Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Analysis of tieback walls using proposed P–y curves

for coupled soil springs
Sangseom Jeong *, Donghee Seo
Department of Civil Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea

Received 12 November 2003; received in revised form 19 April 2004; accepted 5 May 2004
Available online 26 August 2004

Abstract

This paper describes a simplified numerical procedure based on the beam on elasto-plastic foundation modeling for analyzing the
response of construction sequence on tieback walls in decomposed granite soils (SP). The analytical method of the soil–wall inter-
action is developed by taking into account the soil spring (P–y curves) coupling effects based on the Vlasov model. A framework for
determining the soil spring constants is proposed from laboratory model tests and numerical analyses. Through comparisons with
case studies, it is found that the sequential behavior of tieback walls using coupling between soil springs agrees the general trend
observed by small- and full-scale tests, and thus represents a significant improvement in the prediction of load–deflection relations
of tieback walls.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tieback wall; Coupling effect; P–y curves; Granite soil; Sequential behavior; Soil–wall interaction

1. Introduction physical weathering of granite-gneiss of varying thick-

South Korea suffers from serious lack of land space
due to its high population of about 47 million people
on a little less than 100,000 km2 of land and the fact that
75% of the land space is mountainous. Since 1980, a
number of huge excavation projects such as under-
ground space for constructing power stations, subways,
high-speed railways, and many lifeline constructions
have been performed in urban areas. Tieback walls such
as the slurry walls and soldier pile and lagging wall are
frequently used in those areas as temporary excavation
proceeds. Over 90% of the tieback walls constructed in
Korea are embedded in decomposed granite soils (clas-
sified as SP or SM by USCS method). The weathered
soils, which occupy two-third of the total land area of
the Korean peninsula, are generally the results of the
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-2123-2800; fax: +82-2-364-
5300.
E-mail address: soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Jeong).
nesses ranging up to 40 m.
Since Coulomb and Rankine started to examine the
effect of lateral earth pressure acting on a wall, much
work has been done in the area of soil–structure interac-
tion of rigid retaining walls. Relatively little work has
been done on flexible walls, and hardly anything
on sequential behavior of flexible walls. Sequential
soil–wall behavior is complicate since many complex con-
struction sequences, different soil conditions, initial con-
ditions, and rigidities of wall and anchor are involved.
Several empirical and numerical methods have been
proposed for analyzing the sequential behavior of tie-
back walls. Although these methods make slightly differ-
ent assumptions, they can generally be classified
into three main groups: (1) empirical pressure methods
[1–3], (2) beam-column methods [4–7], and (3) finite-ele-
ment methods [8–10]. A comprehensive study of tieback
walls has been reported by Briaud and Kim [7]. They re-
port that the beam-column method for the design of tie-
back walls is of intermediate complexity between the

