Influence of Unsaturated Earth Berm on

Retaining Structure

Xia Jin-hong1, Li Shun-qun2, Chen Zhi-xiang2

1. Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Xinxiang University,
Xinxiang, 453003, China,
2. School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin Chengjian University, Tianjin 300384,
China.

ABSTRACT
Intercalating earth berm is a common method used in a retaining structure for foundation pit
excavation. Whereas, the routine computation method is not very logical because the earth berm is
commonly considered as an additional load on the passive zone. The purpose of this paper is to
describe a method to estimate the influence of an unsaturated earth berm on a retaining structure.
The proposed method considers unsaturated behaviors of earth berm which can determine
embedment depth, displacement and the internal force of retaining structure in an unsaturated state.
Furthermore, the computed parameters for a retaining structure by the routine method is
compared with those by the proposed method. The results illustrate that the method of setting
earth berm in a pit together with dewatering can decrease embedment depth, displacement and
internal force of the retaining structure. Therefore, the construction method is economical and
environmentally safe when taking into account the unsaturated state and shear strength of earth
berm.
KEYWORDS: earth berm; additional load; internal force; embedment depth; unsaturated
behaviors

INTRODUCTION
It is a common construction method to set earth berm on passive section combined with
dewatering in pit excavation engineering (Zhang et al. 2006). Calculation methods of embedment
depth, displacement and internal force of retaining structures are all for saturated soil and not
involving earth berm (Smethurst and Powrie 2008). Practices prove that earth berm can reduce
embedment depth, displacement and internal force of retaining structures. Especially for bulk
foundation excavation, good economic, social and environmental benefits can be obtained by
adopting construction techniques of earth berm.
At present, the influence of earth berm on retaining structures is either considered as a
surcharge acting on the surface of an excavation pit or calculating the passive earth pressure on
the pit excavation plane using graphical method. That is to say, in excavation projects, the current
study does not consider berm as soil which has its own strength and ability to resist horizontal
deformation. In addition, due to dewatering effects, not only berm but also the soil under the
bottom of the pit within a certain depth is in an unsaturated state. However, the actual
computation method for retaining structures do not allow for the above two problems. Therefore,
it is necessary to carry out the related research.

- 2083 -
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2084

Based on the centrifuge model tests, Powrie and Daly (2001; 2002) researched the behavior
of berm-supported embedded retaining walls. Gourvenec and Powrie (2000) investigated the
effects of the discontinuous earth berm supporting on an embedded retaining wall on the basis of
three-dimensional finite element analysis. Using elastic resistance method, Zheng (2007)
established a calculation method to determine internal force and deformation for retaining
structures with the influence of earth berm taken into account. In this paper, considering the
behavior of unsaturated state, the effective of earth berm on embedment depth, displacement and
internal force of retaining structure are studied, and the corresponding calculation method is
constructed using the elastic resistance method.

BASIC PRINCIPLE AND MECHANISM

In the existing computation methods, the embedment depths of retaining structures are
determined by the moment equilibrium condition, while the displacements and the internal forces
of which are calculated by the elastic resistance method. The loads exerted on retaining structure
include active earth pressure and water pressure on the active side. It is assumed that their
distributions are triangular above the excavation surface and rectangular below it. Horizontal
resistance of soil inside the pit is calculated as passive earth pressure. When considering
dewatering effects and unsaturated behavior of earth berm calculations, a model of pit excavation
is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Calculation model for retaining structure in unsaturated earth-berm pit

Where, the trapezoidal ADEF is earth berm at excavation side, with slope angle and height is
θ and z0, respectively. The triangle CGF is the conventional passive zone and the pit depth is H0.
Polygonal ADEGC is the actual existing soil at the right side of the retaining structure, the
trapezoidal BGED is dredged soil and z2 is the water table due to dewatering. Compared with an
excavation without earth berm, the embedment depth reduction level of the structure has a
relationship with ACGED and triangle ABC, and also depends on suction distribution in an
unsaturated zone induced by water table.
The research indicates that the functions of the earth berm considering its unsaturated
behavior include following aspects: (1) Horizontal resistance of soil under pit bottom is increased
due to additional vertical stress by earth berm gravity; (2) Earth berm can provide horizontal
resistance by itself, which can anchor the retaining structure within excavation depth; (3)
Horizontal resistance and resistance coefficient in the passive zone are increased owing to earth
berm unsaturated state, which is the main reason for reducing embedment depth, internal force
and displacement considering unsaturated characteristics of earth berm.
Because of its limited width, it is necessary to introduce a shape factor for earth berms in
retaining structure engineering, α, to reduce the horizontal resistance and resistance coefficient.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2085

