Shoring Design Criteria

SHORING DESIGN CRITERIA
ANCHORED SOLDIER.PILE.AND-LAGGING SYSTEM
HADI J. YAP
ocToBER 1999
UPDATED OCTOBER 2015
NOTES
Anchored (tiedback) soldier-pile-and-lagging system is frequently used to retain

excavation sides on deep excavation projects. There are different opinions regarding
shoring design criteria related to the design shoring pressure, active pressure below
excavation level, passive pressure and shape factor, un-bonded lengths, test loads,
stressing length, and type of concrete below the bottom of the excavation.
In late 1990s, The U.S. Federal Highway Administration completed a series of studies
on anchored walls. They published six reports on this subject; the titles of these
repofts are listed in the reference list, which is attached.
In this seminar we will review and summarize the FHWA studies, and develop
recommendations for anchored shoring design criteria.
REFERENCES
1. Weatherby,D.E., 1998, Design Manual for Permanent Ground Anchor Walls,

Report No. FHWA-RD-97-130, Federal HÍghway Administration, Mclean, VA.
2. Long, J.H., Weatherby, D.E., and Cording, E.J., 1998, Summary Report of
Research on Permanent Ground Anchor Walls, Vol. I: Current Practice and
Limiting Equilibrium Analyses, Report No. FHWA-RD-98-065, Federal Highway
Administration, Mclean, VA.
3. Weatherby,D.E., Chung, M., Kim, N.K., and Briaud, J.L., 1998, 9ummary
Report of Research on Permanent Ground Anchor Walls, Vol. II: Full-scale Wall
Tests and a SoiþStructure Interadion Model, Repoft No. FHWA-RD-98-066,
Federal Highway Administration, Mclean, VA.
4. Mueller, C.G., Long, J.H., Weatherby, D.E., Cording, E.J., Powers III, W.F., and
Briaud, J.L., 1998, Summary Report of Research on Permanent Ground Anchor
Walls, Vol. III: Model-Scale Wall Tests and Ground Anchor Tests, Report No.
FHWA-RD-98-067, Federal Highway Administration, Mclean, VA.
5. Weatherby,D.E., 1998, Summary Report of Research on Permanent Ground

Anchor Walls, Vol. IV: Conclusions and Recommendations, Report No. FHWA-
RD-98-068, Federal Highway Administration, Mclean, VA.
6. Sabatini, P.J., Pass, D.G., and Bachus, R.C., 1998, Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 4, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems, Report No. FHWA-SA-
99-015, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
7. NAVFAC DM-7.2, tg9z, "Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2i'
Dept. of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, May.
TOPICS Page
1. Potential failure conditions to be considered in design of anchored walls 1
2. Typical design steps for an anchored wall. 3
3. Apparent earth pressure diagrams. 5
. Lateral wall movements and earth pressures 6

o Terzaghi and Peck apparent eafth pressure diagrams B
o Apparent earth pressure diagram for sand 10

. Apparent pressure diagram for stiff clay 15
. Apparent pressure diagram for soft to medium stiff clay 23
4. Passive pressure below excavation level. 32
o Wang-Reese Equations 33
o NAVFAC7.2 42
. Bengt Broms 44
. Recommendations for passive pressure 46
. Use of lean concrete below excavation level 50
5. Active pressure below excavation level 53
. Sand 54
o clay 55
TOPTCS (CONTINUED) Page
6. Anchor design 57
o Typical parameters of anchors 5B
. Calculation of anchor loads 60

. Free/stressing lengths and anchor spacing 63
. Factors influencing ultimate bond stress 69
o Typical values of ultimate bond stress 72
. Properties of steel bars and strands 76
7. Anchor Load Testing - Types of test, test loads, procedures,

acceptance criteria, lock-off loads 79
B. Design of lagging for temporary support 93
9. Penetration depths of soldier piles 96
10. Wall and ground movements 100
11. Recommendations for design parameters L04
a Sand - Design Parameters for Soldier-Pile-and-Lagging Temporary

Shoring System 105
o Clay - Design Parameters for Soldier-Pile-and-Lagging Temporary
Shoring System 106
a Typical Earth Pressure Factors, Active Pressures, Passive Pressures L07
1, Potential failure conditions to be considered in
design of anchored walls.
Page 2 from Reference 6
1
f
(a)Tensile failure of (b) Pullout failure of (c) Pullout failure of

tendon grout/ground bond tendon/grout bond
(e) Failure of wall due to

(d) Failure of wall in bending insufficient passive capaôity
(f) Failure by forward rotation (g) Failure due to insufficient (h) Failure by overturning
(cantilever before first anchor installed) axial capacity
(i) Failure by sliding (j) Rotational failure of

ground mass
Figure 11. Potential failure conditions to be considered in design of anchored walls.
27
2
2. Typical design steps for an anchored wall.
3
Table 4. Typical design steps for an anchored wall (modified after FHWA-RD-81-150, 1982).
Step l. Establish project requirements including all geometry, external loading

conditions (temporary and/or permanent, seismic, etc.), performance criteria,
and construction constraints.
Step 2. Evaluate site subsurface conditions and relevant properties of in situ soil and
rock.
Step 3. Evaluate desig¡ properties, establish design factors of safety, and select level
of corrosion protection.
Step 4. Select lateral earth pressure distribution acting on back of wall for final wall
height. Add appropriate water, surcharge, and seismic pres.sures and evaluate
total lateral pressure. A staged construction analysis may bè required for
walls constructed !n marginal soils.
Step 5. Calculate horizontal ground anchor loads and wall bending moments. Adjust
vertical ançhor locations until an optimum wall bending moment distribution
is achieved.
Step 6. Evaluate required anchor inclination based on righrof-way limitations,
location of appropriate anchoring strata, and location ofunderground
structures.
Step 7 Resolve each horizontal anchor load into a vertical force component and a
force along the anchor.
Step 8. Evaluate horizontal spacing of anchors based on wall type. Calculate
individual anchor loads.
Step 9. Select type of ground anchor.
Step l0 Evaluate vertical and lateral capacity of wall below excavation subgrade
Revise wall section if necessary.
Step 11. Evaluate internal and external stability of anchored system.. Revise ground
anchor geometry if necessary.
Step 12. Estimate maximum lateral wall movements and ground surface settlements.
Revise design if necessary.
Step 13. Select lagging, Design walers, facing drainage systems, and connection
devices.
5.2 EVALUATION OF EARTH PRESSURES FOR WALL DESIGN
5.2.1 Introduction
The earth pressure distribution that develops on an anchored wall depends on the magnitude and
distribution of lateral wall deformations. Some rplatively flexible nongravity cantilevered walls
(e.g., sheet-pile or soldier beam and lagging walls which rire not anchored) can be expected to
undergo lateral deformations sufficiently large to induce active earth pressures for the entire wall
height. For design of these systems, theoretical active earth pressure diagrams using either Rankine
or Coulomb analysis methods can be used.
47
+
3. Apparent eafth pressure diagrams.
5
3a. Lateral wall movements and eafth pressures
Page 7 lrom Reference 6
6
a End. of Construction Stressing of the lower gtound anchor results in a local wall
(figure 22)'
deformation pattern similar to that resulting from stressing the upper anchor
pressure bulb also develops at the location of the lower anchor. As a result of
^
excavation to
the excavation
ine nnd design grade, laieral bulging occurs between the lower anchor and
subgrade.
Lateral wall displacemenl, y/H (oÁ)
0.3 0.2 o.l 0.0 '0"1

----r---r---r----l
I
.l
U pper alter excavation

ground anchor
H D€s¡gn earth pressure envelope
Low€r
ground anchor
Lateral wall displac€monl altor

lower ground anchol lock'ofl al 0.75 DL
Lateral wall disPlacem ont
excavation to llnal dêPth
tttlll
-o¡fo¡ 0.2 0.3 0.4 YH I
i
Laleral eatth Pressuro
grade
Figure 22. Lateralwall movements and earth pressures with excavation at design
(modified after FIfWA-RD-98-067, 1998)'
trapezoidal-shaped envelope of earth pressure is also shown on figate 22-

A This envelope is
,.apparent earth pr"r.tit" envelope" and closely approximates the shape and
referred to as an
pressure envelopes are
magnitude of the earth þressures aftei completion of the wall. Apparent earth
assume fully active
described in detail in cirapter 5. It is noteã that earth pressure envelopes which
pressures near the
conditions (i.e., triangulå pressure distribution) would overestimate the earth
excavation subgrade, resuliing in overþ conservative estimates of wall bending
moments and
moments at upper
required wall embedment depth, and underestimate anchor loads and wall bending
tier supports.
I
ground where
The results described above were for a flexible model wall constructed in competent
i
load redistribution from the ground to the supports occuned. This pattern of ea¡th pressure and
deformation may not be appiopriate for watli embedded in weak ground which
may experience
relatively large outwa¡¿ iótatlon of the wall near the excavation subgrade resulting in
the
further in
development õf full active earth pressure conditions. \ilalls in weak ground are discussed
chapter 5.
45
7
3b, Terzaghi and Peck apparent eafth pressure
diagrams
I
rl
I
j
I
1
l
Struts
0.25H 0.2sH
H
0.5H
0.75H
-l
p = 0.65 KfH P = 0.2YH to p = 1.0 KAYH
Kn= tanz (45-6'12l 0.4ïH
rn= t-m
lÊu
m = 1.0 Except as noted
(See Section 5.2.6 for discussion)
(a) Sands (b) Stifi-hard fissur¡d (c) gonto medium
clayr clayc
Figure 23. Terzaght and Peck apparent pressure envelopes (after Terzaghi and peck, 1967, Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).
o The loadingdiagrams apply only to the exposed portion of the wall and not the portion of the
wall embedded below the bottom of the excavation.
For clays, the apparent earth pressure is related to the stability number, \, which is defined as
*'=iúI (Equationg)
where y is the total unit weight of the clay soil, So is the average undrained shear strength of the clay
soil below the base of the excavation, and H is the excavation depth. Standard SI units are:
(kN/m3), Su (kPa), and H (m). As shown in figure 23, two apparent earth pressure envelopes
ï
were
developed for clays to account for differences in earth pressures for clays with relatively low N,
values (i.e., stiff to hard clays) and relatively high N. values (i.e., soft to medium clays). Using these
diagrams for initial reference, specific recommendations for anchored walls are proviãed in
subsequent sections.
5.2.4 Recommended Apparent Earth pressure Diagram for sands
For sands, the value for Ka in figure 23ais given as:
K^ = t^'(qs-El
^ t. 2)
(Equation 10a)
and the maiimum earth pressure ordinate is:
50 ?
3c, Apparent eaËh pressure diagram for sand

Pages 12 through 14 from Reference 1
10
p=0.65KAyH (Equation tOb)
where Q' is the effective stress friction angle of the sand. Using this value of lateral
earth pressure,
the total lateral earth load from the rectangular apparent earth prðssure diagram (figure
23a) ior sands
is 0'65 KuTHt. The recommended apparent earth pressure envelope for single level
anchored walls
and walls with two or more levels of ground anchois is trapezoidal and is
shown in figure 24.
213 H1 213H1
H1
Ttrt
1/3 H
H
Tnz
2t3 (H-H1)
213 Hn+1
t
p= TOTAL LOAD TOTAL LOAD
KnYH
a3H = ' H - 1/3 H1- 1/3 Hn+r g
t
ð
(a) Walls with one level r
(b) Wallswlth multtple tevets
of ground anchors of ground anchorr
Ht = Distance from ground surface to uppermost ground anchor
Hn+r = Distance from base of excavation to lowermost ground anchor
Th¡ = Horizontal load in ground anchor i i,
R= Reac-tion force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e., below base of excavation) I
p= Maximum ordinate of diagram
TOTAL LOAD = 0.65 KAYH2
Figure 24. Recommended apparent earth pressure diagram for sands.
5t //
2.L,4 PhYsical Testing
weight and the shear strength of the soil/rock'

Soil
Testing should focus on estimating the unit Testing
samples and rock cores should ue vizuJÇ
i¿rriin ¿ anddescribed in the laboratory'
tlre testing is completed' soils
requirements vary depending upon n îVít "igl"t"9. Âfter
in Appendix E of the AASHTO Manual on
should be classified following prorrdorËr'á.rrrït¿
Subsurface Investi gations (1 988)'
2.1.4.1 Coarse-grained Soils
Particlesizedistributionsforeachstratumshouldbedeterminedinthelaboratory.Unit pene-
and angles of strearing resistance are estimated from correlations to standard
weights
of cggse grained soils,-l1ble 1 presents
fiation resistance (sPT) values for various types Classi-
,.íuæd to SPT values and the Unified Soil
typical properties of coarse-grained ,ôit,
nðation System (Casagrande, 1948)'
TABLE 1
Tvpical ProPerties of Coarse-g rained Soils
(after Hunt' 1983)
VOID DRY FRICTION
RELATlVE
SPT
(blodft) RAT¡O DENSITY ¡¡6¡6 (z)
SOIL TYPE DENSITY (1) e (pcf) o (des)

127 38
70 0.33
75% (dense)
GP 35
(poorly graded 50 0.39 120
50% (medium dense)
gravel, gravel 114 32
<20 0.47
sand mixture) 25% (loose)
0.43 118 37
75% (dense) 65
SW 34
35 0.49 112
Well-graded 50% (medium dense)
sand, gravellY 106 30
<15 o.57
sand) 25% (loose)
o.52 110 36
75% (dense) 50
SP 33
(poorly graded 30 0.60 104
50o/o (medium dense)
sand, gravellY 99 29
<10 0.65
sand) 25% (loose)
0.62 103 35
75% (dense) 45
SM 0.74 97 32
25
(silty sand, sand 50% (medium dense)
silt mixture) 0.80 93 29
<8
25% (loose)
0.80 93 33
75% (dense) 35
ML 0.90 88 31
50% (medium dense) 20
(silt with little or
no plasticity) 1.0 84 27
<4
25% (loose)
l) and gradation
(2) over rounded
22
IL
TABLE 8
Earth Pressure Factors for Typical Goursegrained Soils
ACTIVE EARTH EARTH

SPT FRICTION TOTAL UNIT
RELATIVE PRESSURE PRESSURE
SOIL TYPE (blow/ft) ANGLE, O llvEtGHT, y
DENSITY COEFFICIENT FACTOR
(rt (deg) (pcO
K. (pc0
75o/o
70 38 0.238 134 20.72
(dense)
GP
50o/o
(poorly graded 126 22.19
(medium 50 35 0.2v1
gravel, gravel
dense)
sand mixture)
25% <20 0.307 117 23.37
32
(loose)
75o/o 127 20.52

65 37 0.249
(dense)
SW
50%
(Well-graded 0.283 118 21.68
(medium 35 34
sand, gravelly
dense)
sand)
25o/o
<15 30 0.333 110 23.83
(loose)
75o/o
50 36 0.260 121 20.42
(dense)
SP
50o/o
(poorly graded 21.46
(medium 30 33 0.295 112
sand, gravelly
dense)
sand)
25o/o
<10 29 0.347 104 23.46
(loose)
75o/o
45 35 0.271 128 22.55
(dense)
SM 5Oo/o
(silty sand, sand (medium 25 32 0.307 115 22.97
silt mixture) dense)
25o/o
<8 29 0.347 102 23.00
(loose)
75o/o
35 33 o.295 122 23.38
(dense)
ML 50o/o
(silt with little or (medium 20 31 0.320 108 22.47
no plasticity) dense)
25o/o <4 95 23.19

27 0.376
(loose)
(1) Adjustments for gradation are after Burmister (1962), no adjustment made for depth of overburden
/3
64
26
tr Poorly gndod grrvclr, gr¡vcl-a¡nd mlxtul!

- GP
A W.ll-¡radod rendr, grevcl¡y ¡¡nd¡
- SW
V Poorly gradrd ændr, grevrlly sand!
- SP
Þ
25 O Sllty randr, rand-¡ilt mixluro
- SM
I O Sllt wlth lltlþ or no plartlclty
- ML
Errth pnssuf! f¡c{or l¡cnd curvc tor coa¡¡}gralnad æll!
r
I
t
-
il Factor of Safety on Shear Strength - 1.3
îIo.9 ra
A
¿2
olL
(r:
Þo
fs o
o
Ë¡
tt3
zs o
I
o
Pr
¡,
o i.
+.a
-!
Fo B
I
ã:22
r¡5o
t- A
v
21
o
Â
v
20
0 20 40 60 80
8PT (blowrlft)
F¡GURE 30
Earth P¡tc¡uru Factor¡ as a Functlon of Standard Penetration Re¡l¡tancc
t
, /r
63
$
1
ft
3d. Apparent eafth pressure diagram for stiff clay

Page 2O through 22 from Reference 1
15
'!tF
i
Table 5. Summary of trapezoidal apparent pressure envelopes for

temporary excavations in stiff to hard clays.
Reference br bz b¡ Range of Total load

maximum pressure
ordinate, p
Terzaghi and Peck 0.25 0.50 o.25 0.2TH - 0.4TH o.l51H2 - 0.3ûyH2
(te67) I
Schnabel (1982) 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.29¡<tt 0.16.Ê12

