PAPER DESIGN OF LOW-PROPPED EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS IN STIFF CLAYS

Recent. papers have discussed the construction of embedded retaining walls which are propped at or close to excavation
level. The advantages of such a method of providing restraint are significant, and the use of this structural form has been
most commonly adoptedin transportation projects such as highway and railway underpasses. This paper considers the
available methods of analysis and design and concludes that the common assumptions and earth pressures adopted are
not truly representative. While the walls already constructed are safe in terms of stability, they may be overlong. A
modified pressure distribution has been adopted and shown by numerical analysis to be conservative. Significantly
shorter depths of wall embedment are predicted for this structural form, associated with potential major cost savings.
The use of numerical analyses, with careful modelling of construction sequences, is considered to be a fundamental and
important aspect of design. The Observational Method is the most suitable for assessing and utilising the available short
term properties of stiff overconsolidated clays.

ed whereby the required embedment is determined by equating the

moments of limiting active earth pressures to those of the limiting pas-
',lesic n sive earth pressures divided by a factor of safety. The reason for fac-
toring passive pressures is to provide a gross factor on failure, and to
o~'w-
limit the relatively large movements that would be required to develop
the limiting passive pressures. For heavily overconsolidated clays

~ro s )ec (Potts & Fourie, 1986) similar magnitudes of displacement are required
to reach both of the limiting states.

el'ec ec c
Low level support
There are situations where the use of high level support may not be
practicable, for example in deep road cuttings where lines of sight
would be impaired; ground anchors may not be acceptable where they

reI:aininc! wa s in have to be installed beneath property or because of concerns with

durability or maintenance. An option which has received attention
recently is to use a propping system which is at or below the final exca-
vation level. Examples of road schemes where this has been adopted

sl,'ill'c aI!ts
Steven Evetton, Senior Project Engineer, Sir Alexander
Gibb L Ptns Ltd, Earley House, London Road, Reading,
Berkshire RG61BL.
e use of retaining walls formed in situ allows a considerable
reduction in the space required to be taken when compared with
construction of traditionally backfilled walls, and reductions in
construction periods. With in situ walls excavation follows installation.
Stability of the system is provided by embedment of the wall below for-
mation level, or by propping.
The design of embedded walls, which are commonly of sheet pile,
secant or contiguous pile, or diaphragm panel construction, includes
the determination of bending moments and shear forces imposed on
the structure due to earth and water pressures. These pressures vary
with time as a result of the construction sequence, imposed sur-
charges, magnitude of deformation, changes in soil properties and
groundwater conditions.
Historically, the assessment of earth pressures acting on structures
has been studied at least as far back as Coulomb's memoires. The devel-
opment of active and passive pressures adjacent to unpropped can-
tilever walls is well understood, where wall and ground displacements
are sufficient to develop these limiting states of stress.
Use of support
The incorporation of support to a wall in either the temporary or per-
manent case allows for greater earth and water pressures to be resist-
ed, greater heights to be economically retained and serves to reduce
displacements of the wall. The effect of a support on the development
of active and passive earth pressures is not necessarily straightfor-
ward however. For double or multi-propped walls empirical or complex
numerical methods are relied upon for design.
include several underpasses on the A406 in London, the Blackwater
Valley road scheme, and the Batheaston Bypass. The propping action at
low level is provided by either discrete props below the finished car-
riageway level, or as is more commonly the case, by the carriageway
slab itself. The merits of these forms are discussed later. By moving the
permanent prop close to the excavation level, and therefore closer to
the centre of the wall, the load transfer from the earth to the wall and
then to the prop is a more efficient process.
An examination of the geometry of several constructed walls sug-
gests however, that no clear difference in wall lengths has been made by
the use of low level propping, even though it would be expected to be
more efficient. From the published literature the as-constructed
embedment ratios (defined as the ratio of wall embedment to retained
height) from eight schemes have been collated. These are shown on
Figure 1, and are seen to range between 0.9 to 1.9. The embedment
ratios adopted in numerical analyses in research projects also follows
a trend of embedment ratios close to or greater than unity
(Nyaoro,1989; Li, 1990; Miles, 1991; Richards & Powrie, 1994). Figure 1
also shows the trends of a study performed by Mott McDonald (1992) of
retaining walls on roarl schemes in the London area. It can be seen that
the embedment ratio increases with retained height for high propped
walls, but decreases for low-propped walls.
~ Walthamstow
Mott McDonald ~ Rayleigh Weir
Review '.
(low prop)
L
A406
O Great Cambridge
Mott McDonald,
Review
(high prop) A3 (Maiden)
Waltham
stow,'lackwater

