral earth pressures required for designing of Excavation Support Systems that are a very crucial part in
executing any project where deep exaction is necessary, is discussed.

In earlier times, their use was just limited to serve as the temporary support but nowadays they are being
employed as permanent support systems. In certain design and construction conditions, anchored systems
offer several advantages over more conventional systems that have resulted in economic and technical
benefits. For example, benefits of anchored walls over concrete gravity retaining walls for support of a
highway cut include:
• unobstructed workspace for excavations;
• ability to withstand relatively large horizontal wall pressures without requiring a significant increase in
wall cross section;
• elimination of the need to provide temporary excavation support since an anchored wall can be
incorporated into the permanent structure;
• elimination of need for select backfill;
• elimination of need for deep foundation support;
• reduced construction time; and
• reduced right-of-way (ROW) acquisition.

There are various fundamental differences in the pressure difference between normal retaining wall and
tied-back/anchored soldier pile wall, some are given below:

 Earth pressure in tie-back wall is roughly parabolic and maximum intensity of earth
pressure occurs at the mid-height of cut, whereas the lateral earth pressure exerted against
the structural retaining wall by a backfill with a horizontal surface increases like a
hydrostatic pressure in simple proportion to the depth below the surface.
 A retaining wall constitutes as a structural unit and fails like a unit, local irregularities are
of little consequence. However, any strut or tie-back in an open cut may fail as an
individual. Because the failure of one support involves an increase of the load on its
neighbors, it may initiate a progressive failure of the entire support system.

4
 Chapter 2
DETERMINATION OF STATE OF STRESS

2. DETERMINATION OF STATE OF STRESS

2.1. State of Lateral Earth Pressure:

The shearing resistance of the soil adjacent to a vertical face does not become fully active until the face has
yielded through a certain distance. It is impracticable to find out by laboratory tests or any other indirect
means whether the process of excavating and supporting a cut is actually associated with enough movement
to reduce the total lateral earth pressure to the active value. Furthermore, at a given total pressure on the
sup-port system, the loads carried by the individual struts or tiebacks can be very different, because they
depend on accidental factors such as the local variations in the adjacent soil, the rate and orderliness with
which excavation proceeds, the time that elapses between excavation and insertion of the support at a given
point, and the extent and uniformity of prestressing.

Owing to the “top-down” method of anchored wall construction with the requisite cycles of excavation,
anchor installation, anchor prestressing, and anchor lock-off, the pattern of earth pressure and deformation
is typically not accurately approximated assuming fully active (i.e., linear increase in earth pressure with
depth) conditions used for design of gravity or non-gravity cantilevered walls. Peculiarities in the pattern
of deformation can result in pressures lower than those for a fully active condition over parts of the wall,
which are offset by corresponding areas where pressures are above those for the fully active condition.
Where walls penetrate competent soils, lateral earth pressures are highest near the ground anchor locations
and only small lateral earth pressures exist along the embedded portion of the wall.

2.2. Soil-Structure Interaction and Finite Element Modelling:

The soil pressure applied to the soldier-pile wall is very much dependent on the deformation capability of
the structural element itself and the structural capacity of the designed element depend on the soil pressure
applied on the structural support. Thus, the actual distribution of soil pressure is a complex soil-structure
interaction phenomenon. By assigning appropriate stress-strain deformation characteristics to the soil and
to the members of the of the support system, and by simulating the successive steps in carrying out the
excavation and installing the supports, the load in the support system and the movements of the soil adjacent
to the cut can be calculated by finite element method. The results of such calculations are particularly useful
in estimating the ground movements associated with open-cut construction and the influence on such
movements of the stiffness of the support system.

2.3. Comparison of Coulomb and Rankine Lateral Earth Pressure Theories:

Coulomb theory does not explicitly predict the distribution of active pressure, but it can be shown to be
triangular for linear backfill surfaces with no surface loads. In contrast to Rankine Theory, Coulomb Theory
can be used to predict soil thrust on wall with irregular backfill slopes, concentrated loads on the backfill
surface, and seepage forces. By considering the soil above a potential failure plane as a free body and
including forces due to concentrated loads, boundary water pressures, and so on, the magnitude of resultant
thrust can easily be calculated.