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2004.05.003
444 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456
Table 1
Strength parameters of test soil
Soil condition Unit weight ct (kN/m3) Relative density Dr (%)
Dense 15.29 79
Medium 14.41 41
Loose 14.01 24
first and third type of method. This is based on the con-
cept that a set of P–y, F–w, and Q–w curves are recom-
mended for the soil–wall model, construction sequence
of excavation and tieback stressing. A rigorous numeri-
cal approach of the sequential response of tieback walls
is computationally expensive and requires extensive
training because of the three-dimensional and nonlinear
nature of the problem.
The beam-column method has been studied for many
applications in engineering practice. It consists of ana-
lyzing the wall as a structural beam on soil supports
(springs). The spring (soil) modulus is generally not a
constant, but is a nonlinear function of depth and wall
deflection. The significant inaccuracies of traditional
model with independent springs are well known
[11,12]. Therefore, by using nonlinear soil spring, a real-
istic representation of the subgrade reaction can be
established directly in terms of coupled soil resistance
in which the response at any point on the wall interface
affects other points. This subgrade effect may be incor-
porated in the stiffness matrix of the beam by applying
the vertical shear within the subgrade, which can be vis-
ualized as linking or coupling between soil springs. Con-
sequently, the better way to present the wall behavior is
to introduce the role of deflections in calculations such
as a beam column analysis and a coupled set of load–
displacement curves called P–y curves.
The objective of this study is to propose the concep-
tual methodology of tieback wall design by considering
the coupling effect between soil springs using proposed
P–y curves derived from small-scale model tests and
numerical analyses. Comparisons are made between
the soil–wall behavior observed by small- and full-scale
tests and that computed by the proposed numerical pro-
cedures which consider the important mechanism of ver-
tical shear within the subgrade.
2. Model tests on tieback walls
2.1. Test soil
The test soil used in this study was a commercially
prepared decomposed granite soil (SP) from the Joo-
moonjin Silica Company, South Korea. The maximum
and minimum unit weights were found to be 15.8 and
13.5 kN/m3, respectively. The grading curve of the gran-
ite soil showed D10 = 0.41 mm, Cu = 1.17, and Cc = 1.23.
Cohesion c (kN/m2) Internal friction angle / (°) Average N value
n/a 38.7 47
n/a 35.1 34
n/a 32.3 25
Triaxial compression tests were conducted to identify
the effective strength parameters (Table 1). A soil hop-
per was designed to form a uniform soil bed with a re-
quired density. It is controlled by a mechanical system
according to the traveling velocity of the hopper and
the height and quantity of pluviation.
2.2. Test setup and testing procedure
The experimental setup is briefly described below. A
sample box was made of stainless steel frame, and a
transparent front window having a 1000 mm width,
1500 mm length, and 1000 mm height. A celluloid sheet
was attached inside the sample box to eliminate the
potential wall friction. Also, 100-mm high discrete pan-
els were installed on the excavated side of test wall to
simulate the sequential excavation of soil deposits. The
test walls were made of acrylic plates, having 665 mm
in width, 950 mm in height and four different thick-
nesses. To measure the wall rigidity of acrylic plate, ten-
sile tests were carried out according to ASTM D638
with the equipment of universal test machine (Instron
Model 4206). The tip of test walls was simulated as a
hinged condition. The properties of wall and anchor
used in these tests were described in Table 2.
Plan and sectional views of the test devices are shown
in Fig. 1. The instrumented test wall was made by bond-
ing miniature strain gauges at 11 locations on both faces
of the wall to measure bending moment, from axial ten-
sion and compression. The strain gauges were sealed
with a thin membrane to prevent mechanical damage.
Linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were
installed on the front face of the wall to measure the lat-
eral wall displacements with sequential constructions.
Five earth pressure cells were installed on the back face
of the wall so that earth pressure distributions on the
wall were recorded with sequential constructions. The
earth pressure cells were temperature compensated and
had higher sensitivity that can measure very low stresses
accurately. And 11 mechanical dial gauges were used to
measure the vertical ground surface movements behind
the wall.
The flexible anchor wires made of high yield steel were
attached to the wall and then they were threaded horizon-
tally through polythene tubing to avoid the friction be-
tween the wires and soil grains. Next, the anchor wires
were attached to anchor load cells to monitor the applied
anchor load changes with sequential constructions.
 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456 445

Table 2
Material properties for test wall and anchor
Type Thickness t Cross- Elastic Lateral Flexibility number
(mm) sectional area modulus stiffness
q = H4/EI (m4/kN Æ m2) log q (m4/kN Æ m2)
(m2) E (kN/m2) EI (kN Æ m2)
Test wall data
W-1 1.77 1.18E
03 2.632E + 06 0.121E
02 671.39 2.83
W-2 2.88 1.91E
03 2.670E + 06 0.530E
02 153.79 2.19
W-3 3.98 2.64E
03 2.544E + 06 1.333E
02 61.12 1.79
W-4 4.95 4.95E
03 2.665E + 06 2.696E
02 30.21 1.48

Cross-sectional area (m2) Unbonded Elastic modulus Horizontal Angle of

length (m) E (kN/m2) spacing of inclination (°)
anchors (m)
Anchor data
0.385E
06 1.04 9.28E + 07 0.33 0

Sample box

335
Side block

Flexible tube
Anchor wire

665
Anchor-stressing
device

1040 460
Anchor load cells
Dial gauges
10 10 10 10
250

1000
250

950
15
15
350

Sample box

Fig. 1. Test devices.

