1956

ARTICLE
Effect of support characteristics on the earth pressure in a
jointed rock mass
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16
For personal use only.

Moorak Son and Solomon Adedokun

Abstract: This study examines the magnitude and distribution of earth pressures against a support system in a jointed rock mass
according to the support characteristics (strut stiffness and spacing), different rock types, and joint conditions (joint shear
strength and joint inclination angle). A series of numerical parametric analyses were performed after verifying the numerical
approach through a physical model test. These analyses were based on the discrete element method, which can take into account
the joint characteristics of the rock strata and the interactions between the ground and the retaining structure. The results were
compared with Pecks earth pressure for soil ground, which showed that the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure are
strongly affected by the support characteristics, rock types, and joint conditions, and that the earth pressure in the rock stratum
can be signicantly different from that in the soil ground. The results suggest that the support characteristics, including the rock
types and joint conditions, are important factors affecting the earth pressure, and should be considered for the safe and
economic design and construction of retaining structures in a jointed rock mass.
Key words: rock excavation, support system, earth pressure, joint condition, strut stiffness, strut spacing.
Rsum : La prsente tude sintresse a` lamplitude et a` la rpartition de la pousse des terres qui sexerce sur un systme
porteur dans une masse rocheuse fracture selon les caractristiques de ce systme (rigidit et espacement des lments
porteurs), le type de roche et les proprits de la fracture (rsistance au cisaillement et angle dinclinaison de la fracture). Une
srie danalyses numriques paramtriques ont t effectues aprs vrication de lapproche numrique adopte a` laide dun
essai ralis sur un modle physique. Ces analyses taient bases sur la mthode des lments discrets, qui peut tenir compte des
caractristiques des fractures des couches rocheuses et des interactions entre le sol et la structure de soutnement. Les rsultats
ont t compars avec la pousse des terres de Peck dans le cas du sol, ce qui a montr que lamplitude et la rpartition de la
pousse des terres dpendent largement des caractristiques du systme porteur, le type de roche et ltat de la fracture et que
la pousse des terres dans la couche rocheuse pouvait tre trs diffrente de celle observe dans le sol. Les rsultats indiquent que
les caractristiques du systme porteur, y compris le type de roche et ltat de la facture, sont des facteurs importants qui inuent
sur la pousse des terres et quils doivent tre pris en considration an de pouvoir concevoir et construire, en toute scurit et
de manire conomique, des structures de soutnement dans une masse rocheuse fracture. [Traduit par la Rdaction]
Mots-cls : excavation dans la roche, systme porteur, pousses des terres, tat de la fracture, rigidit des lments porteurs,
espacement des lments porteurs.

Introduction
Many ground excavation works in congested urban areas can
cause several problems in the surrounding environment. In particular, a miscalculation of the earth pressure on the excavation
walls can result in the collapse of the support systems in open
cuts, which can eventually lead to substantial time loss, nancial
damage, work stoppages, legal action, and compensation claims.
Therefore, it is essential to ensure the safety of the support systems in urban underground structures and minimize the related
problems (both social and economic ones). Accordingly, a good
understanding of the behavioral characteristics of the ground
and excavation walls as well as the groundwall interactions is
essential.
Since the 1940s, many studies have examined the earth pressure
on support systems caused by ground excavation works in urban
areas, but most focused on the soil ground. In terms of the earth
pressure required for the design of walls, there is no theoretical
solution for the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure
due to the complex groundstructure interactions. Therefore,
empirical or experimental assessments are generally conducted

through eld measurements or model tests by measuring the

strut loads and calculating the earth pressure considering the
strut spacing. This earth pressure is referred to as the apparent
earth pressure. Most sets of apparent earth pressures are obtained
by measuring the strut load in braced deep cuts. The major studies
on this topic include those reported by Peck (1969) and Tschebotarioff
(1973), and their suggested earth pressure diagrams are used widely
for designing excavation support systems.
Many studies have presented excavation case histories, which
have helped better understand the effects of the supporting system on the wall deformation and earth pressure. Mana and
Clough (1981) examined clay soil and reported that increasing the
strut stiffness reduces the wall movement, but this effect showed
a diminishing return at very high stiffness. Several other studies
(Goh 1990; Balasubramaniam et al. 1994; Fourie 1994; Carder 1995;
Warren and Invernizzi 2000; Puller 2003; Xu et al. 2005; Bolton
et al. 2009; Lam 2010) also came to similar conclusions regarding
cohesive soils. Goldberg et al. (1976), Wong and Broms (1989), and
Clough and ORourke (1990) reported that close spacing of the
bracing could reduce the lateral wall movement substantially in

Received 15 October 2014. Accepted 13 May 2015.

