Basic Slurry Wall Design

Giovanni Bonita, PhD, PE, PG

Traditional Design Practice

Historically, structural and geotechnical engineers
focused on their area of expertise
Geotechs weren't designers, they were recommenders
Worked in interactive mode, at best.
This was inefficient because each party treated the
others expertise as a black box.
Thats a structural question or Thats a geotech
question... Inefficient!

Example: Structural Design

Design approach is
subjective
Results are highly
dependent on how
model below BOE.
Staging not
considered

Example: Structural Design

May miss
temporary critical
construction
conditions

Result
Structural design for a geotechnical application

Design Considerations
Type of and properties of soils
Elevation of groundwater
Dimensions of excavation
Duration and sequence of excavation
Location and type of lateral supports
Preloading of lateral supports
Presence of adjacent structures and allowable movement
Temporary or permanent structure
Transient and fixed surcharge loads
Headroom

Basic Design Concepts

Limit Equilibrium
Apparent Pressure
Redistribution of Limit Equilibrium into Apparent Pressure
Finite Difference
Finite Element

Apparent Pressure Approach

Intent of the approach is to compute brace loads, NOT to
represent the actual stresses on the wall.
Originated from empirical measurements of braced excavation
on flexible walls.
Use effective stress properties for sands, therefore add water
back into analysis
Total unit weight and strengths for clays, therefore dont add
water
Compute brace loads using tributary area
Assumes hinge at subgrade, therefore M=0 at subgrade
If need to compute embedment of toe, assume triangular
active and passive earth pressure distribution below subgrade
and M=0 at subgrade

Apparent Earth Pressure Diagrams

From FHWA (1999) Geotechnical Engineering Circular No 4 - Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems

Soft Clays - when N>6, m=0.4, otherwise m=1.0 (N = H/Su) (Peck, 1969)

Apparent Pressure Approach Soft Clays

The Terzaghi and
Peck (1967)
diagrams did not
account for the
development of soil
failure below the
bottom of the
excavation.

From FHWA (1999) Geotechnical Engineering Circular No 4 - Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems

Apparent Pressure Approach Soft Clays

Use of classic apparent
pressure diagram for
cases where N>6, may
result in unconservative
earth pressure
estimations if dont apply
correction factor (m=0.4)
Use of classic apparent
pressure diagram for
cases where 4<N<6,
may result in over
conservative earth
pressure estimations if
apply correction factor
m=0.4

From FHWA (1999) Geotechnical Engineering Circular No 4

Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems

Apparent Pressure Approach Soft Clays

FHWA (1999)
recommendations:
For 4<N<5.14, use Ka =
0.22
For N>5.14, compute Ka
using Equation 12 or use
chart

Multilayered Soils
Use Redistribution of Active pressures into Apparent
Pressure Envelope Duncan (1990)
Compute Total Active Earth Pressure Force using
triangular active pressure
Assume a shape of an apparent earth pressure diagram
(sand, soft clay, stiff clay, etc)
Compute a Ph using the shape of earth pressure diagram
Factor Ph to an equivalent earth pressure (Factor = 1.11.5)
Compute brace loads and embedment as described
earlier

Apparent Pressure Approach

Steps
1. Compute Active Earth Pressures
A. h = (0.31) (240 psf) = 74 psf (Ka = tan2
(45 - /2)
B. h = 74 psf + (110 pcf) (20 ft) (0.31) = 682
psf
C. h = 682 psf + (110 pcf) (20 ft 750 psf) =
2132 psf
D. h = 2132 psf + (110 pcf 62.4 pcf) = (20ft)
(750 psf) = 2334 psf

2. Compute Active Earth Pressure

Force
EA = (74 psf) (20ft) + (682 psf 74
psf) (20ft) () + (2132 psf) (20ft) +
(2334 psf 2132 psf) (20ft) ()
EA = 52.2 k/ft

3. Decide on Apparent Earth Pressure Diagram

IF N =

=6

Since N>4, use diagram for soft clay

4. Compute Equivalent Earth Pressure
If () Ph) (10 ft + Ph) (30ft) = (52.2 k/ft)(F)
use F=1.2 (avg)
Then 5 Ph + 30 Ph + 62.6 k/ft
Ph = 1790 psf

5. Compute Equivalent Unit Weight

eq =

= 78.8 pcf

6. Check K
h = K(geq H + qs) or
K=
Keq = 0.52

7.

Check with Henkels Equation

Assume d/H = 0.5 (toe ~ 20ft)
K
a

K =
a
K = 0.49
a
K (Henkels) ~ K (Equivalent
a
a

earth pressure)

ok for permanent, high for temporary

8.