In these tests, anchor load cells were composed of full gauges, LVDTs, earth pressure cells, and anchor load
bridge circuits used to improve the sensitivity of the cells was acquired using a 30-channel carrier frequency
strain-gauged transducers. The output from the strain amplifier and a computer data-acquisition system.
446 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456

The magnitude of side friction effects and the 12

Dense (Dr=79%)
dimensions of the wall necessary to reduce side fric-

Lateral Earth Pressure, P (kN/m2)

Measured
tion effects to negligible proportions were analyzed. 10 Best-fit(A=15, B=4.5)
Based on the literature review [13], the width/height
8
ratio of 0.7 was applied for test wall. All measure-
ments of the sequential behavior of soil–wall system 6
were performed on the central portion which is not
affected by the side friction. Simultaneously, about 4
1-mm gap between the test wall and the sides of the
sample box was maintained and frictionless tapes were 2

attached on the test wall to eliminate the potential

0
side friction effects. Through pre-tests, any wall dis-
placement and ground settlement were not observed -2
between the central- and side-parts of the wall. This -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
shows that all measured values do not have significant (a) Lateral deflection, y (mm)
side friction effects.
12
Medium (Dr=41%)
Measured

Lateral Earth Pressure, P (kN/m2)

2.3. Model testing 10 Best-fit(A=13, B=5.5)

Two series of model tests were carried out to both 8

investigate the earth pressure–deflection curves of tie-

6
back walls placed in sand soils and validate the coupling
effect of soil springs. 4
First, the ‘‘active wall’’ tests were performed to
generate the active state side on the P–y curves and 2
so unsupported excavation proceeds until the plastic
soil movement occurred. Next, the corresponding 0

curve for the passive state side of P–y curves was con-
-2
structed by performing the ‘‘passive wall’’ tests in
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
which anchor force was gradually increased until the (b) Lateral deflection, y (mm)
plastic soil movement occurred. In these tests, the
earth pressures behind the wall were measured directly 12
Loose (Dr=24%)
with earth pressure cells and the corresponding lateral
Lateral Earth Pressure, P (kN/m2)

Measured
displacements of the wall were measured with LVDTs 10 Best-fit(A=14, B=6.5)
in front of the wall at the same locations as those of
8
earth pressure cells. For an unsupported excavation
stage, the wall displacement occurring at a certain 6
depth is related to the earth pressure at that depth.
For an anchor-stressing stage, the wall moves back 4
into the soil mass due to the anchor force. Therefore,
the measured earth pressure can be related to the 2

change in deflection between the two stages (i.e., be-

0
fore and after anchor stressing stage).
Through these model tests, the characteristic earth -2
pressure–deflection curves were experimentally con- -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
structed and showed the continuous nonlinear behav- (c) Lateral deflection, y (mm)
ior between the maximum passive and minimum
active earth pressure (Fig. 2). Therefore, the following Fig. 2. Nonlinear P–y curves (test wall): (a) dense (Dr = 79%);
(b) medium (Dr = 41%); (c) loose (Dr = 24%).
best-fit nonlinear P–y curve function can be
introduced:
ðpp
pa Þ
pðxÞ ¼ B þ pa ; ð1Þ imum active earth pressure, respectively and A, B are
ð1 þ AyðxÞ Þ
curve-fitting constants for soil conditions. Fig. 2 shows
where p(x) is the earth pressure at wall deflection y(x), pp predicted earth pressure characteristics using Eq. (1).
and pa are the maximum passive earth pressure and min- The interpolated P–y curves were then verified by com-
 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456 447

Table 3
Construction stages for the test wall
Construction Schematic of Event
stage construction
Stage 1 Excavation to 0.15 m
Stage 2 Stressing the first
anchor at 0.10 m
Stage 3 Excavation to 0.40 m
Stage 4 Stressing the second
anchor at 0.35 m
Stage 5 Excavation to the
final depth 0.65 m
Stage 6 Stressing the third
anchor at 0.60 m

conditions (Table 1) and wall rigidities (Table 2). In all

cases the construction sequences were composed of
excavation and anchor stressing stages as shown in
Table 3.

3. Parametric study

The above function p(x) is a direct function of the

Fig. 3. Element mesh and boundary conditions.
wall deflection (y) and curve-fitting constants (A, B). A
major parameter influencing the p(x) function is curve-
fitting constants (A, B). To obtain detailed information
on the full-scale behavior of the soil spring modulus, a
series of numerical analyses on A and B were performed
for different soil conditions.

paring the results with the measured wall deflections and 3.1. Finite-element modeling
earth pressures.
Second, in order to validate the coupling effect of soil The response of a tieback wall was analyzed by
springs, 12 model tests were performed for different soil using a 2D nonlinear finite-element approach. The

