SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 14, No. 1, Mar.

1974
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

LATERAL BEHAVIOR OF A DOUBLE SHEET

PILE WALL STRUCTURE

MAsATOSHI SAwAGucm*

ABSTRACT
A theoretical analysis was performed on the lateral behavior of double sheet pile walt
structures. The analysis considers an elastic equilibrium of forces acting on a horizontal
slice cut from the over-all structure to introduce the basic equations on the deflection of
sheet piles. Then these equations were solved for the six cases of simple boundary condi-
tions. Of all the solutions thus obtained two cases were compared with experimental results.
The agreement was found out to be fairly satisfactory except that some measured values.
have appeared much higher.

Key words: cofferdam, elasticity, deformation, horizontal sheet pile wall, model test,.
underwater structure
JGC: H2/H4

INTRODUCTION
Double sheet pilewall structures have been used to hold the lateral earth pressure and the·
water pressure as cofferdams for construction works in the open water and sometimes as.
breakwaters. As a special case they have been used for road embankment. When the inner
water behind the walls is pumped out or the inner ground is excavated, the external forces.
make the structure deformed inward and yield deflections and bending moments in sheet piles,
stresses in ties between two rows of sheet piles, and distortions in the soil filling. If this
kind of structure is constructed on rocks, or if the embedment of sheet piles is not deep
enough, the whole structure may be in danger of tilting. Designing of a double sheet pile·
wall structure should comprise the investigation if all the requirement for their quantities.
are met. Nevertheless, any general design procedure has never been thus far established
except for the one where each row of sheet pile wall, the outer wall or the inner wall, is
designed seperately as a single row of anchored sheet pile wall back to back.
Packshaw (1945) determined the earth pressure distribution of the filling acting on the
outer sheet pile wall, but it is based on an unrealistic assumption about the planes of soil
wedges where the angle of internal friction is fully mobilized. While these design methods.
assume the independent behaviors of the sheet pile walls and the filling, emphasis is made·
in this paper that such a structure should be analized as a composite structure consisting
of both sheet pile walls and the filling, and so, the physical interaction between these·
elements should be taken into consideration. The double sheet pile wall structures studied.
in this paper are limited to those connected together only at the top by means of stiff ties ..
* Chief of the Foundation Laboratory, Soils Division, Port and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry-
of Transport, 1-1-3, Nagase, Yokosuka, Kanagawa.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before January 1, 1975.

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service
46 SAWAGUCHI.

THEORY
The sheet piles and ties immediately after filling are already stressed without any external
lateral forces. At this stage the sheet pile walls and ties may be regarded as a single row
of anchored sheet pile wall acted upon by the lateral earth pressure due to the dead
weight of filling. But the main subject described herein is the method of predicting the
stresses and deflections of the sheet piles for the external lateral forces. The proposed
theory assumes that the ground where-
S+dS upon the structure is constructed consists
~ of not rocks but soft soils so that the
r.--.-
1 I
1 I
I I
-- .
-- ..-- - -.. -...--
. . I
I
2
embedment of sheet piles can be made
1 I I sufficiently deep in order not to cause
I I • I
l I
I I
I
I
settlement nor extraction of sheet piles
: : p, • o I
under any lateral force. It also assumes
1:~ FILLING· no vertical movement of the tops of
I I
l I

t. .~ ~ +..
1
I
I I I I
I • sheet piles due to the lateral forces.
x 11 Q • • 11•
An external lateral force on the struc-
0

ture deflects two rows of sheet piles and

1 y s • -._· the force is transferred into the filling
through the contact surface, resulting in
Fig. 1. Horizontal forces acting on a slice the distortion of the filling. Now, taking
out a horizontal slice of unit thickness
from the whole section of structure in the x-y plane, as shown in Fig. 1, consideration of
.an equilibrium of all forces acting on the slice in the horizontal direction gives the follow-
ing relation;
(1)
where S is the shearing force along the horizontal surface of the slice, and 0' 1 and 0' 2 are
the reactions occurring at the contact surface between the filling and the sheet piles 1 and 2.
If 't is to be the average shear stress along the horizontal surface, S is equal to B't where
the breadth of structure B is assumed to be constant all the time. Then,
Bd7:=0' 1 +d2 ( 2)