M. Son and S. Adedokun. Department of Civil Engineering, Daegu University, Jillyang, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, 712-714, South Korea.
Corresponding author: Moorak Son (e-mail: mson@daegu.ac.kr).
Can. Geotech. J. 52: 19561967 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0437

Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 15 May 2015.

Son and Adedokun

1957

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 1. Numerical modeling (for joint inclination angle = 60).

clay soils. On the other hand, the conclusions drawn from several
case histories (Powrie and Li 1991; Poh et al. 1997; Long 2001)
revealed wall deformation in noncohesive soils to be less dependent on the wall or strut stiffness. On the other hand, few studies
have considered the effect of the strut stiffness and spacing on the
earth pressure on the support system in a jointed rock mass.
Some studies measured the earth pressure on the retention
walls in multi-layered ground, including rocks (Chae and Moon
1994; Jeong and Kim 1997; Yoo and Kim 2000). The aim of these
studies was to compare the earth pressure in multi-layered soils
with Pecks earth pressure, but the effects of the support characteristics as well as the rock and joint conditions were not
considered. Thus far, there are few detailed and systematic reports on the rock strata to determine its earth pressure characteristics. Because previous studies are generally based on
measurements of the soil ground, it is unclear if their ndings can
be extended to rock strata. Therefore, it is difcult to nd studies
that examine the earth pressure on the support systems in rock
strata containing systematic joints.
Few studies have examined the earth pressure in rock strata by
considering the groundwall interactions and joint characteristics, which are important factors affecting the magnitude and
distribution of the earth pressure despite the increasing number
of deep excavation works in rock strata. This is due likely to the
general assumption that the rock strata represent better conditions than the soil ground. Recently, Son (2013) and Son and Park
(2014) reported the results of the earth pressures in jointed rock
masses. They clearly showed that the earth pressure can be
higher for rock strata than soil ground when the rock and joint
characteristics are under unfavorable conditions, such as a
joint condition that induces sliding and a weathered joint and
rock condition. On the other hand, the earth pressure may be
much lower than the soil ground when the rock conditions are
favorable.
This study extended these previous studies, focusing on the
effects of the support characteristics, such as the strut stiffness
and spacing, of different rock types and joint conditions. A series
of numerical parametric analyses were conducted after verifying
the numerical approach through a physical model test. The advantages of numerical analysis are that a range of conditions can
be considered easily with limited time, cost, and space, so reproducible analyses are possible. This allows the effects of the strut
stiffness and spacing on the earth pressure to be investigated
under a variety of rock and joint conditions. The study results are
expected to improve the understanding of the earth pressure on
the support system in a jointed rock mass by considering the
rockstructure interactions.

Numerical parametric study

A large-scale physical model test was conducted previously at
Daegu Universitys Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, using
concrete blocks with man-made joints to represent a jointed rock
mass (Son and Park 2014). The purpose of the test was to provide a
strong base to simulate the physical model test numerically and
verify that the applied numerical approach and methodology are
suitable for further extended numerical parametric studies. The
numerical simulation was performed based on the measured
properties of a physical model structure and by following the
same procedures used in the physical model test. The results from
both the physical model test and the numerical simulation were
compared and relatively good agreement was observed between
the physical model and numerical tests. Details of the results of
these two tests can be found elsewhere (Son and Park 2014). Verication of the numerical approach was extended to this parametric study, which considered the effects of varying support
characteristics (strut stiffness and spacing) including the rock
types and joint conditions (the shear strength and joint inclination angles).
To assess the characteristics of the rock mass governed by
joints, this study adopted two-dimensional Universal Distinct Element Code (UDEC; Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2004) based on
the discrete element method, which allows large displacements
between blocks. The rock blocks, wall, and struts were modeled as
separate elastic elements, and the joints between the rock blocks
and the interfaces between the walls and rocks were simulated
using the Coulomb slip model, in which the contact loses strength
and sliding occurs when the contact shear stress exceeds the contact shear strength, which is a combination of the cohesive (C) and
frictional () strength.
The model dimensions were 68.8 m 31.5 m, and the excavation
wall was installed at a depth of 20.5 m (Fig. 1). The nal excavation
depth and width were assumed to be 19 and 20 m, respectively. A
strut-supported system was used because the apparent earth pressure (Peck 1969), which was compared with the results in this
paper, was obtained from many sets of comprehensive measurements of the strut load in strut-supported excavation walls for the
soil ground. This study considered different support characteristics, rock types, and joint conditions (Table 1), and the joint inclination angles were measured in an anticlockwise direction from
the horizontal plane. For each of the aforementioned cases, the
analyses were conducted with a soldier pile and timber lagging
wall.
To reect the general excavation situations in the eld, eight
stages of excavation were conducted to obtain the distribution
Published by NRC Research Press

1958

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Table 1. Controlled parameters for numerical analyses.