:i
Winter (1990) o.20 0.60 o.20 0.2yll - 0.3214¡<tr 0.16TÉ12 -0.26yÍf
Ulrich (1989) 4.25 0.50 o.25 0.2ytr - 0.4Tfl 0.15TÉI2 - 0.3ûyI{2
FHWA-RD-75-130 0 1.0 0 0.15ÉI- 0.30¡!4I 0.15fI2 - 0.3ûyII2
(1e76)
This work(2) 0.lry (3)
0.66 o.l7$ O.2TI[- 0.4fH o.t7yr* - o.331rr2
I
Notes: (1) Assumes T=l9.6klrl/m3 brH
(2) Diagram for multiple levels of ground anchors I
(3) Assumes Ht =W4 (see figure 27)

il
(4) Assumes Hn+r = fV4 (see figare2i7) b2H i'
I
l
,i
1
!
I
')l
b¡H rl
For the Terzaghi and Peck apparent earth pressure diagram for temporary loadings in stiff to ha¡d 1
J
fissured clays, (see figure 23b), the maximum ordinate, p, of the diagram ranges from 0.2fI to I
I
0.4TtI. The total load for this diagram is therefore 0.15É12 to 0.30r¡4I2. For an assumed total unit :
weight for stiff to ha¡d clay equal to 20 kN/m3; the total load for this diagram is 3H2 to 6H2 where H !
is in meters and tptal load is in kl.{/m per meter of wall. Ulrich (1989) presented ground anchor load
!
measurements for seven temporary excavation support walls, five of which were construöted in
overconsolidated soils in the Houston, Texas area. For each excavation, the stability number, \, .
was less than 4. Me¿sured loads are plotted on figure 25. kr all but one case (i.e., Site 3), the :
manimum apparent earth pressure ordinate ranges from approximately O.ITH to 0.25yH. These
ma:rimum pr.essure ordinates correspond to a total load using the Terzaghi and Peck diagram of
1.5H2 b 3.75H2, respectively. For Site 3, the apparent earth pressor ** between O.Zigt anA
0.35TH. These m¿¡cimum pressure ordinates correspond to a total load using theTerzaghi and Peck
diagram of 3.75H2 to 5.25F2,respectively.
/é it"t
53
Apparent earth Pressure xYH
0.2 0.4
0
0
20
tf
Terzaohi and Peck Diagram
!
r$ with P-= 9.21¡1
.9 1
c,
E l-'l - Tezaqhi and Peck Diagram
640 ì-{3
with P-= 0.4YH
rú
(ú
()
l-12 Range of measured loads
x(¡)
o
Ë60
o)
g
0)
fL -12
rg tf
80
/
,/ -."
/-."'
cuts
projects (after urrich, 1989' "Tieback supported
Figure 25. Measured anchor roads for seven
Engineering' Vol' 115' No' 4'
in Overconsolidated Soils", Journal oidtot""hnical
RePrinted bY Permission of ASCE)'
roads for a 23-m deep excavation in seattle'

winter (1gg0) presented measured ground anchor silts and clays' Ground anchor
primary support soils were heavily overconsolidated
excavation increased linearly
tiapezoiaar enverope in which the pressure
design loads were carciliated using a wall, and
top of the walr to the maximum pressure over the upper 20 percent of the
from zero at the of the excavation'
percent of the warl back to zelo at the base
decreased rinearly over the rower 20 of the design load as
the actual wall pressur"., ,h" anchors were rocked-off at 50 percent
To evaluate lock-
level of iõ.;;*t of the design load. The purpose of the lower
compared ,o u n'or" **oi loads, not
was to a condition whereby the anchorr- *orild be required to resist actual
off roads loads would have to be higher
just the prestressed roads. v/ithout lower iock-off roads, the actual
"r"u-,"
the design
road measuring devices- Figure 26 shows
than the design varues to register on the The design pressure
as a percentag" ðf ttr" design values.
pressure enverope -¿ ,t recãrded loads in feet)' The actual pressure
"
envelope has a maximum pressure ordinate -iéi åqual to 30H psf (H
psr ano zrr prr'tH ìn feet) indicating that the actual
envelopes for two test section, *"r"
Foi the design pressure (i'e" 30H) envelope'
pressures were 65 to 75 percent of-the *t..f-*ty::: the
ft of wall (¡]zzu2 t<N¡m per meter of wall¡. The total 10ad from
the total road is 24H2 rbfttper
*ti;per rt oi wall (2s8
;';;.árf rf
to 2'76 Í*
leH and 22H actuatpressure "nu"ropiiJi;;"t
kN/m per meter of wall), respectively'
s4 tJ
l]
Test Section W11 Test Section E11

0 20 40 60 80 1000/o
r----T-----f-----r----t-----'l
0 20 40 60 80 1007o
F----r---T---T---T----1
I
4
0 0
HighEst
-10 .10
Hlghest
-20 -20
'30 = '30
-
.o =
o
ct at
õ -¿o õ-æ Flnal
r¿l rrJ
.50 .50
-60 .60
,i
I
30H
9H Deslgn 30H ,l
-80 -80 lHx psf = .1575 H'n kPa
I
'i
,l
Figure 26. Wall pressure envelopes (afterWinter, 1990, '?acific First Center-Performancg of the .l
l
Tieback Shoring Wall", Design and Perfonnance of Earth Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Special
:
Publication No. 25, Reprinted by permission of ASCE).
These results indicate that although the total load from apparent earth pressure envelopes using a
mærimum ordinate of 0.2TtI represents a lower bound value for the Terzaghi and Peck envelope,
measured loads from these actual projects are in reasonable agreement with thrs lower bound value.
Total loads from apparent earth pressure envelopes using 0.4TfI for a maximum pressure ordinate
value are conservative. The recommended apparent earth pressure diagram for temporary
excavations in stiff to hard fissured clays (i.e., < 4) is shown in figare 27. The maximum
N !.
ordinate, p, should be consistent with a total load from the diagram of approximately 3H2 to 6H2 I
kN/m per meter of wall. Some designers have developed similarly shaped, but alternative, apparent
earth pressure diagrams for stiff to hard clays. These alternative apparent earth pressure diagrams
may also be used provided that the total load for the diagram is at least 3H2 kN/m per meter of wall
A minimum total load of 3H2 kN/m per meter of wall is recommended for all cases. If an apparent
earth pressure envelope with a total load of less than or appioximately equal to 3H2 to 4H2 klr{/m per
meter of wall is proposed for a temporary wall used for a critical application, the owner or engineer
should require that the contractor provide performance data that demonstrate that such an envelope
has been successfully used for anchored systems constructed in similar ground subject to similar
performance requirements. t:
The apparent earth pressure diagram for stiff to hard clays under temporary conditions should only
be used when the temporary condition is of a controlled short duration and there is no available free
55
/7
(i'e',
\ilater. If these conditions are not met, an apparent earth pressure diagram for long-term
permanent) conditions using drained strength parameters should be evaluated.
The permanent
conditions apparent earth prÃsure diagram for stiff to hard clays is described subsequently.
213H1 H1 ag H1
H1
Tm
Ttt
H2
1/3 H
Tnz
H
Hn
Ttn
2/3 (H-Hf )
Hn*1
u3 Hn+1
R
-.t
-l -t
-l
p=0./fH-0.4YH ps0./ÍH-0.4ÏH
(a) Walls with one level (b) Walls with multiPle levels
of ground anchors of ground anchors
Ht = Distrance ftom ground surface to uppermost ground anchor
Hn+l = Distance from base of excavation to lowermost ground anchor
Tn¡ = Horizontal load in ground anchor ¡
R = Reaction force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e., below base of excavation)

p = Maximumordinateof diagram
TorAL LOAD (kN/m/meterof wall) = gï2'ou21H in meters)
Figure 27. Recommended apparent earth pressure envelope for stiff to hard clays.
56
/7
4.5 APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR STIFF CLAY
A non-symmetrical apparent earth pressure diagram identical in shape to the one recommended
for sand is recommended for the design of ground anchor walls built in stiff clay deposits when
undrained conditions exist. An earth pressure factor of 2O pcf is recommended for these soils
unless experience suggests that a higher factor should be used. Higher earth pressure factors
may be warranted if the strength of the clay has been reduced along major discontinuities
(see
SeCtion 4.g). An earth pressure factor of 20 pcf gives the same total lateral earth
pressure as
Schnabel's 25H tapezoid, and higher loads than the Terzaghi and Peck stiff fissured clay tra-
pezoid with a pressure of 0.2vs.
The transition from using a stiff clay apparent earth pressure diagram to a soft to medium clay
diagram does not occur at a unique undrained shear strength. For a given wall height or exca-
vatlon depth, H, the undrained shear strength of the soil shall satisff Equation 4.t3 in order to
use the stiff clay apparent earth pressure diagram.
It
..14.131
",'äN-zz.Bsr)
Figure 31 is another way to determine whether a stiff clay apparent earth pressure diagram
shóuld be used for a particular soil and wall height. The figure shows earth pressure factors
for typical clay soils ãs a function of undrained shear strength and depth of excavation or wall
treigiri. (The development of Figure 3L is presented in Section 4.6.) To decide if a stiff clay,
,rori-ry**rtrical pr.s.rre diagram is appropriate, find the undrained shear strength and
go upward to the horizóntal line representing the minimum earth pressure factor, 20 pcf. If the
"utth
ñeigñt of the wall or the proposed depth of excavation is to the left of the intersection of the
vertical line and the 20 põf ün , then the soil is considered a stiff clay. If the height of the wall
is to the right of the vertical line, the soil is considered a soft to medium clay. Sections 4.6
and 4.7 discuss apparent earth pressures for soft to medium clays.
Lirnitirrg equilibrium anal]¡ses cannot be used to calculate the total lateral earth load for a wall
¡uilt inã siiff chy. Loadi on walls in a stiff clay correspond to a quasielastic state instead of a
state of limiting equilibrium (Section 4.2). Limiting equilibrium analyses suggest
that the
ground is strong enough to support itself, or give loads that are too low based on measured
strut loads.
poor drilling techniques using air or water to clean the drill hole may fracture the soil and re-
strength
duce the soil,s sheai strength or pressurize the drilling fluid in open fractures. The
65
ZO
T
curs, the pressurized drilling fluid (air or water) is forced into the ground disrupting the for-
mation. Auger drilling methods will not disrupt the soil where collaring is likely.
TABLE 9
Typical Undrained Shear Strengths and
Total Unit Weights for Glays
UNDRAINED TOTAL UNIT
SHEAR STRENGTH WEIGHT
(psO (pc0
100 95
200 98
250 100
300 102
400 106
500 110
600 '112
700 1',t4
800 116
900 118
1000 120
1 100 121
1200 122
1300 123
1400 124
1500 '125
1600 126
1700 127
1800 128
1900 129
2000 130
2500 132
3000 135
4000 140
68 LI
reduction or ttrc effect of pressuring the drilling fluid is not considered in design. Fracturing
the ground is controlled by preventing "collaring" of the hole when drilling with air or water.
A cóilar occurs when the hole becomes blocked and cuttings no longer return up the drill hole
to the surface. If a collar occurs, the pressurized drilling fluid (air or water) is forced into the
ground, disrupting the formation. Auger drilling methods will not disrupt the soil where col-
laring is likely.
80
70
E60
e¡
E¡v
ox
l- ¡. 50
og
(tl
rÀ&
$t 40
fig
¡ì
so
^*
*e 20
10 2 30 4 50 70 809 too
Dcpth axceve or wall isht (ft)
10
o
a 500 1000 1500 2000 2500: 3000 3500 4000
IJNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (Psf)
FIGURE 3I
Earth Pressure Factors for Fine-grained Soil¡
as a Function of Undrained Shear Strength
ZL
66
3e. Apparent pressure diagram for soft to medium
stiff clay
Method 1:
No deep seated failure - Pages 24 and 25 from Reference 1.
Use trapezoidal-shaped pressure diagram, Page 25, from Reference 1.
Deep seated failure - Slope stability analyses, Pages 25 through 27,
from Reference 1.
Method 2:
Use Henkel's method - Pages 28 through 30.
23
4.6 APPARENT EARTH PRESSIJRE DIAGRAM FOR SOFT TO MEDITJM
CLAY, NO DEEP-SEATED FATLLJRE
Temporary and permanent ground anchor walls in soft to medium clay must resist the short-
term lateral earth pressures determined using undrained shear strengths and total unit weights.
This section discusses tlre determination of these pressures when competent ground is at or
near the bottom of the excavation. Section 4.7 discusses undrained analyses when weak soils
lie below the boffom of the excavation. For permanent ground anchor walls, long-term earth
press¡res determined using drained shear strengths and effective unit weights may be greater
than pressures deterrrined using undrained shear strengths. Section 4.8 discusses apparent
ea¡th pressure diagrams developed using drained shear strenglhs.
Terzaghi and Peck's soft to medium clay diagram forms the basis for determining the lateral
earth pressures based on the undrained strength of a clay. Earth pressure factors, similar to
those ãeveloped for sand, were determined for the typical clay soils identified in Taþle 9 at
different wall heights. Earth pressure factors for clay are equal to 0.875(1 -4s,, /YH)Y. Un-
drained shear strength of a fine-grained soil can vary greatly for small changes in the total unit
weight. Calculate the earth pressure factor using the preceding equation if the undrained shear
rttrttgtt, or the total unit weight are significantly different from those given in Table 9. Earth
pressr¡re factor curves for different wall heights are plotted in Figure 31 as a function of un-
drained shear strengths. To determine the total lateral earth load for a soft to medium clay,
select the undrained shear strength that best represents the ground and go vertically upward
until the curve for the desired wall height is reached. (If the wall height curve is to the left of
the vertical line, then the soil is considered a stiff clay (Section 4.5).) Then go horizontally to
the ordinate to select the appropriate earth pressure factor. The total lateral earth load is the
earth pressure factor times the square of the wall height. The total lateral earth load is distri-
butedìo the wall using an earth pressure diagram with the same shape as Terzaghi and Peck's
soft to medium clay diagram. Figure 32 shows the earth pres$ue diagran and contains an
equation for determining the intensity of the earth pressure. The total load determined by the
earth pressrue factors or the Terzaghi and Peck soft to medium clay diagran has a factor of
safety defined on undrained shear strength of about 1.3 (Long, et al., 1998).
Earth pressures for soft to medium clay correspond to a state of limiting equilibrium. There-
fore, limiting equilibrium analyses can be used to calculate ttre total lateral earth loading that
should be distributed to the wall using the apparent earth pressure diagram in Figure 32-
factor of safety on the shear strength of 1.3 should be used in the analysis. ^
poor drilling techniques using air or water to clean the drill hole may fracture the soil and
pressurize tftr Orittiog fluid in open fractures in weak fine-grained soils. The effect of pres-
suring the drilling nui¿ is not considered in design. Fracturing the ground is controlled by
prevJnting collaring of the hole when drilling with air or water. A collar occurs when the hole
becomes btocked aãO cuttings no longer return up the drilt hole to the surface. If a collar
oc-
67 Lf
reduction or the effect of pressuring the drilling fluid is not considered in design. Fracturing
the ground is controlled by preventing "collaring" of ttre hole when drilling with air or water.
A cõnar occurs when the hole becomes blocked and cuttings no longer return up the drill hole
to the surface. If a collar occurs, the pressurized drilling fluid (air or water) is forced into the
ground, disrupting the formation. Auger drilling methods will not disrupt the soil where col-
laring is likely.
80 "l
rfor of S¡ tcty on I
f0
Êo 60
e¡
Eor
ox
l- r, 50
og
(t¡
¡Àg
it
øl¡
10
sË
Q.q 30
rì
ÞE ^t. \
u¡ 20
10 30 50 oTo 80 9l I loo
Depth Qreava or wall tight (fr)
t0
0
0 500 looo 1600 2000 2500' 3000 3500 1000
UNDRATNED SHEAR STREMGIH lPsfl
FIGURE 3f
Earth PrceEure Factote for Fine'grained Soile
ae a Function of Undrained Shear S$cngút¡
ZL
66
H
Totql Lolerol Eorth Lood
Delermined Using:
o) Eorlh Pressure Foctor From
Fisure J1 (EpFXH2)
b) From Limiting tquilibrium Anolysis
lntensilv of A pporent Eorih P ressure Dîogrom
p= tol Lole h Lood
0.875H
FIGURE 32
Apparent Earth Pressure D¡agram for Soft Clay
4.7 APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR SOFT TO MEDTUM