Therefore, the intrinsic mechanical relationship between the shape of earth berm and embedment
depth, displacement and internal force of the retaining structure can be reflected (Fredlund and
Rahardjo 1993). When φ is constant, the slip lines at different depths can be approximated as a
series of parallel lines, and the slip angle between slip line and the horizontal line is (45o-0.5φ),
are shown in Figure 1. For example, a slip line through point M should be a straight line MN, the
soil within MN area can hinder sliding of the upper soil. Due to pit excavation, only the soil in
KM section can produce friction. Therefore, the reduction effect should be taken into
consideration in calculating the resistance of earth berm and in determining the internal force and
displacement of retaining structure. Clearly, the maximum function of resistance of M points
depends on the relative relationship between the line segment NM and KM. The following
formula can be used to describe the character.
S ADKM S
α= = 1 − DNK (1a)
S ANM S ANM
Where, SADKM, SANM, SDNK and SANM are areas of polygon ADKM, ANM, DNK and ANM,
respectively. When the slip line is outside of the earth berm, calculation of reduction factor is
slightly different. For example, the reduction factor through point C is
S ADEGC S
α= = 1 − DBGE (1b)
S ABC S ABC
Therefore, when considered the unsaturated character and the function of earth berm, the
horizontal effective resistance standard value inside the pit can be expressed as
ep′jk = αβ epjk (2)
Where, epjk is horizontal resistance standard value. β is relaxation correction factor considering
free surface at right, about 0.5~1.0, and is determined by soil conditions, slope angle, altitude,
dewatering action and other factors. According to Rankine’s theory of earth pressure, horizontal
resistance standard value, epjk at depth zj, is

=epjk γ mj z j K pi + 2cik K pi (3)

Where

=K pi tan 2 ( 45o + 0.5ϕik ) (4)

γmj is the average unit weight over zj deep. cik and φik are parameters of shear strength. In the
saturated zone, the parameters are consolidated un-drained strength parameters while in the
unsaturated zone are drained strength parameters. For unsaturated soil, it is clear that cik should be
total cohesion. According to the extended Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion by Fredlund (1993),
the total cohesion of unsaturated soil is
cik= c′ + s tan ϕ b (5)
Where, s=(ua-uw) is martic suction, ua and uw is pore air pressure and pore water pressure, φb is the
increase rate of shear strength with suction. Therefore, the equation (2) can be expressed as

(
ep′jk ab γ mj z j K pi + 2cik=
= K pi )
ab γ mj z j K pi + 2 ( c′ + s tan j b ) K pi  (6)

For silt and clay, active earth pressure, eajk, can be expressed as
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2086

eajk σ ajk K ai − 2cik K ai

= (7)
Where

=K ai tan 2 ( 45o − 0.5ϕik ) (8)

σ ajk = γ mj z j When calculation point is located above the area of excavation (9a)

σ ajk = γ mH H 0 When calculation point is located below the area of excavation

0
(9b)
Therefore, embedment depth of cantilever pile or underground diaphragm wall, hd, can be
determined by the following equation.
hp ∑ Epj − 1.2γ 0 ha ∑ Ea i ≥ 0 (10)
Where, Σpj and Σai is the sum of the effective horizontal resistance standard values of every soil
strata respectively inside or outside pit, hp and ha is the distance of the action point of Σpj or Σai to
the bottom of retaining structure, and γ0 is the important factor of the investigated foundation pit.
Because the embedment depth is undetermined, the location of slip surface is also unknown. That
is to say, all parameters in the equation (10) need to be determined except for the importance
factor. Therefore, the embedment depth is determined as a cycle or called a progress of step by
step iteration.

