Vol. 34, No. 4, June 2011, 449–465
Stability analysis of cantilever double soldierpiled walls in sandy soil
ChungJung Lee
*
, YuChen Wei, HueiTsyr Chen, YuYi Chang, YiChian Lin and WenShi Huang
Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Jhongli, Taoyuan, Taiwan
(Received 11 June 2009; final version received 3 March 2010)
Cantilever double soldierpile walls are used in vertical excavations to minimize wall deformation. A model is
proposed consisting of an equivalent single soldierpile wall with twice the bending stiffness of a single soldierpile
wall, twice the area of the pile shaft in contact with the soil below the excavation level, and the maximum capable
mobilized moment at ground level, which can be used to evaluate the stability of double soldierpile walls.
A series of centrifuge model tests at an acceleration of 30 g was conducted to study the performance of cantilever
single and double soldierpile walls in sand under various test conditions. The test results show that the use of a
double soldier pile can effectively improve the performance of retaining walls. The proposed stability analysis
also provides satisfactory predictions of the factors of safety for double soldierpile walls at various excavation
depths and with various pile arrangements, verified by the results obtained in the centrifuge model tests. The use
of F
s
¼2.0 in the proposed stability analysis was found to be appropriate engineering practice for ensuring that
the temporary cantilever double soldierpile walls are stable and that the ratio
hm
/H does not exceed 1%.
Keywords: cantilever double soldierpile wall; stability analysis; centrifuge model
1. Introduction
Soldierpile walls with horizontal timber lags have been
used extensively as excavation support systems, parti
cularly for stiff soil conditions where the infiltration of
ground water into the excavated area is not a problem.
The main advantages of soldierpile walls are their low
cost and ease of installation, reusability, and resistance
to hard driving. Most vertical excavation works in
urban areas utilize wales and struts as temporary
lateral supports; however, strutted vertical excavations
are not an economical and effective approach when an
opencut excavation with a large area is required:
installing and removing struts sequentially during
construction greatly reduces construction efficiency.
Thus, cantilever single soldierpile walls are frequently
used to retain soil in gravelly and/or sandy soils.
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of a cantilever
single soldierpile wall. As shown in Figure 1, H, D, L,
and s are defined as the excavation depth, the
penetration depth, full pile length, and the spacing of
two piles for the wall. The stability of such a wall relies
upon the generation of earth pressure on both sides of
the wall (Clayton and Militisky 1993, King 1995). The
excavation depth (D) is typically limited to approxi
mately 4–5 m. Deeper excavations (45 m) generally
require wales and struts as lateral supports. Strutted
soldierpile excavations have recently been analyzed
using a threedimensional finite element method to
investigate the soil–pile interactions (Hong et al. 2003)
and arching effects behind soldierpile walls (Vermeer
et al. 2001). The use of an anchored wall is an
alternative approach to increasing the excavation
depth; however, this method requires a large open
space behind the wall for anchorages, which is rarely
available in urban areas.
Most retaining walls in opencut construction
projects are considered to be temporary structures,
and large wall deformations can be acceptable pro
vided wall failure is prevented. The stability of a wall is
the main design concern; however, excess ground
settlement behind the wall can cause serious damage
to neighboring buildings. Hence, a key topic for both
designers and contractors is the question of how to
increase the excavation depth (without reduction in
construction efficiency or a marked increase in con
struction cost) by improving the stiffness of cantilever
soldierpile walls to minimize deflections of such walls
and settlement of the surrounding ground.
Double sheetpile walls have been used in the
construction of waterfront structures such as coffer
dams, quay walls, breakwaters, and shipways to
contain water pressure, lateral earth pressure, and
wave forces. An elastic analysis by Sawaguchi (1974)
and an elastic–plastic analysis by Ohori et al. (1988)
were used to estimate the deformations of composite
*Corresponding author. Email: cjleeciv@cc.ncu.edu.tw
ISSN 0253–3839 print/ISSN 2158–7299 online
ß 2011 The Chinese Institute of Engineers
DOI: 10.1080/02533839.2011.576488
http://www.informaworld.com
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
walls when subjected to horizontal forces. Ruhul et al.