The soil reactions 0' 1 and <12 will induce the compression into the slice in proportion to
Y1- Y 2 where Y1 and Y 2 denote deflections of sheet piles 1 and 2 respectively. If the filling
is assumed to be elastic,
(3)
where Es is Young's modulus of the filling. As the average shear distortion in the slice is

2
1 (dY1 dY2)
dX + dX ' so
G (d2Y d2Y.)
d-r=2 dX~ + dX: (4)
where G is the modulus of rigidity pertinent to the filling.
On the other hand two rows of sheet piles having the height equal to the slice thickness
are reacted upon by 0' 1 and 0'2 from the filling, in addition to P 1 and P2 denoting the
external lateral forces acting on the outer surface of sheet piles 1 and 2 respectively. Then
from the theory of elastic beams,
d4Y
EI dX~ =a1+P1 }
(5)
d'Y.
EI dX! =a2+P2

NII-Electronic Library Service

 DOUBLE SHEET PILE WALL STRUCTURE 47

where the flexural rigidity EI of the sheet pile wall per unit width is assumed to be equal
for both walls. Substituting Eqs. (5) into Eq. (3),
d4 2Es
EI dX' (Y1-Y2) =-~ (Y1-Y2) +P1-P2 ( 6)
and also substituting them into Eq. (2) and subsequently into Eq. (4),

( 7)

Eqs. (6) and (7) are the basic equations of a double sheet pile wall structure, which can
be solved under appropriate boundary conditions if p 1 and h. are given in the form of
functions.
For example, p 1 can be replaced by rwCH-X) to represent the water pressure, where
rw is the unit weight of water and H is the virtual height of structure described later.
As an external lateral force the earth pressure gives P1 =KAr (H-X), where KA is the
coefficient of active earth pressure and r is the unit weight of soil. The passive resistance
of ground at the portion of sheet pile embedment replaces P2 with Kh Y1 where Kh is the
coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction. When the structure is subjected to an earth-
quake, the inertia force Kr B, where K is the seismic coefficient, can be put into p 1 in the
same meaning as an external lateral f'arce.
Now let's investigate six model types
that are drawn schematically in Fig. 2, p 8

representing typical boundary conditions; ..........

that is,
ur
Case 1: ties connecting two sheet pile H
walls are hinged and a concen-
trated force is applied at the
top,
CASE I CASE 3 CASE 5
Case 2: ties are rigidly connected and
p
the same .force is applied as
Case l,
Case 3: ties are hinged and a uniformly ur
distributed force is applied on
the outer sheet pile wall,
Case 4: ties are rigidly connected and
the same force is applied as CASE 2 CASE 4 CASE 6
Case 3, Fig. 2. Schematic model of structures
Case 5: ties are hinged and a hydro-
statically distributed force is applied on the outer sheet pile wall,
Case 6: ties are rigidly connected and the same force is applied as Case 5.
Before solving the basic equations, Eqs. (6) and (7), for these particular cases, a simp-
lifying assumption was made that each sheet pile wall was fixed at a level below the ground
surface as illustrated in Fig. 2. Hereupon 13- 1 may be approximately taken as the depth
from the ground surface to the assumed fixed feet, where /3 = ~ Es/4 (EI) 0 on the basis of
Chang's theory (1957). In this root Es is Young's modulus of the ground and (EJ) 0 is the
flexural rigidity of sheet pile wall per one foot ( =30. 3cm) width according to Terzaghi's
paper (1955). Then, the virtual height of structure H has to be the distance from the
top to the assumed fixed feet. The property of ground contained between two rows of
embedment of sheet piles and above the assumed fixed feet is usually different from that of
the filling, but the difference may be ignored because this portion of soil has little contri-

NII-Electronic Library Service

48 SAWAGUCHI

bution to the lateral behavior of the structure. Furthermore, an assumption that Y1 = Y 2 was
also introduced to simplify the analysis. This assumption is approximately correct as con·
firmed by the experimental observation described later as far as two rows of sheet piles are
stiffly tied. These assumptions are found out to be reasonable enough to develope the theo·
retical investigation stated.
Thus Eq. (6) vanishes and Eq. (7) becomes
d4 Y d2 Y
2EI dX4 =BG dX 2 +P 1 +P2 (8)
where Y1 and Y 2 are replaced by Y.