Rock type

Joint condition

Hard rock
Slightly weathered rock
Moderately weathered rock

Good

Fair

Poor

Joint inclination
angle ()

Joint
spacing (m)

Strut stiffness
(MN/m/m)

Strut
spacing (m)

0, 30, 60, 90
0, 30, 60, 90
0, 30, 60, 90

1.0
1.0
1.0

40, 80*, 160, 320

40, 80, 160, 320
40, 80, 160, 320

3, 4, 5
3, 4, 5
3, 4, 5

*Typical strut stiffness for vertical spacing of 3 m.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 2. Excavation stages in numerical modeling (for joint inclination angle = 60, strut spacing = 3 m).

Fig. 3. Transformed section in numerical modeling.

and magnitude of the earth pressure. Before the rst excavation

was carried out, the initial equilibrium was obtained with an
earth pressure coefcient of 0.5 at rest for all the conditions considered. At this stage, the boundary condition was a roller at each
end of the two vertical boundaries and at the bottom boundary.
After ensuring the initial equilibrium condition, all the displacements were reset to zero and the wall was installed at a depth of
20.5 m. The rst excavation was conducted up to 1.0 m, followed
by installation of the rst strut at 0.5 m over the excavation line.
After the rst excavation, additional excavation work was carried
out every 3 m (for a case of a 3 m strut spacing), which was
followed by strut installation every 3 m (which is 0.5 m above each
excavation line). Wall stabilization was ensured after each excavation stage. The nal excavation was conducted up to 19.0 m, and
no strut was installed in the nal stage (see Fig. 2). The other
analyses were also carried out for different vertical strut spacings
using the same procedures discussed earlier, whereas the strut
spacing was installed at 4 and 5 m intervals.
Although the shape of a typical excavation wall (i.e., soldier pile
and timber lagging walls) has little effect on the earth pressure
and wall displacement in the eld provided that the exural stiffness of the wall is equivalent, numerical analysis can have a considerable inuence on the results due to a stress concentration in
modeling. On the other hand, it is difcult to fully simulate the
shape of an actual wall by numerical analysis. To address this
issue, this study transformed the excavation wall into a simple

section representing the equivalent exural stiffness of the wall

(see Fig. 3). Table 2 lists the properties of the wall, rocks, joints,
and interfaces used in numerical analysis. The properties of the
rock mass in the table were determined from the data published
by Coulson (1970), Barton (1976), Seram and Pereira (1983), Hoek
and Brown (1997), and the relations proposed by Bieniawski (1978)
and Goodman (1989) for determining the elastic modulus of rock
mass from the rock mass rating (RMR) and the joint stiffness from
the joint spacing and elastic modulus of a rock mass.

Effect of strut stiffness

The effects of varying the strut stiffness on the earth pressure
magnitude and distribution were investigated. The different strut
stiffnesses considered were 40, 80, 160, and 320 MN/m per unit
width. The strut stiffness was determined from the properties of
the strut member, as
Strut stiffness

EA
cos
LSpace

where A is the cross sectional area of the strut, E is the elastic

modulus of the strut, L is half of the strut length, Space is the strut
horizontal spacing, and is the installation angle of the strut (zero
in horizontal installation).
Published by NRC Research Press

Son and Adedokun

1959

Table 2. Properties of the wall, rock, joints, and interfaces used in numerical analysis.
Rock
Rock type

Wall: EaIa Er
(MPam4) (MPa)

Hard
23.20
Slightly weathered
23.20
Moderately weathered 23.20

Joint

Rockwall interface

r
c, t
kn
ks
c, t
ks
ks
(MN/m3) (MPa) () r () (MPa/m) (MPa/m) (MPa) () (MPa/m) (MPa/m) Joint condition

1.0105 0.2 2.7102 0

1.0104 0.22 2.6102 0
1.0103 0.25 2.5102 0

50
40
35

35
32
31.5

2.33105 0.96105 0
2.33104 0.96104 0
2.33103 0.96103 0

33
27
23

2.33105 0.96105 Good (RMR = 85)

2.33104 0.96104 Fair (RMR = 61)
2.33103 0.96103 Poor (RMR = 44)

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Note: EaIa, wall bending stiffness; Er, intact rock elastic modulus; , Poissons ratio; r, unit weight of intact rock; c, joint or interface cohesion; t, joint or interface
tensile strength; , joint or interface frictional angle; r, residual joint frictional angle; kn, joint or interface normal stiffness; ks, joint or interface shear stiffness; RMR,
rock mass rating.