(2006) performed a series of centrifuge model tests to
investigate the behavior of a double sheetpile wall
cofferdam constructed on a thick clay deposit subjected
to a flash flood, and reported that stability against shear
failure increases proportionally with increase in the
width of the cofferdam; however, the sequence used in
the construction of this type of wall cannot be used in
unsupported vertical excavation work.
Deeper unsupported vertical excavations have
recently been required in Taiwan as parts of large
subsurface excavations. Cantilever double soldierpile
walls (Hsieh et al. 2003) and tworow selfsupported
sheetpile walls (Chen 1999) were developed in an
attempt to increase the stability and reduce the
deflection of deep unsupported vertical retaining
walls. The construction of a cantilever double soldier
pile wall first involves driving two rows of soldier piles
around the excavation area. The distance of the front
and rear row of piles is defined as the row distance, w.
The row distance is approximately 50–120 cm, and the
pile spacing between adjacent piles in each row, s, is
approximately 40–100 cm. A reinforced concrete cap
ping beam is constructed to integrate the two rows of
piles into a frame wall system that retains soil to an
excavation depth H, a penetration depth D, and a row
distance of the front and rear piles, w, as shown in
Figure 2. When combined with the soil confined within
the wall, the stiffness of this integrated frame wall is
greater than that of a single soldierpile wall (i.e., a row
of soldier piles), which means that reduction in wall
deflection is expected.
This type of cantilever double soldierpile wall has
been used in two unsupported vertical excavation sites,
one successfully and another unsuccessfully. In the case
of the failed wall, a large degree of wall rotation
resulted in significant surface settlement behind the
wall. No detailed instrumentation was used in either
case, so the deformation characteristics and failure
mechanism of cantilever double soldierpile walls have
not been properly characterized or validated. No
guidance is currently available for the design of this
type of retaining wall system.
In this study, a simplified stability analysis of both
cantilever single and double soldierpile walls is
proposed. The efficacy of this evaluation method is
tested by examining the results of centrifuge model
tests. The effectiveness of double soldierpile walls in
reducing wall movements is discussed and compared
with the results obtained for single soldierpile walls.
2. Stability analysis of cantilever soldierpile walls
2.1. Stability analysis of cantilever single soldierpile
walls
Single soldierpile walls are often designed and ana
lyzed in the same manner as sheetpile walls, even
though their structures are different. A stable single
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
H
)
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
D
)
y
z
Capping beam
Level of
excavation
(a)
(b)
Soldierpile
wall
L
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
p
i
l
e
(
L
)
Distance from
wall face, X
Solider
pile
Timber
lags
s
Pile
spacing
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a cantilever single soldierpile wall. (a) Side view and (b) Top view.
450 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
soldierpile wall satisfies both force equilibrium and
moment equilibrium, giving rise to two equations with
two unknowns, the penetration depth D and the
location of the pivot point about which the wall
rotates. The wall rotates about the pivot point ‘o’
below the excavation level, as shown in Figure 3. Note
that the magnitudes of developed active and passive
earth pressures mobilized on the soldierpile wall below
the excavation level differ from those mobilized on a
sheetpile wall because of arching effects. In this
analysis, a soldier pile with a flange width of B is
assumed to experience both active and passive earth
pressures below the excavation level, as imposed by a
lateral extent of ground of span 3B (Naval Facilities
Engineering Command 1982, Canadian Geotechnical
Society 1992). Therefore, the horizontal force
equilibrium of the wall can be established by consid
ering the forces per meter of wall on the lefthand and
righthand sides (LS and RS, respectively) of the wall,
as shown in Figure 3 and described as follows:
F
LS
¼
1
2
K
a
H
2
þ
3nB
2
K
a
ð2H þ tÞt ½
þK
p
ð2H þ t þ DÞðD À tÞ
_
, ð1Þ
F
RS
¼
3nB
2
K
p
t
2
þ
3nB
2
K
a
ðD þ tÞðD À tÞ, ð2Þ
where n is the number of soldier piles per meter of wall,
is the unit weight of the soil, t is the depth of pivot
point ‘o’ from the level of excavation, and K
a
and K
p
are the coefficients of active and passive earth pres
sure, respectively. Note that the value of 3nB must be
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
H
)
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
D
)
L
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
s
o
l
d
i
e
r
p
i
l
e
(
L
)
y
z
Rear pile
Row distance
(w)
Capping beam
Front
pile
Rear
pile
Row distance
(w)
Pile
spacing
s
Level of
excavation
(a)
(b)
Front pile
Distance from
wall face , X
Timber
lags
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of a cantilever double soldierpiled wall. (a) Side view and (b) Top view.