Table 4
Material properties and geometries
Cross-sectional Lateral stiffness Axial stiffness Section Horizontal Wall width (m) Ri
area (m2) EI (kN Æ m2) AE (kN) modulus (m3) spacing (m)
Wall data
7.063E
03 1.147E + 04 1.454E + 06 7.195E
04 2.438 0.155 0.7

Soil Relative N value Unit weight Internal friction Modulus of

condition density Dr (%) ct (kN/m3) angle /(°) elasticity Es (kN/m2)
Soil data
Loose 15 11 14 30 8426
25 13 16 31 9958
35 14 17 32 10,724

Medium 45 16 18 33 12,256
55 18 19 34 13,788
60 20 19 35 15,320
65 22 20 36 16,852

Dense 70 26 20 38 19,916
75 31 21 40 23,746
85 36 22 42 27,576
448 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456

2D model includes standard plane strain finite-element rollers to allow downward movement of soil. The wall
techniques. The finite-element mesh for a typical case element was assumed to remain elastic at all times,
is shown in Fig. 3. The mesh consisted of 2D six- while the surrounding soil was idealized as a Mohr–
noded solid triangular elements and was assumed to Coulomb elasto-plastic material. The interface element
be resting on a rigid layer, and the vertical boundaries was composed of 1D quadratic three-node elements,
at the left- and right-hand sides were assumed to be each element a one three-node surface compatible with
the adjacent solid elements (the two surfaces coincide
initially). The Coulomb
s frictional criterion was used
350
Calculated(Dense, Dr=70%) to distinguish between elastic behavior, where small
Lateral Earth Pressure, P (kN/m2)

Best-fit(A=15, B=5.5) displacements can occur within the interface, and plas-
300 Calculated(Dense, Dr=85%)
Best-fit(A=16, B=4.5) tic interface behavior (slip). The interface properties
250 were taken from the associated soil properties sur-
rounding the wall using the strength reduction factor
200 (Ri) as follows:

150
ci ¼ Ri  csoil ; tan /i ¼ Ri  tan /soil ; ð2Þ
where ci and /i are the cohesion and friction angle of
100
the interface, csoil and /soil are the cohesion and friction
50
angle of the soil mass. This model was selected in the ele-
ment library of PLAXIS [14], the commercial finite-
0 element package used for this work.
-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 It was assumed that for the active state of the wall,
(a) Lateral deflection, y (m) the unsupported excavation construction proceeded up
350
to the final 10 construction stages by 1.0 m per stage,
Calculated(Medium, Dr=45%) whereas for the passive state of the wall, the anchor
Lateral Earth Pressure, P (kN/m2)

Best-fit(A=14, B=5.5)
300 Calculated(Medium, Dr=60%) force was applied back into the soil mass in about 10
Best-fit(A=13, B=5.5) equal increments after zero initialization of wall dis-
250 placement due to excavation. Table 4 shows material
properties used in a series of numerical analyses. The
200
elasto-plastic analyses were based on an iterative and
150 incremental procedure to take into account the earth
pressures and wall displacements for construction
100 stages.

50

0 Table 5
-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40
Curve-fitting parameters A and B
(b) Lateral deflection, y (m) Soil Relative Internal friction Curve-fitting
condition density Dr (%) angle / (°) constants
350
A B
Lateral Earth Pressure, P (kN/m2)

Calculated(Loose, Dr=25%)
Best-fit(A=15, B=6.5)
300 Calculated(Loose, Dr=35%) Loose 15–35 Less than 32 14–15 6.5
Best-fit(A=14, B=6.5) Medium 35–70 33–37 13–14 5.5
250 Dense 70–85 Larger than 37 15–16 4.5

200

150

100

50

0
-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40
(c) Lateral deflection, y (m)

Fig. 4. Nonlinear P–y curves (parametric study): (a) dense;

(b) medium; (c) loose. Fig. 5. Modeling of an anchored wall.
 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456 449

3.2. Curve-fitting constants for proposed P–y curve
The earth pressures and wall displacements were cal-
culated for different construction stages and anchor
loading increments. Fig. 4 shows typically the best fit-
ness of nonlinear P–y curves for the 10 relative densities
studied and Table 5 shows curve-fitting constants A and
B for weathered soils based on the regression analysis.
Finally, the proposed P–y curve of tieback walls in
sand soils can be obtained by substituting A and B into
Eq. (1). As expected, due to different soil conditions, dif-
ferent P–y curves were observed.

