Earth Retaining Walls

Applied Theory by Prof.Minna

Karstunen

Based on lecture notes by Kelvin Higgins,

Geotechnical Consulting Group, at Imperial College in
2003
 Design of retaining walls
• Perform analyses to predict bending
moments and forces in the structure for
design purposes
• Predict ground movements around the
structure both in short term and long term
• Need to consider according to EC7 both
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and
Serviceability
 Design of retaining walls
• Select a wall type that is suited for your
problem
– Embedded wall
– Gravity wall
– Reinforced earth wall
• The soil provides both activating and
resisting forces, with the wall and its
structural support proving a transfer
mechanism
 Wall types
• Embedded retaining walls
• Structural membrane, such as sheet piles, diaphragm wall,
contiguous or secant piles
• Either cantilever or supposed in the permanent or temporary
state by berms, props, ties or ground anchors
• The flexibility of the wall can vary within a wide range and
this has considerable effect on the distribution of earth
pressures
• More flexible walls often have smaller bending moments in
structural elements but may lead to larger deformations
• Complexity of soil-structure interaction increases with
number of levels of props and anchors
 Wall types
• Gravity walls
• Rely on the weight of the structure to resist earth
pressures and retain the soils
• Can be formed of mass concrete, precast units
(crib walls) or gabions
• Stiff structures with simple soil-structure interaction
• The earth pressures at the back of the wall need to
be balanced by normal and shear forces at the
base
• Movements often small, unless on compressible
ground
 Wall types
• Reinforced earth walls
• Reinforced earth walls and walls involving soil nails
essentially act as gravity wall
• Generally have a non-structural membrane (facing) to
prevent erosion or for purely aesthetic reasons
• Membrane has to be designed to resist any bending
moments and forces that occur but this is not the primary
method of earth retention
• Resistance to ground movement provided by soil nails,
anchors and ties (not ground anchors), strips of metal or
geofabrics
• Internal stability relies of a complex interaction between the
soils and the reinforcing elements (or nails)
 Role of FEM in design of retaining
walls
• Design of retaining walls traditionally carried out
using simplified methods of analyses, such as
limit equilibrium (ReWard) or empirical
approaches
• Because of the statically indeterminate nature of
multiple propped (or anchored walls, these have
often been dealt with empirical methods
• The only method that is capable of providing all
information needed for design is full numerical
approach
 Role of FEM in design of retaining
walls
• FEM very powerful tool of analysis in soil-structure
interaction problems, such as earth retaining walls and
tunnels, because:
– Can easily model different construction stages and various
structural elements (walls, props, anchors)
– Changes in GWL/consolidation/seepage easily incorporated
– Possibilities for undrained, drained and consolidation analyses
– Easy to consider both serviceability limit state and ultimate limit
state
– Good representation of soil-structure interaction (if appropriate
soil models used): the resulting earth pressures correspond to
the deformations, i.e. the level of shear strength mobilisation in
the soil
– Can choose realistic model to represent the soil behaviours
(such as HS small in Plaxis)
 Role of FEM in design of retaining
walls
• Often the initial analyses for design still made
with simple methods (such as ReWard),
because:
– With FEM, the geometry has to be defined first and
hence OPTIMISATION of e.g. the length of
embedment not automatic
• For serviceability analyses FEM the only option,
so when constructing excavations in urban
areas, it is necessary to complement
conventional analyses with FEM
 General considerations
• Geometry
• Material properties (soil and structure)
• Initial stress state in the ground
• Construction programme and method
• Groundwater control
• Support systems
 Geometry
• All problems 3-dimensional, so simplifying
assumptions need to be made for 2D
analyses
• Can you utilise symmetry?
Geometry
Geometry
 Geometry
• Choice of the extent and lateral dimension
of the FE mesh
• For bottom boundary stratigraphy starting point
• Because soil strength and stiffness increase with
depth, analyses are not so sensitive to the location
of bottom boundary, as long as it is not too close to
the bottom of the wall
• Location of the far field lateral boundary depends
on constitutive model employed to represent the
soil behaviour
Geometry
Geometry
 Geometry