t
3nBK
a
gH
3nBK
a
g(H + t)
3nBK
a
γt
3nBK
p
gt
3nBK
a
gD
3nBK
p
g(H + t)
3nBK
p
g(H + D)
O
Pivot point
Level of
excavation
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
H
)
Ground level
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
D
)
K
a
gH
Figure 3. Distribution of the earth pressure on a cantilever
single soldierpiled wall.
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 451
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
limited to no more than 1 m to ensure that the widths
do not overlap.
Similarly, the driving moment, M
d
, created by the
active earth pressures and the resisting moment, M
r
,
created by passive earth pressures about the pivot
point ‘o’ can be written as
M
d
¼ K
a
H
3
6
þ
H
3
t
2
_ _
þ nBK
a
3
2
Ht
2
þ
t
3
2
_
þ
3
2
tðD À tÞ
2
þ ðD À tÞ
3
_
, ð3Þ
M
r
¼ nBK
p
t
3
2
þ
3
2
ðH þ tÞðD À tÞ
2
þ ðD À tÞ
3
_ _
: ð4Þ
For a given cantilever single soldierpile wall, the
ratio of the resisting moment to the driving moment
(M
r
=M
d
) gives the resistance to rotation. The wall will
rotate about the pivot point that minimizes M
r
=M
d
.
Madabhushi and Chandrasekaran (2005) showed that
the location of the pivot point can be calculated by
minimizing this moment ratio (M
r
=M
d
) with respect
to t. When the wall is ‘just in’ moment equilibrium
(M
r
=M
d
¼ 1) and the moment ratio is minimum, the
force equilibrium condition is automatically satisfied.
We assume that the active earth pressures are fully
mobilized, whereas the passive earth pressures are
mobilized only to the extent required to maintain the
wall in moment equilibrium. A factor of safety, F
s
, for
the passive earth pressure is often used in wall stability
analysis (Das 1998):
K
pðdesignÞ
¼
K
p
F
s
: ð5Þ
By using K
p(design)
instead of K
p
and moving both
earth pressure coefficients to the LS, the normalized
moment ratio, M
r
K
a
=M
d
K
pðdesignÞ
, for a single soldier
pile wall embedded in cohesionless soil with an internal
friction angle of can be written as
M
r
K
a
M
d
K
pðdesignÞ
¼
3nB
t
3
6
þ
1
2
ðH þ tÞðD À tÞ
2
þ
ðDÀtÞ
3
3
_ _
H
3
6
þ
H
2
t
2
_ _
þ 3nB
1
2
Ht
2
þ
t
3
6
_
þ
1
2
tðD À tÞ
2
þ
1
3
ðD À tÞ
3
_
_ _ : ð6Þ
For the single soldierpile wall shown in Figure 3,
the normalized moment ratio is a function only of the
pivot point depth, t. The critical pivot point depth, t
c
,
is defined as the pivot point depth that corresponds to
the minimum in the normalized moment ratio; the wall
will rotate about this critical pivot point. The critical
pivot point depth can be determined either analytically
or numerically by using Equation (6). The single
soldierpile wall will therefore rotate about the point
with a depth t
c
. The depth of the critical pivot point
normalized by the penetration depth, (t
c
/D), is plotted
against the ratio of penetration depth to excavation
depth, D/H, in Figure 4. The critical pivot point moves
closer to the toe of the soldier pile for larger n and
smaller D/H.