5
 Chapter 2
DETERMINATION OF STATE OF STRESS

2.4. Seismic Design Considerations:

Pseudo-Static Analysis

The external stability of an anchored wall is evaluated by performing pseudo-static limit equilibrium
stability analysis of the wall system. The failure surfaces analyzed should pass behind the back of the ground
anchors and beneath the toe of the wall. The pseudo-static analysis will provide the location of the critical
failure surface or surfaces. The location of critical failure surface may be used to verify the length of the
proposed ground anchor. The anchor bond zone should be located outside of the active Mononobe-Okabe
wedge of soil.

As the acceleration increases, the slope of the active failure wedge flattens according to the following
equation:

where ρA is the inclination with respect to the horizontal of the failure surface; a = φ-i-θ; b = φ-β-θ;
and θ, i, φ, and β are defined in figure and below.

γ = effective unit weight of the backfill;

H = height of the wall;
φ = angle of internal friction of the backfill;
δ = angle of friction of the wall/backfill interface;
i = slope of the surface of the backfill;
β = slope of the back of the wall;
kh = horizontal seismic coefficient expressed as a fraction of g;

6
 Chapter 2
DETERMINATION OF STATE OF STRESS

kv= vertical seismic coefficient expressed as a fraction of g; and

g = acceleration of gravity.

As the slope flattens, the Mononobe-Okabe failure surface extends farther in the horizontal direction.
Because of the extension of the Mononobe-Okabe failure surface, the length of the ground anchors
calculated in static design may need to be increased to provide full anchorage of the ground anchors under
seismic conditions.

Seismic Deformation Analysis

As an alternative to the pseudo-static design approach, external stability may be assessed using a Newmark
type seismic deformation analysis. In this approach, a pseudo-static external stability analysis is carried out
to evaluate the yield acceleration, ky, for failure surfaces passing behind the back of the ground anchors.
The yield acceleration is defined as the smallest horizontal acceleration (seismic coefficient) that will
reduce the factor of safety obtained in a pseudo static stability analysis to 1.0. The free field PGA should
be used in the analysis. The free field PGA considers the influence of local site conditions while the PGA
at top of the wall may be amplified. The free field PGA should be more representative of the average value
of ground acceleration throughout the height of the excavation than the amplified PGA.

7
 Chapter 3
EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF WALL AND GROUND MOVEMENTS DUE TO DEEP EXCAVATIONS

3. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF WALL AND GROUND MOVEMENTS

DUE TO DEEP EXCAVATIONS

3.1. Study of the Most Critical Case (Soft Soil):

An extensive database of more than 530 generally very recent worldwide case histories is the basis for the
empirical study of retaining wall and ground movements due to deep excavations presented in this paper.
The data evaluated were used to examine the main parameters influencing the performance of deep
excavations in soft soil (Cu<75 KN/m2).

The main results obtained include the following:

 Maximum Horizontal Displacements: The maximum horizontal wall displacements uhmax

frequently lie between 0.5% H and 1.0% H, on average at 0.87% H. The maximum horizontal
displacement uhmax is usually measured at a depth of z=0.5H to 1.0H below ground surface.
 Maximum Horizontal Displacements: The maximum vertical settlements at the ground surface
behind a retaining wall uvmax frequently lie in the range of 0.1% H to 10% H, on average at 1.1%H.
The settlement uvmax usually occurs at a distance x of ≤ 0.5H behind the retaining wall, but there
are cases in soft soils with x up to 2.0H. The quotient uvmax / uhmax varies mainly between 0.5 and
1.0, but without clear trends.
 The ground conditions and the excavation depth H are identified as being the most significant
influence parameters.