Start

Input
(a) general geometries
(b) soil, wall, anchor properties
(c) construction sequences

Construction sequence (j)

Supposes y=0

Based on Lab. model tests

Constructs proposed wall P-y curves
and FE analyses

Yes
Anchor lock up Constructs anchor P-y curves

No
Determines K1 and K2 parameter (Eq. 6)
Iteration loop
j = j +1

Determines total lateral earthpressures

and coupled stiffness of soil springs

Solves governing equation (Eq. 8)

by imposing boundary conditions

No ŷ : calculated wall displacement

y-y<
^ ε
ε: user-specified closure tolerance
Yes
Outputs the profiles of displ., earth pressure,
shear force, and bending moment

No
j = final stage

Yes

End

Fig. 6. YS-EXCAD flow chart of computer program.

450 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456

0 0

0.2 0.2

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing (no coupling)
1 1
-10 0 10 20 30 40 -0.005 -0.0025 0 0.0025
Lateral Displacement (mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(a)
0 0

0.2 0.2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing (nocoupling)
1 1
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075
Lateral Displacement (mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(b)
0 0

0.2 0.2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing (no coupling)
1 1
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Lateral Displacement (mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(c)

Fig. 7. Measured and predicted response for the test wall (W-1, Dr = 79%): (a) stage 1; (b) stage 3; (c) stage 6.
 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456 451

0 0

Depth (m) 0.2 0.2

Depth (m)
0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing (no coupling)
1 1
-5 0 5 10 15 20 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005
Lateral Displacement (mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(a)
0 0

0.2 0.2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing (no coupling)
1 1
-5 0 5 10 15 20 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Lateral Displacement (mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(b)
0 0

0.2 0.2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6

0.8 0.8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing (no coupling)
1 1
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Lateral Displacement (mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(c)

Fig. 8. Measured and predicted response for the test wall (W-4, Dr = 41%): (a) stage 1; (b) stage 3; (c) stage 6.
452 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456

4. Method of analysis by coupled soil resistance coupling between soil springs. Therefore, in this study
an improved subgrade model proposed by Vallabhan
4.1. Beam on elasto-plastic foundation model and Das [12] was incorporated to involve the soil
spring-coupling effects as
In this study, a proposed set of nonlinear P–y curves
is used as input to study the behavior of the tieback o2 y
pðxÞ ¼ K 1  y
K 2 ; ð5Þ
walls which can be modeled as a beam resting on nonlin- ox2
ear soil spring supports. The following describes the pro- where K1 is the coefficient of subgrade reaction and K2 is
posed methodology. the constant to consider the vertical shear within the
During excavation, a wall is placed to retain the soil subgrade. The spring-coupling effects are then incorpo-
and the anchors are installed at regular intervals (Fig. 5). rated in the term involving the second derivative of
The governing differential equation for the response of y(x). In addition, the values of K1 and K2 parameter
the wall can be formulated from different stages for can be determined by using modified Vlasov model
proper simulation of the construction sequence as [12] as shown in Eq. (6) because the coefficients are de-
follows: fined explicitly in terms of the elastic parameters and
thickness of the subgrade.
(1) Unsupported excavation stage
0000
Es  ð1
mÞ Es  D Gs  D
EIyðxÞ ¼ qðxÞ
pðxÞ: ð3Þ K1 ¼ ; K2 ¼ ¼ ; ð6Þ
ð1 þ mÞð1
2mÞD 6ð1 þ mÞ 3
(2) Anchor stressing stage
  where Es is the modulus of elasticity on subgrade soil, D
0000 AE0 is the horizontal distance from the wall, which corre-
EIyðxÞ ¼ qðxÞ
pðxÞ þ cos h y 
LS sponds to the end of the influential zone for the wall,
and m is the Poisson
s ratio of soil.
¼ qðxÞ
½pðxÞ þ K s  y  ; ð4Þ
The wall pressure-deformation behavior can then be
where p(x) = K1 Æ y(x), EI is the flexural stiffness of the expressed as
wall, y the wall deflection, y* the wall deflection after an- ½K w fy w g ¼ fP g; ð7Þ
chor is locked-off, q the earth pressure at zero deflection
of the wall, K1 Æ y the load on the wall at a depth x per where [Kw] is the wall stiffness matrix, {yw} is the nodal
unit height of wall and per unit width of wall, K1 the displacement vector, and {P} is the lateral nodal load
Winkler
s coefficient of subgrade reaction of soil [15], vector, which is represented by any externally applied
Ks the anchor stiffness, AE 0 the axial stiffness of anchor, load.
L the unbonded length of anchor, S the anchor-installed
spacing, and h is the anchor-installed angle. 4.2. Solution procedure