CLAY, DEEP.SEATED FAILTJRE
Permanent ground anchor walls are not recommended for sites where the bottom of the wall is
underlain by deep deposits of weak soils, but temporary earth retaining walls are built at these
locations. Earth pressures computed from the soft to medium clay diagram (Figure 19b) or
from earth pressure factors (Section 4.6) underestimate the total lateral earth load when weak
soils extend below the bottom of the wall. T,oads higher than those predicted develop when the
soil below the wall yields plastically. Terzaghl et al. (7996) recommended that Henkel's
method (Section 4.1) be used to calculate the value of K" to be used in the soft to medium
apparent earth pressure diagram. Limiting equilibrium analyses are recommended for deter-
mining the total lateral earth load on temporary earth retaining walls constructed in soft to
medium clays and subject to deep-seated failures. Limiting equilibrium methods account for
plastic yielding, basal heave, and the failure mechanism arnryzed,by Henkel.
Use moment equilibrium methods with circular failure surfaces for limiting equilibrium an-
alyses in soft to medium clay soils. Undrained shear strengths are used in the analysis. A
factor of safety of 1.3 on the shear strength should be used. Since moment equilibrium meth-
ods are recommended, each ground anchor will have a different moment arm (Fþre 33).
ConsequentlY, the stabilizing effect of each anchor will depend upon the magnitude of the
anchor load and its moment arm. Two limiting equitibrium analyses are necessary to develop
reasonable earth pressure diagrams for walls subject to a deep-seated failure. First, run an
69
ZS
analysis forcing the failure surfaces to go through the bottom corner of the wall. The second
analysis is run allowing the failure surfaces to go below the bottom of the wall. In the second
analysis, keep the surcharge load from the first analysis over the upper half of the wall, and
apply a second surcharge load to the bottom half of the wall. Increase the lower surcharge
load until the desired factor of safety is obtained. Construct an apparent earth pressure dia-
gram from the two surcharge diagrams. Figure 34 illustrates how these two analyses are done.
Bending moments and ground anchor loads are computed from the composite diagram.
Cenler of Rotolion
12
I
I
I
I
/
FIGURE 33
Moment Arm for Ground Anchor
70
ZL
zta
tf¡
¡ l.3¡'
I t.at Totrl l¡tcr¡l e¡rth lo¡d - 50950 lb
a l.t3
! t.3c
108 Õ l.tÕ
? t.t3
a l.ta
t t.tr
$e to ,'.al t ,to
I+.
(ftl II = {Oft Soil Propcrties
t;n
c = 800 psf
y = 116 pcf
:n
fr c= 4,000 prf
140 pcf
g
o
o 3 t g t;¿ß 158 188 (ftl
zl0 zßTnr
Fq¡lâEI.Sll Etl rlr 1.3 X-torls
e) Load determlned by analyzlng fallurc surfaces through the bofrom comer of the excavatlon
,11
zto :i
Ir¡
I t.to iti
t t.tt Tot¡l letcr¡l c¡rth lo¡d = Surch¡¡Tc I + Surchsrgc 2 li
t t.at
t l.ta = 55t00+25,475 = t0675lb
t80 a t.tt i
? ¡.tl
t t.tr¡
t t.r? T
15!
lo ¡.t? 3
a t
(ft, II = 40ft Soil Propertier
,in
I c= t00 p¡f
u T= 116 pcf
t c= 4,0110 prf
Y= 140 pcf
n
03 ænün15e
¡CSIhE¡.511 FS rlæ 1.3
üe
tl-ârl¡ (lt!
zrs ?tE æg g
bl Load determlned by analyzlng dcep¡saied fallun ¡uñecer
FIGURE 34
Example'of Llmiting Equllibrlum Analyses for Determing Lateral Earth
Pre¡eures for Guts in Soft to Medium Clay with Deepceated Failurcs
7t
z7
Permanent Condition
The original Terzaghi and Peck apparent earth pressure diagram for stiff to ha¡d fissured clays was
developed for temporary loading conditions. This diagram and ones developed based on information
in table 5 have also been used for designing permanent anchored wall systems. There are
difficulties in using earth pressures associated with temporary conditions in stiff to hard fissured
clays for designing permanent walls. Specifically, excavation induces negative excess porewater
pressures in the soil which temporarily cause the soil to possess a greater shear strength than is
available in the long term. Soil behind the wall and in front of the wall (i.e., at the base of the
excavation) experience unloading to which the soil responds by drawing in water, resulting in
softening (i.e., weakening) of the soil with time. Softening in some areas around the wall to a state
of long-term (i.e., drained) equilibrium may occur rapidly after construction. The development of
tension cracks at the surface and the possible presence of sandy or silty layers or cracks and fissures
serve to increase the rate at.which soil softening may occur.
Based on the above discussion, earth pressures associated with long-term drained conditions for
excavations in stiff to hard fissured clays may be greater than those computed based on envelopes for
temporary conditions. The total resultant force calculated using a diagram for temporary conditions
can be compared to the total resultant force associated with the recommended apparent earth pressure
envelope for stiff to hard clays using'a total resultant force of 0.65K¡yH2, where K¡ is based on the
drained friction angle of the clay soil. For most anchored wall applications, the drained friction
angle should correspond to the fully softened friction angle. The larger of the resultant forces from
the two diagrams should be used for design. For example, a fully softened drained friction angle of
approximately 39" results in an equivalent total force to the Terzaghi and Peck envelope using 0.24H
for the maximum pressure ordinate. A drained friction angle of approximately 22" results.in an
equivalent total force to thç Terzaghi and Peck envelope with a maximum pressure ordinate of
0.4yH.
5.2.6 Recommended Apparent Earth Pressure Diagram for Soft to Medium Clays
Temporary and permanent anchored walls may be constructed in soft to medium clays (i.e., N>4) if
a competent layer for forming the arichor bond zone is within a reasonable depth below the
excavation. Permanently anchored walls are seldom used where soft clay extends significantly
below the base of the excavation.
For soft to medium clays and for deep excavations, the Terzaghi and Peck diagram shown in figure
23c has been used to evaluate apparent earth pressures for design of temporary walls in soft to
medium clays. For this diagram, a total stress active earth pressure coefficient is used:
45o
K¡ = l-m (Equation 11)
TH
where m is an empirical factor that accounts for potential base instability effects in deep excavations
in soft clays. V/hen the excavation is underlain by deep soft clay and N, exceeds 6, m is set equal to
0.4. Otherwise, m is taken as 1.0 (Peck, 1969). As will be shown, using the Terzaghi and Peck
diagram with m equal to 0.4 for cases where N, > 6 may result in an underestimation of loads on the
wall and is therefore not conservative.
57
Z7
Struts
0.25H 0.25H
H
0.5H
0.75H
L t- t_
rì t- r--l
= o.ost rFI P = 0.ãYFlto
0.41H
= 1.0 KAYH
P
Ke= tan2 (5-Q't2l K¡= {-¡¡ 4 Su
TH
m = 1.0 Exoept es noted
(See Section 5.2.6 for discussion)
(a) Sands (b) Sfifr.ñardfl¡sund (cl$oiltto m¡dlum
chyr clayr
Figure 23. Terzaghr and Peck apparent pressure envelopes (after Terzaghtand Peck, 1967, Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons,Inc.).
o The loading diagrams apply only to the exposed portion of the wall and not the portion of the
wall embedded below the bottom of the excavation.
For clays, the apparent earth pressure is related to the stability number, Nr, which is defined as
*, =i1[I @quariong)
where y is the total unit weight of the clay soil, So is the average undrained shear strength of the clay
soil below the base of the excavation, and H is the excavation depth. Standard SI units axe:
T
(kN/m3), Su (kPa), and H (m). As shown in figure 23, two apparent earth pressure envelopes lryere
developed for clays to account for differences in earth presJures for clays with relatively low N,
values (i.e., stiff to hard clays) and relatively high N, values (i.e., soft to medium clays). Using these
diagrams for initial reference, specific recommendations for anchored walls are proviãed in
subsequent sections.
5.2.4 Recommended Apparent Earth hessure Diagram for sands
For sands, the value for Kl in figure 23ais given as:
K¡ = tan2 4s -g2 @quation 10a)
and the maiirnum earth pressure ordinate is:
50 ?
The Terzaghi and Peck (196?) diagrams did not account for the development of soil failure below
the bottom of the excavation. Observations and finite element studies have demonstrated that soil
failure below the bottom of the excavation can lead to very large movements for temporary retaining
walls in these soft clays. For N* values greater than 6, relatively large areas of the retained soil near
the base of the excavation are expected to yield significantly as the exeavation progresses resulting in
large movements below the excavation, increased support loads on the exposed portion of the wall,
and potential instability of the excavation base. Instead of using m=0.4 in equation 11, an equation
developed by Henkel (197t) should be used directþ to obtain Kn for use in evaluating the maximum
pressure ordinate for the soft to medium clay apparent earth pressure diagram (figure 23c).
Henkel's equation for the total stress earth pressure coefficient is:
Kn=1-
4Su
+ 2J1
d(1 _ 5.14S"b (Equation 12)
Ér Hl TfI
where U is the depth of the failure surface below the cut, So is the undrained -shear strength of the soil
through which the excavation extends, and 5o6 is the strength of the soil providing bearing resistance
(figure 28). For the more general case in which there is unloading at the ground surface, Henkel
provided the following solution:
Kn =L-
4so
+ & I+
*1,*,'*T,
I f-*'u" )-*["..ffiJ],"*,uon,3)
fH H H
Standard SI units are: d(m), Sou (kPa), AII (m), and x (m).
x B
AH
Figure 28. Henkel's mechanism of base failure.
Figure 29 shows values of K¡ calculated using Henkel's method for va¡ious d/[I ratios. For results
shown in this figure, Su = Sub. Figure 29 indicaæs that for 4<Ì.Ic<6,theTeruaghi and Peck envelope
with m=0.4 is overly conservative relative to Henkel. Also, for Nr<5.14, the Henkel equation is not
valid and apparent earth pressures calculated using m=1.0 in the Tetzaghi and Peck envelope are
58
z?
unrealistically low. For the range 4d-IS5.14, a constant value of Ke equal to O.22 should be used to
evaluate the mærimum pr€ssure ordinate for tho soft to medium clay apparent earth pressure
envelope (figure 23c). At the transition value between stiff to hard clay and soft to medium clay, i.e.,
Nr=4, the total load using the soft to medium clay appalent earth pressure diagram with K¡=Q.22 is
0.193yH2. For a total load of 0.193fI2, the maximum pressure ordinate of the Terzaghi and Peck
stiff to hard fissured clay apparent earth pressure diagram is 0.2SI. Information presented on
figures 25 and 26 indicates that a value of 0.2ú¡fi for the maximum pressure ordinate results in a
calculated apparent earth pressure diagram that is consistent with measured values. The use of
K¡=.O.22 for 4d{r<5.14 for calculating apparent earth pressures therefore represents a rational
transition value between apparent earth pressures for stiff to hard clays (i.e., Nr<4) and for soft to
medium clays where the Henkel solution is valid (i"e., N¿5.14).
Henkel's method is limited to cases where the clay soils on the retained side of the excavation and
below the excavation subgrade can each be reasonably characterized using a constant value for
undrained shear strength" Where a more detailed shear strength profile is required, limit equilibrium
methods may be used to evaluate the earth pressure loadings on the wall. The use of limit
equilibrium methods to develop earth pressure loadings for walls is described in section 5.7.3.
2.0
- --
- RecommendEd for 4 < Ns < 5.14
1.8 . - - - - - Tczaghi and P€ck (m=1.0) f
and Pecft (m=O.4)
1.6
-Tcrzaghi
-ts1'lenkelcl/Fl=O.l
I
1.4 --{-Honkel d/}l=0.25
*Henkeld/Þl=0.5
1.2
--l- Henkel d/ll=1 .0
r
f t.o
0.8
7, ,-1
0.6
0.4
--
/t Í.--"
# I
o.2 JØr
0.0
4 5 678 I 10
STAB|UTY NUMBER, Ns
Figure 29. Yalae of K¡ based onTerzagtn and Peck envelope and Henkel's method.
59 3o
3e, Apparent pressure diagram for soft to medium
stiff clay - Recommendations
Define stability number
Ns = y H/Su
Where: Ns = stability number

y = total unit weight
H = excavation depth
Su = undrained shear strength
Ns < 4 -> stiff/hard clay

eafth pressure factor = 2O
apparent earth pressure diagram for stiff/hard clay.
4 < Ns < 5.1 -) transition between stiff/hard clay to soft/med. stiff

clay
eafth pressure factor = 23 (0.19y-0.19x120=23)
max. eaÉh pressure ordinate of 26 H (2210.875=26)
apparent eafth pressure diagram for soft/med. stiff
clay
Ns > 5.1 -à soft/med. stiff clay

use Henkel's equation/chaft or limit equilibrium
analyses.
31
4. Passive pressure below excavation level.
32
4a. Wang-Reese equations
Pages 34 through 41 from References 6
33
APPENDIX B
DEVELOPMENT OF WANG-REESE EQUATTONS
The development of the Wang-Reese equations for evaluating ultimate passive resistance for soldier
beams embedded in cohesionless soils and cohesive soils is presented in this appendix. This
presentation is based largely on information and details provided in FTIWA-RD-97-130 (1998). The
relevant equations have been implemented into spreadsheets which are included at the end of this
appendix.
Cohesionless Soils
The Wang-Reese equations for ultimate passive resistance of cohesionless soils consider three
potential failure rnechanisms. These mechanisms include: (1) a wedge failure in front of an
individual shaft (figure B-1); (2) an overlapping wedge failure for deep or closely-spaced shafts
(figure B-2); and (3) plastic flow around the shaft (figure B-3). For design, the ultimate passive
resistance available to resist the reaction force, R, is the minimum resistance for each of these
mechanisms at any depth.
Figure B-1 shows the wedge failure for a single soldier beam in sand. The passive force, Fn, is given
by Equation B-1.
Kod tan $ sin

. - o" ")]
"). ry
B (tan sin p
Fo =rT d2
3 tan(B-q)cos ü, #5 [;. å
tan B tan Q
(Equation B-1)
where: T= total unit weight;

b = soldier beam diameter or width;
d = depth of the bottom of the soldier beam;
IÇ = at-rest earth pressure coefficient;
0'= drained friction angle of the soil;
þ = 45+þ'12; and
ü = 0' for dense sands, Q'13 to þ'12 for loose sands.
Equation B-1 is differentiated to give the ultimate soil resistance, Ppu at depth, d.
K d tan $sin p
ß[ . (b + d tan p tan cr,) + K'd tan p(tan q sin - tan cr)]
Pou
tan(p -0) cos cr dffi B
(Equation B-2)
B-1
3f
Direction of movement
a. Failure wedge
Soldier beam
iameter or width (b)
p-+
F2
-Fo
b. Forces on the wedge
Toe reaction.
c. Forces on the soldier beam
(after Reese et al', 1974)'

Figure B-1. Passive wedge failure for a soldier beam in sand
B-2 JS
Y
N
z
d
F
Sc
E
a. Generalúiew
b. Plan view
dtan atan p
Icsca
A
A B
z
dzsecp o
o
th
1t
(d-z)sec cúan p
c
c. Bottom of a wedge d. Top of a wedge e. Side of a wedge
Figure B-2. Intersecting failure wedges for soldier beams in sand (after V/ang and Reese, 1986).
B-3
3(
¡
¿
A-A
W failure
A A
Plastic flow
B-B
a \
B B
Figure B-3 plastic flow around a soldier beam toe (after Wang and Reese, 1986).
based on the analysis

Figure B-2 shows individual failure wedges intersecting. This may occur,
method, for a case where adjacent soldier t"u-r are relatively close
to each other or where the depth
of the bottom of the soldier beam is relatively large. Equation B-3 gives the depth of
the
intersection, di, of adjacent wedges.
di =d-r*ìffi-' (EquationB-3)
where s" is the clear spacing between adjacent soldier beams.

wedges do not intersect.
When d¡ is positive, the failure wedges intersect. If di is negative, the failure
by adjacent soldier beams, and may be
-B-2. resistance is not affected
At depths greater than d¡, passive
ising equation Above the point of intersection, passive resistance is reduced to
"o-put"a
account for the intersection of the failure *ãdg"r. To account for the intersection
of the wedges'
passive resistance computed using equation n-ã is reduced by the resistance computed
for a wedge
down to the depth d, is
*itt, u height di, and a soldier beam with a width of zero. The resistance
given by equationB- .
Þpu
'
.ft<^¿tan0sinÞ
- v¿ll -j- [ t _rl*dtanÞtancr,_K^drin'l
t*(P-Q) - tanQ(tancr+1) | (gquu,ionB-4)
'-L tan(B-Q) \ cos u / cos Þ J
where: d < di
B'-4
37
r
rT!
,;¡
.,
At depth, the ultimate lateral resistance will be limited to the resistance that can develop before soil
flows between the soldier beams (figure B-3). The ultimate lateral flow resistance is given by:
Pou =Kobydtans B+K"ydtanQtan4 p (EquarionB-5)
Lateral resistance cannot exceed the passive resistance provided by a continuous wall in cohesionless
soil, i.e.
Pou =KrTd(s" +b) (Equation 8-6)
Cohesive Soils
Figurg B-4 shows the failure wedge for a single soldier beam in clay" Reese (1958) developed the
expression for the passive resistance, Fp,
Fp =S"dbkan0+(1+K)cotel+ j^ftD2 +SuD2 sec0 (Equation B-7)
where: Su = average undrained shear strength; and

K = a reduction factor to apply to So to give the adhesion between the clay and the soldier
beam.
Assuming 0 = 45o and the shaft friction, K = 0, equation B-7 is differentiated to give the ultimate
soil resistance at depth d:
Pou =2Sub+'fbd+2.83S,d (Equation B-8)
The assumption of K=0 implies that no shear strength is mobilized on the plane EFDC (see figure B-
4).
If adjacent soldier beams are sufficiently close to each other, it may not be possible to mobilize the
full shear resistance (forces F3 and Fa in figure B-4) on the sides of the wedge directly in front of the
soldier beam. Figure B-5 shows the passive wedges in front of each soldier beam and the wedge of
soil between the beams (block FDBGHÐ. If the space between the beams is large, block FDBGHI
will be adequate to resist the side shear forces F: and Fa from the wedges in front of the beams. If
block FDBGHI is small, it is assumed that the ground in front of the wall will move together and the
individual wedges in front of each beam will not develop. Equation B-9 gives the critical spacing,
s.r, where the behavior changes from single beam behavior to group behavior.
2.83S,d
s". =--:-*
+ osu
(Equation B-9)
TCI
Passive resistance for a soldier beam considering group behavior is given by Equation B-10.
Pru =25u (b+s")+Yd(b+s")+Sus" (Equation B-10)
B-5 38
v
F
E
a. Failure wedge
F8 Soldíer beam
+É diameterorwidth (b)
v F2
tp
b. Forces on the wedge
react¡on
I
c. Forces on the soldier beam
for a soldier beam in clay (after Reese, 1958, discussion of "Soil

- B-4. Passive wedge failure Piles"
Figure
by McClelland and Focht, Transactions, Volume 123,
Modulus for Laterally Inaded
Reprinted by permission of ASCE).
B-6 s7
v
z
d
l"' b
Sc
--t
a. Generalview
A ã, BDF
F4,
F3,
Fs & F4- side shear

F b
b. Wedge ln front of soldier beam c. Block of soil between beams
F2, BFE F2 BGIF
I
F. - Shear resistance on
' bottom of wedges
F1, FDBGHT
Ft - Weight bloc*
d. Plan view
Figure B-5. Failure \iledges for soldier beams in clay (after Wang and Reese, 1986).
B-7 k,
If the spacing between soldier beams becomes zero and the soldier beam width is taken as unity,
Equation B-i0 becomes Equation B-11, the passive earth pressure equation for a continuous wall.
Pno =1lSub (Equation B-11)
The soil may flow around the beam as it moves through the soil if the toe of the soldier beam
becomes sufiiciently deep. The failure is similar to that shown in figure B-3. Wang and Reese
(1986) approximated the passive flow resistance in clay to be:
Pnu =2Su +Yd (Equation B-tz)
For a wall in clay, the passive resistance at any depth d, cannot exceed the passive resistance
provided by a continuous wall.
Pnu =(2Su +1d) (s" +b) (Equation B-13)
Wang and Reese's equations are based on horizontal force equilibrium. The active pressure acting
on the wall as it moves away from the retained ground is included in the calculation for cohesionless
soils, but not for cohesive soils. As the Wang-Reese equations \ilere 'developed for stiff clays at
relatively shallow depths, the active earth pressures are negative. In neglecting the active pressure
term, the tensile strength of the sojl is ignored.
B-8 f/
4b. NAVFAC7.2
Page 43 from NAVFAC 7.2-114.
42
GIVEil + =30o, 7= 123 PCF' b=1.5" D=15'
FIND ULTITATE RESISTAT{CE OFTHE BOTTOiI GTHE SOLD¡ER PILE TO
....+
}ORIZOI{TAL LOAD.
Kp=TAN2 çS+Ô/zl
:!
tls'125 X 1.5: lE6PtlF=O.t88XSF' ø,0:l25X15:1E75 PtlF: IETS lGF
rn= U$!11 x t3.sx3 x (s xt.3)= lsEKtps
-......-..-...+
..--.-Õ
b b
\¡
l.J
I
5
r.5
þ
î T î-
I
0 D D
PILE
ìUIDTH=b
I P¡+
t2C !
I P¡
õ" KP
EFFECTIVE STFESS (COHESþNLESS
EFFECTIVE PILE SIDTH=3b UNORAINED SfREtGfH G æTIESIVE)
(ooHEsrvEl
lCITE' RESISTANCE Sl{OwN lS PER FOOT OF EFFECTIVE PILE WDTH.
FIGURE 33
PassLve Pressure Distribution for Sol-dler Piles
-Ñ
[rl
4c. Bengt Broms
44
b
D D D
Pllewldth = b gsub
3KpOy'b
(a) (b) (c)

