CONVENTIONAL AND FEM APPROACH FOR DESIGN OF CANTILEVER SHEET

PILE WALL

Y. K. Bind
Department of Civil Engineering, SHUATS, Allahabad – 211007, UP, India, e mail:yeetendra@gmail.com

Ajaz Ahamed
Department of Civil Engineering, SHUATS, Allahabad – 211007, UP, India, e mail:ajazahamed038@gmail.com

K. Venkatesh
Department of Civil Engineering, MNNIT, Allahabad – 211004, UP, India, e mail:venkatesh@mnnit.ac.in

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding amongst the engineering community to integrate
FEM with conventional approach of design of cantilever sheet pile wall. The conventional methods in the design of sheet
pile walls are based on the limit equilibrium approach and also consider the wall deformation, which is important for
serviceability consideration. This study analyzes three cases of cantilever wall: sheet pile penetrating in the sandy soil with
varying depth of water table is the first and second case respectively and sheet pile penetrating in clay soil is the third case.
The penetration depth is determined using conventional method and GEO - 5 software. Later on, Numerical modeling was
carried out to investigated the variation of wall deformations and moments with depths. The PLAXIS 8.2 software, was used
for numerical modeling of sheet pile wall. The results showed that increasing the sheet pile wall penetration depth can help
to reduce wall deformations. In addition, it can also reduce wall bending moment. It was also observed that conventional
methods are either incapable or very tedious in calculating deformation, bending moment, stresses and displacements etc.
On the other hand, GEO – 5 and PLAXIS 8.2 software have great ability to determine the above parameters at required
depth.

Keyword: Conventional Approach, cantilever sheet pile wall, bending moment and displacements etc.

1.INTRODUCTION
Steel sheet piling is very popular building materials due to various advantages; resistant to high driving
stresses, light weight, can be used several times, long service and lesser deformation etc. steel section of sheet
piles are almost 7-30 mm thick and 400-500 mm wide and manufactured in different lengths depending on the
requirement, Ergun (2008). U, Z and straight line sections are most common shapes of sheet piles
manufactured in different countries. Edges of each sheet piles have interlocking grooves so that every sheet
pile may be connected together. They are inserted into the ground by hammering or vibrating. In a sheet pile
wall, there is a series of sheet pile driven on the edges of the ground, thus creating a continuous vertical wall
with the purpose of maintaining the earth bank Zhao et al 2006, Paikowsky and Tan 2008. They are commonly
used to build structures in front of the water, temporary structures and light weight structures where the sub-
soil is poor for supporting a continuous wall . The wall of a sheet pile completely acquires its stability with the
lateral resistance of the soil in which it is pushed away and called for it, Bilgin 2010 & 2012. However, it is only
economic for the middle heights of the earth only since enough embedding in the soil needs high technical
expertise and great care.

Sheet pile walls were seldom designed before beginning of the 20th Century, dating the first design methods
from the early 1900’s Tsinker (1997). It was in the 1950’s, when sheet pile walls were broadly established as a
solution to solve problems associated with deep excavations near buildings, subterranean structures or below
the water table . The first design methods were based on limit equilibrium and they are still widely used Bowles
(1988), Padfield & Mair (1984) and King (1995). Many authors reviewed conventional limit equilibrium based
design methods and found that failure criteria of a cantilever sheet pile wall is slightly conservative, Day (1999)
and Day (2001). This research is an effort to use the classical method of design of cantilever sheet pile wall
and support it with Finite Element Method to model its behavior. This research analyzes three cases of
Cantilever sheet pile. The effect of water table on the behavior of sheet pile wall and effect of different soil types
has been thoroughly investigated and results are presented in the terms of wall deformation and bending
moments.

1
2.FORMULATION OF CASES
Three different cases of Cantilever Sheet Piles as shown in Fig. 1, 2 & 3 were considered. The retaining height
was kept 5 m and water table was located at depth of 2 m from the ground level in Case -1. Sandy soil was
considered above and below the dredge level. Case-2 also takes into account the sandy soil above and below
dredge level, however, retaining height and water table were considered as 6 m and 3m (from ground level)
respectively. Case-3 considers clay soil below dredge level and sandy soil above dredge level. Water table is
considered 2 m below the ground level. Embedment depth (D) and maximum bending moment were first
determined for these three cases using conventional method (Bowles, 1988) and later on, same was validated
using GEO-5 software. The assumed geotechnical parameters for all three case are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Soil parameters above and below dredge level