In classical solution, K1 is assumed as the constant
value independent of both x and load magnitude. The
significant inaccuracies of Winkler
s hypothesis with a
constant value of K1 are well known [11,12]. The
hypothesis ignores the important mechanism of vertical
shear within the subgrade, which can be physicalized as
In this paper, a model to compute loads and defor-
mations of anchored walls with excavation stages is de-
rived based on proposed P–y curves earlier. Simple
numerical solution procedures are developed for fairly
general conditions (nonlinear stress–strain behavior at
the soil–wall interface and non-homogeneous soil condi-

Table 6
Material properties (one-row anchor wall at Texas A&M University)
Unit weight ct (kN/m3) Cohesion c (kN/m2) Internal friction angle / (°) Average N value
Soil data
18.1 n/a 32.0 15 blows/0.3 m

Excavation depth (m) Embedded depth (m) Diameter of soldier pile (m) Lateral stiffness EI (kN Æ m2)
Wall data
7.620 1.524 0.259 3.588E + 04

Lock-off load (kN) Unbonded length (m) Stiffness of tendon (kN/m) Horizontal spacing of anchors (m) Angle of inclination (°)
Anchor data
3.050E + 02 4.572 2.025E + 04 2.438 30.0
 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456 453

tions). A finite-difference approximation of Eq. (7) by

taking into account the soil coupling of P–y curves
can be written as
 
K 2 h2
y iþ2
4 þ y iþ1
EI
 
h4 h2
þ 6 þ ðK s þ K 1 Þ þ ð2K 2 Þ y i
EI EI
 2
K 2h

4þ y i
1 þ y i
2 Fig. 9. Construction sequence for one-row anchor wall (Texas A&M
EI University).
h4
¼ ½q þ K s y pi ; ð8Þ
EI i
where qi is the earth pressure at zero deflection of the wall, into several stages to the final excavation on the basis
h is the distance between nodes, and y pi is the deflection of the excavation to the proper excavation level and then
before anchor is locked-off. stressing the anchor. The elasto-plastic analyses are run
A convenient and powerful procedure for solving the to take into account proposed earth pressure–displace-
problem for non-homogeneous soil profiles and compli- ment curves for subgrade reaction modulus through an
cated inelastic P–y curves is to formulate a full set of iterative procedure. The proposed earth pressure–dis-
nonlinear equations by applying Eqs. (1) and (3)–(8). placement curves which represent nonlinear interpola-
The construction sequence for the wall is modeled by tion (Fig. 4) are composed of a series of data points
dividing a series of unloading and reloading sequences which show the active, at-rest, and passive earth

0 0

2 2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

4 4

6 6

8 8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing (no coupling)
10 10
0 10 20 30 40 -20 0 20 40 60
Lateral Displacement (mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(a) stage 1
0 0

2 2
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

4 4

6 6

8 8
Measured
Proposed (coupling)
Existing(no coupling)
10 10
0 10 20 30 40 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Lateral Displacement(mm) Bending Moment (kN-m)
(b) stage 3

Fig. 10. Measured and predicted response for one-row anchor wall (Texas A&M University).
454 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456