Drained condition Undrained condition
(cohesionless, long-term (cohesive)
cohesive)
Figure 41. Broms method for evaluating ultimate passive resistance.
Back calculated passive resistances for laterally loaded piles and soldier beam and lagging yl^t.utto
(1986)-for
compared favorably with passive resistance calculations developed by Wang and Reese
cantllevered drilled shaft walls. The Wang-Reese equations consider several potential failure
mechanisms for laterally loaded piles in sands and clays. The effects of spacing between adjacent
piles and the potential for soil to squeeze between adjacent piles are also considered. These
inechanisms and the calculations developed for evaluating ultimate passive resistance for
cohesionless and cohesive soils are provided in appendix B. Comparisons of the Broms method and
the Wang-Reese method are provided in subsequent sections.
For driven soldier beamS, the flange width of the soldier beam should be used for lateral resistance
calculations. For drilled-in soldier beams backfilled with structural concrete, the fulI diameter of the
,ot¿i"t beam should be used for lateral resistance calculations. For drilled-in soldier beams
backfilled with lean-mix concrete, the full diameter of the beam may be used for lateral resistance
calculations provided the lean-mix concrete backfilt has a compressive strength of no less than 0.35
MPa.
5.5.2.2 Continuous Walls
The evaluation of passive resistance for walls with continuous elements involves calculating the
passive soil resistance according to the methods described in section 4.4.2. Whel evaluating the
(see figure 16 and l7), an interface friction
iassive earth pressure coefficient for cohesionless soils
angle, ô, varying from 0.5Q' to 1.0Q' is typically used. The specific value will depend on method of
construction, type of wall element (i.e., steel sheet-pile, tangenlsecant pile, slurry wall), and axial
load transfer in the embedded portion of the wall.
5.5.3 Depth of Penetration below Excavation
Competent SoiI Conditions
The depth of penetration of vertical wall elements based on lateral capacity is generally calculated
using a factor of safety with respect to lateral capacity of 1.5. When using the Wang-Reese
86
/r
4d. Recommendations for passive pressure
Page 47 - recommendations regarding passive pressure

Pages 48 and 49 - comparison of recommended passive pressure with
others',
46
10 X IO TO 'fHE CEN-TIMETER 18 )i 25 CM.
l'"+'E KEUFFEL & ESSER CO, MôE IN U.SÂ. 46 1521
:i
.1,
:f
til riti
::il I r iil iilÌ
)i,l li ñ ll ilil r;,!
+.1-.i-i
:'i
:.fir'1
¡ï
!
üil i1.t ¡ i it i'j'r,i t
iF
:: ii i:iii
iiii
'.:
l:l i¡
';itì lll
{ il:i
!t
ll l li :iil
\;: il Ii iii
ii 1;ll !it¡
N ii liii il,: l i$l.iiii,f,
t iiÌl
iJ i::J il tN,;:,1ll:
r,tl
,I ìlì
l,l
l: ir' lll i,lfl,i'l:i
aFl r l:lri []
,l r:li ii' ilì ,llj lr'!'i I
i!:
ttl Ìii i|:
II'l-.8 10 X 10 TO THE CENTIME-IER rB )l 25 CM
lñ\"4 KEUFFEL & ESSEÊ co. !^DE rN L s \ 46 i521
li il. ri,l I lri

iììr
.ll |-i .tr it1,
ti, i:l:L l l:i l:i
ll.r: i:l lli iltl lll
il t:ìj :
r.r: ilJ lil I .i
i:-f ]j -i
ill lll
lll l:ì jìiil:i iill
iri, iir; ilil i IL -.ìi
ii: i'l lr t1 iiri
:-.F;f Tï] i-:-
..1 ili L r|,
Tl;T llir ll i-¡t i
i' ,11 lii i|1 .1rl'l,l :it'
rl ilil ill tì'l
r!ri rt ìirl rl llr,
r l1 iil ii' I
u .g ü LL!]L r. lr
irrr ïit u Lil r
iì1 iÍ
\ \i :lll
llri ìi i.l l:1..:
Ð .T¡
fi- +t r+ t$ r1 l-!l rli
l:ili $ !i_il :l-i rlll ìr:, ll
lllr ii
::,:
r r.i{i ,t ìlli l,l i,l irii
'È: I Ìí
ì \i .it ,i I it ril ii,i.i iriì, i,i-r iMii
,l '.!,t; li', r: rl i
L
i il lïl
lr I l;rl,,lì,i'i illr lri lt j-.1
rlil,i ili Ii ri ri ll lllÌ j'1
1rl r,l,i llll l:llì i'1, rtl
:l ri:i
iLLI
,ltl I
il rl ll,,illl'i l!. '' l 1 i"i'r !lr ri ii'l
'L;ll ii:
l.l:lliiiiLl l:l;li t, .)
'li:lliri l:l lit Itil ,lì i.l
Ll. ,l
j L! ilil ::l i:fì ri t:i rl
tl,;-i,i L I.r r ,l'lt
lil
:>
-1
: ì:i::
r+
c\J
ro
r:
ç\
--
I
t<
u1
ts-
U:
lz ;: Ì-:.
z^
UY
t'
rfr :l r::
:rn
Fil
O¿
F
.J
CU *
Xl
3v
ull
i:
Y
jïf .ïl...}fr r. =l
-r-,.
-:::l;::F.i-1,-::l::l:;:r:::
j:r=
-:t,
,,,,, I 11,::,:,j.,r,,,1[i,',,,]1,',
1 -1,.1::l:
I I - Il: I
-1:r I
7
4e. Use of lean concrete below excavation level
When lean concrete is used below the excavation level, which pile
width (steel beam of drilled shaft diameter) should be used in the
passive pressure calculations?
According to References l and 5 - see Page 51 from Reference 5 - for

drilled in soldier beams backfilled with lean mix, use the steel beam
width when computing the passive resistance of the toe. If structural
concrete is placed in the toe, the diameter of the drilled shaft can be
used in the calculations.
According to Page 52 from References 6, for drilled in soldier beams

backfilled with lean mix, the diameter of the drilled shaft can be used
in the calculation of the passive resistance, provided the lean mix has a
compressive strength of at least 50 psi.
Recommendations: Use diameter of drilled shaft in calculating passive

resistance if the compressive strength of the lean mix is at least 100
psi.
50
ì
P = K"óydtansp*KoydtanQtan4p .. .l2.l4l
Fþre 25 shows the two-dimensional failure wedge. Lateral resistances cannot exceed the
value given by Equation2.l5.
p = Kp!d(s"+¡¡ ...Í2.151
where:
i ï:*"ïifü::ï:iffi
= :i:11:
Equations 2.lL to 2.15 give the passive resistance at a location. Rankine active pressures must
be applied to the other side of the wall when computing the capacitybf the toe (Figure 26).
For drilled-in soldier beams backfilled with lean-mix fill use the steel soldier beam wÍdth
when computing the passive resistance of the toe. If structural concrete is placed in the
toe, the diameter of the drÍlled shaft can be used in the calculations.
Equations 2.1.L to 2.L5 can be implemented in a spreadsheet to determine the lateral resistance
When the groundwater level is near the bottom of the excavation, use buoyant unit weights in
Equations 2.tL to 2.L5. Design Manual for Permanent Ground Anchor Walls (Weatherby,
1997) describes how the lateral toe resist¿nce is determined when the groundwater level is a
reasonable distance below the bottom of the excavation.
Apporeni Eorth Pressure
K.7Hb
Ronkine Aclive Pressure
r.7(tt+o)u
Possive Pressures
FIGURE 26
Diagram lllustrating the Active and Passive
Fressures on a Soldier Beam Toe in Sand
44 \f/
b
D D
ID
t
Pile width = b gsub
3KPoY'b
(b) (c)
(a)
Drained condition Undrained condition
(cohesionless, long-term (cohesive)
cohesive)
Figure 41. Broms method for evaluating ultimate passive resistance.

beam and lagging walls also
Back calculated passive resistances for laterally loaded piles and soldier
compared favorably with passive resistance calculations developed
by wan! and Reese (1986) for
several potential failure
cantilevered drilled shaft walls. The wang-Reese equations consider
mechanisms for laterally loaded piles in sandi and clays. The
effects of spacing between adþent
piles and the potential for soil to squeeze betw-een adjacent piles are also considered'
These
passive resistance for
mechanisms and the calculations developed for evaluating ultimate
of the Broms method and
cohesionless and cohesive soils are providedìn appendix B. Comparisons
the Wang-Reese method are provided in subsequent sections.
used for lateral resistance
For driven soldier beams, the flange width of the soldier beam should be
the fuIl diameter of the
calculations. For drilled-in soldier beams backfilled with structural concrete,
soldier beams
soldier beam should be used for lateral resistance calculations. For drilled-in
used for lateral resistance
backfilled with lean-mix concrete, the full diameter of the beam may be
strength of no less than 0'35
calculations provided the lean-mix concrete backfill has a compressive
MPa. SO ¿-)
f
5.5.2.2 Continuous Walls

involves calculating the
The evaluation of passive resistance for walls with continuous elements
evaluating the
passive soil resistance according to the methods described in section 4.4.2. lVhen
interface friction
passive earth pressure coefficient for cohesionless soils (see figure 16-and l.!.), ^
arrgle, ô, varying from 0.5Q' to 1.0Q' is typically used. The specific
value will depend on method of
construction, tlpe of wall element (i.e.,-steel sheet-pile, tangenlsecant
pile, slurry wall), and axial
load transfer in the embedded portion of the wall'
5.5.3 Depth of Penetration below Excavation
Competent SoíI C onditíons
The depth of penetration of vertical wall elements based on lateral capacity is generally calculated
rWhen
using a factoi of safety with respect to lateral capacity of 1.5. using the Wang-Reese
86 .Tz
5. Active pressure below excavation level
For sand, active Rankine pressure is applied (see page 54 from

Reference 5).
For stiff clay, the active pressure may be negative behind the pier (see
page 55 from Reference 5). The active pressure for clay is calculated
using Rankine formula presented below (see Page 56):
Fa=y(H+d)-2Su
where: T= soil unit weight
H = excavation height
d = depth below excavation bottom
Su = undrained shear strength
When the calculated active pressure is negative, it is negleted.

However, when the calculated active pressure is positive, it should be
applied.
It is our standard of practice to recommend applying active pressure

over one pile diameter.
53
T I
P = K"ÔVdtan8}*KoydtanQtanap .. .t2.L4l
Figure 25 shows the two-dimensional failure wedge. Lateral resistances cannot exceed the
value given by EquationZ.I1.
p = KpYd(s"+¡¡ . . .l2.ISl
where:
so = clear spacing between soldier beems
ó = soldier beam width or shaft diameter
Equations 2.lL to 2.t5 give the passive resistânce at a location. Rankine active pressures must
be applied to the other side of the wall when computing the capacify bf the toe (Fþre 26).
For drilled-in soldier bearns backfilled wíth lean-rnix fill use the steel soldier beanr width
when computing the passÍve resistance of the toe" If structr¡ral concrete is placed in the
toe, the diameter of the drilled shaft can be used Ín the calculatÍons.
Equations 2.lt to 2.L5 canbe implemented in a spreadsheet to determine the lateral resistance
When the groundwater level is near the bottom of the excavation, use buoyant unit weights in
Equations Z.lL to 2.15. Design Manualfor Permanent Ground Anchor Walls (Weatherby,
1997) describes how the lateral toe resistance is determined when the groundwater level is a
reasonable dist¿nce below the bottom of the excavation.
Apporent Eorlh Pressure
K,7Hb
Ronkine Aclive Pressure
r.7(lt+D)o
Possive Pressures
F¡GURE 26
Diagram llluetrating the Active and Passive
Pressurcs on a Soldier Beam Toe in Sand
44
4
I
L
Figure 29 shows the twodimensional failure wedge that limits the passive resistance that can
develop. For a wall in clay the lateral resistance at any depth, d, cannot exceed the value
given by Equation 2.22.
P = (2su *Y",rd) (s" *ö) . . .12.221
In stiff clays the active pressr¡re may be negative behind the wall. Considering negative pres-
sures during design is not reasonable since the soldier beam will move away from the soil. A
continuous wall normally will be used when the active pressures are positive. Positive active
pressures below the bottom of the excavation are given by Equation2.23.
pacflve=y"r"(H +d)-2su ...Í2.231
wherE
H = heightof wall
Steel soldier beam width is used in Equations 2.16 to 2.23 for drilled shafts baclfilled with
lean mix, and the drilled shaft diameter is used when structural concrete is used to bacldill the
shaft.
Equations 2.16 to 2.23 can be implemented in a spreadsheet for determining the lateral toe
resistance for a soldier beam in clay.
p= (2Su*yd)(so+U¡
H Su= Undrained shear sûength
Total unit weight
d= Distance
D= Toe penetation
so= Clear spacing between soldier beams
b= Soldier beam width or diameter
FIGURE 29
Passive Resistance for a Gontinuous Wall ln Glay
48
-f,r
ILI/-.E 1O X 1O TO THE CENTIMETER rB )i 25 CM
lñ\"Æ KEUFFËL & ESSER co MôL r! u s 46 1521
^
llili,r
rLr- iitl li:

Ìiil i'ii I iìì
'il iii l-r!,
l:t: i :, ffi
l:l:l:l
- r:ll ll,
irrtr tl .ill :ï 1ï
ì.i t: iii: 1ì
,il trl :iil.
-¡l t-i:-i ,1
'r lr -l' :_¡_i.-i
;ìi l.,l ìtl
i_i i-1-l-
- -+
,i'l ,:i ::,;
i,i t:l
l, :tl ,li1 rl i t:i:l
"lll ;..1 I
il .t ill lii ril l:iÌl li,,l L;i ìii lii tii li iil lrll
lt 1-l
lir ìl ILf rll
li ili l,i li li
tlili:
Ìi 1:l ll r i:l I
:IL 'llLli;i'
:ir ti: :-L ir l; -i
,.1 ìl
liiiilriillr tit
lt li::ill:,ill, iili,ilil.li
I iìl
itl l1 tii l'llir:'lll iil:'1,
l
l
lii i.
I iì ,
llriì1 i l'i,t i'r,l,, ,
l I
i,i
ll it i|lirl ii ¡
lii rti: rlllli:llii I

ri tL. rtl ,llrlrii
iili 1.. ',1,,
6, Anchor design
57
6a, Anchor design
Typical parameters
58
o_n thlT"thod of dr'ling
incruding quality of drill
acrual capacity achieved in the field will depend
the drill hole, the
hore cleaning and period of time ,t u,
ä" ¿riu hole is left open, the diameter of Except for certain
in grouting,"ãJrn" i""-gll theânchor bond zone.
method and pressure used "{ specialty anchor
i shouirr be left to the discretion of the
minimum varues, the serection of these "*, that can
main responsibility for ä" ã"rign"r is to define a minimum anchor capacity
contractor. The
given ground type. Therefore,ãstimation of anchor capacity should be based on the
be achieved in a made
simplest commonly inrî¡r"¿ *"rror,
ir. tt" ,ttaight shaft gravity-grout"d.*.hor. Estimates be
prooice a aesign .þity which may confidentþ
assuming this anchor will be installe;;li
to use *or. ãff""iive and/or economical anchoring
achieved while allowing specialty contractois w'r be verified by
to achieve the specifi. The design capacity of each anchor
methods "up*iry.
testing before accepting the anchor'
anchors'
smarl diameter, straight shaft gravity-grouted
Many projects have been completed using typi;al anchor characteristics can be
Because of the sim'arity of many ;;;Ëd;;
,o*" tSit
These are intendeO ,o pio"i¿¿ á of typicl design values to engineers who are
summarized. '*g"
in the prestressrng steel or the soil.

degrees: G¡oy$ anchors are commonly
r Ground Anchor Inctination P¡tween 19 tnd 4f
al although angles of 10 to 45
installed at angles of 15 to lo inclination'
degrees *" *iit in the capabilities
õf most contractors. Regardless of the anchor
and in soil or rock
behind_potential-slip surfaces
the anchor bond zone must be ãenaopeo to
develop the necãss*v^¿"rign.load- Steep inclinations may be necessary
layers that can
right-ôf-way constraints' or weak soil or
avoid underground utilities, u¿:u""ní founãations,
close io horizontal as possible to minimize
rock layerr.în"ho* should ü" inrt¡r"d as at
loads, however grouting of anchors installed
vertical loads resulting from anchor lock-off used'
unless special grouting techniques are
angles t"r, trr* 10 deltees ir
"oiîå**on
is to assume a
a specific project, the first step in estimating the minimum allowable capacity
For
of u rit" *ith no restrictions on right-of-way' a
l5-degree
maximum anchor bond length. In the case
of the anchor should u" *loÀ"d with a bond length of. t2 m in. soil or 7 '5 m in rock'
inclination is in soil' i'e"
be designed assumin! the entire embedment
Anchors founded in soil and rock should right-of-way may
The bond rengths at sitesfith *nr" restricted
assume abond tength equal to 12 m.
of 30 degrees and that the bond length is equal to
the
be evaluated assuming an anchor incrination
to withii 0.6 m of the right-of-way line' when
using
distance from the end of the unbondeJi""grtt
70 s7
6b. Anchor design
Calculation of anchor loads
Pages 61 and 62 from Reference 6.
60
Hl H1
T1 T1
H2
H
R G
R c
Tributary area method Hinge method
Tr = Load over length H1+ H2l2 T1 Calculated from EMs= I

R = Load over length H2l2 R = Total earth pressure - T1
Figure 33. Catculation of anchor loads for one-level wall.

to be supported by the
For walls constructed in competent materials, a reaction force, R, is assumed
passive resistance of the ,òil b"lo* the excavation subgrade. The wall must be embedded
anchor carries only the
sufficiently deep to develop this passive resistance. In this case, the lowest
equivalent to the load from
tributary *"u oi the apparent pressure diagram, and the reaction force is
midheight between the base of
the apparent pressureãìugrurortom the base of the excavation to the
materials, sufficient passive
the excavation and the lõwest anchor. For walls that penetrate weak
resist the reaction force regardless
capacity below the base of the excavation may not be available to
of the wall embedment depth. For that "^", th" lowest anchor may be designed to
carry the
-same
load as defined above foi the lowest anchor plus the load corresponding to the reaction force'
may be used to
Alternatively, soil-structure,interaction analyses (e.g., beam on elastic foundation)
design continuous beams with small toe reactionr *
it may be overly conservative to assume that all
load is carried by the lowest anchor.
the horizontal component of
The values calculated using figures 33 and 34 for the anchor loads are
load, Tn, is calculated as:
the anchor load per unit wiãthóf wall, Tr,i. The total horizontal anchor
To =T* s @quation 19)

load, T, to be used in
where s is the horizontal spacing between adjacent anchors. The anchor
designing the anchor bond zone (i.e., the design load) is calculated as:
66 6t
-l
-- Tn
(Equation 20)
cos0
where 0 is the angle of inclination of the anchor below the horizontal. The vertical component of the
total anchor load, T", is calculated as:
T"=Tsin0 (Equation 21)

A
H H1
1
T1 T1 F
H2
Tzu
T2 T2
Tzt
H H
Hn
Tnu
Tn Tn
Tnt
l-'ln*t
R R
Trlbutary area method Hinge method
Ti = Load over length Ht+ H2 12 T1 Calculated from IM" = I