Effect in variation in the depth of the mesh

 Geometry

Effect in variation in the width of the mesh

 Geometry

Effect in variation in the far field boundary condition

 Material properties
• Appropriate models need to be selected to represent the
behaviour of structural components and the behaviour of
the ground
• Structural components often assumed to behave linear
elastically and allowed to take tensile stresses
• For unreinforced mass concrete structures may need to
limit the compressive and tensile stresses
• In 2D structural members have to be represented in
same way even though they may not have constant
geometry, hence equivalent stiffness in bending,
compression and tension has to be used
 Material properties
• Important to use realistic soil models to
represent soil behaviour
• Categories:
– Backfill materials
• Backfill materials have dominant effect in gravity and
reinforced earth walls
• Usually free-draining sands and gravels, occasionally clays
• Often modelled as linear elastic-perfectly plastic (MC)
• Non-linear stress and strain dependent stiffness however
preferable
 Material properties
– In situ soil
• Dominant effect in embedded and nailed walls
• Empirical relationship for stiffness (e.g. for London
clay) relate to very limited periods after completion
and may not be relevant to other ground conditions
• Soil parameters from high quality laboratory tests
(triaxial tests, ideally with local strain
measurements/bender elements, resonant column
or hollow cylinder), in situ tests (self-boring
pressuremeter) or geophysical tests (surface
waves, seismic cross hole etc.)
 Soil Stiffness at Small Strains
1 Retaining walls
odulus G/G0 [-]

Foundations

Tunnels
Very
small
Shear mo

strains Small strains Conventional soil testing

Larger strains
0 Shear strain γ[-]
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10

Dynamic methods

Local gauges
Soil Stiffness at Small Strains
 Material properties
– In situ soil
• Linear elastic models not appropriate
• Linear-elastic perfectly plastic models (MC) do limit
tensile stresses in the soil and passive or active
pressures but give poor prediction of the extent
and distributions of movement
• Non-linear models, such as Hardening Soil Model,
and small strain stiffness models, such as HS
small give much better predictions of ground
movements around structures
Initial stress state in the ground
– There is usually excavation associated with the
construction of earth retaining structures
– Given behaviour of the soil-wall system depends on
stress changes, important that these are estimated
accurately
– Initial stresses in the ground are always very
important:
• “Greenfield conditions”
– Ratio of the horizontal and vertical stresses (K0) has an
enormous influence
– Modified initial stresses
• Adjacent structures will have modified stresses within the
ground and have to be taken into account in analyses (e.g.
Jubilee Line extension)
Initial stress state in the ground
Initial stress state in the ground

Cross-section
A-A
Initial stress state in the ground

Contours of mobilised shear stress a) without tunnels b)

with tunnels
Initial stress state in the ground

Groundwater
conditions may
also have been
modified by the
presence of
adjacent
structures

Deflection of walls with and without tunnels

 Construction method and
programme
• How is the structure constructed?
• What is the time taken to construct it?
• Different sequence means that the soil may
experience differing stress paths, so yield may
occur in soil elements at differing times or be
suppressed completely
• Additional forces such as swelling pressures
might be imposed to the structure
• Some slow drainage may also occur
 Construction method and
programme
• Consider the previously considered road
tunnel and 1) a top down and 2) bottom up
construction. In 2) a discontinuous
temporary prop required
 Construction method and
programme

Summary of bending moments for alternative methods of

construction (relatively shallow excavation depth, i.e. 8-10m, but
20% difference in bending moments)
 Length of construction programme
and time related movements
• Fully coupled consolidation analysis necessary
• Permeability of the soil difficult to estimate, so
prudent to consider a range of values
• The distribution of permeabilities particularly
important when underdrainage exits and has to
be consistent with the pore water profile
• Swelling of clays beneath deep excavations is
one of the most significant long term effects.
These can be controlled by drainage or e.g. by
leaving a void beneath the basement to allow
heave
 Groundwater control during
construction and long term
• Dewatering may be necessary to form an
excavation or measures may need to be taken to
minimise the effect of long term heave beneath
the structure
• What are the boundary conditions?