Figure 2: Calculation model for embedment depth of retaining structure

(a) without earth berm (b) with earth berm

Figure 3: The elastic resistance method for computing displacement
and inner force of retaining structure

INTENAL FORCE AND DISPLACEMENT OF RETAINING

STRUCTURE
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2087

Figure 3 (a) shows the conventional calculation model of a retaining structure without earth
berm. Considering the characteristics of unsaturated soil, internal force and deformation
calculation model with earth berm is shown in Figure 3 (b).
According to the principle of “m” method, coefficient of horizontal resistance at certain depth,
ksi, is determined by its proportional coefficient, mi. For the pit excavation model shown in Figure
3(a), there is a relationship as bellow
k si mi ( z − H 0 )
= (11)

For the pit with earth berm shown in Figure 3 (b), horizontal resistance coefficient of earth
berm and soils bellow the pit bottom are also dependent on the proportion factor, but should
consider the shape effect of earth berm simultaneously. Therefore, when calculating the
horizontal resistance coefficient, α and β, must be considered. Namely, horizontal resistance
coefficient can be expressed
=k αβ m ( z − z1 ) (12)

The proportional coefficient of horizontal resistance can be expressed as an empirical formula

of strength parameters, that is
1
mi = (0.2ϕ ik2 − ϕ ik + cik ) (13)
∆
Where, Δ is the displacement of retaining structure at pit bottom, determined by the regional
experience. As substituting the equation (5) into the equation (13), the following equation can be
obtained

=mi
1
∆
( 0.2ϕi2k − ϕik + c′ + s tan ϕ b ) (14)

And then, based on the principles of finite element and section characteristics of retaining
structures as well as mechanical properties of soil, beam elements can be divided as shown in
Figure 3. Therefore, both stiffness matrix of beam and foundation can be established. Further,
stiffness matrix of foundation beam and nodal load vector can be calculated. The horizontal
displacement and rotation of retaining structure can be drawn as using finite element methods.
And exteriorly, moment and shear force can also be determined by applying differential
conditions or static analysis methods.

CALCULATION AND ANALYSIS OF AN EXAMPLE

A foundation pit with single soil stratum is 8m in depth supported by a 800mm thickness
underground diaphragm wall. Soil conditions and retaining structures parameters include E =2.4
×1010Pa for concrete, cik=16kPa and φik=20o and φb=18o for pit soil. Other parameters are shown
in Figure 4. In unsaturated zone, matric suction is assumed as linearly decrease with depth. When
the embedment depth is 8m, calculate the displacements and internal force of this retaining
structure with 0m, 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m and 5m earth berm.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2088

2.3m
1.5m

3m 5m
3.8m
41.8kPa

55.9kPa
130.9kPa

8m
Water table

457.3kPa
Figure 4: Profile for the example and the distributed load & resisting force
Figure 4 shows active earth pressure and horizontal resistance in passive side of pit with 3m
earth berm in height calculated by the overload method. The results indicate that the function of
earth berm on retaining structure is underestimated.
In fact, earth berm and pit bottom soil can also provide some horizontal resistance. When soil
is unsaturated, corresponding horizontal resistance is greater than that of saturated soil. However,
this resistance can be reduced by properly considering size effects. In terms of the method
proposed in this paper, the horizontal distribution of resistance along the depth of pit is shown in
Figure 5. Curves a1, b1, c1, d1, e1 and f1 represent the distributions of the horizontal resistances
along different depths where earth berm height is 0m, 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m and 5m, respectively.
Using the conventional method, the embedment depth without earth berm is calculated as 7.8m.
Based on the method proposed in this paper, the required embedment depths are shown in Figure
6. Obviously the existence of unsaturated earth berm has significantly reduced the required
embedment depth. Therefore, If this construction method for existing earth berms is applied, it
will greatly reduce embedment depth.