pressure coefficient for the full active and passive state of 5.2. Briaud and Kim [7]
the wall.
For each iteration, the wall displacements from the Comprehensive measurements were carried out by
previous solution are used to enter the nonlinear earth Briaud and Kim [7] in their investigations into the
pressure–displacement curves and solution procedures sequential behavior of tieback walls. A full-scale perma-
are repeated until two successive iterations obtain sets nent ground anchor wall was constructed on the Na-
of displacements that agree with a user-specified closure tional Geotechnical Experimentation site. The wall
tolerance at all nodal points. A computer program, YS- had permanent soil anchors, soldier beams, wood-lag-
EXCAD (Fig. 6) has been developed using the proposed ging, and wales. The site characterization, the wall data
method. The case studies described in this paper were and the anchor data are summarized in Table 6. The P–y
conducted using this program. functions are chosen to represent a dry sand soil based
on a numerical analysis. The excavated retaining wall
is presented in Fig. 9 and the measured deflections and
5. Comparison with case histories bending moments at two stages are compared with the
results by the proposed method.
The present method is based on the load-transfer Fig. 10 shows the predicted and observed lateral
model with soil coupling and shear load-transfer func- deflection and bending moment curves for test walls.
tion for sand soil. The validity of the proposed model The analysis by the present approach based on the soil
was tested by comparing the results from the present ap- coupling effect, at most points more closely approaches
proach with some of the measured results in detail in the the measured value both for the unsupported excavation
following section. stage 1 and for the final stage 3 when compared with the
results by the existing solution. This is because the exist-
5.1. Jeong and Seo [16] ing method ignores coupling effect due to vertical shear
transfer load, and thus, overestimates the wall deflec-
As mentioned above, small-scale model studies were tion. It was shown that the coupling effect was more
carried out to investigate the sequential behavior of tie-
back wall on sand. The soil conditions, the wall data and
the anchor data are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Test
stages used in this study were determined by considering
construction sequences of in situ structures (Table 3).
The proposed wall P–y curves presented earlier are in-
put for simulating the excavation stages. Figs. 7 and 8
show representatively the predicted and measured lat-
eral deflection, bending moment profiles at initial, mid-
dle, and final construction stages of two different tests.
The measured bending moment profiles were directly
obtained by analyzing measured strain gauge data
according to the theory of elasticity.
The proposed method by coupling effect of soil
springs predicts accurately the general trend of the (a)
measured deflection and bending moment when com-
pared with the existing analysis: A reasonably good
agreement between the proposed solution and the solu-
tion presented by the existing method is obtained to pre-
dict observed ones for the stage 3. Beyond the stage 3,
the analysis by the existing method has a considerably
larger deflection than that by the proposed method. This
demonstrates that for test walls there exists soil cou-
pling, which is represented by K2 (Eq. (6)), so that this
set of prediction results provides the influence of vertical
shear, particularly as the construction stage is increased
to the final stage 6. It was shown that to mobilize the
vertical shear transfer load acting on the wall, the wall
(b)
deflection may occur relatively up to a certain level
which corresponds to the excavation, exceeding about Fig. 11. Construction sequence for (a) one-row and (b) two-row
50% of the final excavation depth. anchor wall (Yonsei University).
 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456 455

significant for deep excavated walls than for shallow
excavated walls: The deeper the excavated wall, the
smaller the wall deflection caused by the vertical shear
load carried by the wall.
5.3. Kim and Jeong [17]
A full-scale permanent ground anchor wall was con-
structed at Yonsei University campus. The Yonsei Uni-
versity wall is a 22 m high soldier pile and lagging
tieback wall embedded in weathered and hard rocks
through the uppermost weathered sand deposit (Fig.
11). The site characterization, the wall data and the an-
chor data are summarized in Table 7. Only horizontal
deflections were measured from inclinometer wells instr-
umented about 1 m behind a driven soldier beam. No
information was available on the bending moment dis-
tribution in the test walls.
Fig. 12 shows the predicted and measured lateral
deflection in the test walls. Both the proposed method
and existing analysis predict fairly well the general trend
of the measured deflections: The overall distributions
are identical between the present approach and the exist-
ing method because test walls were embedded into a rel-
atively deep depth of weathered-hard rock deposits, and
thus, there was very little coupling effect, K2 caused by
the shear load carried by the test wall. This suggests that
a wall with a strong point resistance (rock-socketed wall
point) will deflect less horizontally and therefore induce
little mobilization of vertical shear transfer load.

Table 7
Material properties (one-row and two-row anchor wall at Yonsei University)
Soil type Unit weight ct (kN/m3) Cohesion c (kN/m2) Internal friction angle / (°) Average N value
Soil data
Weathered sand 17.64 6.37 29.0 10
Weathered rock 18.62 19.60 33.0 16
Soft rock 19.60 39.20 36.0 22
Hard rock 20.58 58.80 40.0 31

Wall height (m) Diameter of soldier pile (m) Lateral stiffness EI (kN Æ m2)
Wall data
22.0 0.3 2.743E + 04

Anchor no. Lock-off load (kN) Unbonded length (m) Stiffness of tendon (kN/m) Angle of inclination (°)
Anchor data (one-row anchor wall)
1st 2.45E + 02 12.5 1.016E + 05 30.0

Anchor no. Lock-off load (kN) Unbonded length (m) Stiffness of tendon (kN/m) Angle of inclination(°)
Anchor data (two-row anchor wall)
1st 1.96E + 02 12.5 1.016E + 05 30.0
2nd 1.96E + 02 11.5 1.016E + 05 30.0