APPLICATION TO PARTICULAR CONDITIONS

Case 1: A concentrated force is representative of an impact by a vessel or a drifting
obstruction. In this case p 1 = p 2 = 0 and Eq. (8) becomes
d4 Y d2 Y
2EI dX4 =BG ax2 ( 9)
The general solution of Eq. (9) is
Y=C 1 cosh(AX) +C2 sinh().X) +C3 X+C4 (10)
where A= J BG/2EI and Ci is an integral constant. The boundary conditions for this case
are expressed mathematically as
dY
X=O: Y= dX =0

0 asy - ,2 dY p
' dX 8 /\ - 2EI
where H is the virtual height of the schematic structure and P is the concentrated force
per unit width. The second term ). 2 ~i in the last boundary condition indicates the shear·
ing resistance of the filling at the top surface. By substituting the boundary conditions
into Eq. (10), the top deflection of sheet piles or structure becomes,
PH 8
Yt= 6 EI (1)1().H) (11)

wherein
3 3
(J.H)2 (AH)s tanh().H)

The fractional part in Eq. (11), P H 3 /6EI, corresponds to the deflection of sheet pile wall
as a cantilever and (/) 1 ().H) is a nondimensional function of J.H. This type of expression
will be repeated in other equations. The maximum bending moment is found at the assumed
fixed feet and its magnitude becomes

(12)

wherein
1
). H tanh (A H)

Here !F' 1 represents the effect of existence of the filling.

Case 2: The same general solution as Case 1 should be applied for this case but the
boundary conditions should be changed to

NII-Electronic Library Service

 DOUBLE SHEET PILE WALL STRUCTURE 49

X=O:

dY d3 Y P
X=H: dX =O, dX 3 =- 2EI

The inclination at the top of sheet piles is always kept in the vertical, because neither
settlement nor extraction of sheet piles has been assumed to occur under a lateral force. As,
a result of this, the top deflection becomes
PH 8
Yt = 24 EI <1)2 (J.. H) (13)
wherein
24 tanh ( -J..H)
(J..H) 3
2-
And the respective bending moments at the top and the fixed feet become
PH
(J..H) (14)
4

L5)

wherein

2 tanh (J..H)
"F 2 (J..H) = J..H - -
2
Case 3: The basic equation in this case is expressed as
d4 Y d2 Y
2El dX4 =BG dX 2 +w (16)

where w is the intensity of a uniformly distributed lateral pressure which is representative

of the breaking water pressure or earthquake force. By solving Eq. (16), a general solu-
tion is obtained as

Y=C1cosh(AX) +C2 sinh(J..X) +C3 X+C4- ~ X 2 (17)

and substituting the boundary conditions

X=O: Y= ;I
X=H: dd2xy2 =0, aay -J..z dY
dX 3 dX
into Eq. (17), the top deflection is obtained as
wH4
Yt= l6EI (J)s(J..H) (18)

wherein
4 8 8 8
fba(J..H) = (J..H)2 + (AH)4 (AH) 4 sech(J..H) {J..H)3 tanh(J..H)

The bending moment at the fixed feet is expressed as

wH 2
M,=--"Fs(J..H) (19)
4
wherein

NII-Electronic Library Service

50 SAWAGUCHI

2
().H) 2 sech().H) + (). 2H) tanh().H)
2
(J.H)2
Case 4 : Eq. (17) can be also applied in this case as a general solution with the following
boundary conditions;
dY
X=O: Y= dX =O
dY d3 Y
X=H: dX =0, dXs =0
As a result, we can get the top deflection,
wH'
Yt= 48EI <J),().H) (20)

wherein
12
().H)2
24
(). H) 3 tanh
().H)
2
And the bending moments at the top and the fixed feet become respectively
wH 2
Mt= -12 '!l!t, ().H) (21)

wH 2
M,=- -'!1!1 ,().H) (22)
6
wherein
6 6
().H)2 ). H cosech (). H)

and
3
(J.H)2.
Case 5; The basic equation in this case becomes
d'Y d2 Y (23)
2EI dX' =BG dX 2 +m(H-X)