Fig. 4. Comparison of apparent earth pressure ratio and wall lateral displacement for hard rock.

The earth pressure in this study is not a directly measured earth

pressure on the support wall, but was computed using the individual strut load at each level, which is called the apparent earth
pressure. The apparent earth pressure was computed using the
same method as Peck (1969). With regard to the earth pressure

required for wall design, there is no theoretical solution for its

magnitude and distribution because of the complex ground
structure interactions. For this reason, empirical and experimental
analyses are generally conducted through eld studies or model tests
by measuring the strut axial loads and back-calculating the earth
Published by NRC Research Press

1960

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 5. Comparison of total apparent earth pressure between numerical tests for hard rock Pecks earth pressure for sand ground.

pressure based on the strut spacing. This is a method commonly used to compute the earth pressure on the excavation
wall in the eld.
The presented apparent earth pressure in this study is the maximum apparent earth pressure. The maximum apparent earth
pressure was computed using the highest individual strut load at
each level throughout all the excavation stages. The computed
maximum apparent earth pressure was then compared with
Pecks apparent earth pressure envelope for a sand soil, which was
expressed using the procedure reported by Peck (1969). The vertical strut spacing was kept constant at 3 m intervals throughout
the analyses, and the results are discussed here.
Figure 4 shows the apparent earth pressures and wall lateral displacements for hard rock for varying strut stiffness and joint inclination angle. The apparent earth pressures were compared with Pecks
apparent earth pressure based on sand ground with a friction angle
of = 35. For comparison with the results of this paper, a sand
ground was chosen because the apparent earth pressure envelope
for the ground is relatively simple (rectangular shape) and it can be
compared directly with the results of numerical parametric studies
of a jointed rock mass condition. The apparent earth pressure ratio
in the gure is the relative apparent earth pressure ratio between the
induced apparent earth pressure from numerical analysis and Pecks
apparent earth pressure for the sand ground. Figure 5 compares the
total apparent earth pressure ratios between the induced apparent
earth pressure from the numerical analysis and Pecks apparent
earth pressure for sand ground.
For a joint inclination angle of 0, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements for all strut stiffnesses were quite small and
similar. The earth pressure was much lower than Pecks earth pressure for each of the stiffnesses, and the total apparent earth pressure
ratio (the induced apparent earth pressure/Pecks apparent earth
pressure) ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 (see Fig. 5).
For a joint inclination angle of 30, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements were similar to those with a joint inclination
angle of 0 for all strut stiffness values. The earth pressures and wall
displacements showed a slight difference with respect to the strut
stiffness, with a higher strut stiffness showing higher earth pressure
and lower wall displacement, and vice versa. The total apparent
earth pressure ratios were 0.01 and 0.07 for the lowest and highest
strut stiffnesses, respectively.
For a joint inclination angle of 60, where joint sliding was
induced, the apparent earth pressure and wall displacement were
signicantly higher than the results of the joint inclination angles
of 0 and 30. The overall distribution of the apparent earth pressure and wall displacement was higher at the upper part of the
wall and decreased with increasing depth. For higher strut stiffness, the maximum apparent earth pressure ratio was higher
than that suggested by Peck at the upper part of the wall. These

results suggest that the earth pressure and wall lateral displacement are dependent on the strut stiffness, in that the earth pressure increases and wall displacement decreases with increasing
strut stiffness, even though the rate of the increase decreases with
increasing strut stiffness. An increase in strut stiffness causes the
wall to be more conned in lateral wall movement, which induces
a high earth pressure on the wall, and the total apparent earth
pressure ratios ranged from 0.61 to 0.91 for all strut stiffness values. The comparison also showed that the rate of the increase in
earth pressure and wall displacement with respect to the increasing strut stiffness is comparatively higher than those of the other
joint inclination angles. This higher earth pressure for a joint
inclination angle of 60 was the result of joint sliding, which
induced larger block displacement than the other joint inclination angles.
For a joint inclination angle of 90, the apparent earth pressure
and wall lateral displacement were similar to those of the joint
inclination angles of 0 and 30, and the total apparent earth
pressure ratios ranged from 0.01 to 0.07 for all strut stiffness
values.
These results show that the earth pressure increases and wall
lateral displacement decreases with increasing strut stiffness,
even though the rate of the increase in the earth pressure and the
decrease rate in the wall displacement decreases with increasing
strut stiffness. The joint inclination angle had a signicant effect
on the earth pressure and wall displacement in a jointed rock
mass, particularly at a joint inclination angle of 60, where high
joint sliding is induced. In addition, the effect of the strut stiffness
on earth pressure and wall displacement was more apparent
when the rock mass was under the condition of joint sliding.
Figure 6 shows the apparent earth pressures and wall lateral
displacements for slightly weathered rock due to varying strut
stiffness and joint inclination angle. The apparent earth pressures
were compared with Pecks apparent earth pressure based on the
sand ground with an angle of friction of = 35. Figure 7 compares
the total apparent earth pressure ratios between the induced apparent earth pressure from numerical analysis and Pecks apparent earth pressure for the sand ground.
For a joint inclination angle of 0, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements for all strut stiffness values were slightly
higher than those of hard rock due to the slightly higher tendency
of block displacement in slightly weathered rock. With increasing
strut stiffness the earth pressure increased and wall displacement
decreased. The total apparent earth pressure ratios ranged from
0.06 to 0.33, which were much lower than Pecks earth pressure.
For a joint inclination angle of 30, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements were similar to those of the joint inclination angle 0, albeit with slightly higher values. The overall earth
pressure and wall displacement distributions revealed differences
Published by NRC Research Press