8
 Chapter 3
EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF WALL AND GROUND MOVEMENTS DUE TO DEEP EXCAVATIONS

 Influence of Support System: There is no empirical proof of the influence of the kind of support
system (anchored, propped or top/down method) on the performance of deep excavations, although,
as expected, top/down systems tend to show the smallest movements.
 Influence of Structural System: The retaining wall and ground movements seem to be largely
independent of the system stiffness of the retaining system. This lack of dependency indicates that,
once sufficient stiffness is available, movements are determined by other relevant factors, and an
additional increase of system stiffness does not result in a corresponding additional decrease of
movements.

9
 Chapter 4
PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF ANCHORED SYSTEMS

4. PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF

ANCHORED SYSTEMS

4.1. EVALUATION OF EARTH PRESSURES FOR WALL DESIGN

4.1.1. Introduction

For anchored wall systems constructed from the “top-down”, the deformation pattern is more complex and
not consistent with the development of a theoretical Rankine or Coulomb earth pressure distribution. Soil
shear strength, wall stiffness, anchor inclination, vertical spacing of the anchors, and anchor lock-off loads
directly influence the wall deformation pattern and the resulting earth pressures acting on these types of
walls. For example, higher than active earth pressures develop at the upper anchor location since the upper
anchor restrains the wall from moving outward sufficiently to locally cause a reduction of earth pressures
to the active state.

4.1.2. Background

Apparent earth pressure diagrams are semi-empirical diagrams that were originally developed by Terzaghi
and Peck (1967) and Peck (1969) to provide loadings for conservative design of struts in internally braced
excavations. Diagrams were developed for homogeneous profiles representing: (1) drained loadings in
sands; (2) undrained loadings in stiff to hard fissured clays; and (3) undrained loadings in soft to medium
clays.

Since 1969, modifications to the original diagrams have been proposed. Two notable modifications that
have been incorporated in this manual are described below:

• Henkel (1971) modified the equation used to calculate the maximum earth pressure ordinate for the
Terzaghi and Peck soft to medium clay apparent earth pressure diagram. Henkel assumed a failure
mechanism consistent with deep-seated movements for excavations in soft to medium clay that had not
been previously used by Peck (1969). Back-calculated values of the active earth pressure coefficient for
excavations in which deep-seated movements occurred indicated that Peck’s method under predicted the
active earth pressure coefficient whereas Henkel’s method more accurately predicted the active earth
pressure coefficient.

• In FHWA-RD-97-130 (1998), a variation in the distribution of earth pressure calculated from Terzaghi
and Peck’s (1967) apparent earth pressure diagram for sand and stiff to hard fissured clay is proposed.

The use of apparent earth pressure envelopes has resulted in reasonable estimates of ground anchor loads
and conservative estimates of wall bending moments between anchors for flexible walls constructed in
competent soils.

10
 Chapter 4
PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF ANCHORED SYSTEMS

4.1.3. Recommended Apparent Earth Pressure Diagram for Sands

Unlike the Terzaghi and Peck envelopes, the diagrams recommended herein require that the location
of the upper and lower ground anchors are known in order to construct the apparent earth pressure
diagram. Diagrams for single tieback and multiple tieback geometries are shown. Note that the locations
of tiebacks must be known before the diagrams can be constructed:

This diagram is more appropriate than the rectangular diagram for the following reasons:
• earth pressures are concentrated at the anchor locations resulting from arching;
• earth pressure of zero at the ground surface is appropriate for sands (provided no surcharge loading is
present);

11
 Chapter 4
PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF ANCHORED SYSTEMS

• earth pressures increase from the ground surface to the upper ground anchor location; and
• for medium dense to very dense sands, earth pressures reduce below the location of the lowest anchor
owing to the passive resistance that is developed below the base of the excavation.

4.1.4. Recommended Apparent Earth Pressure Diagram for Stiff to Hard Fissured Clays

Temporary Conditions

Although apparent earth pressure diagrams for temporary conditions in stiff to hard fissured clays are
proposed herein, the selection of an earth pressure diagram for design should be based on previous
successful experience with excavations constructed in similar soils. This reliance on previous experience is
particularly important for designing excavation support systems in stiff to hard fissured clays. Earth
pressures in these soils are most influenced by degree of fissuring or jointing in the clay and the potential
reduction in strength with time, not necessarily the shear strength of the intact clay.