-where m is the rate of increase of a hydrostatic pressure with height. For instance, m is
KAr for lateral earth pressure and r w for water pressure. The general solution of Eq. (23)
is given as

(24)

:Substituting the same boundary conditions as Case 3 into Eq. (24), the top deflection is
·obtained as
mH5
Yt= 60EI <J)s().H) (25)

·wherein
5 30 15(2+J.2H2) h(J.H)
().H) 2 + (J.H)' (J.H) 5 tan
.And the bending moment at the fixed feet is
mH 3
M 1 = --r2 '!!! o (). H) (26)

wherein

NII-Electronic Library Service

 DOUBLE SHEET PILE WALL STRUCTURE 51

6
(J.H)2
Case 6: This case is analized in the same way as Case 5 except that the boundary con-
ditions are those of Case 4. As a result, the top deflection is
mH 5
160EI @6 (J.H) (27)

wherein
40 80 2 2
40(4+J. H ) t h( J.H)
@a(J.H) = 3(J.H)2 + (J.H)4 (J.H) 5 an 2
and the respective bending moments at the top and the fixed feet are
mH8 (28)
Mt=-""48'!P't6(J.H)
mH8 (29)
M1=16'!P'16(J.H)
wherein
24 12(2+J.2H 2 )
7fl't6(J.H)- (J.H)s coth(J.H) (}. H) 8 cosech (J. H)

.and
8 8
(J.H)s cosech(J.H) (J...H)2
In the Appendix numerically calculated @(J.H) and 7JJ'(J...H) are diagrammatized. These
diagrams represent the fact that both @().H) and 7JJ'(J...H) decrease from unity as J...H increases.
This indicates that the lateral resistance of a double sheet pile wall structure becomes
greater in comparison with that of cantilevered sheet pile walls for an increase in G or
B or a decrease in El. On the other hand the same tendency is also observed for the
increase in H. It may be caused by the reason that, for example in Case 1 or 2, the top
.deflection of sheet pile wall without the filling is relatively smaller than that of the bare
filling having the same height as the sheet pile wall when H is smaller, and the contrary
is the case when H is greater, because the former is in proportion to H 8 and the latter
to H only. In other words the sheet piles play the relatively dominant part in the lateral
resistance of the structure for the smaller H and the filling supersedes for the greater
R .
It should be noticed that since the analysis described herein is developed for the elastic con-
<lition although this kind of structure never behaves elastically, the modulus of elasticity
adopted in these equations should be chosen to cover the whole range of distortion of the
filling. As G in an actual soil varies depending upon the confining pressure, it is recom-
mended to choose its value corresponding to the surcharge at half the height of structure.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
Experimental studies on model structures were carried out to find out whether the propo-
sed theory is valid. The experiments are divided into two parts; that is, for Cases 1
.and 2.
.Part I
A model double sheet pile wall structure with a rigidly connected steel frame at the top
was assembled in a testing tank of 2. 5m long, 3m wide, and 1. 6m high, which is fabri-

NII-Electronic Library Service

52 SAWAGUCHI

Table 1. Physical indices of sand

Physical indices

Specific gravity 2.68

Coarse sand 58%
Grain composition {
Medium sand 42%
Range of grain size o.1 . . . . . 2mm
Unit weight 1. 58±0. 05g/cms
Angle of internal friction 36°

Table 2. Types of test in Part I

Size of model Wall thickness

Test No. Sand filling
Height (cm) Breadth (cm) Outer (mm) Inner (mm)