Son and Adedokun

1961

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 6. Comparison of apparent earth pressure ratio and wall lateral displacement for slightly weathered rock.

Fig. 7. Comparison of total apparent earth pressure between the numerical tests for slightly weathered rock and Pecks earth pressure for
sand ground.

across the varying strut stiffness values. The total apparent earth
pressure ratios ranged from 0.07 for lower strut stiffness to 0.38
for higher strut stiffness. This suggests that the earth pressure
increases and wall lateral displacement decreases with increasing
strut stiffness.

For a joint inclination angle of 60, the results were similar in

both magnitude and distribution to that of hard rock. Higher
earth pressures and wall displacements were observed at the upper part of the excavation but decreased with depth. For different
strut stiffnesses, the highest earth pressure and smallest wall disPublished by NRC Research Press

1962

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 8. Comparison of apparent earth pressure ratio and wall lateral displacement for moderately weathered rock.

placement were induced at the highest stiffness. The total earth

pressure ratios were 0.73 and 1.02 at the lowest and highest
stiffnesses, respectively. The high earth pressures were attributed to joint sliding, which was induced by a joint inclination
angle of 60.
For a joint inclination angle of 90, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements were similar to those of joint inclination
angles of 0 and 30, but the pressures were slightly higher and
the wall displacements were slightly smaller. The total apparent
earth pressure ratios ranged from 0.08 to 0.45.
These results showed that the apparent earth pressure increases and wall displacement decreases with increasing strut
stiffness regardless of the joint inclination angles (as observed in
hard rock). The earth pressure and wall displacement were larger
for the joint inclination angles of 0, 30, and 90 in slightly weathered rock than for those of hard rock due to the higher tendency
of block displacement. On the other hand, for a joint inclination
angle of 60, the pressure and wall displacement were similar to
that of hard rock.
Figure 8 shows the apparent earth pressures and wall lateral
displacements for moderately weathered rock due to varying
strut stiffness and joint inclination angle. The apparent earth
pressures were compared with Pecks apparent earth pressure
based on sand ground with a friction angle of = 35. Figure 9
compares the total apparent earth pressure ratios between the

induced apparent earth pressure from the numerical analysis and

Pecks apparent earth pressure for the sand ground.
For a joint inclination angle of 0, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements for all strut stiffnesses were considerably
higher than those of hard and slightly weathered rocks with a
joint inclination angle of 0. The effect of the strut stiffness was
more distinctive in moderately weathered rock. The apparent
earth pressures were generally lower than Pecks earth pressure,
but for the highest strut stiffness, the pressure was similar to the
earth pressure suggested by Peck. The total apparent earth pressure ratios ranged from 0.38 to 1.03.
For a joint inclination angle of 30, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements were similar to those of a joint inclination
angle of 0 but the overall distributions showed slightly higher
pressures, and the total earth pressure ratios ranged from 0.44
and 1.07. These results clearly show that the earth pressure increases and wall displacement decreases with increasing strut
stiffness.
For a joint inclination angle of 60, where joint sliding was
induced, the maximum earth pressures were higher than Pecks
earth pressure (see Fig. 8) but for the lowest strut stiffness, the
pressure was similar to that of Pecks earth pressure. The apparent
earth pressures for the lower stiffness were signicantly higher
than those of the other joint inclination angles of 0, 30, and 90,
whereas for a higher strut stiffness, the earth pressure difference
Published by NRC Research Press

Son and Adedokun

1963

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 9. Comparison of total apparent earth pressure between the numerical tests for moderately weathered rock and Pecks earth pressure
for sand ground.