T2 = Load over length H2l2 + Hn 12 T2, = Totalearth pressure (ABCGF) - T1
Tn = Load over length Hnl2 + Hp1l2 Tzt = Calculated fiom IMo g

=
R = Load over length Hp1l2 Tnu = Totalearth pressure (CDIH) - TzL
TnL = Calculated fom IMr= I

R = Totat earth pressure - T, - ]i - Tn
TZ = TZu* T2L
Tn = Tnu+TnL
Figure 34. Calculation of anchor loads for multi-level wall
5.3.4 Design of the Unbonded Length
The minimum unbonded length for rock and soil ground anchors is 4.5 m for strand tendons and 3 m
for bar tendons. These minimum values are intended to prevent significant reductions in load
resulting from seating losses during transfer of load to the structure following anchor load testing.
67 6z_
6c. Anchor lengths and spacing
Free/stressing lengths and spacing
63
ñTt (Equation 20)
cos0
the horizontat. The vertical component of the

where 0 is the angle of inclination of the anchor below
total anchor load, T", is calculated as:
T"=Tsin0 (Equation 21)
A
H1 Hl
T1 F
Tr i.--.-+
H2
H2
Tzu
T2
T2 H Tzt
H
H
Hn
Tnu
Tn
Tn J Tnt
4*t
R
R
Tributary area method Hinge method
T1 Catculated from IMç =0

Tf = Load over length Hr+ H212
T2, = Totalearth pressure (ABCGF) - T1
TZ = Load over length H2l2 + H¡1 12
IMo g
TzL = Calculated ftom =
Tn = Load over length Hnl2 + H¡¡412
- T2¡
R = Load over length Hn+'tl2 Tnu = Totalearth pressure (CDIH)
TnL = Calculated from IM== g
R = Total earth pressure - T, - Tz - Tn

T2 = Tzu* T2L
Tn = Tnu+TnL
wall.
Figure 34. Calculation of anchor loads for multi-level
5.3.4 Design of the Unbonded t'ength /S' ,o'

ground anchors is 4'5 m for strand tendons and 3 m
The minimum unbonded length for rock and soil
prevent significant reductions in load
for bar tendons. These minimum values are iitended to
resulting from seating losses during transfer of load
to the structure following anchor load testing'
67 éç
Longer unbonded lengths may be required to: (1) locate the bond length a minimum distance behind
üre ãriticat potential failure surfacei Q) locate the anchor bond zone in appropriate
ground for
anchoring; 13¡ ensure overall stability of the anchored system; and (4) accommodate long term
*o.,r"*"ñts. In general, the unbonded length is extended a minimum distance of tV5 or 1.5 m
behind the critical potential failure surface (see section 5.3.2) to accommodate minor load transfer to
the grout column above the top of the anchorbond zone.
As a general rule, the anchor bond zone and unbonded zone should be grouted in one stage to
maintain hole stability and to create a continuous grout cover for corrosion protection. However, for
large diameter anchois in which the unbonded length of the anchor extends
just behind the critical
poiential failure surface, significant strains at the top of the anchor bond zone may cause load
iransfer into the grout column above the anchor bond zone. Large diameter anchors have been
grouted in two stages (two stage grouting). With two stage grouting, the anchor bond length is
lrouted (Stage l) and the anchãr ii tested. The unbonded length
portion of the drill hole is then
recommended since local
ltoot.d (Stage 2) after the anchor is tested. The two-stage procedure is not
õo[apse of the ground can occur which will compromise the corrosion protection provided by the
grout.
5.3.5 CompressionAnchors
Compression anchors are anchors in which the grout body in the bond length is, at least partially'
loadeì in compression. For a typical tension ground anchor (see figure 1), the anchor bond length
and tendon bond length coincide. For these anchors, load is transferred first at the top of the anchor
and, with continued loading, progresses downward to the bottom of the anchor. For single-stage
grouted tension anchors, beóause load is first transferred to the top of the anchor bond zone, there is
ihe potential for load transfer into the "no-load zone", i.e., that arca of the tendon between the
struðture and the assumed failure plane. This is especially a concern for large diameter anchors
installed in some cohesive soils for which relatively large residual movements are required to
develop bond at the grout/ground interface.
Two tlpes of compression anchors have been used. These include: (1) a ground anchor fitted with
* pUte (figuie 35a); and (2) a composite design where the top of the tendon bond length is
"ná a certain distance into the anchor bond length (figure 35b). During stressing, the entire
extendeã
grout column for the endplate compression anchor is loaded in compression whereas for the
õomposite design, the poftiõn of the anchor grout located above the top of the tendon bond length is
loaded in compression. The use of compression t)fpe anchors minimizes the load transferred above
the anchor bond zone into the "no-load zone." Compression anchor design should consider expected
levels of compressive strain in the grout body. Strains should be within tolerable limits to minimize
\iVhere compression anchors are to be
the potential for the grout to fail due to compression loading.
ur"á fo, a peflnanent application, a predesign test program may be wa¡ranted unless the behavior and
satisfactory performance of the proposed compression anchor has been verified through prior
experience or research results.
Compression anchors are not commonly used for small diameter anchors in cohesionless deposits,
but may be used for large dillmeter anchors in cohesive soils. In cohesive soils, composite design
comprÅsion anchors are typically designed with a tendon bond length equat to 50 to 100 percent of
the anchor bond length.
68 6'f
zone loadlng wall Aclive zone
loadlng wall
Min¡mum distanca from wall to

start of anchor bond length
Envelope ofdeepest points of

potenüal failure mechanisms
whicfi require some anchor
force for st¡abillty
Figure 12. Contribution of ground anchors to wall stability
4.2 FAILURE MECHANISMS OI'ANCHORED SYSTEMS
4.2.1 General
Many different types of anchored systems can usually fulfill the needs of a particular project.
To
achieve maximum economy, the objective of the designer is to speciff only those parameters
that are
necessary for long-term stability ofthe anchored system and to tèave itre final
seleõtion ofthe anchor
details to the contractor. Anchor system performance is evaluated by testing each
installed anchor at
loads that exceed the design load. To detèrmine the parameters that should be specified,
the ;;;i;n",.
must consider various possible failure mechanisms.
4.2.2 Failure Mechanisms of the Ground Anchor
There are several possible failure mechanisms of ground anchors. These are
usually caused by
excessive static loading of an anchor. Excessive loads can be related to: (l)
tension placed in the
anchor during load testing or at lock-off; (2) excavation sequence; (3) surcharge
Uy'"onri*.tion
materials or equipment; (4) construction of adjacent structures; or (5) a combination
of these causes.
Ground anchor failure mechanisms may involve the steel tendon, the ground
mass, ttre grãunãarout
zone, and the grout-tendon zone, as described subsequently.
Failure of the SteelTendon
As the anchor is loaded, the steel tendon component of the anchor is stressed in
tension. If the
applied load is greater than the structural capacity of the tendon, failure is inevitable.
Therefore, a
factor of safety must be used with respect to structural failure of the steel. It is
recommended that the
tendon load not exceed 60 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength (SMTS)
for final design
and 80 percent of SMTS for temporary loading conditions (e.g., loading
Oiring testing).
¿¿
28
Predpsígn and Preproduction Load Testing
Predesign load tosts are occasionally performed to evaluate ultimate anchor

load-carrying capacity
and/or creep behavior of anchors installed in creep susceptible soils. When
tte cãpacity of
individual anchors is critical to the design, it may be dãsirableìo install and test
several test anchors.
Predesign load tests may be performed for cases where the required capacity
or trre *"trár, ,*"."¿,
local experience or the required construction method is unusual. In general, predesign
load tests are
not commonly used and when they are conducted they are performed as part
I of a separate contract
that is paid for by the owner.
Anchors used for predesign load tests are generally not incorporated into
the final structure as load
carrying elements because of the damage that may be induceã by the high
testing loads required to
evaluate ultimate anchor capacity. If possible, thaanchors shoulà be fabãcated
and insta[eá exactly
as planned for the production anchors. If testing loads will exceed
80 percent of SMTS of the
production anchors, additional tendon capacity should be provided (i.e.,
increase the number of
strands or use larger bar diameter). Procedures used for a prõdesign
testing program.are provided in
appendix D. The objective of most predesign test programs is to establish
tiie anchor load at which
the creep rate becomes unacceptable. Complete dõcumentation of a predesign
test program for the
I90 project in seattle, 'washington is contained in ruwe-Dp-90-õ6g-00ã (199ó). -In
general,
however, predesign load testing test programs are rarely executed due
to time and cost factors.
Preproduction anchor testing programs, which can provide similar
information concerning
acceptable anchor loads, are cornmonly performed. Wlth a preproduction
testing program, the
contractor performs performance tests on several anchors. Performance
tests (see section 7.3.2)
involve incremental loading and unloading of an anchor in progressively increasing
load inÃments
to a ma¡rimum test load equal to 133 percent of the design load. Extended creep
tests (see section
7 '3'4) are commonlyused in the preproduction testing ptàgt* to evaluate
the creep behavior of the
anchor at all test loads from 25 to 133 percent ofthe design load. The advantages
ofpreproduction
load testing as compared to predesign load testing includei: (1) less expensive
since cóntractor only
mobilizes to site on one occasion; (2) less time consuming (e.g., ón" day)
when compared to
predesign testing (e.g., five days); and (3) ability to duphcãte gfound
conditions for pråduction
anchors. The results- of the early-on performanca tests carried oùt u, part of preprodJction
a load
testing progr¿Ìm may be used to verify anchorbond zone load transfer.uL,
o, as a means to optimize
wall design through use of a higher load transfer rate as compared to the load
transfer rate used to
develop the original design.
5.3.7 Spacing Requirements for Ground Anchors
Each ground anchor in an anchored system is commonly designed assuming

that the anchor ca¡ries a
tributary area of load based on the horizontal and vertlcal spacing beffieeî adjacent anchors. The
size and strength of the anchor tendon, drilling and grouting procedures, and
diameter and length of
the anchor are selected to ensure that the ground *"hot can carr.y this load throughout
its sãrvice
life. ThE horizontal and vertical spacing of the ground anchors will vary deperiding on proiect
specific requirements and constraints, *!i"h may include: (1) necessity for ä very
stiff-system (i.e.,
closely spaced anchors) to control lateral wall movements; (2) existing underground
structures that
mly aff€ct the positioning and inclination of the anchors; u"¿ t¡l
tfre of vertical wall elements
selected for the design.
75
67
The vertical position of the uppermost ground anchor (i.e., the ground anchor closest to the ground
surface) should be evaluated considering the allowable cantilever deformations of the wall. The
vertical position of the uppermost anchor must also be selected to minimize the potential for
exceeding the passive capacity of the retained soil during anchor proof and performance load testing.
During load testing, permanent anchors are t¡pically loaded to 133 percent of the design load
resulting in movement of the wall into the retained ground. If the design load for the uppermost
ground anchor is relatively large, as is the case where large surcharge or landslide loads must be
resisted, or if the soils are disturbed or relatively weak, the passive capacity of the soil may be
exceeded during load testing. If the passive capacity is exceeded, the soldier beams or sheet pile will
move excessively into the retained ground; for soldier beam wall systems, the timber lagging may
bend and crack excessively. A method to check the passive capacity of the soil at the location of the
uppermost anchor is provided in section 5.1L.4.
For ground anchors installed in soil, a minimum overburden of 4.5 m over the center of the anchor
bond zone is required (figure 37a). This is required to prevent grout leakage during installation of
pressure grouted anchors and to prevent heave at the ground surface resulting ftom large grouting
pressures. For gravity-grouted anchors, the minimum overburden criterion is required to provide the
necessary soil overburden pressure to develop anchor capacity.
Potontal
Falluru
Surfaæ
(mln)
t b
H
T
Wall S¡
Fece
b
I
î
Mlnlmum unbonded length = 3m (bar)
4.5m (shand)
sn t l2t
I = 1.5m or 0.2H, wlrldrcr¡ar lr greabr 4fr
(al Wallcross ¡ectlon (bl Wall plan vlew
Figure 37. Vertical and horizontal spacing requirements for ground anchors.
The ma¡rimum horizontal spacing between anchors is based on allowable individual ground anchor
loads artd flexural capacity of individual soldier beams or sheet pile sections. Typical horizontal
spacing for soldier beams is 1.5 m to 3 m for driven soldier beams and up to 3 m for drilled-in
soldier beams. The minimum horizontal spacing between anchors shown in figure 37b ensures that
group effects between adjacent ground anchors are minimized and that anchor intersection due to
drilling deviations is avoided. Group effects reduce the load carrying capacity of individual ground
anchors.
¿tr
76
6d. Anchor design
Factors influencing ultimate bond stress
Page 70 from Reference 6.
Page 7l
from Reference 6 - mobilization of bond stress along the
anchor and the effectiveness of pressure grouting and post grouting in
sand and clay.
69
Table 3. Typical factors influencing bond stress transfer for small diameter ground anchors
Soil Type
Factor Cohesionless Cohesive
Soil Properties Friction angle and grain size Adhesion and plasticity index.
distribution.
Drilling Method Driven casing increases Drilling without casing or with fluids
normal stress and friction. decreases capacity.
Bond Iængth Steady increase in anchor Steady increase in anchor capacity for
capacityto6mwith soils with undrained strength less than
moderating increases to 12 rn. 96 kPa.
Hole Diameter Slight increase in anchor Anchor capacity increases to 300 mm.
capacity to 100 mm.
Grout Pressure Anchor capacity increases Anchor capacity increases only with
with increasing pressure. stage grouting. High initial pressures
should be avoided.
Note: To ensure ground-grout bond, the drill hole should be cleaned and the grout should be placed
as quickly as possible after the hole has been drilled.
Failure at the ground-grout interface may also be chancteized by excessive deformations under
'sustained loading (i.e., creep). Soil deposits that are potentially susceptible to excessive creep
deformations include: (1) organic soils; (2) clay soils with an average liquidity index (Lf) greater
than 0.2; (3) clay soils with an average liquid limit (LL) greater than 50; and (a) clay soils with an
average plasticity index (PI) greater than 20. Conservative anchor design loads and working bond
stress values are recoÍtmended for design involving pennanent anchor installations in such soils,
unless based on results from a predesign or preproduction test program. Predesign and
preproduction test programs are described in section 5.3.6.
The LL, plastic limit (PL) and moisture content (wn) of a clay soil are commonly measured clayey
soil index properties. The LI indicates where the moisture content of the clay falls within the range
berween rhe plastic and liquid limits. Liquidity index for a soil is defined as:
rr w.-PL (Equation 1)
l-l-_-
PI
A low LI indicates that the moisture content is relatively close to the PL of the soil, indicating a
potentially overconsolidated or stiff soil. A LI close to 1.0 indicates that the moisture content is
relatively close to the LL for the soil, indicating a potentially normally consolidated or soft soil.
7o
30
òapacity as residual load transfer values develop at the top and the peak value shifts towards
the
bottom.
aD
al,
lnitial Progressive Ultimate
0)
Loading Loading Loading
(t
!,
co ,a..'-'.-att
/-
r0
Residud -T_
Bond Stress{
Bottom of
Top of
Bond Length
Bond Length
Figure 36. Mobilization of bond stress for a tension anchor.
pressure grouting in cohesionless soils significantly increases the normal stresses acting on the grout
body (i.e- in r"*"r confinement). Small increases may also be observed in the effective diameter of
the anchor bond zone, but capacity estimates should be based on the as-drilled hole diameter. A
range of ultimate bond stresJ values that have been measured for gravity-grouted and pressure-
gtoútrd soil anchors is provided in table 7 to show variation in field measured ultimate values.
Wtr.n reviewing ultimate bond stress values such as those presented in table 7, it is important to
recognize that large bond stress values do not necessarily imply a correspondingly large anchor
per unit tèn$h. For example, a hollow stem augered anchor can develop more capacity per
"up*ity
onìt t"ngtfr than a r*¿l diameter, post-grouted anchor due primarily to the anchor diameter not the
bond stress value.
pressure grouting can be effective in increasing capacity in cohesive soils, however, post-grouting is
a more effectine-*"ans of increasing capacity in cohesive soils. Post grouting increases the radial
stresses acting on the grout body and causes an irregular surface to be developed around the bond
lengfh that teñds ¡9 interlock the grout and the ground. It is difficult to predict load capacity in post-
gro-uted anchors owing to the complexity of the grouting procedures used, however, post-grouting of
by 20 to 50
iround anchors in cohesive soil Jan increase load capacity of a straight shaft anchor
percent or mofe per phase of post-grouting with three phases being the common limit (PTI' 1996).
7/
72
6e. Anchor design
Typical values of ultimate bond stress
72
rFã
these assumptions to develop a preliminary estimate of the anchor bond length, it must be verified
that for the ràquired excavation height the minimum unbonded length can be developed.
Soil Anchors
For the purposes of preliminary design, the ultimate load transfened from the bond lengfh to the soil
may beìstimated for a small diameter, straight shaft gravity-grouted anchor from the soil type and
density (or SpT blowcount value) (table 6). The maximum allowable anchor design load in soil
may
be detLrmined by multipþing the bond length by the ultimate transfer load and dividing by a factor
of safety of 2.0.
Table 6. presumptive ultimate values of load transfer for preliminary design of small diameter
straight shaft gravity-grouted ground anchors in soil.
Soil type Relative density/ConsistencY Estimated ultimate transfer load

(kN/m)
(SPT range)(l)
Ø¡t
Loose (4-10) 145 /o
Sand and Gravel Medium dense (11-30) 220 ¡S
Dense (31-50) 290 2o
Sand Loose (4-10) 100 1
Medium dense (11-30) t45 to
Dense (31-50) 190 /3
Sand and Silt Loose (4-10) 70 t-
Medium dense (11-30) 100 1
Dense (31-50) 130 ?
Silt-clay mixture with low stiff (10-20) 30 2
plasticity or fine micaceous sand Hard (21-40) 60 +
or silt mixtures
/ -tNþ - o,oéet *'p/ft

Note: (1) SPT values are corrected for overburden pressure.
Anchor bond lengths for gravity.grouted, pressure-grouted, and post-grouted soil anchors are
t¡rpically 4.5 to 7Z * since significant increases in capacity for bond lengths -greater than
approximately 12 mcannot be achieved unless specialized methods are used to transfer load from the
tôi of the anõhor bond zone towards the end of the anchor. For anchor bond zones that function in
teision, initial load increments transferred to the anchor bond zone are resisted by the soil near the
top of the anchor bond zone as strains occur in the upper grout body (figure 36). As additional
inãrements of load are transferred to the anchor bond zone, the strains in the top of the anchor bond
zone may exceed the peak strain for strain sensitive soils. In that case, the bond stress begins to
decrease at the top *ã th" peak strain shifts down the anchor body. In strain sensitive
soils, the
shape of the stress-strain diãgram will determine the actual bond length where significant load is
mobilized. Attempts to mobilize larger portions of the bond length will result in small increases in
7t 73
Table 7. Presumptive average ultimate bond stress for ground/grout interface along anchor bond zone (after PTI, 1996).
Rock Cohesive Soil Cohesionless Soil