1 80 100 4 -.. YES

2 70 70 6 6 ,,
3 4
4
"
90
"
90 ,,
4
,, ",,
5 80 80 ,, ,,
6 ,, ,, ,, ,, ",,
7 70 70 2 .,,
"' ,,
8 80 60 4 4
,, ,, ",,
9 80 6
10 ,, 60 4 ,, NO
11 ,, 80
12 ,, 100
",, ",, "
"
cated by steel plates. A row of model sheet pile wall was made of five steel plates attached.
with strain gages, 60cm wide and 120cm high in size respectively. After assembling the-
model walls, dry sand whose physical indices are shown in Table 1 was filled both outside-
and inside of the model walls up to the predetermined level. Controlling the degree
of compaction in every part of the model to be the same through all the tests, the density
of sand was calculated from dividing the total weight by the total volume in each test was
averaged. The density thus obtained was correlated to the angle of internal friction
measured by triaxial compression tests.
The types of test performed are all listed in Table 2. Three tests were carried out
without the filling. During the time of filling furs at the gaps between the walls prevented
the leakage of sand. A lateral load was applied at the top of one of the model walls by
means of a hand-operated screw jack step by step under the strain control condition while,
the measurements were taken of the deflection and the strain of model walls.
Fig. 3 shows the relationships between the lateral load and the top. deflection of the
model structure measured at the centrally located wall. It is noticeable even if indistinct
that the lateral resistance of model structures becomes greater as the flexural rigidity of
model walls increases. And the nonlinearity of curves in this figure is considered to be·
attributed to the deformation properties pertaining to the filling. Fig. 4 shows the typical
moment diagrams obtained from the strain measurement for a few load steps, and repre- ·
sents the fact that the magnitude of bending moment without lateral load e.g. only due'
to the filling is relatively large and its maximum value appears n~arly at the midheight oL

NII-Electronic Library Service

 DOUBLE SHEET PILE WALL STRUCTURE 53

the model structure. The deflection, the shear, and the soil reaction diagrams calculated
from the moment distribution curves are presented in Figs. 5, 6 and 7.
In summary of these diagrams s.ome typical values picked up from them are tabulated in

LOAD
:E STEP PER'
'"O (kg) No.9 60cm
·~ 300 0 0 0 (kg)
.• £:;; N0.2 A 12 152.0
26 2<:6.8
5
0
No.3 x

·(.O No.4
~ 200
a.
·-o
0
0
0 100
"'-
-~
...J
0 5 10 15 20 25 (mm)
Top deflection
Fig. 3. Relationships between lateral load Fig. 4. Bending moment distribution
per 60cm in width and top deftection per 60cm in width (Test No. 6)

STEP LOAD
PER
60cm
0 0 0 <kg>
/::. 12 152.0
x. ~ 2058

lOAO
PER
0ST~P sgcm(kg)
b.12 152.0
(+) x 26 2<158 I
10 19 15 20(mm) 16~g)
l""'-=-"~""-+....l:l:;::..:;;:....:z..~==-~.20""'1cf:40,..=.'l 20 "° so eo(kg.)
soomm soomm
eoiS<ll020
( +) I (- )
Fig. 5. Deflection (Test No. 6) Fig. 6. Shear distribution per 60cm in
width (Test No. 6)

Table 3. Comparison of measured and calculated values in Part I

Top deflection Bending moment (M/P)
(Yt,/P) Lateral load
Test No. [3-1 Lateral load t

Measured Calculated Measured Calculated

1 12. 9cm 0.054 0.058 -2.62 -3.87

2 17.6 0.096 0.078 -6.55 -8.55
3 12.9 0.063 0.074 -2.98 -4.62
4 ,, Q.063 0.072 -3.33 -4.08
5 ,, o.on 0.073 -4.31 -4.33
6 0.078 0.073 -9.45 -4.33
7
"
7,7 0.088 0.069 -10.85 -1.68
8 12.9 Q.098 0.097 -4.28 -4.98

NII-Electronic Library Service

54 SAWAGUCHI

IS
.E

-0
A
STEP LOAD

0
PER
60Cm
0 (kg)
->.

"'O
OI
20

/
12 152.0 15

-
x ";:::

/
26 205.S :

0
10
£ (/) V'

/
E ::I
::i
"O
0 5
'.:!: ~

0
1·5

. Unit weight ( 1()

Fig. 7. Soil reaction distribution per Fig. 8. Relationship between unit weight
60cm in width (Test No. 6) and modulus of rigidity of sand

Table 3 where the measured ratios of top deflection to lateral load, and the measured
ratios of top bending moment to lateral load are compared with the calculation by the
previous theory. The measured values are related to the point on a curve corresponding
to one half the maximum load. Soil constants adopted in the calculation will be detailed
in the following section. These comparisons result in the fairly satisfactory conformity
with each other except for a few much higher measured values.