Case-1 Case-2 Case-3

Parameters
sand sand clay sand
Unit weight of soil above ground water table,
18 15.9 - 18
ɣdry (kN/m2)

Unit weight of soil below ground water table,

20 19.33 20 20
ɣsat (kN/m2)

Cohesion, c (kN/m2) 0 0 47 0
Friction Angle, ø (Degree) 30 36 0 30

3.PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS IN GEO-5

The problem was formulated in Geo-5 using same soil parameters as shown in Table-1. However, Geo-5 allows
the use of different section of sheet piles as per ASTM A328 grade 50. The geometry and material properties
of these section varies and it was desirable to obtain such a section for which the values of embedment depth
and maximum bending moment are (more or less) same as obtained by the conventional method. Hence, it
was decided to use PZ-type section since they are the most common ones due to their light weight. PZ-22, PZ-
27 and PZ-35 were tested for all three cases. Here numeric term shows the weight / square feet of the sheet
pile. For example, PZ-35 weighs 35 pounds per square foot of wall. Material properties for PZ 22, 27 and 35
sheet pile element are given in Table-2.

Table 2 Material properties of the sheet piles

Properties PZ-22 PZ-27 PZ-35

Normal stiffness, EA 2.877×106 3.654×106 4.557×106

(kN/m/m)
Bending stiffness, EI 24.15×103 52.92×103 103.53×103
(kN.m²/m)
Equivalent thickness, d 0.3173 0.4168 0.7225
(m)
Weight, w 1.0533 1.2927 1.6758
(kN/m/m)
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.15 0.15 0.58

4. FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF STRUCTURE

Finite element modelling consists of four steps: creating the geometry of the model, generating a mesh for the
solid mesh (i.e. dividing the model into elements), applying boundary conditions and loadings, and final is
solution. A number of finite element based computer programs (PLAXIS, SPW911 and Deep Excavation etc.)
may be used for the analysis of cantilever sheet pile wall. PLAXIS 8.2 (2011) software was used for finite
element modeling of cantilever.

Considering the sheet pile wall to extended in the longitudinal direction, a plane strain model has been
developed with model boundary. The soil was modeled using 15 nodes triangular elements and its stress strain

2
behavior was represented by the elastoplastic Mohr-Coulomb model. The whole soil domain is divided into two
main layers, namely foundation soil and backfill soil. The soil structure interface behavior has been described
using elastoplastic model, whose interface strength is defined by Rint = (tanδ/tanφ) where δ is the friction angle
at interface and φ is the angle of internal friction of the adjacent soil mass. The material properties assumed
for sandy soil and clayey soil are summarized in Table 3.

Plates were used for model of sheet pile walls. Plaxis 2D program allows elastic or elastoplastic behavior
in plate elements. Elastic behaviors are defined by two parameters, viz., EA: Normal stiffness; and EI:
bending stiffness. These parameters can be calculated as follows:
Normal stiffness EA = E. h. b. (1)
b
Bending stiffness EI = E × (h3×12 ) (2)
where: E = Young’s modulus, A= Plate area, I= Plate moment of inertia, h= Plate thickness, and b= Plate
width (1m).

The normal stiffness (EA) and the bending stiffness (EI) are defined by the user in PLAXIS and from these
two parameters the PLAXIS calculates an equivalent plate thickness (deq) from equation.
EI 1
deq = h = (12EA)^2 (3)
where deq = Equivalent plate thickness

Plates were modeled using 5-node line elements for sheet pile walls. PLAXIS uses 3 or 5 nodes for
elastoplastic behavior, which has 3 degrees of freedom. Each plate element is defined by 3-nodes when 6-
node soil elements are employed, whereas, 5-node plate elements are used with 15-node soil elements
employed. A 3-node plate element has two pairs of stress, while the 5-node plate element has four pairs of
stress. Within each pair, the stress points are located at a distance 1/6 x√3deq above and below the plate
center line. The assumed parameters for beam/plate element are summarized in Table-4.