Figure 5: The resistance by the proposed Figure 6: Relation for embedment

method for different height depth & earth berm height
Figure 7 is the curve of reduction factor variation of earth berm with pit depth. Curves a2, b2,
c2, d2, e2 and f2 are the distribution of the reduction coefficient due to shape of earth berm along
different depths when there is no earth berm, earth berm height is 1m ,2m,3m,4m and 5m,
respectively. It can be concluded that the higher the earth berm is, the obvious the reduction effect
is.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2089

Figure 7: The reduction coefficient Figure 8:The distribution of horizontal

for earth berm resistance coefficient
The distribution of elastic resistance coefficient of earth berm and pit bottom soil with
various berm height are shown in Figure 8. Identically, Curves a3, b3, c3, d3, e3 and f3 are the
distribution of the elastic resistance coefficient along different depths of above conditions. The
Figure 8 indicates that the elastic resistance coefficients increase with depths. Therefore, it could
be inferred that earth berm has some transfer role on the elastic resistance coefficient.
Figure 9 shows the distribution of displacements and rotations of retaining structure with
various earth berm heights when the embedment depth is 8m. Curves a4, b4, c4, d4, e4 and f4 are
the displacement curves, While a5, b5, c5, d5, e5 and f5 are Corresponding rotational curves.

(a) displacement curve (b) Rotations curves

Figure 9: The deformation curves for different height of earth berm
From Figure 9, it can be clearly seen that the top displacement of retaining structure for the
five conditions are 156mm, 105mm, 61mm, 34mm,17mm and 8mm. Obviously, the measures, in
which taking the function of earth berm and unsaturated characteristics into account, can greatly
reduce the embedment depth. The displacement of retaining structure without earth berm is
greater. Figure 10 is the distribution of bending moments. Curves a6, b6, c6, d6, e6 and f6 are the
moment distribution of retaining structure corresponding to the above five conditions. Form
Figure 10, it can be concluded that the unsaturated earth berm can greatly reduce the moment of
retaining structure.
 Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2090

Figure 10: Bending moment diagram for different height of earth berm
The above example shows that it is not appropriate that earth berm is calculated as the
overload, and its results will be conservative. Actually, unsaturated earth berm, like the pit bottom
soil, can provide the appropriate or greater horizontal resistance which can make the forces of
retaining structure more rational.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the theory of unsaturated soil and principles of elastic resistance method, the
calculation method of embedment depth, displacement and internal force of retaining structure
considering unsaturated characteristics of earth berm is established. The study indicates that the
earth berm has obvious effects on retaining structure. Because of its horizontal support imposing
at the upper section of the retaining structure, the force of the retaining structure is more ideal,
which can greatly reduce the retaining structure embedment depth, horizontal displacement and
internal force. Therefore, when conditions are appropriate, construction methods of set earth berm
inside an excavation pit together with dewatering can greatly reduce not only the embedment
depth of the retaining structure, but the disturbance of the soil. Thus, the construction period and
the investment can be reduced. The good economic, social and environmental benefits can be
obtained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the financial support from Chinese Nature Science Foundation award
No. 41472253, named as “The clay temperature field analysis during freezing process and
application in underground civil engineering”. The authors would like to express our great
acknowledgement to Mr. Fred Evans who provided us many suggestion and help in the process of
test.

REFERENCES
1. ZHANG Yu-cheng, YANG Guang-hua, HU Hai-ying, et al. (2007) “Stability study
of embankment or dam with back berm on soft soil foundation”, Rock and Soil
Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 28(s1), pp 844-848.(in Chinese)
2. J.A. Smethurst, W. Powrie (2008). “Effective-stress analysis of berm-supported
retaining walls”, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 161, No. 1, pp 39-48.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2091