Table given below provides a summary of empirical apparent earth pressure envelopes for stiff to hard
clays. Although several variations of the stiff to hard fissured clay envelope have been used in practice, a
comparison of the envelopes which can be developed using the information in table indicates that the range
of total load is similar for each of the envelopes. The most important observation is that twice as much load
must be resisted by systems that are designed using an envelope based on an upper range value of the
maximum pressure ordinate as compared to systems designed using a lower range value of the maximum
pressure ordinate. The selection of the maximum ordinate value should therefore be based on previous
experience with excavations constructed in similar deposits.

12
 Chapter 4
PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF ANCHORED SYSTEMS

Notes:

(1)

Assumes γ = 19.6 kN/m3

(2) Diagram for multiple levels of ground anchors
(3) Assumes H1 = H/4 (see recommended diagram given below)
(4) Assumes Hn+1 = H/4 (see recommended diagram given below)

The apparent earth pressure diagram for stiff to hard clays under temporary conditions should only be used
when the temporary condition is of a controlled short duration and there is no available free water. If these
conditions are not met, an apparent earth pressure diagram for long-term (i.e., permanent) conditions using
drained strength parameters should be evaluated. The permanent conditions apparent earth pressure diagram
for stiff to hard clays is described subsequently.

Permanent Condition
The original Terzaghi and Peck apparent earth pressure diagram for stiff to hard fissured clays was
developed for temporary loading conditions. There are difficulties in using earth pressures associated with
temporary conditions in stiff to hard fissured clays for designing permanent walls. Specifically, excavation
induces negative excess porewater pressures in the soil which temporarily cause the soil to possess a greater
shear strength than is available in the long term. Soil behind the wall and in front of the wall (i.e., at the
base of the excavation) experience unloading to which the soil responds by drawing in water, resulting in

13
 Chapter 4
PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF ANCHORED SYSTEMS

softening (i.e., weakening) of the soil with time. Softening in some areas around the wall to a state of long-
term (i.e., drained) equilibrium may occur rapidly after construction. The development of tension cracks at
the surface and the possible presence of sandy or silty layers or cracks and fissures serve to increase the
rate at which soil softening may occur.

Based on the above discussion, earth pressures associated with long-term drained conditions for excavations
in stiff to hard fissured clays may be greater than those computed based on envelopes for temporary
conditions. The total resultant force calculated using a diagram for temporary conditions can be compared
to the total resultant force associated with the recommended apparent earth pressure envelope for stiff to
hard clays using a total resultant force of 0.65KAγH2, where KA is based on the drained friction angle of
the clay soil. For most anchored wall applications, the drained friction angle should correspond to the fully
softened friction angle. The larger of the resultant forces from the two diagrams should be used for design.
For example, a fully softened drained friction angle of approximately 39° results in an equivalent total force
to the Terzaghi and Peck envelope using 0.2γH for the maximum pressure ordinate. A drained friction angle
of approximately 22° results in an equivalent total force to the Terzaghi and Peck envelope with a maximum
pressure ordinate of 0.4γH.

4.1.5. Earth Pressure in Soft to Firm Clayb

Temporary and permanent tieback walls can be constructed in soft to firm clays if a suitable zone for
anchors can be found. Reaching far for a suitable anchor zone will increase flexibility of the wall system.
The formula for Terzaghi and Peck’s total stress active earth pressure diagram for soft-firm clays (NS>4)
uses a formula for maximum pressure based on undrained strength.