Rock t¡pe Average ultimate Anchor tlpe Average ultimate Anchor t1rye Average ultimate
bond stress bond stress bond stress
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Granite and basalt 1,.7 -3.1 Gravity- grouted anchors 0.03 - 0.07 Gravity- grouted anchors 0.07 - 0.14
(straight shafQ (straight shaft)
Dolomitic [mestone 1.4 - 2.r Pressure-grouted anchors Pressure-grouted anchors
(straight shaft) (straight shaft)
Soft limestone 1.0 - 1.4 o Soft silty clay 0.03 - 0.07 o Fine-med. sand, 0.08 - 0.38
med. dense - dense
Slates and hard shales 0.8 - 1.4 r Silty clay 0.03 - 0.07 o Med.-coarse sand 0.11 - 0.66
(dgravel), med.
dense
Soft shales 0.2 - 0.8 o Stiff clay, med. to 0.03 - 0.10 o Med.-coarse sand o.25 - O.97
higb plasticity (dgravel), dense -
very dense
Sandstones 0.8 - 1.7 . VerI stiffclay, med. o.o7 - o.t1 r Silty sands 0.17 - 0.41
to high plasticity
Weathered 0.7 - 0.8 e Stiffclay, med. 0.10 - 0.25 r Dense glacial till 0.30 - 0.52
Sandstones plasticity
Chalk o.2 - 1,.1 . Very stiff clay, med. 0.14 - 0.35 o Sandy gravel, med. 0.21 - 1.38
plasticity dense-dense
'Weathered
Marl 0.15 - 0.25 . Very stiff sandy silt, 0.28 - 0.38 o SandJgravel, dense- 0.28 - 1.38
med. plasticity very dense
Concrete 1.4 -2.8
Note: Actual values for pressure-grouted anchors depend on the ability to develop pressures in each soil type.
\ 73 1 P/f+ * Zo.at "4^/

r-
-ß
f
t
RockAnchors
For rock anchors, tlpical bond lengths range from 3

to 10 m with a minimum of 3 m. Thç ultimate
sound rock may be estimated from the rock tlpe
load transferred from the bond length to cJmpetent
a georogist especially if the rock mass
(table g). Lower values may be recoÍrmendeå after input from
allowable anchor dgsisn load in competent
strength is controuJ by discontinuities. The ma:cimum
by the ultimate transfer load and dividing by
rock may be determined by multipþing the bond length
a factor of safety of 3.0. ihis relativet, n"n
valug or ttt".ru"tor of safety (compared to that for soil)
potential discontinuities in the rock mass such as
is used to account for uncertainti". *r*iuird with rt
shales, bond stress transfer is
joints, fractures, and clay-filled fissures. In weak iocks such as clay
relatively uniform as compared to bond stress transfer
in more competent rock. These weak rocks
.,intermediate geomaterials" and have unconfined compressive strengths defined as
may be termed
anchor bond lengths in these materials
varying from 0.5 to 5.0 Mpa. Design values for evaluating
load transfer value'
should use a factor of safety of 2.0 on the ultimate
Tables.Presumptiveultimatevaluesofloadtransferfor
preliminary design of ground anchors in rock'
Rock type Estimated ultimate transfer load

(kN/m) -L/
Granite or Basalt 730 5o
Dolomitic Limestone 580 fo /þfn=

SoftLimestone Mo Jo o.a(tt ¿/fr
Sandstone Mo 3o
Slates and Hard Shales 360 zt

Soft Shales 150 t0
interface yhich have been measured

Typical ranges of ultimate bond stress values for the rock/grout
are provided in table 7. Alternativery,
prl (1996) suggests that the ultimate bond stress between
unconfined compressive strength of the rock
rock and grout can be approximateo * io p.tòent of the
up to a *ã*i*o* value for ultimate bond stress of 3.1
MPa.
is that the bond at the rock¡grout interface

In the calculation of bond length, the implicit assumption
unless the anchor bond zone is formed in soft
is mobilized uniformly. Thisîs unlikelj to be the case
of the grout to the elastic
or weak rock. For óonditions where'the ratio of the elastic modulus
load is transferred from the tendon to
modulus of the rock is less than one (e.g., in competent.rock),
zone; any additional lengfh of anchor bond
the rock only in the upper 1.5 to 3 m of-tíre anchór bond
zone may be considered to provide an additional margin
of safety. Therefore, use of average bond
stress values such as those provided in table 7 may
result in calculated bond lengths significantly
greater than that which is required to resist the design load.
74 7S
6f. Anchor design
PropeÈies of steel bars and strands
Pages 77 and 78 from Reference 6.
Note that the design load shall not exceed 60 percent, the lockoff load
shall not exceed 70 percent, and maximum test load shall not exceed
80 percent of the specified minimum tensile strength for the
prestressing steel.
76
5.3.8 Selection of kestressing Steet Element
The prestressing steel element of the tendon (i.e., strand or bar)

must be capable of safely
Fansmitting load in the anchor bond zone to the str¡cture without
tendon breakage. For the design
load and the lock-off load, separate factors s{etf are applied with respect to the potential failure
mechanism of tendon b¡eakage. The, design 9r
loaå shall not exceed 60 percent of the specified
minimurn tensile strength (SMTS) of the prestressing steel.
The lock-off load shall not exceed Z0
percent of the sMTs and the mærimum test load shalinotexceed g0
percent of the SMT5.
For example' if the maximum test load is 133 percent of
the design load, then the ground anchor
should be selected based on a maximuq allowabìe design
load of to.s¡i.ããi S\{TJ;Jôäönr.îi. r¡
the maximum test load is_150 percent of the design loudl
thro the maximum ¿lowable design load is
(0.8/1.5) SMTS or0.53 SMTS.
Dimensions and strengths of bars and strands commonly

used in the u.s. for highway applicæions
are provided in table 9 and table 10, respectively. Larier
size strand tendons (i.e., strand tendons
with more strands than those shown in table tô) areã""1r¡r" i*A;tiä;;ä"töä;",
ground anchor design loads. Information on 13-mn
strand can be found in ASTM A416.
dianeter strárnd. òr Grade 250 (meti 1725) c
Table 9, Properties of prestressing steel bars (ASTM A7z2).
Steel Nominal ultimate Nominal cross Ultimate Prestessing force

grade diameter stress section area sfrength
f- A* f-, A*.
o.g fDo A* 0.7 foo A." _ 0.6 f,r, A*
ftsi) dn.) &si) (in.z) (kips) (kips)
I 150 0.85
- 127.5 toz.o 89.3 76.5
l-lt4 150 1.25 187.s r50.0 131.3 112.5
150 l-3t8 150 1.58 237.0 189.6 165.9 142.2
t-3t4 150 2.66 400.0 320.0 280.0 240.O
2-tn r50 5.t9 778.O 622.4 435.7 466.8
I 160 0.85 136.0 108.8 95.2 81.6
160 l-u4 r60 1.25 200.0 160.0 140.0 120.o
t-3t8 160 1.58 252.8 202.3 177.O 15t.7
26 1035 548 568 454
32
398 34t
1035 806 835 668 585 501
150 36 1035 1019 1055 844 739 633
45 1035 t7t6 1779 1423 1246 1068
64 1035 3348 3461 2t69 2423 2A77
26 1104 548 605 484 424 3;63
160 32 1104 806 890 712 623 534
36 rt0/. 1019 1,125 900 788 6t5
77 77
Table 10. Properties of 15-mm diameter prestressing steel strands
(ASTM A4l6,Grade 270 (metric 1860)).
Numberof 15-mm Cross section area Ultimate Prestressing force

diameter strands strensth
0.8 fpoAps 0.7 fpoAps 0.6 fpuAes
lin.') lmmz) ftios) &r{) fkios) rkN) lkips) &N) lkios) (kN)
I 0.217 140 58.6 260.7 46.9 2W 41.0 182 35.2 156
3 0.651 420 175.8 782.1 140.6 626 123.1 547 105.5 469
4 0,868 560 234.4 1043 187.5 834 r&.1 730 140.6 626
5 1.085 700 293.O 1304 234.4 1043 205.r 912 175.8 782
7 1.519 980 41o.2 1825 328.2 1460 287.t tn7 u6.r 1095
I 1.953 1260 52t.4 2346 421.9 1877 369.2 tu2 316.4 1408
12 2.6U 1680 703.2 3128 562.6 2503 492.2 2t90 421.9 1877
15 3.255 2100 879.0 391 I 703.2 3128 615.3 n37 527.4 2346
l9 4.123 266A ttt3.4 4953 890.7 3963 779.4 3467 668.0 2972
The type and size of the anchors should be evaluated prior to design of the anchor bond zone because
the required hole diameter varies as a function of the tendon size. Table 1l can be used to estimate
the minimum trumpet opening for strand orbar tendons.
Table 11. Guidance relationship between tendon size and trumpet opening size.
Tendon type Minimum suggested trumpet opening size (mm)

Class II corrosion protection Class I corrosion protection
Number of 15-mm diameter strands
4 toz 150
7 115 r65
9 t27 178
:
11 140 t9L
t3 153 203 ,:r
ijr
T7 165 216 'û
'.::.
Bar diameter (mm)

26 & 89
1.
32 70 95
36 76 r02 :;:
:i
.:.
5.4 WALL DESIGN BASED ON LATERAL PRESSURES
5.4.1 Design of Soldier Beams and Sheet'Piles
Anchorecl soldier beam and lagging walls and sheet-pile walls are designed to resist lateral loads
resulting from apparent pressure envelopes including appropriate surcharges, water forces, and
seismic forces. Figure 38 illustrates the method used to calculate wall bending moments for single-
level and multi-level walls for the exposed portion of the wall using the hinge method. The exposed
portion of the wall refers to the height of wall between the ground surface and the bottom of the
ãxcavation. Figure 39 shows the equations that may be used to calculate wall bending moments for
78 7r
7, Anchor Load Testing
Types of test, test loads, procedures, acceptance criteria, lock-off loads
Pe¡{ormance test - Pages 80 through 83 from References 6

Proof test- Pages 84 and 85 from Reference 6.
Extended Creep Test - Pages 85 and 86 from Reference 6.
Acceptance Criteria - Pages 87 through 9O from Reference 6.
Lock-off Load, Lift-off Testing - Pages 91 and 92 from Reference 6.
79
determined based on the results of: (1) performance tests; (2) proof tests; and (3) extended creep
tests. In addition, shorter duration creep tests (as opposed to extended creep tests) are performed as
part of performance and proof tests. Proof tests are the most common and are performed on the
majority of the ground anchors for a particular project. The number of perfonnance and extended
creep tests that are performed for a project depends upon whether the anchors are for a temporary
support of excavation or permanent application and the type of ground.
Every ground anchor is tested using one of the particular tests introduced above. The results of these
tests are compared to specified acceptance criteria to evaluate whether the ground anchor can be put
into service. The acceptance criteria are based on allowable creep and elastic movements of the
anchor during load testing. A brief discussion of each test type follows.
7.4.2 PerformanceTests
7.4.2.1 General
Performance tests involve incremental loading and unloading of a production anchor. The
performance t€st is used to veiify anchor capacity, establish load-deformation behavior, identify
causes of anchor movement, and to verify that the actual unbonded length is equal to or greater than
that assumed in the anchor design. The results of a performance test may also be used to assist in the
interpretation of the simpler proof test.
Performance tests are coûrmonly performed on the first two or three production anchors installed and
thereafter on a minimum of two percent of the remaining production anchors. Additional
performance testing may be required where creep susceptible soils are suspected to be present or
where varying ground conditions are'encountered. Where ground conditions are variable,
performance test anchors should be located near geotechnical borings, if possible, to facilitate the
interpretation of test measurements.
7.4.2.2 Procedures for Performance Test
The load schedule for a performance test is shown in the fÏrst three columns of table 21. The first
step in a performance test comprises applying a nominal load to the anchor tendon. This load,
termed thcalignment load, is typically no more than five percent of the design load and its purpose is
to ensure that the stressing and testing equipment are properly aligned. The displacement measuring
equipment is zeroed upon stabilizationof the alignment load, AL, as shown on figure 69. During the
first load cycle, the load is raised to 25 percent of the design load and the incremental movement is
recorded (i.e., Point 1 on figure 69). The load is then reduced back to the alignment load. This
procedure is repeated, using load increments as shown on table 21, until the maximum testing load,
referred to as the test load, is achieved. The test load may vary from 120 to 150 percent of the design
load with 133 percent being commonly used for permanent applications and l2O percent being
commonly used for temporary applications. A test load of 150 percent may be used for anchors in
potentially creeping soils or when an independent reference cannot be established for the dial gauge.
t43 8ct
Table 21. Steps for the performance test.
Applied Load Record and Plot Record and Plot Calculate Elastic
Step Loading
Total Movement Residual Movgment
Movement
1 load
2 Cycle I 0.25DL
AL
3 Cycle2 0.25DL
0.5oDL
AL
4 Cycle 3 o.25DL
0.5ODL
0.75DL
AL
5 Cycle 4 0.25DL
0.50DL
0.75DL
1.00DL
AL
6 Cycle 5 0.25DL
0.5ODL
0.75DL
1.00DL
I.zDL
AL
7 Cycle 6 o.25DL
o.7sDL
1.00DL
T.zDL
t.33DL õø, z€fo reading
for
Hold load for 10 minutes while recording movement at specified times. If the total movemerlt
measured
I extended to a total of
during the load hold exceeds the specified maxlmum value then the load hold should be
-minutes.
6 cont'd. AL 6:
9
to load if results see section .4
Notes: AL Alignment Load, DL Design Load, õi= total movement at a load other than maximum for cycle, i=
number a load
F/
144
Percent of
o design load
ô,6
Movement
ô6
4u
10 min
Figure 69. Plotting of performance test data (after PTI, 1996).
At the test load, a constant load is held for ten minutes prior to reducing the load to the lock-off load.
During this ten minute load hold period, movements are measured and recorded at 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6,
and 10 minutes. The purpose of this load hold is to measure time-dependent (i.e., creep) movements
of the anchor. This portion of the performance test is referred to as a creep test. If the total
movement between 1 and 10 minutes exceeds the specified maximum creep movement (see sectiôn
7.4.5.2), the test load is maintained for an additional 50 minutes and total movement is recorded at
20,30,40, 50 and 60 minutes. If the results of a creep test for a specific anchor indicate that creep
movements are excessive relative to specified criteria, the anchor may be incorporated into the
structure at a reduced load, the anchor may be replaced, or, only in the case of postgroutable anchors,
the anchor may be regrouted and then retested.
7 .4.2.3 Recording of Performance Test Data
The magnitude of each load is determined from the jack pressure gauge. During creep testing, a load
cell is monitored to insure that the jack load remains constant. The load-deformation data obtained
for each load increment in a performance test are plotted as shown in figure 70. Movement is
recorded at each load increment and for the alignment load. The total movement (ôt) that is
measured consists of elastic movement and residual movement. Acceptance criteria for anchors
require that the elastic movement of the anchor be known. Elastic movements (ô") result from
elongation of the tendon and elastic movements of the ground anchor through the ground. Residual
movement (ô.) includes elongation of the anchor grout and movement of the entire anchor through
the ground. The residual movement for a given increment of load is the movement that corresponds
to the net "irrecoverable" movement that occurs upon application of a load increment and the
subsequent relaxation of the load to the alignment load (see figure 69 for definition of ôro). The
145 8z
elastic movement is therefore the arithmetic difference between the total movement measured at the
maximum load for a cycle and the movement measured at the alignment load (see table 21).
Although not used for anchor acceptance, residual movement is an indicator of the stress-strain
behavior ofthe ground-grout bond in the anchor bond zone.
ô"
6
Elastic
Movement 2
o
o Percent of
ct design
Residual
Movement
ô,"
Figurq 70. Plotting of elastic and residual movement for a performance test (after PTI, 1996).
During the creep test portion of the performance test, the movement measured at specified times (i.e.,
1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 minutes) is recorded. The time at which the total movement is measured for
the test load (i.e., time at which point 6 on figure 69 is measured) represents the start time for the
creep test. The movement from one to ten minutes after this starting time is recorded and compared
to the acceptance criteria with respect to creep. If the creep acceptability criterion is not satisfied, the
test load is held on the anchor for an additional 50 minutes. The total amount of movement between
6 and 60 minutes is recorded and compared to specified criteria.
Creep acceptability criteria were established for anchors using bare prestressing strand. For epoxy-
coated filled strand tendons, the creep movements of the strand itself are significant during load
testing. The creep movements of the strand should be deducted from the total movement measured
during a load test so that the creep movements within the ground can be accurately calculated.
7.4.2.4 Analysis of Performance Test Data
One of the acceptability criterion for ground anchors is based on measured elastic movements of the
ground anchor during load testing. The elastic movements calculated from a load increment during a
performance. test are evaluated using the equations shown in table 21. These elastic movements
should be calculated for each load cycle and plotted versus each load as shown on figure 70. The
146 83
residual movement curve should also be plotted. For a soil anchor to be considered acceptable with
respect to elastic movements, the elastic movement at the test load must exceed a specified minimum
value. For a rock anchor, the elastic movement must be bounded by a specified minimum and a
specified maximum value. The acceptability criteria with respect to elastic movement are described
in section 7.4.5.3.
7.4.3 Proof Tests
7.4.3.1 General
The proof test involves a single load cycle and a load hold at the test load. The magnitude of the
applied load is measured using the jack pressure gauge. Load cells are only required for creep tests
in soils where the performance tests show a creep rate cxceeding I mm per log cycle of time. The
proof test provides a means for evaluating the acceptability of anchors that are not performance
tested. Data from the proof test are used to assess ihe adequacy of the ground anchor considering the
'Where proof
same factors as for performance test data. test data show significant deviations from
previous performance test data, an additional performance test is recommended on the next adjacent
anchor.
7.4.3.2 Proof Test Procedures and Recording and Analysis of Proof Test Data
The proof test is performed in accordance with the procedure outlined in table 22. The total
movement from each load cycle in a proof test should be plotted as shown in figure 71. lf an unload
cycle is included (Step 4 in table 22), residual movements and elastic movements should be
calculated for the test load. This calculation is the same as that previously described for performance
tests. If an unload cycle is not performed, an estimate of residual movement can be based on
performance tests on other production anchors from the same project.
Table 22. Test procedure for ground anchor proof test.
Step 1. Apply the alignment load at which total movement is assumed equal to zero
Step 2. Successively apply and record total movements for the following load increments to
the test load: 0.25DL, 0.50DL, 0.75DL, 1.00DL, l.20DL, l.33DL (i.e., the test
load). Note that the test load for an anchor for a temporary support of excavation
application may be set at 1.20 DL.
Step 3. Hold test load for ten minutes and record total movement.
Step 4. (Optional) Unload to alignment load and record residual movement.
Step 5. If if Step 4
test results satisfy acceptance criteria, reduce load to the lock-off load (or
was used, increase load to lock-off load), otherwise follow guidance provided in
section 7.4.5.4.
t47 e/
o
N
Percent of
design
Total
Movement
ô,
10 mln
Figure 71. Plotting of proof test data (after PTI' 1996)'
7.4.4 Extended CreeP Testing