3. Daly M. P, Powrie W. (2001). “Undrained analysis of earth berms as temporary

supports for embedded retaining walls”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering, Thomas Telford Services Ltd, United
Kingdom, pp 237-248.
4. Powrie W, Daly M. P.( 2002) “Centrifuge model tests on embedded retaining walls
supported by earth berms”, Geotechnique, Vol. 52 (2), pp 89-106.
5. Gourvenec Susan M, Powrie William (2000). “Three-dimensional finite element
analyses of embedded retaining walls supported by discontinuous earth berms”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 37(5), pp 1062-1077.
6. ZHENG Gang, CHEN Hong-qing, LEI Yang, et al. (2007) “A study of mechanism of
earth berm and simplified analysis method for excavation”, Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Vol. 28(6), pp 1162-1166. (in Chinese)
7. Chang Feng Yuan, Hai Bin Hang, et al. (2015) “Comparative Analysis of Ground
Settlement Caused by Two Kinds of Tunnel Excavation Method”, Applied Mechanics
& Materials, Vols. 744-746, pp 948-955.
8. DG Zapata-Medina, LS Bryson. (2014) “Method for Estimating System Stiffness for
Excavation Support Walls”, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 138(9), pp 1104-1115.
9. Huang Haibin, Cai Hao, and Zeng Jubo: “The Influence of Foundation Excavation
On the Existing Metro Tunnel in Complicated Environment” Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2014(19.N): 3377-3385. Available at ejge.com.
10. Xiao-jing Feng, Qing Yang, Shou-long Li, and Mao-tian Luan “The Influence of
Facing Stiffness on the Performance of Geogrid Reinforced Retaining Walls”
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2008(13.K): 1-15. Available at
ejge.com.
11. Guo-lin Yang and Quan Shen “Earth Pressure on Reinforced Earth Retaining Wall by
Field Test and Numerical Modeling.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2015(20.16): 9701-9716. Available at ejge.com.
12. Gholam Moradi “Seismic Response Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
Retaining Wall” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2014(19.X):
3819-3835. Available at ejge.com.
13. GW Clough，GM Denby. (2014) “Stabilizing Berm Design for Temporary Walls in
Clay”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 103(2), pp 75-90.
14. Fan J L, Ren Y H, Wu Y H, et al. (2014) “Application of earth berm in Foundation
Pit Engineering”, Applied Mechanics & Materials, Vols. 638-640, pp 389-392.
15. Li G C, Desai C S. (2014) “Stress and Seepage Analysis of Earth Dams”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109(7), pp 946-960.
16. Zhan T L T, Chen R, Ng C W W. (2013) “Wetting-induced softening behavior of an
unsaturated expansive clay”, Landslides, Vol. 11(6), pp 1051-1061.
17. Jaime Bojorque Iñeguez: “Back-Analysis of Slope Failures by Numerical
Techniques” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016(21.02): 615-625.
Available at ejge.com.
Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 05 2092

18. Yuanfu Zhou, Tao Chen, Jianhui Deng, Hongchun Zheng, Yulong Cui “Three-
Dimensional Stability Analysis of Slope Regions Based on Strength Reduction
Method.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2015(20.7): 1689-1698.
Available at ejge.com.
19. Moncur M C, Blowes D W, Ptacek C J. (2013) “Pore-water extraction from the
unsaturated and saturated zones”, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 50(10),
pp 1051-1058.
20. Cheng Y, Zhou A Z. (2013) “Application of Mc Composite Retaining Structure in
the Silt Soil Foundation”, Applied Mechanics & Materials, Vols. 353-356, pp
341-346.
21. Guangqian Du and Wenjuan Zuo: “Dynamic Monitoring and Analysis of
Pile-Anchor Support in Excavation Process” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2015 (20.25): 12671-12678. Available at ejge.com.
22. Kun Song, Echuan Yan, Guodeng Zhang, Haifeng Huang: “Landslide Deformation
Characteristic under Three Gorges Dam Operation” Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2013(18.K): 2243-2250. Available at ejge.com.
23. Liangfu Xie, Cong Sun, Xubin Ren: “Analysis of Reservoir Landslide Deformation
Mechanism Based on the Three-Dimensional Fluid-Structure Coupling” Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2014(19.I): 2023-2032. Available at ejge.com.
24. Kalatehjari R, Ali N. “A review of three-dimensional slope stability analyses based
on limit equilibrium method.” The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2013(18): 119-134. Available at ejge.com.
25. Mehrdad Safaei, Husaini Omar, Bujang K Huat, Zenoddin B M Yousof, and Vahed
Ghiasi: “Deterministic Rainfall Induced Landslide Approaches, Advantage and
Limitation” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2011(16.U):
1619-1650. Available at ejge.com.

© 2016 ejge