If the wall is singly supported then the system becomes statically Valley
determinate and the relatively simple conventional equilibrium meth-
ods are used. Design standards and codes of practice, based on the
experiences of observations and back analyses, recommend the use of
the limiting active and passive pressures on the retained and excavat-
0 0''
ed sides for design. CIRIA 104 gives a series of definitions for the appli- .':1.' . 8,,:.;4':6':,::..'6'---'8,::",,"9"':10"'".1'I 12;;;...18"t4
cation of a factor of safety which serve to increase the wall length, Retutrse'd.height,:(Iii)
reduce the resisting earth pressures by an amount, or by limiting the
available strength of the soil. Commonly the 'CP2'efinition is adopt- Ftgure f.As constructed ernbedments for several low-propped walls ln london Clay.

GROIIND ENGINEERING OCTOBER 1996 37

 PAPER DESIGN OF LOW-PROPPED EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS IN STIFF CIAYS

Hyd

water pressure

< Hydr

KA (y(h+d) -uJ yield+

J KR(yd - uj KF (y (h+d) - u J K~(yd - uj
y (d+ J

Rgure 2. Conventtonal assumed earth and water pressure dlstrlbutlons for an Rgure 4. Shnln compatible earth pressures for an embedded wall singly propped at
embedded wall singly propped at high level. low level, due to Nyaoro. G ross pore water pressure distribution as Figure 2.

High prop (1<FF<2)

Ka jyh - uj ster pressure

Kp fyh - uj

Low prop (1<Fp<2)

'f'5"::.:::;:::.::::::::S}:::::::::':": :'30::::;:::;:::.:'3S:::::
35::::::'::.":: '::":.:'40.:::::::': -"::4S
Kp (y (h+d) - uj KA (yd - uj
'Ar'igle 'Of frioburi '(:)

Rgure 3. Fugy reversed earth pressures for an embedded wag singly propped at low Figure g. Embedment ratio for singly propped embedded walls
lmrel. Gross pore water pressure distribution as Figure 2.

The codes and standards governing embedded wall design (BS8002,
CIRIA 104) give little guidance for designing low-propped walls. CIRIA 104
does however state that limit equilibrium techniques are only applicable
in cases where the prop is close to the top of the wall. If the limit equilib-
rium methods themselves are not really suitable, then the use of conven-
tional factors of safety (which were in reality empirically determined)
have no basis in design, unless they can be shown to be conservative.
Factors of safety and earth pressures
In conventional calculations (CP2 method) a triangular active pressure
distribution is generally considered to act against the wall, being
resisted by a triangular passive distribution (Figure 2). A net water
pressure distribution with linear seepage around the toe of the wall is
commonly adopted. The assumed mode of deformation is of rotation of
the rigid wall about the prop towards the excavation. The active earth
pressures and the net water pressures are treated as overturning
moments, and the passive pressures as restoring moments. Note that in
this definition net water pressures are used in order to prevent factor-
ing them, as they are usually more accurately and reliably determined.
The conventional definition of factor of safety on moments (CP2 defin-
ition) is thus:
Restoring Passive
Overturning Active + Net Water
In the case of a low propped wall however, the situation changes. For a
perfectly rigid wall the mode of deformation is rotation about the low
prop, and it is assumed that the wall above the prop moves towards the
excavation. This deformation mode has been studied by Li (1990),
Nyaoro (1989) and Miles (1991) using numerical techniques. They con-
firmed this forwards type rotation for relatively small embedments,
and a backwards rotation for relatively deep embedments. An interest-
ing point was seen in Nyaoro's work where it was impossible to simu-
late mass failure of the wall purely by placing large surcharges on the
retained side. Failure was only inevitably caused by structural failure
of the wall or prop.
The forward rotation mode is often noted by designers, but has lead
to a rigid use of active and passive limits in the zones surrounding the
wall (eg Symons, 1992). Figure 3 shows the resulting pressure distrib-
ution from these assumptions. As a result of the assumed stress rever-
sal a major stress discontinuity occurs in the retained soil immediate-
ly behind the prop. For a plastic clay (say (l = 22') the ratio of this dis-
continuity (KF/KA) is approximately 5, and for a dense granular soil
(g = 40') the ratio is approximately 20. Bolton 5 Stewart (1994) consider
a horizontal frictionless discontinuity at this level to simplify the
analysis. In practice this is considered to be unreasonable, as at this
level immediately behind the wall the soil will undergo little, if any,
shear strain due to being restrained by the prop, and the soil will not
approach the strain softening region of its stress-strain behaviour.