0 0

5 5
Depth (m)

10
Depth (m)

10

15 15

20 20
Measured Measured
Proposed (coupling) Proposed (coupling)
Existing (no coupling) Existing (no coupling)
25 25
-5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15
(a) Lateral Displacement (mm) (b) Lateral Displacement (mm)
Fig. 12. Measured and predicted response for (a) one-row (stage 3) and (b) two-row anchor wall (stage 5) (Yonsei University).
456 S. Jeong, D. Seo / Computers and Geotechnics 31 (2004) 443–456
6. Conclusions
The main objective of the analysis described herein
was to investigate the sequential behavior of flexible
walls embedded in sand soil using model tests and ana-
lytical studies. A limited study of the response of labora-
tory and field tests was performed to examine the soil
coupling effect for staged construction and different soil
conditions. When applied to tieback walls installed in
the sand soil, case studies have clearly demonstrated
the important coupling effect of tieback walls by sequen-
tial excavation. From the findings of this study, the fol-
lowing conclusions are drawn:
1. By taking into account the soil coupling effect, the
proposed P–y function is appropriately represents
the soil–wall interaction for a flexible wall embedded
in weathered soil.
2. The coupling effect is generally more significant for
deep excavated walls than for shallow excavated
walls and the analysis by the present method has a
considerably smaller deflection when compared with
the results by existing methods. When test walls were
excavated into a relatively shallow depth, there was
very little coupling effect caused by vertical shear car-
ried by the wall.
3. The analysis of lateral deflection and bending moment
by the coupling of P–y curves can be applied well on
the flexible wall embedded in weathered soil deposit.
This leads one to think that a wall with a strong point
resistance (rock-socketed wall point) will deflect less
horizontally and therefore induce little mobilization
of vertical shear transfer load.
Acknowledgment
This work reported herein was carried out at Yonsei
University and was made possible with grant No. 971-
1201-002-2 from the Basic Research program of the
KOSEF.
References
[1] Terzaghi K, Peck RB. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. 2nd
ed. New York: Wiley; 1967.
[2] Tschebotarioff GP. Foundation design and construction. 2nd
ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1973.
[3] Cheney RS. Permanent ground anchors. Report No. FHWA-DP-
68-1R, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; 1988.
[4] Rifaat T. Die Spundwand als Erddruckproblem. Mitt. Inst.
Baustatik, Zurich; 1935 [in German].
[5] Haliburten TA. Numerical analysis of flexible retaining structure.
Proc ASCE 1968;94(6):1233–51.
[6] Matlock H, Bogard D, Lam I. BMCOL76: a computer program
for the analysis of beam-column under static axial and lateral
loading. Program developed at the University of Texas at Austin,
under grant from Fugro, Inc., and documented at Ertec, Inc.,
Long Beach, CA; 1981.
[7] Briaud JL, Kim NK. Beam-column method for tieback walls.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 1998;124(1):67–79.
[8] Clough GW, Duncan JM. Finite element analyses of retaining
wall behavior. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1971;97(12):1657–73.
[9] Clough GW, Tsui Y. Performance of tieback walls in clay. Proc J
Geotech Div ASCE 1974;12(100):1259–73.
[10] Clough GW. User
s manual for program SOILSTRUT. Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnical Institute,
Blacksburg, VA; 1984.
[11] Horvath JS. Beam-column-analogy model for soil–structure
interaction analysis. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1993;119(2):358–64.
[12] Vallabhan CVG, Das YC. Modified Vlasov model for beams on
elastic foundations. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1991;117(6):956–66.
[13] Bransby PL, Smith Ian AA. Side friction in model retaining-walls
experiments. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1975;101(7):615–32.
[14] Brinkgreve RBJ, Vermeer PA. PLAXIS user
s and theory
manuals, Professional Version 7.2. Plaxis B.V., Inc., Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 1998.
[15] Winkler E. Theory of elasticity and strength. Prague, Czechoslo-
vakia: Dominicus; 1867.
[16] Jeong S, Seo DH. Evaluation of the sequential behavior of tieback
wall by model test. J Kor Geotech Soc 1999;15(3):113–29.
[17] Kim SI, Jeong S. The sequential behavior of earth retaining
structures using P–y curve with coupling. Research Report No.
KOSEF-94-13-0001-2, Korean of the Science and Engineering
Foundation, Seoul; 1996.