Substituting t
c
into Equation (6), the critical
normalized moment ratio, which is defined as the
normalized moment ratio such that the wall is ‘just in’
moment equilibrium (M
r
/M
d
¼1) and horizontal force
equilibrium, can be written as
M
r
K
a
M
d
K
pðdesignÞ
_ _
critical
¼
3nB
t
3
c
6
þ
1
2
ðHþt
c
ÞðDÀt
c
Þ
2
þ
ðDÀt
c
Þ
3
3
_
_
_
_
H
3
6
þ
H
2
t
c
2
_ _
þ3nB
1
2
Ht
2
c
þ
t
3
c
6
_
þ
1
2
tðDÀt
c
Þ
2
þ
1
3
ðDÀt
c
Þ
3
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
:
ð7aÞ
The ratio M
r
/M
d
is equal to 1, so Equation (7a) can
be rewritten as
K
a
K
pðdesignÞ
_ _
critical
¼
3nB
t
3
c
6
þ
1
2
ðH þ t
c
ÞðD À t
c
Þ
2
þ
ðDÀt
c
Þ
3
3
_ _
H
3
6
þ
H
2
t
c
2
_ _
þ 3nB
1
2
Ht
2
c
þ
t
3
c
6
_
þ
1
2
tðD À t
c
Þ
2
þ
1
3
ðD À t
c
Þ
3
_
_ _:
ð7bÞ
Thus, the factor of safety is given by
F
s
¼
K
p
K
pðdesignÞ
: ð8Þ
In Figure 5, the critical normalized moment ratio
(n ¼2) obtained from Equation (7a) is plotted against
D/H. It can be seen that the critical normalized
moment ratio is smaller for walls with smaller pene
tration depths D or smaller D/H ratios. For example,
the critical normalized moment ratios corresponding to
D/H equal to 1 and 0.428 are 0.1317 and 0.0304,
respectively. If the angle of internal friction of the
backfill is 34.5
(i.e., K
a
¼0.277; K
p
¼3.61), the values
of K
p(design)
required for these two walls are 2.1 and 9.1,
respectively. Thus the factors of safety of these two
single cantilever soldierpile walls are 1.72 and 0.4,
respectively. The wall with D/H¼1 will be safe,
whereas the wall with D/H¼0.428 will be unsafe.
2.2. Simplified stability analysis of cantilever double
soldierpile walls
The load transfer mechanism of cantilever double
soldierpile walls subjected to lateral earth pressures is
quite different from that of single soldierpile walls.
452 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
Figure 6 shows freebody diagrams of the upper and
lower parts of a cantilever double soldierpile wall.
Three forceequilibrium equations are obtained by
equating the sum of the forces in the upper part of the
freebody diagram, as shown in Figure 6(a), to zero.
Hence,
F
H
¼ 0 gives V
f
_ _
z¼0
þ V
r
ð Þ
z0
¼ 0, ð9Þ
F
V
¼ 0 gives P
f
_ _
z¼0
þ P
r
ð Þ
z¼0
¼ 0, ð10Þ
M ¼ 0 gives M
f
_ _
z¼0
þ M
r
ð Þ
z¼0
¼ P
f
_ _
z¼0
Â w ¼ P
r
ð Þ
z¼0
Âw, ð11Þ
where (V
f
)
z ¼0
and (V
r
)
z ¼0
, (P
f
)
z ¼0
and (P
r
)
z ¼0
, and
(M
f
)
z ¼0
and (M
r
)
z ¼0
are the shear forces, axial forces,
and bending moments developed on the front and rear
soldier piles, respectively, at a depth of z ¼0; the
subscripts
f
and
r
refer to the front and rear piles,
respectively. Here the maximum (P
f
)
z ¼0
and the max
imum (P
r
)
z ¼0
mobilized on the piles are the ultimate
bearing capacity of the front pile and the uplift bearing
capacity of the rear pile, respectively. Thus, as shown
in Figure 6(a), the extra resisting moment arising from
the interaction between the front and rear piles via
the capping beam on the crest of the wall against the
rotation of the wall to the excavation side is the
maximum capable mobilized moment M
u
. M
u
is equal
M
f M
r
(a)
(b)
S
k
i
n
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
V
f
V
r
P
f
P
r
End
bearing
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
e
e
a
r
t
h
M
f M
r
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
e
a
r
t
h
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Front pile Rear pile
V
f
V
r
P
f P
r
w
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
D
)
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
H
)
Capping
beam
Level of
excavation
Figure 6. (a) Freebody diagram of the upper part of a
cantilever double soldierpile wall and (b) freebody diagram
of the lower part of a cantilever double soldierpile wall.
Cantilever single
soldierpile wall
D/H
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
t
c
/
D
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
n=2
n=1
n=3
Figure 4. Variations of the critical depth of the pivot point
with D/H and n for a cantilever single soldierpile wall.