3g ('RDDND FNGINEFRING 0(yroRRR 1996

 PAPER DESIGN OF LOW-PROPPED EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS IN STIFF CLAYS

Depth r
O(( (mmumrdd( SUMQB (ud(u"( (dd( SU (measured) SUMQB/SU
(m) (kN/m') (kN/m') (kN/mz) (%)
I excavated retained excavated retained
-: Bell Common retained height 8m 2 170 65 105 62
4.5 205 58 120 48
6 85 18 75 23
9 80 50 90 11
12 160 40 110 5
Walthamstow retained height 8.8m 3.5 387 159 150 106
(Carswell et al) 5.5 321 106 150 70
8.7 383 105 120 87
2.8 56 0 45 0
9.6 204 6 100 6
16.2 359 18 150 12
Rayleigh Weir retained height 8.5m 2.2 200 78 104 75
6 271 76 123 62
10 337 69 143 48
15.3 659 177 169 104
6 94 13 80 16
8.5 180 5 93 5
14.7 333 20 124 16
21.3 459 17 133 12

Depending on the nature of the soil it is unlikely that the full passive
limit could be reached at this depth to provide resistance to overturn-
ing. At the toe of the wall however the strains may be sufficient for the
passive pressures to develop. To account for this, Nyaoro proposed the
pressure distribution shown in Figure 4.
With both of these pressure distributions the definition of factor of
safety necessarily changes, as restoring moments are instead generat-
ed in the retained earth, and overturning moments are generated on
the excavated side. Taking the essence of the CP2 definition to be
restoring moments divided by overturning moments, a quite sizeable
net water pressure acts here to provide stability. In line with general
practice, water pressures would not be factored. However, care must be
taken where water conditions may not be (returnedfully understood or are
unable to be relied upon (for example, leakage through the wall would
in this case serve to reduce the stability of the wall) and it may be nec-
essary for factored water pressures to be included.
The factor of safety equation now becomes:
Restoring Passive
P be seen that, were common design practice to be followed rigidly (using
Overturning Active(umumd >+ Net Overturning
This fundamental point can be relatively easily addressed in limit equi-
librium calculations performed by hand. Extra care needs to be taken,
however, when using computer software for the calculations. Some
codes may automatically assume active pressures on the retained side
over the whole length for example, thereby giving a false indication of
factor of safety.
Effect of method of analysis on wall embedment
The actual effect of the low prop on stability and embedment is shown
on Figure 5. Embedments were calculated using effective stresses for
a c'=0 material in saturated conditions. There are significant reduc-
tions in wall length due to the use of the low prop, and embedment can
be seen to be relatively independent of both factor of safety and angle
of friction.
The simple calculations were extended by considering a real design
case. A series of calculations for a wall retaining 8.5m of saturated
granular material, embedded into London clay were performed to
determine the variation in calculated embedment for various assump-
tions regarding propping, factors of safety and mobilised soil
strengths. This process is typical of that commonly performed for the
actual design of a specific wall. For the low propped sections Nyaoro's
Ide)
distribution was used. The results are summarised on Figure 6. It can
Water Net Restoring Water the current recommendations of CIRIA 104 say) then the short term
temporary construction case (with a high prop) would govern wall
length, and the benefits of the low-prop system would not be obtained.
This may well be the reason for the deeply embedded low-propped walls
shown in Figure 1.
The reason why the temporary case is significant is due to the con-

ni I)rs 1.35

mp"-tomf iljjsla:l(p,:,::,=,,:,:i5),: 0.8

liiis ~la; wutiBI'rs(Ss

8.6
piiap= relained off ive slrese; exon ed - late( stress
P'=.2'0) 8.4
3.3

oryu prop; femian sroo geatiue.gfreW; total:Oficog.eigevrhere

(FP 8 0) 4.9
((Fm = $.,6) 3.8

Love peiriiansnt pgop ar. 1 gm bid: el(ective stress (pP m r 8)