was relatively small when compared with those of joint inclination angles of 0, 30, and 90. The increase rate in the earth
pressure with increasing strut stiffness was smaller than those of
other joint inclination angles. The induced earth pressure and
wall lateral displacement were higher than those of hard and
slightly weathered rocks, and the total apparent earth pressure
ratios ranged from 0.81 to 2.13 (see Fig. 9).
For a joint inclination angle of 90, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements were similar to those of joint inclination angles of 0 and 30, but showed slightly higher earth pressures
and smaller wall displacements. To vary the strut stiffness, the
overall distribution of the earth pressures and wall displacements
was similar to those of joint inclination angles of 0 and 30, and
the total apparent earth pressure ratio ranged from 0.50 to 1.20.
The rate of the increase in earth pressure with respect to the
increasing strut stiffness was similar for those of joint inclination
angles of 0, 30, and 90, whereas that of a joint inclination angle
of 60 was lower.
Overall, the results clearly showed that the apparent earth pressure increases and wall lateral displacement decreases with increasing strut stiffness, regardless of the joint inclination angles.
The increase in earth pressure and wall displacement with the
strut stiffness was more signicant in the moderately weathered
rock than it was in other rocks. In addition, the apparent earth
pressures for joint inclination angles of 0, 30, and 90 increased
with increasing joint inclination angle. The induced earth pressure and wall displacement for joint inclination angle of 60 were
higher than those of other joint inclination angles due to joint
sliding, but the effect of joint sliding on the earth pressure difference with a joint inclination angle was more signicant in the
hard and slightly weathered rocks than the moderately weathered
rock.

Effect of the strut spacing

The effects of varying the vertical strut spacing on the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure and wall lateral displacement were also compared, and the spacings considered were
3, 4, and 5 m intervals with the other parameters kept constant.
The results of these comparisons are presented here.
Figure 10 shows the apparent earth pressures and wall lateral
displacements for hard rock with varying vertical strut spacings
and joint inclination angles. The apparent earth pressures were
compared with Pecks apparent earth pressure based on the sand
ground with a friction angle of = 35. Figure 11 compares the
total apparent earth pressure ratios between the induced apparent earth pressure from the numerical analysis and Pecks apparent earth pressure for the sand ground.

For a joint inclination angle of 0, the apparent earth pressures

and wall displacements showed no signicant difference between
the three vertical strut spacings, the value of which which was far
lower than Pecks apparent earth pressure. The total apparent
earth pressure ratios for all strut spacings were approximately
0.01 (see Fig. 11).
For a joint inclination angle of 30, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements for the three strut spacing were similar to
that of a joint inclination angle of 0 and the earth pressures were
much lower than those suggested by Peck. The total apparent
earth pressure ratios for all strut spacings were about 0.02.
For a joint inclination angle of 60, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacement were signicantly higher than those of the
other joint inclination angles, and these higher earth pressures
and wall displacements were attributed to joint sliding. The overall distribution of the apparent earth pressure and wall displacement was higher at the upper part of the wall and decreased with
depth. Moreover, the apparent earth pressure for each of the strut
spacings was higher than that suggested by Peck at the upper part
of the wall due to the lower conning pressure, which caused a
higher tendency for block movement. The total apparent earth
pressure ratios ranged from 0.71 for a vertical spacing of 3 m to
0.65 for that of 5 m.
For a joint inclination angle of 90, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements for all strut spacings were similar to those
of joint inclination angles of 0 and 30. The total apparent earth
pressure ratios for all strut spacings were approximately 0.02.
Figure 12 shows the apparent earth pressures and wall lateral
displacements for slightly weathered rock due to the varying vertical strut spacings and joint inclination angles. The apparent
earth pressures were compared with Pecks apparent earth pressure based on a sand ground with a friction angle of = 35.
Figure 13 compares the total apparent earth pressure ratios
between the induced apparent earth pressure from the numerical analysis and Pecks apparent earth pressure for the sand
ground.
For a joint inclination angle of 0, the apparent earth pressure
and wall displacement were slightly higher than those of hard
rock but the earth pressure was much lower than Pecks earth
pressure. In terms of the strut spacing, the earth pressure increased and wall displacement decreased with decreasing vertical
strut spacing. Decreasing the strut spacing caused the wall to be
more conned in lateral movement and induced a higher pressure on the wall. The total apparent earth pressure ratios ranged
from 0.11 to 0.07 (see Fig. 13).
For a joint inclination angle of 30, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements were similar to those of a joint inclination
Published by NRC Research Press

1964

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 10. Comparison of apparent earth pressure ratio and wall lateral displacement for hard rock.