Where,

where Su = undrained shear strength of soil behind wall

KA = coefficient of active earth pressure
m = empirical factor for the possibility of basal instability (Soft Clay:0.4 & Ns>1 , Otherwise:1)
H = depth of excavation
γ = total unit weight

An improvement to this approach was formulated by Henkel (1971). He showed the possible kinematic
mechanism for basal heave and the associated active earth pressure coefficient. The formula for active
earth pressure coefficient can then be written as

where Su = undrained shear strength of soil behind wall

Sub = undrained shear strength of soil below wall

14
 Chapter 4
PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE FOR DESIGN OF ANCHORED SYSTEMS

d = distance from base of excavation to “strong” layer

H = depth of excavation
γ = total unit weight

Given below is the graph of Ka based on Terzaghi, Peck and Henkel Criteria:

15
 Chapter 5
MODELS AND DESIGN METHODS

5. MODELS AND DESIGN METHODS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced a series of reports about the design of earth retaining systems.
Work by Strom and Ebeling (2001, 2002a, 2002b) and Ebeling et al (2002) discuss assumptions of different
models, design methodologies, required data, and performance of tieback walls and their components.

Methods in approximate increasing sophistication include:

1. Rigid model. The soil is modeled as trapezoidal pressure distribution, tieback points are rigid, and the
wall is a continuous beam.
2. Winkler model. Soil is modeled as a series of springs (very closely spaced) that can be nonlinear.
Simulation of construction sequencing is possible.
3. Finite Element Method. Soil can be nonlinear, anchor and wall can have interface elements, wall and
structural elements modeled as elastic. Construction sequence can be included to study unload/reload
process.

Each approach has it’s set of assumptions and procedures. Winkler models can become more sophisticated,
but yield little information about the performance of backfill. Finite element models can give a false sense
of security by the very nature of their sophistication. Checks on whether the forces calculated make sense,
the deflections are appropriate, and overall behavior is in keeping with similar configurations give more
credence to the analysis. However, finite element analysis results, like other aspects of geotechnics, are best
understood over time.

5.1. Rigid Method

The rigid method of design is based on several simplifying assumptions. It is applied in a different manner,
depending on whether the wall system can be considered stiff or flexible. Apparent earth pressures are used
in this type of analysis. The most important aspects of the analysis/design are:

1. The wall is assumed to be fixed at a point where there is zero net earth pressure. Any structural support
below that point is ignored.
2. Tiebacks are assumed to be rigid. Movement prior to tieback installation is neglected.
3. Loading diagrams can be trapezoidal or triangular.
4. Loading is not dependent on wall movement, it will follow the wall with the same loading intensity
5. The wall is modeled as an elastic beam on rigid supports.

For flexible systems, apparent pressure diagrams are used and tieback forces are computed by tributary area
or hinge method. If another method to determine earth force is used, it is distributed in accordance with the
diagrams shown previously and similar computations are performed. Once tieback loads are calculated, the
wall is modeled as a beam with the earth pressures acting on it and tiebacks as rigid supports. Axial and
shear loads as well as moments can be calculated in order to size structural elements. For stiffer systems,
especially where the toe of the wall is supported in very stiff soil or rock, the pressure diagram is assumed
to be more triangular, or a slightly modified triangular diagram. Earth pressure loads are based on at-rest or
nearly at-rest conditions. Sometimes a combination of both trapezoid and triangular distributions is used.

16
 Chapter 5
MODELS AND DESIGN METHODS

Most importantly is to establish the amount of movement anticipated in the stiff wall system. Less
movement means earth pressures will be closer to at-rest conditions.

5.2. WINKLER ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The Winkler analysis method has enjoyed success in the design and analysis of deep foundations subject to
vertical and lateral loads. While little is learned of the behavior of neighboring soil (especially settlement
or heave behind the wall), estimation of tieback loadings and wall moments can be performed very
efficiently. Nonlinear behavior and soil layering are easily considered since soil properties are applied at
discrete locations. Subgrade methods can mimic staged construction and tie-back tensioning as well.
Formulations for the Winkler medium are based on lateral response of pile foundations and can be viewed
as p-y curves.

A foundation with no lateral load is subjected to uniform lateral earth pressure. Once the load is applied
and the foundation moves laterally a distance y the lateral pressure becomes greater on one side, the
resultant of this lateral pressure is p.

Springs for both active and passive condition can be manipulated throughout the analysis to match non-
linear or special conditions. Winkler analyses suffer from several weaknesses.
1. Load-deformation behavior is nonlinear and not easily represented by an elastic-plastic response curve
2. Soil stiffness will vary with respect to confining stress; a parameter not considered directly by the method.
3. Neighboring stress conditions are not considered, so arching or other movements are ignored.