Ldwper(r(snerrtprapsfror(baal=-nurr(erlcal yarsmdlridaiody(ps~ I 9) ------------------- 34

t I d I \
4 6 8
Ernbedntsntu length far 8.5m retained height (rn}

Figure 6. Calculated wall embedment for an 6.6m retained height using a variety of design assumptions.

GROUND ENGINEERING OCTOBER 1996 39

 PAPER DESIGN OF LOW-PROPPED EMBEDDED RETAINING WALLS
rary works design. The aim is to reduce cost and save time whilst assur-
ing safety.
Powderham (1994) presents a case study of retaining walls for the
Channel Tunnel. The Observational Method was used to reduce the
amount of temporary support required for a multi-propped wall. The
design was based on CIRIA 104's 'mixed total/effective stress'pproach
using 'most probable'arameters. Even so, this approach was consid-
ered to be conservative due to the use of plane strain analysis, and a
relatively high factor on restoring moments. Construction/excavation
was monitored and kept within predefined tolerances by control of
phasing of works. Additional propping was available in the case of tar-
get measurements being exceeded. Excavation phasing was controlled
by limiting the maximum width open at any one time, thereby not rely-
ing on any three-dimensional behaviour of the ground. Following
small measurements of wall movements this width was increased to
ease construction without compromising stability or serviceability.
This is a good example of how an observational approach could be
adopted for low-propped walls in stiff clays, whereby contingency mea-
sures (such as additional propping or the ability to partially backfill if
necessary) are provided for the short term case in order to obtain the
benefits of reduced embedment for the permanent (long term) case.
Other aspects of wall design
The design of walls has been centred in this paper on determining a
safe economic wall length. The numerical analyses are an important
part of the general design process however because, for this structural
form, the use of lower bound soil strength parameters is not conserva-
tive. This can be seen in the increase in bending moments in the wall
beneath the prop when soil strength increases. As interpretation of
soil parameters is generally a highly conservative process, this does
not provide a correct approach to design. Attempts must be made for
this case to determine the 'best estimate'r 'most probable'arameters
and design accordingly.
The structural design work which needs to be considered is usually
directed towards the form of the permanent prop and its connection to
the wall. Two options which have been considered are:
~ discrete reinforced concrete props below carriageway level; and
~ a continuous unreinforced slab forming the road carriageway.
The choice of option is not straightforward, although it is interesting
to note that recent designs performed by contractors tend towards the
slab, suggesting cost, time and ease of construction benefits.
Designs with discrete props usually place the props sufficiently
below the road carriageway to allow for installation and maintenance
of drains placed above them. This requires greater depths of excava-
tion, and hence a deeper wall. There are also concerns with ride quali-
ty over the props.
For the unreinforced slab, the system relies on the self-weight of the
slab and the compressive forces from the walls to overcome any tensile
actions caused by heave of the ground. Attention has to be given to the
expected long term heave, and to providing suitable drainage measures
to deal with this throughout the design life of the wall. Any build up of
water pressure beneath the slab will reduce its effective self weight and
reduce its stability. Other options are to precamber the slab/prop such
that the heave forces serve to prestress it, or to provide a tension pile at
the centre of the excavation.
Whichever option is adopted, its connection to the wall must be con-
sidered. 'Pinned'oints have been constructed using PTFE coated semi-
circular seatings for both individual props or slabs. For partially or
fully fixed connections the possibility of transfer of moments from the
wall to the prop, or vice versa, should be addressed. Analyses show that
with discrete props the wall transfers quite sizeable moments to the
props due to the large relative stiffness between the wall and the prop.
With continuous slabs the stiffnesses are of similar order. It is also pos-