Single soldierpile wall
(n = 2)
D/H
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
o
m
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 5. Variation of the critical normalized moment ratio
with D/H for a cantilever single soldierpile wall (n ¼2).
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 453
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
to (M
f
)
z ¼0
þ(M
r
)
z ¼0
and (P
f
)
z ¼0
Âw or (P
r
)
z ¼0
Âw,
whichever is smaller.
It can be assumed that the deflection of the soldier
pile wall is approximately equal to the deflection of the
soldier piles and that the soldier piles themselves
contribute to the flexural stiffness of the pilewall
system. Thus, a model consisting of an equivalent
single soldierpile wall is proposed for evaluating the
wall stability of cantilever double soldierpile walls.
This equivalent single soldierpile wall has twice the
flexural stiffness (2EI; E¼Young’s modulus,
I ¼moment inertial of soldier pile) and twice the area
in contact with the soil as the single soldierpile wall in
the lower part of the pile below the excavation level, as
shown in Figure 7; it is also subjected to the maximum
capable mobilized moment, M
u
¼n ÂQ
u
Âw, at
ground level. Thus, the stability of the double
soldierpile wall increases as Q
u
, w, and n increase.
Here Q
u
is the ultimate bearing capacity of the front
pile or the ultimate uplift capacity of the rear pile,
whichever is smaller.
The earth pressure distribution shown in Figure 8 is
used to evaluate the stability of the cantilever double
soldierpile wall. With regard to mobilizing the active
and passive earth pressures below the excavation level,
this equivalent single soldierpile wall has twice the
area in contact with the soil of the single soldierpile
wall. In addition, the maximum capable mobilized
moment (M
u
) generated by the ultimate bearing loads
of the front piles can provide an extra resisting moment
on the wall at the surface level. Similar equations for
the moment and horizontal force equilibrium can be
established for the double soldierpile wall. Thus, the
horizontal forces on the LS and RS of the wall, and the
resisting and driving moments on the equivalent single
soldierpile wall, can be rewritten as
F
LS
¼
1
2
K
a
H
2
þ 3nB K
a
ð2H þ tÞt ½
þK
p
ð2H þ t þ DÞðD À tÞ
_
, ð12Þ
F
RS
¼ 3nBK
p
t
2
þ 3nBK
a
ðD þ tÞðD À tÞ ð13Þ
M
d
¼ K
a
H
3
6
þ
H
2
t
2
_ _
þ 2nBK
a
3
2
Ht
2
þ
t
3
2
_
þ
3
2
tðD À tÞ
2
þ ðD À tÞ
3
_
, ð14Þ
M
r
¼ 2nBK
p
t
3
2
þ
3
2
ðH þ tÞðD À tÞ
2
þ ðD À tÞ
3
_ _
þ M
u
ð15Þ
t
M
u
= nQ
u
w
Pivot point
O
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
H
)
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
(
D
)
Level of
excavation
Ground level
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
d
o
u
b
l
e
s
o
l
d
i
e
r

p
i
l
e
w
a
l
l
K
a
gH
6nBK
a
gH
6nBK
a
g(H+t)
6nBK
p
g(H+t)
6nBK
p
g(H+D)
6nBK
a
gD
6nBK
a
gt
6nBK
p
gt
Figure 8. The earth pressure distribution for the
equivalent single soldierpile wall model for a double
soldierpile wall.
y
Equivalent
Soldierpiled
wall
Level of
excavation
Capping
beam
z
Distance from
wall face, X
Twice the area in
contact with soil
as in single soldier
pile wall
M
u
= n×Q
u
×w
2EI
Figure 7. The equivalent single soldierpile wall used to
evaluate the stability of a double soldierpile wall.
454 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
in which M
u
(n ÂQ
u
Âw) is dependent on the pile
spacing and the row distance but the soldier piles
should be spaced widely apart to avoid the grouped
pile efficiency less than 1. When piles are installed
increasingly close to each other, the capability of the
soil resistance reduces. In addition, a sufficiently stiff
capping beam is required to transfer the moment and
shear between the two rows of piles.