Fig. 11. Comparison of total apparent earth pressure between the numerical tests for hard rock and Pecks earth pressure for sand ground.

angle of 0, but with a slightly higher magnitude in the earth

pressure. The total apparent earth pressure ratio ranged from 0.13
to 0.09.
For a joint inclination angle of 60, where joint sliding was
induced, the apparent earth pressures were slightly higher than
those of hard rock with the same joint inclination angle, but they

were signicantly higher than those of joint inclination angles of

0 and 30. The total apparent earth pressure ratios ranged from
0.81 for a vertical spacing of 3 m to 0.68 for a vertical spacing of
5 m.
For a joint inclination angle of 90, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements for all strut spacings were similar to those
Published by NRC Research Press

Son and Adedokun

1965

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 12. Comparison of apparent earth pressure ratio and wall lateral displacement for slightly weathered rock.

Fig. 13. Comparison of total apparent earth pressure between the numerical tests for slightly weathered rock and Pecks earth pressure for
sand ground.

of a joint inclination angle of 30 and the total apparent earth

pressure ratio ranged from 0.16 to 0.11.
Figure 14 shows the apparent earth pressures and wall lateral
displacements for moderately weathered rock for varying vertical strut spacing and joint inclination angle. The apparent

earth pressures were compared with Pecks apparent earth

pressure based on a sand ground with a friction angle of = 35.
Figure 15 compares the total apparent earth pressure ratios between the induced apparent earth pressure from the numerical
analysis and Pecks apparent earth pressure for the sand ground.
Published by NRC Research Press

1966

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

Fig. 14. Comparison of apparent earth pressure ratio and wall lateral displacement for moderately weathered rock.

Fig. 15. Comparison of total apparent earth pressure between numerical tests for moderately weathered rock and Pecks earth pressure for
sand ground.

For a joint inclination angle of 0, the apparent earth pressure distribution was higher at the center part, which is different from those of hard and slightly weathered rocks. The earth
pressures were lower than Pecks earth pressure, but were
signicantly higher than those of the hard and slightly weathered rocks. The higher earth pressure in the moderately weath-

ered rock is a result of the higher tendency of block displacement. The total apparent earth pressure ratios ranged
from 0.61 for a vertical spacing of 3 m to 0.44 for that of 5 m (see
Fig. 15).
For a joint inclination angle of 30, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements were similar to that of a joint inclination
Published by NRC Research Press

Son and Adedokun

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DALHOUSIE UNIVER on 11/15/16

For personal use only.

angle 0 in both magnitude and distribution. The total apparent

earth pressure ratios ranged from 0.65 to 0.48.
For a joint inclination angle of 60, the apparent earth pressures
and wall displacements for all strut spacings were higher than for
those of joint inclination angles of 0 and 30. The total apparent
earth pressure ratios ranged from 0.94 for a vertical spacing of 3 m
to 0.85 for that of 5 m, respectively.
For a joint inclination angle of 90, the apparent earth pressures
for the three strut spacings showed slightly higher values than those
of the joint inclination angles of 0 and 30, but were lower than
those of joint inclination angle 60. The total apparent earth pressure
ratios ranged from 0.76 to 0.57.

Conclusion
The magnitude and distribution of apparent earth pressures
against the support system in jointed rock mass were investigated. A series of numerical parametric analyses were conducted,
focusing on the effect of the strut stiffness and spacing for different rock types and joint conditions. The following conclusions can
be drawn:
1. The magnitude and distribution of the earth pressure on a
retaining structure are inuenced substantially by the support
characteristics (strut stiffness and spacing), as well as the rock
type and joint condition. Therefore, these factors should be
considered when designing support systems in a jointed rock
mass.
2. The higher strut stiffness induced a higher earth pressure because increasing the strut stiffness caused the wall to be conned more in lateral movement. The inuence of the strut
stiffness was more signicant in moderately weathered rock
than in harder rock types because of its higher tendency of
block displacement.
3. The earth pressure decreased with increasing strut spacing
due to the higher lateral wall displacement. The higher wall
displacement mobilized the higher shear resistance at the
joint between rock blocks and caused the lower earth pressure
against the wall. The effect of the strut spacing was more
evident in the moderately weathered rock than in harder rock
types.
4. The earth pressures for the joint inclination angles of 0, 30,
and 90, where no joint sliding was induced, were generally
lower than Pecks earth pressure of sand ground. In moderately weathered rock, however, when the strut stiffness was
increased, the earth pressure can be higher than Pecks earth
pressure. The earth pressure for a joint inclination angle of
60, where joint sliding was induced, can be much higher than
the earth pressure suggested by Peck depending on both the
strut stiffness and rock type.
5. The relative apparent earth pressure ratios between jointed
rock masses and a sand ground were provided in this paper for
various support, rock, and joint conditions. From the ratios, a
practitioner can obtain useful and intuitive information on
the earth pressures in jointed rock masses and can estimate
easily the apparent earth pressure in a given jointed rock mass
using the relative apparent earth pressure ratios between the
jointed rock masses and the sand ground.