Table 3 Material Properties for the soil

Mohr- Case-1 Case-2 Case-3
Coulomb Unit Sand Sand Medium Sand
Parameters (Drained) (Drained) Clay(Drained) (Drained)
ɣunsat [kN/m³] 18.00 15.90 18.00 18.00
ɣsat [kN/m³] 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
kx [m/day] 1.000 1.000 0.100 1.000
ky [m/day] 1.000 1.000 0.100 1.000
einit [-] 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
ck [-] 1E15 1E15 1E15 1E15
Eref [kN/m²] 20000.000 30000.000 10000.000 20000.000
µ [-] 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300
Gref [kN/m²] 7692.308 11538.462 3846.154 7692.308
Eoed [kN/m²] 26923.077 40384.615 13461.538 26923.077
cref [kN/m²] 0.00 0.00 47.00 0.00
ø [°] 32.00 36.00 30.00 30.00
ψ [°] 2.00 6.00 0.00 0.00
Einc [kN/m²/m] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
yref [m] 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
cincrement [kN/m²/m] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tstr. [kN/m²] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rinter. [-] 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Interface
Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral
permeability

Table 4 Material Properties for Beam element

3
 Case Element EA EI w n Mp Np
No. [kN/m] [kNm²/m] [kN/m/m] [-] [kNm/m] [kN/m]
1 pz27 3.654E6 52920.00 1.29 0.15 1E15 1E15
2 pz35 4.557E6 1.0353E5 1.68 0.15 1E15 1E15
3 pz 27 2.877E6 24150.00 1.05 0.15 1E15 1E15

4.1Model Geometry- The geometry of the model was created using the material properties mentioned in
Table 3 & 4. The Plaxis model developed for Cantilever sheet pile penetrating sandy soil is shown in Fig.1
for Case -1. It can be seen that the second black line is located at a depth of 2 from the ground level which
actually shows the level of water table. The third blackline located at a depth of 5 m shows the embedment
depth. The horizontal and vertical extent (100 m and 50 m respectively) of soil region are also clearly visible
in this Figure. Similar geometries were developed for Case -2 and 3 also.

Fig.1 Model Geometry for case-1

4.2 Discretization –The subsequent calculations required the discretization of the problem and it was
achieved by the meshing. The coarse mesh was generated in the preliminary analysis. Then, points or
areas (with concentrations of stress) where better accuracy was desired, were found. The global mesh of
the model in these areas were adjusted. Fine meshes provides better accuracy, however, computing time
increases considerably. Therefore, accuracy of results were compromised (up to certain extent) to achieve
a better balance over time. Initial water pressure and initial effective stresses were specified once after
completion of meshing. An illustration of generated mesh for case 1 is given in Fig 2 below.

4
 Fig.2 Generated mesh for case-1

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Results from Conventional and Geo-5 Analysis
The detailed method of determination of pressure distribution diagram, embedment depth (D) and maximum
bending moment using conventional approach may be referred from Bind et al (2017). The net pressures
distribution diagram (obtained from conventional approach) and the embedment depths are represented in
Fig.3 & 4. The embedment depth and maximum bending moment for Case-1 were calculated as 6.638m
and 280.144 kN-m respectively, for Case-2 were 6.137m and 275.30 kN-m respectively and for Case-3
were 2.424m and 114.661 kN-m respectively.

Fig.-3 Net pressures distribution for Case-1 Fig.-4 Net pressures distribution for Case-2

Geo-5 analysis showed that PZ-27 element was suitable for Case 1 & 3 and PZ – 35 elements was suitable
for Case – 2 since embedment depth and maximum bending moment were approximately same as in case
of conventional method of analysis. The embedment depth and maximum bending moment for Case-1 were
calculated as 6.41m and 279.36 kN-m respectively, for Case-2 were 5.54m and 276.46 kN-m respectively
and for Case-3 were 2.09 m and 112.69 kN-m respectively. Geo -5 has the ability to calculate shear force
and bending moment at various depths. However, it is tiresome task in conventional method to calculate
shear force and bending moment at various depths.

5.2 Results from Plaxis Modeling

Three case simulation through Plaxis modeling were analyzed under different water level condition. Present
study limits the discussion bending moment, shear force and wall penetration depth.

After filling all the details of FEM, the sheet pile was loaded and as a result of loading the mesh gets
deformed and subsequently sheet pile as shown in Fig. 5 for Case-1. Similar deformation were observed
Case 2 & 3 also. With the loading, the initial stresses were generated in the cantilever sheet pile model
penetrating sandy and clayey soil and is presented for case 3 in Fig.6. It can be seen that effective stresses
and pore water pressure were gradually increasing with increasing depth. Also it can be seen that the

5
principle direction gets distorted in the vicinity of soil around and below the sheet pile. They are horizontal
and vertical far from the sheet piles.