For the equivalent single soldierpile wall, the
expression for the normalized moment ratio (M
r
=M
d
)
can be written as
M
r
K
a
M
d
K
pðdesignÞ
¼
6nB
t
3
6
þ
1
2
ðH þ tÞðD À tÞ
2
þ
ðDÀtÞ
3
3
_
_
_
_
þ
H
3
6
þ
H
2
t
2
_ _
þ 6nB
1
2
Ht
2
þ
t
3
6
_
þ
1
2
tðD À tÞ
2
þ
1
3
ðD À tÞ
3
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
ð16Þ
where
¼
nQ
u
w
K
pðdesignÞ
¼
nQ
u
w
K
p
F
s
:
With the same approach and similar numerical
techniques, the critical depth of the pivot point, t
c
, for
the equivalent soldierpile wall with a given retaining
height H and penetration depth D can be determined
by minimizing the normalized moment ratio (Equation
(16)). Figure 9 shows the variations of the depth of the
critical pivot point normalized by the penetration
depth, (t
c
/D), with the D/H ratios for various .
The location of the critical pivot point moves closer to
the toe of the soldier pile for walls with larger and
smaller D/H ratios. The magnitude of increases if the
wall has a higher pile bearing capacity, Q
u
, denser pile
spacing, and a wider row distance, w.
Substituting t
c
into Equation (16), the critical
normalized moment ratio, which is defined as the
normalized moment ratio of the equivalent single
soldierpile wall so that it is ‘just in’ moment
equilibrium (M
r
/M
d
¼1) and horizontal force
equilibrium, can be written as
M
r
K
a
M
d
K
pðdesignÞ
_ _
critical
¼
6nB
t
3
c
6
þ
1
2
ðHþt
c
ÞðDÀt
c
Þ
2
þ
ðDÀt
c
Þ
3
3
_ _
þ
H
3
6
þ
H
2
t
c
2
_ _
þ6nB
1
2
Ht
2
c
þ
t
3
c
6
_
þ
1
2
tðDÀt
c
Þ
2
þ
1
3
ðDÀt
c
Þ
3
_
_ _ :
ð17aÞ
The ratio M
r
/M
d
is equal to 1, so Equation (17a)
can be rewritten as
K
a
K
pðdesignÞ
_ _
critical
¼
6nB
t
3
c
6
þ
1
2
ðH þ t
c
ÞðD À t
c
Þ
2
þ
ðDÀt
c
Þ
3
3
_ _
þ
H
3
6
þ
H
2
t
c
2
_ _
þ 6nB
1
2
Ht
2
c
þ
t
3
c
6
_
þ
1
2
tðD À t
c
Þ
2
þ
1
3
ðD À t
c
Þ
3
_
_ _ :
ð17bÞ
In Figure 10 the critical normalized moment ratio
of the double soldierpile wall (n ¼2) obtained from
Equation (17a) is plotted against D/H for various .
It can be seen that for walls with smaller or a smaller
D/H ratio that the critical normalized moment ratio
becomes smaller. For example, when the penetration to
excavation depths are equal to 1 and 0.428 in the case
of ¼5, the corresponding critical normalized moment
ratios are 0.1742 and 0.0652, as shown in Figure 10.
When the angle of internal friction of the backfill is
34.5
, the values of K
p(design)
required for these two
walls are 1.59 and 4.25, respectively. Thus the factors
of safety of these two cantilever double soldierpile
walls are 2.27 and 0.85, respectively. The benefit of
using a double soldierpile wall is made clear by
comparing the factors of safety of double and single
soldierpile walls with the same D/H ratio. Figures 5
and 10 provide convenient charts for engineers to
evaluate the stability of cantilever soldierpile walls.
Note that a process of successive approximation must
be used to obtain the solution for the double soldier
pile wall because the factor of safety is present on both
sides of Equation (17). For example, a trial value of F
s
is chosen, which is used to calculate . This value of is
Cantilever double soldierpile wall
D/H
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
t
c
/
D
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
η=0
η=5
η=10
η=20
η=30
η=15
Figure 9. Variations of the critical depth of the pivot point
with D/H and for the cantilever double soldierpile wall
(n ¼2).
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 455
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
then used in Equation (17b) or Figure 10 to compute
F
s
. If the value of F
s
differs substantially from the value
originally chosen, the process is repeated until these
two values of F
s
are approximately equal. This trial
anderror procedure is usually required to identify the
correct factor of safety.