Part II
In this part experiments on the lateral behavior of model structures with hinged ties at the
top were carried out in another testing tank of 1.6X2.5Xl.65m in size, which was fabricated
by steel plates. The soil used was dry sand which filled both1 outside and inside of the
model walls up to the predetermined level in three ways; by vibrators, by tampers, and
by free dropping from a certain height. Sufficient attention was paid for the uniformity
of the sand, so that the density can be measured in the same way as Part I. In this
part of program the modulus of rigidity of the sand used was directly measured in each
test by using a Norwegian-type simple shear testing apparatus improved by Okumura (1971)
and its relationship with the density is illustrated in Fig. 8. Herein, G is the one for
the point on a curve corresponding to one half the maximum shearing stress.
A lateral load was acquired by hand-operated screw jacks just as in Part I, and applied
as a tension at the top of model walls, which were separated into three sheets in one row,
whose width and length were 60X 150cm in each, and whose surfaces were attached with
strain gages. Two tests of pushing were carried out for a comparison. The measurement
was made on the deflection of model walls by means of dial gages. The types of test
performed are all listed in Table 4.
Fig. 9 shows the measured curves of the relationship between the lateral tension and the
top deflection, and Fig. 10 gives the deflection curves measured by dial gages set at different
heights to prove that the deflection curves are approximately similar between the two walls.
This result will justify the previous assumption for computation that Y 1 is equal to Y2 •
Fig. 11 represents the typical curves of bending moment subtracted by that measured
immediately after filling the sand, which makes us recognize the degree of difference in
the shape of moment curves between the two rows of model wall. Figs. 12 and 13 repre-
sent the shear and the soil reaction distribution curves respectively.

NII-Electronic Library Service

 DOUBLE SHEET PILE WALL STRUCTURE 55

Table 4. Types of test in Part II

Size of model Wall thickness Density of G
Test No. Height (Both) filling Loading
Breadth
(cm) (cm) (cm) (t/mS) (kg/cm2)

1 80 70 6 1. 48 (V)* 2 Tension
2 1. 40 (F) 1 ,,
3
"
90
If fl
,, 1. 52 (V) 3.6
4 70
",, 1. 57 (") 6.7
",,
5 80 50
"
10 1. 54 ( ,, ) 4,7
6 ,, 90 4,5 1. 57 (") 6.7
",,
7 ,, 70 6 1.63 (T) 11.5
8 fl - (V)** "
4,7 Pushing
9 ,, ",, fl
,, - (T) 11.5
10 ,, 50 ff - (V) "
4,7
Tension
11 ,, 90 ,,
- ( ) ,,
* V; compacted by vibrators
fl
"
** not measured and G inferred from other tests
T; compacted by tampers
F; filled by freely dropping

(kg)

-
..c:
"O
)\

c:
El50t-J'--~--t--T---,;l'----::¥~~~-I
...
0
<O
....
o.>
Q.
"OIOOl--l-~-1---+-.4~~~~~-~~r""--l
0
0

0
.....

0
...J

0 10 20 30
(mm)
Top deflection
Fig. 9. Relationships between
0 10 20 30 40 (mm) o 10 20 30 40 (mm)
lateral load per 60cm in
width and top deflection Fig. 10. Deflection (Test No. 1)

To summarize these diagrams the same ratios as introduced in Part I are tabulated
in Table 5 with comparison to the theoretical ones. In this table the bending moments
measured at the fixed foot of the wall on the opposite side of the load are tabulated while
the maximum bending moment on the side of load occurred nearly at the mid-height of
the wall. This is different from the behavior predicted by the proposed theory where the
maximum bending moment is found always at the assumed fixed feet of both walls, and
this is attributable to the difference between the actual iphenomena and the assumed
condition.