The shear stresses were produced in the vicinity of soil as a consequence of loading and are presented in
Fig. 7 for Case-2. The red to blue color shows the highest to lowest shear stresses near the sheet pile. It
can be seen from this figure that the shear stresses are highest around the sheet pile. Similarly, plot of total
and horizontal displacements of soil around the sheet pile may also be obtained from Plaxis modeling.
Though, the displacement of soil is very important, but in present cases such significant loads are not
applied on soil hence, displacement of soils will be nearly zero, Fig - 8.

Fig 5 Plot of deformed mesh for Case-1

Fig. 6 Initial effective stresses in Case-3

Fig. 7 Plot of Relative shear stresses for Case-2

6
 Fig. 8 Plot of total displacements for Case -1

Like the behavior of soil, the behavior of sheet pile may also be obtained in terms of axial force, shear
force and bending moment at each co-ordinate of the sheet pile wall using Plaxis modeling. The axial
force, shear force and bending moment acting on sheet pile is shown in Fig. 9 for Case-1. Similarly, such
distributions may be obtained for Case 2 & 3 also.

Fig.9 Axial force, Shear Force and bending moment distribution in Sheet Pile (Case-1)

Magnitude of maximum bending moment was 163.27 kN-m at the depth of 6.75m below the ground level.
Maximum shear force and axial force were 52.62 KN and 36.44 KN respectively at the depth of 5.58m
below the ground level. For Case-2 the magnitude of maximum bending moment was 118.40 kN-m at the
depth of 6.75m below the ground level. Maximum shear force and axial force were 44.92 KN and 43.74 KN
respectively at the depth of 5.562m below the ground level. Similarly, Axial force, Shear Force and bending
moment were also obtained for Case -3 and its magnitude were 32.43 KN (at 5.36m from GL), 47.86 KN
(at 6.50m from GL) and 92.29 (at 5.36m from GL) kN-m respectively.

7
6 CONCLUSIONS
The analytical study of cantilever sheet pile, penetrating sand soil for case-1 showed that the location and
magnitude of maximum bending moment were much higher in comparison to PLAXIS analysis. This will
ultimately cause considerable increase in the section modulus and subsequent cost of sheet pile. Similar
results were obtained for case-2 and case-3 that is conventional method gave higher depth and higher
bending moment compared to FEM by PLAXIS. It shows the efficiency of FEM over conventional method.
In addition, FEM analysis also shows economical design results. The classical method and Geo5 are either
cannot helps us to know the lateral displacement or tedious in doing so.

REFERENCE

1. Bilgin, O. 2010. Numerical studies of anchored sheet pile wall behavior constructed in cut and
fill conditions. Journal of Computers and Geotechnics, Elsevier, 37, no. 3: 399-407.
2. Bilgin, O., Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients for Anchor Sheet Pile Walls. International Journal
of Geomechanics 2012;12(1):584-595
3. Bind Y. K, N N Harry, Vikas Srivastava and Yogendra Kushwaha, Numerical Study of Sheet
Pile Walls to Facilitate Rural Construction, 4nd national conference on Innovations in Indian
Science, Engineering and Technology, (NCISET-2017), New Delhi 04-05 March, 2017.Bowles,
J. E. (1988) “Foundation analysis and design”. McGraw-Hill, 4thEdition. New York.
4. Day, R. A. (1999) “Net pressure analysis of cantilever sheet pile walls”. Géotechnique, 49,
No.2, 231-245.
5. Day, R. A. (2001) “Earth pressure on cantilever walls at design retained heights”. ICE
Proceedings Geotechnical Engineering, 149, Issue 3, 167-176.
6. Ergun., M.U., (2008). Deep excavations. "Geotechnical engineering handbook, BOUQUET 08",
p.40.
7. Padfield, C. J. & Mair, R. J. (1984) “Design of retaining walls embedded in stiff clay”. CIRIA
Report 104.
8. Paikowsky G. S. and Y. Tan. Performance of Sheet Pile Wall in Peat. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2008;134(4):445-458
9. Tsinker, G. P., 1997. Handbook of Port and Harbor Engineering, Chapman & Hall, New York,
N. Y.
10. Zhao Z, Shen G. Li, Wen Zhao. A Numerical Study on the Influence of Anchorage Failure for a
Deep Excavation Retained by Anchored Pile Walls. Advances in Mechanical Engineering
2006;10(2):1-17