sible for a sufficiently stiff slab to transfer moment to the wall during
long term heave.
The measurements of prop forces and bending moments from the
instrumented schemes are important. Most, if not all, cases show that
the major factor in prop loads is temperature, with large daily varia-
tions being recorded. Experience seems to show that measured loads
are significantly less than those 'predicted'uring design. This is prob-
ably due to overconservatism in design, 'poor'implistic methods of
analysis, and the effects of construction sequence. It may also be linked
to the low bending moments which have been measured in the instru-
mented walls. At Bell Common this was attributed to the low stresses
measured in the Sm zone behind the wall. It is not clear however
whether the pressures will come back onto the wall in the intermediate
to long term. It would not be unexpected for the prop forces to then also
increase. Without further long term measurements it would not be pru-
dent to reduce safety factors in permanent prop design.
GROUND ENGINE()RING OCTOBER 1996
IN STIFF CLAYS
Conclusions
The rigid use of limiting earth pressures has been examined and found
to be not truly representative for the design of low-propped walls. The
simplistic assumption of fully reversed pressures below the prop pro-
vides a design which relies on passive pressures which are unlikely to
be developed in practice. Rigid and consistent definitions of factor of
safety need to be adopted and care taken with the use of historically
determined factors.
Design in heavily overconsolidated clay using current recommenda-
tions developed for other propping conditions provides a considerably
overconservative solution. A modified earth pressure distribution pro-
posed by Nyaoro which accounts for low strains close to the low prop,
in conjunction with a mixed total/effective stress approach using con-
ventional factors of safety, has been shown to produce an economic yet
still safe and conservative design.
Numerical methods are recommended as a fundamental part of the
design of low-propped walls. This will enable the potential cost savings
to be realised in reducing wall lengths, and allow better determination
of bending moments, shear forces and displacements. Observational
techniques should be adopted wherever possible in the construction of
low-propped walls.
Bolton, MD & Steward, DI (1994). 'The effect on propped diaphragm walls of rising
groundwater in stiff clay'. Geotechnique 44 Nol.
BS 8002 (1994). 'Earth Retaining Structures'. BSI.
Carder, DR; Carswell, IG & Watson, GVR (1994). 'Behaviour during construction of a
propped diaphragm wall in stiff clay at Walthamstow'. TRL Project Report 17.
Carswell, I; Carder, DR & Gent, AJC (1993). 'Behaviour during construction of a propped
contiguous bored pile wall in stiff clay at Walthamstow'. TRL Project Report 10.
Darley, P; Carder, DR & Alderman, GH (1994). 'Behaviour during construction of a
propped contiguous bored pile wall in stiff clay at Rayleigh Weir'. TRL Project Report 23.
Li, ESF (1990). 'On the analysis of singly-propped diaphragm walls'. PhD Thesis,
University of London.
Miles, SR (1991). 'On the stability of retaining walls propped at carriageway level'. MSc
Thesis, University of London
Mott McDonald (1992). 'LRO retaining wall review'. Proceedings of the Retaining Wall
Symposium, Department of Transport, London Regional Office.
Naoro, DL (1989). 'Analysis of soil-structure interaction by finite elements'. PhD Thesis,
University of London.
Padffield, CJ & Mair, RJ (1984). 'Design of retaining walls embedded in stiff clay'. CIRIA
Report 104.
Peck, RB (1989). 'Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil
mechanics'. Geotechnique 19 No2.
Potts, DM & Fourie, AB (1984). 'The behaviour of a propped retaining wall: results of a
numerical experiment'. Geotechnique 34 No3.
Powderham, AJ (1994). 'An overview of the observational method: development in cut
and cover and bored tunnelling projects'. Geotechnique 44 No4.
Richards, DJ & Powrie, W (1994). 'Finite element analysis of construction sequences for
propped retaining walls'. Geotechnical Engineering, Proc Institution of Civil Engineers
107.
Symons, IF (1992). 'Design of embedded retaining walls in stiff clays'. TRL Research
Report 359.
Tedd, P; Chard, BM; Charles, JA & Symons IF (1984). 'Behaviour of a pi'opped embedded
retaining wall in stiff clay at Bell Common Tunnel'. Geotechnique 34 No4.
41