Centrifuge test data were used to verify the design
concept and the approach outlined above for the
analysis of double soldierpile walls. In the following
section, we briefly discuss the centrifuge modeling tests
and examine the proposed equivalent single soldierpile
wall model by evaluating the measured moments for
single and double soldierpile walls. The factors of
safety calculated with the proposed design chart are also
used to assess wall stability and are compared with the
deformations of the walls measured in the model tests.
3. Centrifuge modeling tests
3.1. Test setup and test procedures
Centrifuge modeling can be used to observe the
responses of both the ground and the soldierpile
wall prior to and leading up to collapse. All the tests
reported in this article were conducted at an acceler
ation of 30 g. The layout and dimensions of the model
are described in model units; the test results are
presented in prototype units.
The dimensions of typical soldier piles in common
use and the dimensions of the model steel rail and the
corresponding prototype pile when tested at an accel
eration of 30 g are listed in Table 1. A steel rail with a
length of 333 mm was adopted as the model soldier pile
in this study. Thus, the model pile tested at an
acceleration of 30 g can simulate a prototype pile
with a length of 10 m, as commonly used in construc
tion projects.
A pair of instrumented model soldier piles was used
to measure the bending moments along the soldier pile
in the single soldierpile wall model. Four instrumented
soldier piles were used to measure the bending
moments along the depths of the front and rear piles
in the double soldierpile wall model. Acrylic plates
were inserted between the soldier piles and used to
simulate the timber lags used in situ retaining wall
systems. A steel capping beam with EI ¼1.16 Â
10
5
kNm
2
/m was designed to clamp all the soldier
piles tightly in the single soldierpile wall model,
whereas a steel capping beam with
EI ¼1.32 Â10
6
kNm
2
/m was used in the double
soldierpile wall model.
Crushed quartz sand (uniformity coefficient,
C
u
¼1.58; median grain size, D
50
¼0.18 mm) was
pluviated along a regular path into the container
from a hopper at a falling height of 700 mm and a
constant flow rate. A fairly uniform sand bed
(820 Â225 Â480 mm
3
; relative density, D
r
, 65%) was
achieved with a friction angle of approximately 34.5
derived from direct shear tests (Lee et al. 2007, Lee and
Chiang 2007). The test setup and test procedure for
the double soldierpile wall tests were essentially the
same as those employed in the single soldierpile wall
tests, except that the single soldierpile wall model was
replaced with the double soldierpile wall model. A
total of four linear variable differential transformers
(LVDTs) were attached to a mounting unit to measure
surface settlement on the retained side. Two LVDTs
were mounted on top of the pile wall at two different
elevations to measure the horizontal displacement and
tilting of the wall during the tests. Further details of the
test setup and procedures have been reported by Lee
et al. (2006, 2007).
3.2. Test arrangements and conditions
Three series of centrifuge model tests were conducted.
In Test Series A, as listed in Table 2 (Series A), we
conducted tests on cantilever single soldierpile walls
with two pile spacings (s ¼0.5 and 1.0 m) and various
excavation depths (H¼3, 4, 5, and 6 m) and penetra
tion depths (D¼6, 5, 4, and 3 m) to investigate the
performance of the retaining wall (i.e., the horizontal
displacement and tilting angle of the wall, the surface
settlement profiles behind the wall, and the distribution
of the bending moment along the pile depth).
Instrumented piles were installed to measure the pile
responses, except in STest8 and Dtest5 (in Test
Series B), in which the instrumented piles were not
Double soldierpile
wall (s
f
=s
r
=0.5 m)
D/H
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
m
o
m
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
h=0
h=5
h=15
h=20
h=30
h=10
Figure 10. Variations of the critical normalized moment
ratio with D/H and for a cantilever double soldierpile wall
(s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m).
456 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
Table 2. Test conditions for Test Series A–C (in prototype units).
Test no.