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Daegu University Research
Grant 2013-0464. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References
Balasubramaniam, A.S., Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., and Sutabur, J.C. 1994. Deformation analysis of deep excavations in Bangkok subsoils. In Proceedings of
the 13th ICCSMFE, New Delhi. pp. 909914.
Barton, N.R. 1976. The shear strength of rock and rock joints. International

1967

Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,

13(9): 255279. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(76)90003-6.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1978. Determining rock mass deformability: experience from
case histories. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
& Geomechanics Abstracts, 15(5): 237247. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(78)90956-7.
Bolton, M.D., Lam, S.Y., and Osman, A.S. 2009. Supporting excavations in clay From analysis to decision-making. In Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground - Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium, Shanghai. pp. 1528. doi:10.1201/9780203879986.ch2.
Carder, D.R. 1995. Ground movements caused by different embedded retaining
wall construction techniques. Transport Res. Lab. Rep. 172, Berkshire, UK.
Chae, Y.S., and Moon, I. 1994. Earth pressure on retaining wall by considering local
soil condition. In Proceedings of the Korean Geotechnical Society 94 Fall Conference. pp. 129138.
Clough, G.W., and ORourke, T.D. 1990. Construction-induced movements of in
situ walls. In Proceedings of a Conference on Design and Performance of
Earth Retaining Structures, Ithaca, New York. pp. 439470.
Coulson, J.H. 1970. The Effects of surface roughness on the shear strength of
joints in rock. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Fourie, A.B. 1994. Finite element analysis of braced excavation in soft clay. In
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, New Delhi. Vol. 14, pp. 13751380.
Goh, A.T.C. 1990. Assessment of basal stability for braced excavation systems
using the nite element method. Computers and Geotechnics, 10(4): 325
338. doi:10.1016/0266-352X(90)90021-M.
Goldberg, D.T., Jaworski, W.E., and Gordon, M.D. 1976. Lateral support systems
and underpinning. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Report FHWA-RD-75-128.
Goodman, R.E. 1989. Introduction to rock mechanics. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 34(8): 11651186.
doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80069-X.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2004. Universal distinct element code. Users manual. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
Jeong, E.T., and Kim, S.G. 1997. Case study of earth pressure distribution on
excavation wall of multi-layered soil. In Proceedings of the Korean Geotechnical Society 97 Spring Conference. pp. 7880.
Lam, S.Y. 2010. Ground movements due to excavation in clay: Physical and
analytical models. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.
Long, M. 2001. Database for retaining wall and ground movements due to deep
excavations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
127(3): 203224. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:3(203).
Mana, A.I., and Clough, G.W. 1981. Prediction of movements for braced cuts in
clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 107(GT8): 759777.
Peck, R.B. 1969. Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. State-of-the-Art
report. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City. State-of-the Art Volume,
pp. 225290.
Poh, T.Y., Wong, I.H., and Chandrasekaran 1997. Performance of two propped
diaphragm walls in stiff residual soils. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 11(4): 190199. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1997)11:4(190).
Powrie, W., and Li, E.S.F. 1991. Finite element analyses of an in situ wall propped
at formation level. Gotechnique, 41: 499514. doi:10.1680/geot.1991.41.4.
499.
Puller, M. 2003. Deep excavations: a practical manual. 2nd ed. Thomas Telford
Ltd. pp. 407.
Seram, J.L., and Pereira, J.P. 1983. Considerations on the geomechanical classication of Bieniawski. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering
Geology and Underground Openings, Lisboa. pp. 11331144.
Son, M. 2013. Earth pressure on the support system in jointed rock mass. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(5): 493502. doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0147.
Son, M., and Park, J. 2014. Physical and numerical tests of the excavation walls in
jointed rock masses. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 51(5): 554569. doi:10.
1139/cgj-2013-0081.
Tschebotarioff, G.P. 1973. Foundations, retaining and earth structures. 2nd ed.
McGraw-Hill.
Warren, W., and Invernizzi, L. 2000. Soil movement due to deep excavations.
City of Gardens, Singapore, 425.
Wong, K.S., and Broms, B.B. 1989. Lateral wall deections of braced excavations
in clay. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(6): 853870. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:6(853).
Xu, Z.H., Wang, W.D., Wang, J.H., and Shen, S.L. 2005. Performance of deep
excavated retaining wall in Shanghai soft deposit. Lowland Technology International, 7(2): 3143.
Yoo, C.S., and Kim, Y.J. 2000. Deep excavation in soil, including rock with layers
on retaining wall and apparent horizontal displacement of earth pressure.
Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society, 16(4): 4350.

Published by NRC Research Press