17
 Chapter 5
MODELS AND DESIGN METHODS

5.3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

One of the first extensively studied field problem using finite elements was made on Port Allen and Old
River Locks by Clough and Duncan (1969). Use of a simple hyperbolic soil model by Duncan and Clough
(1971) showed the promise, and difficulties, in numerical implementation of nonlinear behavior. Initial and
boundary conditions were sometimes elusive, complex non-linear behavior was difficult or impossible,
stress concentrations were not well tolerated, and construction staging was either very simplistic or very
tedious. More recent soil-structure interaction problems point out the complexities of interface behavior
and excavation and construction sequencing. Immediately following excavation, the wall bends inward,
reducing normal stress and generating downward shear stress on the wall. After tensioning, normal stresses
increase and shear stress may reduce or reverse direction. Subsequent excavation starts the cycle over again.
Therefore, interface elements are subjected to very complex stress paths and should be capable of modeling
such nuances.

Finite element methods are rarely used as purely a design tool, but rather an analysis tool to verify and
modify designs on an iterative basis. The process begins with a design generated from previous work or a
simpler method discussed earlier. The design is “checked” by the finite element analysis to verify
assumptions concerning wall movement, anchor placement and prestress levels. Structural adequacy of the
wall can be estimated as well, however this may be accomplished in unison with the structural engineer.
Global stability can be assessed with respect to mobilized strength values. Various strategies for using
factors of safety include mobilized strength (c, φ) or increased load conditions. Detailed studies of the
design process using nonlinear finite elements in concert with subgrade and rigid methods are discussed by
Mosher and Knowles (1990). A discussion of 2D vs. 3D analysis for soilder pile systems is given by Hong
et al (2003), and a good post-construction analysis is presented by Konstantakos et al (2004).

18
 Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS

6. CONCLUSIONS

Design methodologies for tieback wall design are presented with broad variety of sophistication and data
requirements. All methods realize the effects of wall movement and wall stiffness on the magnitude of earth
pressures considered for design. Simplified methods such as the rigid method account for these effects
indirectly by making adjustments to earth pressure diagrams and assumptions about wall fixity. Winkler
and finite element methods incorporate them more directly by adjusting the soil response functions
themselves.

Estimating the amount of wall movement after a complex series of construction steps is still a challenge.
Determining the best soil properties to place in these models is very difficult due to the highly variable
states of stress generated by the excavation and tieback installation process. Iterative design by nonlinear
finite element method is now possible and the design office level. Correlating results from these models to
field performance still requires a great deal of engineering judgment.

19
 Chapter 7
REFERENCES

7. REFERENCES

Christian Moorman, (2004). “Analysis of Walls and Ground Movements Due to Deep Excavations in Soft
Soil Based on a New Worldwide Database”. Japanese Geotechnical Society, Vol. 44, No. 1, 87-98.

Jian-Yong Han, Wen Zhao, Yang Chen, Peng-Jiao Jia, and Yong-Ping Guan (2017). “Design Analysis
and Observed Performance of a Tieback Anchored Pile Wall in Sand”. Hindawi, Mathematical Problems
in Engineering, Volume 2017, Article ID 8524078.

L. Sebastian Bryson, M.ASCE; and David G. Zapata-Medina, S.M.ASCE (2012). “Method for Estimating
System Stiffness for Excavation Support Walls”. DOI: 10.1061 / (ASCE) GT.1943-5606.0000683

Jardine, R. J., Porrs, D. M., Fourie, A. B. & Burland, J. B. (1986). “Studies of the Influence of Non-linear
Stress-Strain Characteristics in Soil-Structure Interaction”. Geotechnique 36, No. 3, 377-396

Richard P. Ray, Ph.D. P.E. M.ASCE. “Design Practice for Tieback Excavations In The U.S.”.

Terzaghi, Peck, Mesri (1996). “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”. John Wiley and Sons.

20