Compute Brace Loads using tributary areas.

9. Confirm embedment is satisfactory by assuming hinge

at subgrades, active and passive pressures below
grade.
10. Check for temporary stages:
A. Compute active and passive pressure using,
conventional earth pressure theory (i.e. Rankine)
B. about lowest brace to confirm embedment
C. Compute brace loads through force equilibrium.

10

Apparent Pressure Approach

Limitations of Apparent Pressure Approach

Empirical Only valid for conditions that match the empirical
data. Requires questionable extrapolation for other
conditions.
Intended for brace loads only Need to use crude
approximations to estimate bending moment for wall design.
Still a debate whether apparent earth pressures are
acceptable for permanent conditions.
Developed for flexible wall systems which tend to act as
simple beams spanning between the brace levels
For rigid wall systems the pattern of wall displacement that
develops during the actual excavation and bracing sequence
can have a major effect on the bending moment in the wall
and the distribution of load to the bracing.

11

Limitations of Apparent Pressure Approach

Mostly applicable to conditions with a stable subgrade Significant unbalanced pressures below subgrade
(unbalanced water pressure on impermeable walls or
unbalanced soil pressures in soft clays) require ad hoc
corrections or supplemental calculations.
Envelope design approach does not give the actual loads in
the system at the end of excavation needed for evaluating
brace removal stages or designing walls that are
incorporated into permanent structures.
Envelope design approach does not provide insight into the
actual behavior of the support system, which can be used for
optimizing the design.
Does not provide any information on wall displacements and
ground movements.

Staged Construction Analysis

Models the actual sequence of excavation and brace
installation in a stage by stage analysis.
Soil and water pressures applied to the wall represent actual
pressures (not apparent pressure envelopes) and calculated
loads represent actual loads (not upper bound design
envelopes).
Can incorporate soil-structure interaction (i.e., earth pressure
varies with displacement)

12

Staged Construction Analysis

Three general methods have been used for staged
construction analyses:
1. Equivalent Beam Method - no soil-structure interaction
2. Beam on Elastic Foundation Method - approximate soilstructure interaction model
3. Finite Element Method - models full soil-structure interaction

Equivalent Beam Method

Similar to the method used for design of anchored bulkheads,
except that an analysis is performed at each excavation
stage.
Earth pressures based on classical active and passive earth
pressure theory.
At each excavation stage a pin support is assumed at a point
below subgrade and the portion of the wall below this point is
neglected.
For granular soils a pin support can be assumed at the point
of zero net pressure, but this can be unconservative for
undrained cohesive soils. If the depth of the wall is less than
the depth required for the pin support, the wall is assumed to
cantilever below the lowest brace level.

13

Equivalent Beam Method

Wall is modeled as continuous beam. Braces are modeled
as rigid supports or springs. To account for the wall
deflection that occurs prior to installation of each brace, an
initial displacement is applied to the brace support, based on
the results from the previous analysis stage.
The analysis can be performed using any general purpose
computer program capable of analyzing simple beams and
frames, but requires extensive hand computations to set up
the analysis of each stage.
This method is outdated and not used as commonly as in
the past.

Beam on Elastic Foundation Analysis

Earth pressures modeled with a series of independent spring
supports (Winkler elastic foundation model). Springs start
with initial load equal to at-rest pressure. Load increases or
decreases with lateral wall displacement (modulus of
subgrade reaction) until the limiting value of active or passive
pressure is reached.
Winkler elastic foundation model approximates the wall-soil
interaction with a one-dimensional model, instead of a twodimensional model that includes the soil mass.
Required soil parameters: unit weight, Ko, Ka, Kp and
modulus of subgrade reaction

14

Beam on Elastic Foundation Analysis

Modulus of subgrade reaction is not a true soil property and
should be adjusted based on the effective influence depth,
which varies with the size of the loaded area.
The Winkler model does not include the effects of arching
within the soil mass.
Displacements are sensitive to the values of subgrade
modulus used in the analysis, but the brace loads and wall
bending moments are usually not very sensitive to these
values.
Does not provide information on the ground movements
behind the wall need to estimate the ground movements
based on the calculated wall displacement.

Beam on Elastic Foundation Analysis

Computer programs that automate the analysis are available
(WALLAP). The WALLAP program uses Youngs modulus as
input for the soil stiffness and automatically converts this to
adjusted values of subgrade reaction modulus using a closedform elastic solution for rectangular loadings.
The analytical model is realistic enough to provide useful
insight into the behavior of the wall-soil system, and the
automated computer programs make it easy to perform
multiple analyses for optimizing the design and evaluating
sensitivity to input parameters.