NII-Electronic Library Service

56 SAWAGUCHI

- P =2 8.8 kg/60cm SOIL CONSTANTS

- - - P•66.0 kg/60cm
Soil constants necessary for the theore-
--- p. 147.5 kg/60cm
tical calculations made above are Young's
_,,.,,~- - - - - - - - - - . ~ p modulus Es or the modulus of rigidity G of
,-'
/'
,,,,..,. ........

I
I
I/
,, a soil for both the filling and the ground.
According to the theory of elasticity, Es
;:" /I
/ I

I
/ : is equal to G multiplied by 2 (l+v)
I
I :
f' I
I

'
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
where v is Poisson's ratio and, li for the
\\ \I I :
' I
sand in this analysis may be taken to be
\ \ about 0. 4. Consequently G becomes ap-
\ \ I
I
\
I
\ I
I ' I
I proximately one third of Es. Es for the
\ \I i \
'\ r ground should be applied to compute the
'.
I

\\ I I
I
I
I
I
depth of the assumed fixed feet as stated
I I
I I in the foregoing section, and G for the
I
.I '
,
I
I
I
filling will be best to be determined by
' I
I
•
I
I such a simple shear apparatus as described
\
\,
'\ in Part II, but in general it is not easily
' ,, I \ available. Therefore determination of G
·,_ for the filling material is recommended to
-+ 400+3oo+<POttoo o -100-200 'I- 200 +KJO 0 -100-200 follow the same way as in Part I.
(kg/ 60cml In Part I, the average relative den-
sity of the filling used was correlated to
M=3.6tlmes scale the N value on the basis of Meyerhof's
Fig. 11. Bending moment distribution per proposition (1956), and in turn it was
60cm in width (Test No. 1) correlated to E 8 by using Schultze-Men-

--- P•60 kg/60cm --P•GO kg/GOcm

-·- P• 14 7.5kg/60cm -·-P•l47.5kg/60cm

rP I.
l"'C':"-------....
·:::,..., ~p

)'·-.......
'I
I. I ,/
I
I.
I ,/r-··-
'/ 1 I

.I
I
I j
. I
/1 \\ \.
. I
I
I /,
l/
.
I {\ /·I
I, \I < (
' .
\ \
\ \ ,I
·"· \\ I
/I
I
\. I\
' '
I I I 1 I I I I I I I

-t60 +40 +20 0 -20-40 +40 +20 0 -20 -40 -60

+3 -t2 +I 0 -I -2 +3 +2 +I 0 -l -2

(kg/60c:m) (kg/cm/60cm)

Fig. 12. Shear distribution per 60cm Fig. 13. Soil reaction per 60cm in
in width (Test No. 1) width (Test No. 1)

NII-Electronic Library Service

 DOUBLE SHEET PILE WAL.L STRUCTURE 57

Table 5. Comparison of measured and calculated values in Part II

Top deflection ( y, IP) Bending moment (M IP)

[j-1 Lateral load t Lateral load /
Test No.
..... ~· r"' 1,..,, 1..,+,,.r1 Measured Calculated
1 20. 89cm 0.575 0.524 4.1 10.7
2 34,4 2.44 1.24 13.0 16. 1
3 24.9 1.01 0.391 6.0 8.4
4 21.4 0.594 o. 171 2.6 6.12
5 35.5 0.470 0.330 15.0 21. 1
6 17.2 0.476 0.140 2.4 3.45
7 18.6 0.087 0.114 -* -
8 23.4 0.936 0.210
9 18.6 0.310 0.146 - -
10 23.4 o.555 0.365
11 23.4 0.937 0.238 -
* not measured

zenbach's empirical formula (1961) corresponding to the grain size of the sand used,
E 8 =39+4. 5N (grain size 1. 5,....,Q, lmm) (30)
Through these indirect relations of index properties of soil, G was finally determined to
be 16kg/cm2 •
As the calculation methods described in this paper are based on the theory of elasticity,
it is restricted in making estimation of the inelastic behavior characteristic to such an earth
structure. This also means the difficulty of choosing the elastic constants of soil for com-
putation which has in itself inelastic properties. Therefore it is required in the practical
designing to choose the soil constants corresponding to the stress level that will happen in
the proposed structure. Furthermore, since the cases of model treated herein represent
idealized conditions, it is necessary to be aware of the difference between the conditions of
actual structures and the idealized models, and should make adequate modifications to the
theory if needed.