• The only way to make the wall impermeable, if

using plate element for the wall is to activate
interface elements
• In Plaxis to model dewatering during excavation,
choose cluster dry option
Groundwater control during
construction and long term
 Support systems
• When props, anchors etc. used, need to
consider the details of any connections between
the structural members
• Props (struts and slabs) provide passive
resistance to movement
• Ties, anchors and soil reinforcement rely on
stresses within the ground to be mobilised.
Changing ground conditions, such as drainage
can reduce the effectiveness of the support
• Most propping systems prevent differential
movement but not absolute movement
 Embedded walls
• Often “wished in place”, i.e. there is no reduction
in stresses associated with installation of walls
(in most cases conservative but not in all)
• Based on field measurements, installation can
have 10-30% changes in stresses and e.g.
diaphragm walls have been reported to move up
to 78mm during installation.
• Modelling this requires 3D FE with fine mesh
and advanced soil models
 Embedded walls
• Diaphragm, secant and contiguous pile
walls relative thick, so solid elements
could be used
 Embedded walls
• For sheet pile walls, the use of beam (or
shell) elements is more appropriate
• Beam element are approximate, as they
reduce one dimension of the structural
member to zero (zero thickness), which
can affect the results
 Embedded walls

Results for 20m deep 1m thick embedded cantilever wall. Excavation

depth of 9.3m and K0=0.5. Differences were smaller for K0=2.
 Embedded walls
• Differences is due to the vertical shear stresses mobilised on the
back of the wall.
• For analyses with solid elements these act downward at a distance
of 0.5m from the neutral axis of the wall, producing a clock-wise
moment. In the analyses with beam elements , the wall has no
thickness and hence there is no lever arm and moment is zero
• The same error is likely to arise them modelling sheet pile walls
using beam elements
• Errors are smaller if the wall is propped
 Embedded walls
• Another source of approximation concerns the shape of the wall in
plan
• Sheet piles, secant piles etc. do not have constant cross section in
plan and such geometries violate the basic assumptions of plane
strain
Embedded walls
• Effective stiffness of the
membrane is an important
consideration
• For concrete structures it is
common to assume a reduction
in stiffness in the long term due
to factors such as creep and
cracking

Studies by Potts
and Day (1990)
Embedded walls

Studies by Potts and Day (1990). Effect of wall

stiffness on displacements
Embedded walls

Studies by Potts and Day (1990). Effect of wall

stiffness on bending moments.
 Embedded walls

Studies by Hight and Higgins (1990). Typical deep

excavation
 Embedded walls

Studies by Hight and Higgins (1990). Effect of variation in

wall stiffness
 Embedded walls
• According to Potts and Day (1990),
the results are not too sensitive to
the interface stiffness, but the angle
of dilation of the interface elements
can have significant effect on soil
movements
• Wall may be treated as completely
impermeable, completely permeable
or even be given finite permeability
• With solid elements it is easy to
model these conditions, but when
beam element are used they are
permeable, unless flow is blocked by
the use of interface elements
 Embedded walls

Studies by Hight
and Higgins
(1990). Effect of
prop stiffness

• Support systems may introduce additional uncertainties at

the design stage:
– Effective stiffness of the support system (can be reduced by
temperature, creep, bedding, concrete shrinkage etc.
– Time between excavation and the installation of supports
– Level of prestress applied to props and anchors
 Embedded walls

• The way in which structural components are joined

together influences how forces and moments are
transmitted
Embedded walls
Embedded walls
Embedded walls
 Embedded walls
• Active support systems can
be difficult to analyse with
FEM (but can be done quite
easily with Plaxis)
• Ground anchors can be
modelled in Plaxis by
combining node to do
anchors (to model a free
length) and geotextile
elements to model the fixed
length
• Anchors have 3D geometry,
so 2D involves severe
approximations
 Gravity walls
• Stresses acting on the
structure dependant upon
loading of the soil during
compaction process
• Very few reliable
measurement
• It is simplest to specify
the horizontal stresses in
layer of fill by using
appropriate K0 values
 Reinforced earth walls
• Membrane which is non-
structural and reasonably
flexible
• Soil retained by nails,
reinforcing strips or anchors
• Reinforcing strips work because
frictional forces do develop
along their length
• In reality the strips are not
continuous (as assumed in 2D
analyses) and the bond should
hence not be overestimated
Reinforced earth walls
 Concluding remarks
• Considerable care has to be taken to ensure
that earth retaining structures are analysed in
appropriate way
• Most important that correct boundary condition
are applied and the structure is modelled in
sufficient detail
• Process of construction has to be taken into
account
• Effect of adjacent structures need to be also
considered
Some references