15

Finite Element Analysis

Two-dimensional model includes the soil mass surrounding
the excavation.
Soil mass is subdivided into finite elements that are
connected to each other at nodes. The mathematical
formulation of the finite element represents the stress-strain
response of the soil mass inside the element as interactions
between the nodes. (The same approach is used for
structural elements.)
Forces are applied at the nodes and the displacements of
the nodes are calculated by solving the system of
simultaneous equations that define the interactions between
the nodes.

Finite Element Analysis

The stress-strain response of the soil is represented by a
mathematical soil model that can vary from a simple linearelastic model to a complex nonlinear elasto-plastic model.
The stress-strain response can be defined in terms of
effective stresses or total stresses. The required input
parameters depend on the soil model used.
Generally want to use a soil model that can model failure
(plastic yield) when the soil strength is exceeded. In some
problems, the ability to model volumetric changes in the soil
(consolidation or dilation) may be important.
A linear elastic-fully plastic Mohr-Coloumb soil model is often
used. In this model the soil is linear elastic until it reaches
failure defined by the Mohr-Coloumb criterion, and then it
becomes perfectly plastic.

16

Finite Element Analysis

FE analysis provides information on the ground movements
outside the excavation, and can also model the soil-structure
interaction response of structures outside the excavation to
the excavation-induced ground movements.
FE analyses have been difficult and time consuming to
perform in the past, but new user friendly programs (e.g.,
PLAXIS) are making their use more common.
FE analysis can realistically model complex behavior - but
the usefulness and accuracy of this method is ultimately
limited by our ability to determine the input soil parameters.
Beware of the black box!

Example: Evaluation of Impacts of Excavation

on Tunnel
Forces in the wall and shoring are important.
Deformation of adjacent tunnel also important.
Used PLAXIS with non-linear soil model

17

EXAMPLE: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF EXCAVATION ON TUNNEL

EXAMPLE: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF

EXCAVATION ON TUNNEL

18

Example: Evaluation of Impacts of Excavation

on Tunnel

EXAMPLE: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF

EXCAVATION ON TUNNEL

19

Structural Design
Generally Speaking
Reinforced concrete slurry wall design

Use ACI 318-05, Chapter 10 for design of vertical flexural

reinforcing.

Use ACI 318-05, Chapter 11 for shear. Shear reinforcing

may be required depending on the demand.
After computing the bending moment and shear for the
internal wales, use Chapters 10 and 11 for design.
Use ACI 318-05, Section 7.12 for remaining horizontal
reinforcing as temperature and shrinkage steel.

Structural Design
Generally Speaking
SPTC Wall Design

Use AISC LRFD or ASD for design of steel members

20

Structural Design
Generally Speaking
Tiebacks
Calculate Bearing Strength (ACI 318-05, Section 10.17)
Calculate Punching Shear Strength (ACI 318-05, Section
11.12.2.1)
Calculate Shear Capacity of Section (ACI 318-05, Section
11.12.2.1)

Three Dimensional Analysis

Useful when have unequal surcharge loading
Penetrations in shafts
Skewed Tiebacks and unique geometry

21

Three Dimensional Analysis

3-D Model
Plan View
Horizontal
Displacements

Principal Stress vectors showing arching

Stresses concentrate on sides of vault

22

Structural Design
Generate Shear and Moment relationships over height of
wall using conventionally accepted approach
For reinforced concrete wall, size reinforcing per ACI 318
Consider base reinforcing and then additional steel only
where needed (both moment and shear).
For SPTC walls, design steel per AISC ASD or LRFD

Movement of Adjacent Structures

Damage Estimation Tools
Angular Distortion () = Measurement of shear in structure

(angular distortion)

Horizontal Strain () = Measurement of horizontal extension of structure

h1

h =
1

h2 - h1
L12

h2

From Boscardin and Cording (1989)

23

Estimation of Damage to Adjacent Structures

From Son and Cording (2005)

Conclusions
True structural approach to designing slurry walls can be
inefficient
Apparent pressure envelopes, although conservative,
generally allow for reasonable brace loads. Use for
permanent conditions is still debatable.
Need to consider temporary staging, as it may be the critical
case
Always check toe embedment
Advanced techniques (finite element and beam on an elastic
foundation) can result in more efficient designs if performed
properly. Some allow for movement estimations of adjacent
structures.
Beware of black box analyses.

24

Thank You!

25