CONCLUSION
A general theory on the lateral behavior of a double sheet pile wall structure has been
herein developed under an assumption that the filling is elastic in shear. Consequently the
equations to calculate the displacement at the top and bending moment at the particular
portions of sheet pile walls were introduced. Some of them were compared with the results
obtained from the model tests on double sheet pile wall structures. A fair agreement
between the calculated and measured values existed except that some measured ones appeared
much greater. The problem remained for the future is the establishment of soil constants
for the more accurate computation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Experimental works in Part II were carried out by the staffs in Kawasaki Stl. Co. Ltd.
The auther wishes to express his heartily thankfulness to Mr. S. Kondo, Engineer of
Kawasaki Stl. Co. Ltd., who has analized the test results, and Mr. K. Takahashi and
Mr. K. Zen, Members of Foundation Laboratory, who executed the numerical calculation

NII-Electronic Library Service

58 SAWAGUCHI

of the diagrams.

NOTATION
B= width of structure
Ci= integral constant
El=flexural rigidity of sheet piles per unit width
(El) 0 =flexural rigidity of sheet piles per one foot 30. 3cm) in width
Es= Young's modulus of filling or ground
G=modulus of rigidity of filling
H=virtual height of structure
KA= coefficient of active earth pressure
K =seismic coefficient
Kh=coeffi.cient of horizontal subgrade reaction
M 1 = bending moment at assumed fixed foot
Mt= bending moment at top
m=incremental rate of hydrostatically distributed pressure with depth
N =number of standard penetration test
P= concentrated external force per unit width
p 1 , P 2 =external lateral force on sheet piles 1 or 2
S=shearing force
w= intensity of uniformly distributed pressure
X =axis in vertical direction
Y =axis in horizontal direction or deflection
Y1, Y2 =deflection of sheet piles 1 or 2
Yt =top deflection
f3= ~ E 5 /4(El)o
r =unit weight of filling
rw=unit weight of water
).=JBG/2EI
v= Poisson's ratio of filling
<1 1 , a 2 =soil reaction on sheet piles 1 or 2
i-= average shear stress
<fJ (J..H) = nondimensional function of top deflection
'!P' ().H) = nondimensional function of bending moment

REFERENCES
1) Chang, Y. L. (1957): Discussion on "Feagin, L.B., Lateral pile-loading tests," Trans. Amer.
Soc. Civ. Eng., pp. 272-278.
2) Meyerhof, G. G. (1956): "Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils," Proc.
Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng., Vol. 82, SM. l, pp. 1-19.
3) Okumura, T. et al. (1971): "Studies on the disturbance of clay samples (3rd Report)," Report
of P.H. R. I., Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 81-84.
4) Packshaw, S. (1945): Discussion on "Terzaghi, K., Stability and stiffness of cellular cofferdams,,,
Proc. Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng., Vol. 71, p. 541.
5) Shultze, E. and Menzenbach, E. (1961): "Standard penetration test and compressibility of soil,•~
Proc. 5th I. C. S. M., Vol. 1, pp. 527-532.
6) Terzaghi, K. (1955): "Evaluation of coefficient of subgrade reaction," Geotech., Dec., pp. 297-326.

NII-Electronic Library Service

 DOUBLE SHEET PILE WALL STRUCTURE 59

APPENDIX

0.1 10 0.1 10
,\H AH
Fig. i. (J),_.._,:;.H relationships Fig. ii. 'IJ!r.._,J..H relationships

Wrs--"..._._;:-..
Wr2--""'----""'""
Wr1-----"""'

0.1 10
,\H

Fig. iii. 'ff!1 ,-....,J.H relationships

(Received August 20, 1973)

NII-Electronic Library Service