7.4.4.1 General
(e.g., approximately 8 hours) that is used to evaluate
extended creep test is a long duration test
Â,n
creep deformations of anchors. These tests are ì"[uit"á
for anchors installed in cohesive soil having
a plasricity index (PD greater than -20 or liquid Imit
(LL) greater than- 50' For these ground
conditions, a miniminí t*" ground anchors should be subjecied to extended creep testing' tvhere
"f
performance or proof tests requlre extended load holds, extended
creep tests should be performed on
several production anchors.
7.4.4.2 Procedures for Extended Creep Test

to that used for performance or proof tests'
The test affangement for an extended creep test is similar
same as those lor a performance test' At
The increments of load for an extended creep test are the
each load cycle, the load is held for a specifiå
period of time and the movement is recorded' During
The load is assumed to remain reasonably
this observation periãã, the load should- be helã constant.
exceed 0.35 MPa. The loading schedule and
constant if the deviation from the test pressure does not
creep test for a permanent anchor -are
observation periods for each road cycle in an extended
anchors is provided in
provided table 23. Information on extended creep tests foi temporary
iî
FHÏü/A-RD -82-047 ( 1 982).
8(
148
Table 23. Laad schedule and observation periods for extended creep test for permanent anchor
Ioading Ma:rirnum Total Observation Movements measured at following times (min)

Cycle Cvcle Load Period (min)
I 0.25DL 10 1,2,3,4.5,6. 10
2 0.50DL 30 l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
3 0.75DL 30 t.2.3.4.5.6. 10. 15. 20.25.30
4 1.00DL 45 l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45
5 t.20DL 60 l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. 15. 20. 25.30. 45. 60
6 1.33DL 300 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 20,25, 30, 45,60, 300
7.4.4.3 Recording and Analysis of Extended Creep Test Data
The test data for an extended creep test should be plotted as shown in figure 72. The creep
movement at any time is the difference between the total movement and the movement measured at
one minute. Creep curves for a t¡rpical extended creep test are shown on figure 72. Each curve is for
a separate load hold. The creep rate is defîned as the slope of the curve per log cycle of time.
78q_!¡L
E
Ê 0
670 kN
c
o 0
E
o
530 kN
o 0
=CL
o
E 0
o
270 kN
---r0
z.s mml
lo t30 kN
1 10 100 300
TÌme (minutes)
Figure 72. Plotting of extended creep test data (after PTI, 1996).
Extended creep test data are used in evaluating the acceptability of an anchor with respect to the
creep acceptance criteria. Creep rates should be evaluated for each of the curves shown in figure 72.
These creep rates are compared to the maximum specified rate.
s6
t49
*
x
Ê
I
1
7.4.5 AccePtanceCriteria t
j
7.4.5.1 General
load following load testing if certain specified
An anchor may be put into service at the lock-off prescribe acceptable
criteria, which are desciibed herein,
acceptability criteriJare satisfied. These anchor
and erastic movement measured during
limits of creep (i.e., movement durin;ild tror¿sl decision
criteria have been integrated into_an acceptance
road tests. The creep and erastic ,nou"*"n, are to be used in the
tree that is describeäi, it i, section.
This decision tree describes piocedures that
event that a specific criterion is not satisfied'
7.4.5.2 CreeP
is performed
or proof test or as an extended creep test,
creep testing, either as part of a performance
un"io, to evaluate .r."p *o*ment of the anchor grout body through the ground'
on each production
measured during load holds must be below
a
For an anchor to be accepted, total movements
specifîed limit.
at the test
totar movement for the required load hold
For performance and proof tests, the measured less than the 1 mm
1 and 10 minutes. If the movements are
10ad should not exceed 1 mm between
with respect to creep. As previously discussed'
for this period, the anchor is considereJ u"."p,uule load is
exceeds the criteria described above, the
for road tests in which the measured totat movement additional
held for an additional 5O-minute period of
time. If the measured total movement over this
time period does not exceed 2 mmbetween
6 and 60 minutes, then the anchor is considered
acceptable with resPect to creeP'
Forextendedcreeptesting,thetotalmovementforanyloadholdshouldnotexceed2mmper
the fi11l 1ôg cycle of time of each load increment'
logarithmic cycte ãf time"ieTl, 1gq6j ãver
Alternatively, the ancho, load may bé reduced
to 50 p"i."nt of the load where acceptable creep
log cycle of time'
movements wefe measured over the final
7.4.5.3 APParent Free I-ength

the basis for evaluating the acceptability of
a ground
The apparent free rength of a tendon forms
anchor with respect to elasti" -our**-
it apparent free length is defined as the length of the
"
*ou"*ånts at the test lõad, not bonded to the surrounding
tendon that is, based on measured elastic
may be calculated using the following equation:
ground or grout. The apparent free length, Lu,
A,E,ô" 1
(Equation 49)
L^= *
P 1on
prestressing steel, E, is the

young's modulus of the
where: At is the cross sectional area of the minus the
ai the test load, and P is equal to the test load
prestressing steel, A" i, tfr"-.fusdc movement
At (rnm2); E' (kPa); ô" (mm); and P (kN)' For
proof
alignment load. standard SI units are: i" it"lt
measured or estimated, the apparent free
length may be
tests where the residuar movement is not
place of the elastic movement'
calculated using the total movement in
1s0 37
ii
::
l
For long multistrand tendons, it is likely that the elastic modulus of the multistrand tendon will be
.
: less than the manufacturers elastic modulus for a single strand. Because of this, PTI (1996)
recoÍrmends that a reduction in the manufacturers reported elastic modulus of 3 to 5 percent be
allowed for satisfying apparent free length criteria.
Minimum Apparent Free Length Criterion
If the apparent free length is greater than the specified minimum apparent free length, it is assumed
that the unbonded length has been adequately developed. The minimum apparent free length is
defined as the jack length plus 80 percent of the design unbonded length. An apparent free length
less than the specified minimum apparent free length may indicate that load is being transferred
along the unbonded length and thus within the potential slip surface assumed for overall stability of
the anchored system. Alternately, an apparent free length less than the specified minimum apparent
free length may be caused by friction due to improper alignment of the stressing equipment or tendon
within the anchorage. Where test results do not satisfy this criterion, the anchor may be subjected to
two cycles of loading from the alignment load to the test load in an attempt to reduce friction along
the unbonded length. The apparent free length is then recalculated based on the elastic movement at
the test load for the reloaded anchor. A value greater than the jack length plus 80 percent of the
design unbonded length may be used to define the specified minimum apparent frge length for cases
in which the redistribution of friction along the unbonded length could cause unacceptable structural
movement or where there is the potential for prestressing loads to be transferred in the unbonded
length by tendon friction.
Maximum Apparent Free Length Criterion
The acceptance criterion based on maxirnum apparent free length was used in the past when load
transfer along the bond length was assumed to propagate at a uniform rate as the applied load was
increased (see figure 65). For that assumption, the maximum value of apparent free length was
restricted to elastic movements of 100 percent of the free length plus 50 percent of the bond length
plus the jack length. However the concept of uniform distribution of bond is not valid for soil
anchors and only approximates the behavior of most rock anchors. The primary use of this criterion
is as an alternate acceptance criterion for proof tests in sound rock where creep tests are waived.
Anchors that do not pass this preliminary criterion are subsequently creep tested to determine
acceptability before a decision is made to reject the anchor.
7.4.5.4 Ground Anchor Acceptance Decision Tree
PTI (1996) developed a ground anchor acceptance decision tree that is shown in figure 73. The
decision tree does not include the maximum apparent free length criterion as this criterion is not
routinely used. The purpose of the decision tree is to provide recommendations as to the field
procedures that should be followed in the event that an anchor does not satisff specified acceptance
criteria. Anchors that do not satisfy the requirements for lock off at the design lock-off load may be
locked off at a reduced load or replaced.
Whether an anchor satisfies the minimum apparent free length criterion is the first decision to be
made using the decision tree. The ground anchor acceptance decision tree indicates that for an
151 s&
anchor to be put into service at the design lock-off load, the elastic movement (i.e., minimum
apparent free length) criterion must be satisfied. The following sections provide information
of the
recommended procedures to be used for an anchor that has passed the minimum
apprirent free length
criterion and for an anchor that has failed the minimum apparent free length criterion.
Anchors That Pass Apparentt Free Length Criteríon
For anchors which pass the minimum apparent free length criterion, but which do not pass
the
requirements of the creep test, the anchor may, if possible, be post-grouted. Those
anchors that can
be post-grouted will be retested and subject to an enhanced .rã"p test and a more stringent
acceptance criterion as compared to creep and extended creep tests. For this
enhanced creep ìest,
movements are monitored during a load hold at the test load for 60 minutes. The anchor
may be
locked off at the design test load if the total movement does not exceed I mm between
I and 60
minutes. If the anchor does not satisfy this criteria, it can be either rejected and replaced
or loeked
off at 50 percent of the load that the anthor holds *ithoot detectable movement. If the anchor cannot
be post-grouted, it may either be rejected and replaced or locked-off at 50 percent
of the load that the
anchor holds without detectable movement
Anchors That Fail MinimumApparent Free Length críteríon
Anchors which fail the minimum apparent free length criterion may be either locked-off
at a load no
greater than 50 percent of the maximum load attained during iesting
or rejected and replaced.
Replacement anchors must satisfy all project specifications. Cn*g"r1n ground
anchor locations
require approval from the design engineer. IVhere anchors are instalied using prefabricated
connections to steel beams or sheet-piles, the failed anchor must be removed from
thã ùnnection or
a new connection must be fabricated. Connections may not be offset from
the center of a soldier
beam for a permanent anchor. Off-center connections will induce adverse bending
uJ ioiri*uf
stress on the soldier beam and bending stresses in the tendon.
152 87
ANCHOR TEST TO TEST LOAD
MINIMUM APPARENT FREE

LENGTH CRITERIA
PASS FAIL
CREEP CRITERIA
PASS FAIL
POSTGROU NO POSTGROUT
LOCK-OFF
LOCK.OFF AT 50%
AT DESIGN REJECT
AND .OF THE
LOCK-OFF MAXIMUM
LOAD REPLACE
ACCEPTABLE
TEST LOAD
ENHANCED
ACCEPTANCE
REJECT
CRITERIA
AND
REPLACE
PASS FAIL
R
OR
OR
LOCK.OFF
LOCK.OFF
REJËCT AT 50%
AT DESIGN
ANO OF THE
LOCK.OFF
REPLACE MAXIMUM
LOAD
ACCEPTABLE
TEST LOAD
Figure 73. Ground anchor acceptance decision tree (after PTI, 1996).
153 /o
7 .4.5.5 Modification of Design or Installation Procedures
Multiple failures early in construction or multiple failures of adjacent anchors should be cause to
,"urr"ìs subsurface conditions and/or design and installation procedures. Modifications to design and
installation procedures commonly includã: (1) changing initallation methods or anchor type; (2)
(3)
increasing tlie anchor length or anchor bond length or changing the inclination of the anchor; or
reducingihe anchor design load by increasing the number of anchors. A description of any proposed
changes-should be submitted to the owner in writing for review and approval prior to implementing
the changes.
7.5 ANCTIOR LOCK.OFF LOAD
After load testing is complete and the anchor has been accepted, the load in the anchor will be
reduced to a specified load termed the "lock-off' load. V/hen the lock-off load is reached, Jleload is
transferred from the jack used in the load test to the anchorage. The anchorage transmits this load to
the wall or supporting structure
The lock-off load is selected by the designer and generally ranges between 75 and 100 percent of the
anchor design load, where the anchor design load is evaluated based on apparent earth pressure
envelopes. Lock-off loads of approximately 75 percent of the design load may be used for temporary
ruppott of excavation systems where relatively large lateral wall movements are permitted. Since
upþ*"nt earth pressure diagrams result in total loads greater than actual soil loads, lock-off at 100
p-ercent of the disign load typically results in some net inward movement of the wall. Lock-off loads
greater than 100 percent of the design load may be required to stabilize a landslide. For this case,
itructural elements must be sized to transmit potentially large landslide forces into the ground.
Loads consistent with the required tandslide restraint force to obtain a target slope stability factor of
safety are selected for the lock-off load.
When transferring the lock-off load to the anchorage, the load will inevitably be reduced owing to
mechanical losses associated with the physical transfer of load between two mechanical systems (i.e.,
the jack and the anchorage). These losses are referred to as seating losses and are generally on the
ordãr of 1.6 mm for bar tendons and 6.4 mm for bare strand tendons (FHWA-DP-68-1R, 1988). For
strand tendons, seating losses occur as the jack ram is retracted and the wedges are pulled in around
the tendon. The wedges must be seated at a load no less than 50 percent of the ultimate load for the
tendon. This will prevent possible strand slip through the wedges if the load in the tendon increases
above the lock-off load during the service life. For epoxy coated strand, the wedges must bite
through the epoxy coating; this results in additional seating losses. To account for seating losses,
after ihe tendon is loaded to the lock-off load, the jack ram is extended by an amount equivalent to
the anticipated seating loss.
In the long-term, the load will also reduce due to relaxation in the prestressiñg steel. Long-term load
losses *uy be estimated as 4 percent for strand tendons and2 percent for bar tendons (FHWA-DP-
68-lR, téSS). Specific information on relaxation losses should be obtained from the tendon
supplier. To account for these load losses, the load that is transferred to the anchorage may be
t54
/r
I
!
Ì.
t:
::
t:
increased above the desired load based on results of a lift-off test. After the losses, the transferred
.l
load will reduce presumably to the desired long-term load.
:
7,6 LIFT.OFF TESTING
After the load has been transferred to the anchorage, a lift-off test is performed. The purpose of a
lift-off test is to verify the magnitude of the load in the tendon. For strand tendons, the lift-off test is
performed by gradually reapplying load to the tendon until, for restressable anchor heads, the wedge
plate lifts off the bearing plate (without unseating the wedges) or, for cases where the hydraulic jack
rests on the anchor head, the wedges are lifted out of the wedge plate. For bar tendons, the lift-off
test is performed by gradually reapplying load to the tendon until the anchor nut lifts off the bearing
plate (without turning the anchor nut). Lift-off is evidenced by a sudden decrease in the rate of load
increase as observed on the jack pressure gauge. The load measured during the lift-off test should be
within five percent of the specified lock-off load. 'Where this criterion is not met, the tendon load
should be adjusted accordingly and the lift-off test repeated.
155
7L
8. Design of lagging for temporary suppoft
Pages 94 and 95 from Reference 6
93
critical, an allowable bending stress in
For permanent walls and temporary walls that are considered
,;,;¡ 0.5i Fr, i"rr"i" r, is tue yield stress of the siteel, is recommended. steel
-Grade.36
the soldier beam,
sheet-pile and soldier beams *" "o*onf either Fv= 248-!VtI>Ð or Grade 50 (Fv = 345
stress may be allowed for
Mpa). For temporary soE walls, o zõ'-p"*"nt increase in the-allowable
positive wall benãing -oro"no berween anchor locations;
no allowable stress increase is
recomrnendea tor nega'tive wall bendini srovements
at the anchor locations. The required section
modulus S*, is cdlculated as:
M** @quation 22)
S¡to =
'Fu
standard sI units are s(mm3), M* (kr.{-m), and Fu
(Mpa). In most cases, several-avail1ble steel
actual wall section selected will be based on
sections wü qrpically meet this requirement. The
connection.
.ã"oäJ,"rl"*J"i p*rrr"nce, cost, constructability, and details of the anchor/wall
competent materials, it is usually
ïvhen designing permanent anchored walls in relativeþ uniform
provided thaü (1) the ground can develop
only necessary to check the final stage of constn¡ction
adequate passive ,erirt*." below ürã excavation
to support the wall; (2) apparent earth pressrre
and (Ð there is minimal over excavation below
diagrams are used to assess the roading on the_wail;
cases where there are large concentrated
each anchor tevel G,ïrwe-np-grtóo, lggs). For
prudent to check wall bending moments for the initial
surcharges or berms at the ground surfacá, it is
and lock-offof uppermost anchor)'
cantilever stage (i.e., stageiust priorto installation
.where designers commonly use a
the final excavation height is not the most critical condition,
staged construction analysis the naximum
wall bending moment, wall deflections' and wall
this
embedment depth *" for several stages of construction. An analysis is required fOr
"nulouæd occur at an intermediate stage of constructign
(i'e''
case since the maximum bending moment may
construction stages may be critical when:
before the final excavation depth is reached). íntermediate
(Ð-the excavation extends
(1) triangular earth pressure diagrams a¡ó used to design the wall;
anchor; (3) a cutoff wall is used to maintain
significantly below an anchoi rever prior to stressing that
the water level behind the wall; (a) the soil below th"
boao- of the excavation is weak resulting in
resistance provided by the toe of the wall; and
active earth pressures that are greater than available
(5) structues ¿ire located near the wall'
5.4i.2 Desip of Lagging for Temporary Support
beam and lagging walls is based primarily on

The thickness of temporary timber laggrng for-soldier
presents recommended thicknesses of constnrction
experience or s"mi*jmpiri"ul 4"r._ iuùr" 12 may use other
temporary SOE walls'
grade lumbçr fo, t"ropörury tigber laggrng' Foì -cgntractors
gõod performance of the lagging thickness for
lagging thicknesses provided trr"v-,uriã"rãonstrare
*ullt õonstructed in similar ground'
permanent wall loads' For
permanent timber lagging has been used in lieu of a concrete face to carry
should be designed according to stnrctural
permanent applicatiõis,Ih" ti.b", grade and dîmensions
incruding: (1) need to provide
guidelines. several problems ."_1-"1" r* pennaûent
timber lagging-and
for tirouãr; (3) difficulty in providing
fue prorection ror-tåe rueeiog; iz) ti-it"¿ìervice life
81
7f
Table 12. Recommended thickness of temporary timber lagging (after FTIWA-RD-75-I3O,1976)
Soil Description Unified Soil Depth Recommended thickness oflagging GoughcuÐ for clear spans of:
Classification (m)
1.5m I r.Sm I Z.rm I Z.+^ | Z.tm | :.0*
COMPETENT
Silt or fine sand and silt ML, SM.ML
SOILS
above water table
Sands and gravels GW, GP, GM, 0-8 50mm 75 mm 75 mm 75 mm 100 mm l00mm
(mediumdense to dense) GS, SW SP,
SM
Clays (stiff to very stiff); CL, CH 8-18 75 mm 75 mm 75 mm lü) mm l00mm 125 mm
non-fissured
Clays, medium CL,CH

consistency and ItI <5
so
DITTICT]LT
Sand and silty sand (loose) sw, sP, sM
soILs
Clayey sands (medium sc 0-8 75 mm 75 mm 75 mm 100 mm 100 mm 125 mm
dense to dense) below
water table
Clay, heavily CL, CH 8-18 75 mm 75 mm 100 mm lü) mm 125 mm 125 mm

overconsolidated, fi ssured
Cohesionless silt or fine ML, SM:SL

sand and siltbelow water
table
POTENTIALLY
DANGER,OUS Soft clays rtl >5 CL,CH 0-5 75 mm 75 mm lü) mm 125 mm
SOILS su
Slightly plastic silts below ML 5-8 75 mm l00mm 125 mm l50mm

water table
Clayey Sands (oose), SC 8-ll lü) mm 125 mm l50mm

below watertable
Notes: 1) In the category of "potentially dangerous soils", use of soldier beam and lagging wall systems is questionable.
2) The values shown are based on consfruction grade lumber
3) Iocal experience may take precedence over recommended values in this table.
\s
1
82
9. Penetration depths of soldier piles
Pages 97 through 99 from Reference 5.
96
behind the calculation is that the lateral resistance will be developed over a depth of 1.5 times
the distance to the upper ground anchor., Equation 2.9 gives the passive resistance.
1.125Keyhls . .Í2.91
In Equation2.9, ro is determined using Figure 10, and n' is the depth to the upper ground
anchor
2.2 AXIAL AND LATERAL LOAD BEHAVIOR OF'TIIE TOE
The embedded portion of a ground anchor wall, the toe, must resist vertical and lateral loads.
Vertical loads are caused bythe ground anchors and other applied loads, and lateral load re-
sults from the earth pressures. Figure 20 illustrates skin friction and end bearing mobilized to
resist the axial loads in the wall, and lateral resistance mobilized to resist the toe reaction from
the apparent earth pressure diagram.
T
T
d fäåx b) l3:"i"1
Skin Friclion Lolerol Resislonce
End Beoring
FIGURE 20
Diagram lllustrating the Axial and Lateral Loads on an Anchored Wall Toe
2.2.1 Axial Load
The magnitude of the axial load depends upon: the verticat components of the gfound
anchor ioads, the strength of the supported ground' vertical and lateral movements of the
wall, the relative movements of the ground with respect to the wall, and the axial load-
carrying capacity of the toe. Axial load transferred to a soldier beam toe can be less than or
36
v
more than 1þs vertical components of the anchor loads (Figure 2'1). Axial loads in the wall are
greater than the vertical componÞnts of the ground anchor loads if the ground behind the wall
settles relative to the wall. When the wall settles relative to the ground; the axial load in the
wall is less than the vertical component of the ground anchor.
Axiol Lood
Tension Compression
T
a) No mlatlve movement betrveen wall and ground
Deplh
Axíol Lood
Tension Compression
T
b) Wall settles relative to the ground
Deplh
Axiol Lood
Tension Compression
c) Ground settles rclatlve to tfie rvall
Depth
FIGURE 21
ldealized Axial Load Distributions for Soldier Beam Walls
37
78
using the guide-
Detemine the axiat load to be resisted by the toe of an anchored wall
vertical components of the
lines in Table 7. Axial load transferred to the toe inctudes the
ground anchor loads plus apptied toads einy tle tof transferred to
the ground above
ground above the bottom of the ex-
the bottom of the excivation. rou¿ is transferred to the
The recommendations in Table 7 do
cavation when the shear strength of the ground is high.
they will be transferred to the ground
not include downdrag loads. Ir ¿o*n¿tug loads develop,
after small wall settlements.
TABLE 7
Toe
Guidelines for Estimating the Axial Load Applied to the
SANDS CLAYS
Dense to Very Dense Soft to Medium st¡ff

Medium Dense
SPT > 30 s,<YHl4-5.714H s,>YHl4-5.714H
10<sPT<30
loads plus applied axial

Design toe to resist vertical components of the ground anchor
loads
loads.plus applied axial
giound anchor loads times tanõ(ö
il loãããr¡nr" the horizoniãl compbnents of the
between Q/+ and Q/2)
loads plus applied. axial
in with the ground and s, =
ill loads minus A,'0.25s, (4" = sr*""e area of stèel contac{
undrained sheàr strength)
is determined using relationships

The ultimate axial load-carrying capacity of a soldier beam
pressure when
for either driven piles or ¿rite¿ shafrs. use the average effective overburden
pressure on one side of
determining the skin friction resistance. The effective overburden
the ground surface to the midpoint
the sordier beam depends upon a depth of embedment from
pressure depends upon the
of the toe. on the å*r., side or the beam, the effective overburden
embedment depth from the bottom of the excavation to the
midpoint of the toe. The toe em-
bedment is used when determining the end bearing resistance
for driven soldier beams.
calculations for driven H-
use the block perimeter area for s-kin friction and end bearing
beam sections.
Drilled-in soldier beams may be bacldilled with lean-mix fill or structural

concrete. When
using drilled shaft relationships'
structural concrete is used, the axial capacity is deterrrined
punching through the
\ilhen lean mix fiu is used, determinó the axiat capacity for a beam
is used in the design'
lean.^nix and the àp*ttvîo" drilled shaft. The smallest capacity
"
are in-
axial load transferred to the toe will be zero or very small if the ground anchors
stalted at an angle equal to half the soil friction angle.
38 n
10. Wall and ground movements
Pages 101 through 103 from Reference 5.
100
2.6 WALL AND GROI.JI\D MOVEMENTS
Lateral wall movements and ground surface settlements behind permanent ground anchor
walls witt be small. These walls will be constructed in competent ground, and structures will
not be nearby. Typically, the maximum lateral wall movements will be about 0.002r, and
maximum vertical soil settlements will be about 0.0015r, where ru is the height of the
wall.
Lateral movements can result from bending deformations (cantileyer movements and
lateral butging), outward rotation about the toe of the wall, and translation of the wall.
Settlement behind the wall is a response to the lateral wall movements or consolidation re-
sulting from lowering the groundwater table. Bending deformations depend upon the height of
the wall, stiffness of the wall, the distance to the first anchor, the distance between anchor
levels, and the strength of the ground. Outward rotation about the toe is directly related to
soldier beam settlement. Translation movements may result from mass movements behind the
anchors, redistribution of load along the anchor bond length, anchor yielding, or elastic elon-
gation of the anchor tendon in response to load increases. In a well-designed wall, most of
the deformation will be a result of bending deformations. Rotational and translational
movements will be small, with rotational movements larger than translational movements.
Wall and ground movements estimates are based on experience. Typical lateral and horizontal
movements for flexible retaining walls have been presented by Peck (1969), Goldberg, et al.
(L976), and Clough and O'Rourke (1990). Maximum lateral movements in ground suitable for
permanent ground anchor walls are generally less than 0.005g, with average maximum move-
ments about 0.002n. The largest lateral movement occurs at the top of the wall. Maximum
vertical soil settlements in ground suitable for permanent ground anchor walls are less than
0.005ru, with average maximum settlement tending toward 0.0015¡1. The maximum settle-
ment occurs near the wall. For a 25-ft-high wall, a maximum lateral movement of 0.6 in and
a maximum vertical ground settlement of 0.45 in would represent average performance.
Lateral wall movements and ground settlements cannot be eliminated, but they can be re-
duced by controlling bending deformations and soldier beqn settlements. Reducing the
distance to the upper ground anchor will reduce the cantilever bending deformations, and'
reducing the span between the ground anchors will reduce the bulging deformations. For
flexible walls, the cantilever and bulging deformations can be expressed by Equations 2.24 and
2.25. These relationships were developed by Mueller, et al. (1998).
yc = +xoYnl te" . . .Í2.241
y5 = o.SKoYhLlE" . . . Í2.2s1
/ol
58
where
yo = cantilever deformation
f¡ = bulging deformations
Ko = at-restEarth pressure coefficient
Y = totalunitweight
lr,= depth of excavation to allow the installation of the upper ground anchor
Es = represents a secant modulus on the soil's stress -strain curve (seeTable 8)
ñ = depth ofexcavation
L = span distance
TABLE 8
Ranges for e, for Different SoilTypes
solL E. (psl)
Firm to Stiff 550 - 1150
Clay
Very Stiff 1150 - 2850
sirt 250 - 2850
Loess 2150 - 8550
Loose 1150 - 1700
Fine Sand Medium-dense 1700 - 2850
Dense 2850 - 4250
Loose 1400 - 4250
Sand Medium-dense 4250 - 7100
Dense 7100 - 11400
Loose 4250 - 11400
Gravel Medium-dense 11400 - 14200

Dense 14200 - 28450
The relationships given by Equatioß 2.24 arñ2.25 are for soldier beam walls. When a stiff
wall is used, the relationships are not valid. Movements estimated from the equations show
trends, and they can be used to evaluate the impact of different ground anchor locations. They
represent minimum movements that could be expected. They suggest that cantilever movement
varies with the square of the depth of excavation, and bulging deformations are directþ related
to the distance between the ground anchors or the distance from the lower ground anchor to the
bottom of the excavation. For a typical soldierbeamwall, where Ko O.4, Y :
115 pcf, h1:
: :
9 ft, n 25 ft, L :L6 ft. and E. :
6000 psi the cantilever deformations equal 0.250 in
and the bulging deformations equal 0.204 ú1.
Controlling soldier beam settlements will limit lateral deformations of the wall. Instatting
ground anchors at flat angles will reduce the downward load applied to the soldier beams
59 /oz
and prevent soldier beam settlement. Figure 35 shows how a steep anchor can cause soldier
beam settlement and rotation of the wall around the toe.
Soldier Beom i= Anchor lnclinotion
Ground Anchor
x =duto ni
Point of Roiotion
ô"=Soldier Beqm Settlemenl
FIGURE 35
Relationship Between Soldier Beam Settlement and Wall Movements
Practically, lateral movements and vertical settlements for most soldier beam walls cannot
be reduced below 0.001r.
2.7 CORROSION PROTECTION FOR ANCHOR TEI\DONS
Ground anchor tendon corrosion protection must be designed and constructed to ensure ttrat
the ground anchor will reliably support the wall for its design life. Anchor tendons are fabri-
cated using high-strength prestressing steels that are susceptible to embrittlement Epes of
corrosion. When high-strength steels are used, the corrosion protection systems must be
designed to prevent corrosion. Estimating design life by predicting metal loss is not valid
for prestressing steels. The Post-Tensioning Institute (PTÐ (1996) shows that two classes of
corrosion protection are used in the United States. Figure 36 shows a Class I Protection-
Encapsulated Anchor Tendon, and Figure 37 shows a Class II Protection-Grout Protected
Anchor. The unbonded length and anchorage area for both classes of protection assume that
aggressive conditions exist near the structure. Similar protections are provided for the un-
bonded length and the anchorage of Class I and Class II protected anchors. Corrosion protec-
tions for the tendon bond lengths are different for the different classes of protection. Details
about ground anchor corrosion protection can be found in American Association of State High-
60
/ú3
11, Recommendations for design parameters
Page 105 for Sand - Deiign Parameters for Soldier-Pile-and-Lagging

Temporary Shoring System
Page 106 for Clay - Design Parameters for Soldier-Pile-and-Lagging

Temporary Shoring System
Page tO7 for Typical EaÉh Pressure Factors, Active Pressures, Passive
Pressures
to4
r' !7 vv'-vututr!'rf urf üID|DDDSO{DDDDDDü3üÛC
,4ßnr r
Gound surlace Ground suñace
..fAnt¡ teet lo feet

I
Shoring I I
L-J
rlool
psf T¡eback
Pressure due to vehicle
surcharge along streets
psf (heavy equipment
should come no closer
lhen 5 feettb face of
excavation)
(ts
gotlom ol erceval¡on
-î
o't"n Botlom of
R
T1I excavation
Bond between anchor and soil
is considered efteclive only to
the right of dashed l¡ne
0 v.:x psl
Allowable skin fricl'ron on pressurÈ.

grouêd tieback lncludes e
leclor of salety of 1,5.
p= zzH2
E.'5ãìæen
sDps{ Not to scale
-V- cwt
ffi;
xnc(ffix
ÐOOOO( Califomh
Notes: 1. Passive pæssure includes a lector ol salêty ol âbout .t.s.
2. For soldier piles spac€d st more lhan three limes the soldier pile DESIGN PARAMETEBS FOR
d¡ametsr, the passive pressure should be assumed to acl over lhree SOU'IER.PILE.AND.LAGGt¡IG
diar¡eterc. TEMPORARY SHOFING SYSTEM
s 3. Active pressure should be assumed to act over one pile d¡ameter. Datexm Projeci No. m Fiquæ n
7 IledndKmb
,tFnF r
Ground surface Ground surlece
Vtrr c ut7 oiu"t
i feet 10 feel
Shoring Shoring
I I
L--J
I lool
psf
Tiebac*
Pressure due to vehicle
surcharge âlong streets
(heavy equipment
should come no closer
then 5 feet to lace ol
excavet¡on) f""t
Bottom of excevation 0-oan Botlom of

excavation
I Bond between añchor end so¡l
P P.r *l is considered effective only to
0 xnpsf
the righl of dashed line
Alloweble skin tríction on pr€ssurê.
grouted tieback. lncludes a fector
.ofseletyof t.5.
p= ioÅ2
fTõ:ãilõ3ei
þæo*þ- Epd --l Not to scale
xxxxxxþc[
q Notes: 1. Passlve pressure lncludes å faclor of satsty ol about 1.S. XXXXXX, Califomia
ó 2, F-.or soldior pilss spacod at more then lhree tim€s the soldíer plle
A
I diam€tsr, lhe passiva prassure should be assumed to act ove¡ three SOLOIER-PILE-AND.LAGcING
diemet€rs.
å
Datem I No. xr I n
¡
I
g
o\
TYPICAL DESIGN SHORING PRESSURES
1. Sand
Shoring loads:
P = 20 to 24 H2 plf; average 22 H2 pff
Passive and Active pressure below excavation level
For loose sand (0 = 32 degrees, y = 110 pc0

Passive = 24O pú (FS = 1.5) active = 35 pcf
For medium dense sand (0 = gS degrees, y = 120 pcf)
passive = 300 pcf (FS = 1.5) active = 33 pcf
For dense sand (0 = 38 degrees, y = 130 pcÐ
pasive = 360 pcf (FS = 1.5) active = 31 pcf
2. St¡ff Clay ( Su > 30 H psf)

Shoring load:
P=20H2 plf
Passive pressure below excavation level
passive = 2 Su /1.5 psf + 80 pcf (FS = 1.5)
LO7

Shoring Design Criteria - Anchored Soldier Pile and Lagging - HJY - Oct 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shoring Design Criteria - Anchored Soldier Pile and Lagging - HJY - Oct 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANCHORED SOLDIER.PILE.AND-LAGGING SYSTEM

Anchored (tiedback) soldier-pile-and-lagging system is frequently used to retain

1. Weatherby,D.E., 1998, Design Manual for Permanent Ground Anchor Walls,

5. Weatherby,D.E., 1998, Summary Report of Research on Permanent Ground

1. Potential failure conditions to be considered in design of anchored walls 1

2. Typical design steps for an anchored wall. 3

3. Apparent earth pressure diagrams. 5

. Lateral wall movements and earth pressures 6

o Apparent earth pressure diagram for sand 10

4. Passive pressure below excavation level. 32

5. Active pressure below excavation level 53

o Typical parameters of anchors 5B

. Calculation of anchor loads 60

7. Anchor Load Testing - Types of test, test loads, procedures,

B. Design of lagging for temporary support 93

9. Penetration depths of soldier piles 96

10. Wall and ground movements 100

11. Recommendations for design parameters L04

a Sand - Design Parameters for Soldier-Pile-and-Lagging Temporary

Page 2 from Reference 6

(a)Tensile failure of (b) Pullout failure of (c) Pullout failure of

(e) Failure of wall due to

(i) Failure by sliding (j) Rotational failure of

Figure 11. Potential failure conditions to be considered in design of anchored walls.

Page 4 from Reference 6

Step l. Establish project requirements including all geometry, external loading

5.2 EVALUATION OF EARTH PRESSURES FOR WALL DESIGN

Page 7 lrom Reference 6

Lateral wall displacemenl, y/H (oÁ)

0.3 0.2 o.l 0.0 '0"1

U pper alter excavation

H D€s¡gn earth pressure envelope

Lateral wall displac€monl altor

trapezoidal-shaped envelope of earth pressure is also shown on figate 22-

Page 9 from Reference 6

5.2.4 Recommended Apparent Earth pressure Diagram for sands

For sands, the value for Ka in figure 23ais given as:

and the maiimum earth pressure ordinate is:

Page 11 from Reference 6

Ht = Distance from ground surface to uppermost ground anchor

Hn+r = Distance from base of excavation to lowermost ground anchor

Th¡ = Horizontal load in ground anchor i i,

R= Reac-tion force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e., below base of excavation) I

p= Maximum ordinate of diagram

TOTAL LOAD = 0.65 KAYH2

Figure 24. Recommended apparent earth pressure diagram for sands.

weight and the shear strength of the soil/rock'

2.1.4.1 Coarse-grained Soils

SOIL TYPE DENSITY (1) e (pcf) o (des)

ACTIVE EARTH EARTH

75o/o 127 20.52

25o/o <4 95 23.19

tr Poorly gndod grrvclr, gr¡vcl-a¡nd mlxtul!

Pages 16 through 19 from Reference 6

Table 5. Summary of trapezoidal apparent pressure envelopes for

Reference br bz b¡ Range of Total load

Schnabel (1982) 0.20 0.60 0.20 0.29¡<tt 0.16.Ê12

Notes: (1) Assumes T=l9.6klrl/m3 brH

(2) Diagram for multiple levels of ground anchors I

(3) Assumes Ht =W4 (see figure 27)

roads for a 23-m deep excavation in seattle'

Test Section W11 Test Section E11