Excavation
depth, H (m)
Penetration
depth, D (m)
Ratio of
penetration to
excavation depth, D/H Pile spacing, S (m)
Series A
STest1 3 7 2.33 0.5
STest2 4 6 1.5
STest3 5 5 1
STest4 6 4 0.67
STest5 4 6 1.5
STest6 3 7 2.33 1.0
STest7 4 6 1.5
STest8
a
5 5 1
Pile spacing
Front row s
f
(m) Rear row s
r
(m) Row distance w (m)
Series B
DTest1 3 7 2.33 0.5 0.5 0.5
DTest2 4 6 1.5
DTest3 5 5 1
DTest4 6 4 0.67
DTest5
a
7 3 0.43
Pile spacing
Front row s
f
(m) Rear row s
r
(m) Row distance w (m)
Series C
DTest6 5 5 1 0.5 0.5 1
DTest7 1 1 0.5
Note:
a
To prevent damage to the strain gauges, the instrumented pile was not used in this test.
Table 1. Dimensions of a typical soldier pile of the type in common use and dimensions of the model steel rail used in this study.
Type
Dimensions of soldier piles (mm)
EI (N m
2
)
A B C D E F G
JS 37 kg 122.24 122.4 62.71 36.12 64.69 21.43 13.49 2,297,552
JS 40 kg 140 122 64 41 73.5 25.5 14 3,512,951
JS 50 kg 153 127 65 49 74 30 15 4,850,637
Dimensions of model steel rail used (mm)
1 g 5.08 4.9 2.46 1.4 2.48 1.2 1.62 –
30 g 152.4 147 73.8 42 74.4 36 48.6 4,743,872
A
E
D
F
G
C
B
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 457
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
installed in order to prevent damage to the strain
gauges due to the large wall deformation expected in
these tests.
In Test Series B, as listed in Table 2 (Series B), we
conducted tests on double soldierpile walls with a
given pile spacing (s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m) and row distance
(w¼0.5 m) at various excavation depths (H¼3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7 m) and penetration depths (D¼7, 6, 5, 4,
and 3 m).
In Test Series C, as listed in Table 2 (Series C), we
tested the double soldierpile walls with various com
binations of pile spacings and row distances at an
excavation depth of 5 m to examine the effects of
various pile arrangements on wall stability. The
performances of the single and double soldierpile
walls obtained from the centrifuge modeling were then
compared with the calculated factors of safety derived
from the proposed stability analysis.
3.3. Performances of the single and double
soldierpile walls
The magnitude and extent of the surface settlement
trough that forms during an excavation project is of
major concern to designers and constructors (Ou et al.
1993, Hwang et al. 2007). Figures 11(a) and (b) show
the measured settlement troughs at various excavation
depths for single soldierpile walls with two different
pile spacings (s ¼0.5 and 1.0 m) and for a double
soldierpile wall (s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m; w¼0.5 m), respec
tively. For both types of walls, a spandrel type of
settlement trough was observed. As expected, the
amount of surface settlement increases with increasing
excavation depth. In addition, Figure 11(a) shows that
the single soldierpile wall consisting of a row of closely
spaced piles (s ¼0.5 m) experiences less surface
settlement than the one consisting of a row of widely
spaced piles (s ¼1.0 m) at the same excavation depth.
A comparison of Figures 11(a) and (b) reveals that
the amount of surface settlement behind the double
soldierpile wall is less than half that observed
behind the single soldierpile wall at a given excavation
depth.
All the settlement troughs arising for single and
double soldierpile walls can be divided into two
zones – the primary settlement zone (Zone I) and the
secondary settlement zone (Zone II) – as shown in
Figures 11(a) and (b). The surface settlement profiles in
Zones I and II can be approximated as straight lines.
The slope of each line gives the angular distortion, ,
which can be used to evaluate the possibility of damage
to adjacent buildings. The intersection of the two
regressed lines is defined as the boundary between
Zones I and II. For both these types of walls, the
intersections are located at approximately 0.56(HþD)
from the wall faces. Space limitations meant that
LVDTs were not installed at the ground surface in the
immediate vicinity of the wall; by extrapolating the
straight line in Zone I to the back of the wall,
the ordinate of the intersection was used to determine
the maximum surface settlement,
vm
.
Tables 3 and 4 list the maximum surface settlement,
vm
and angular distortions,
1
and
2
measured in
Zones I and II for the single (s ¼0.5 and 1.0 m) and
double soldierpile walls (s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m; w¼0.5 m),
respectively, at various excavation depths. For both
Distance from wall face / (H+D)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
c
m
)
0
10
20
30
40
STest3 (s =0.5m; D/H=1)
STest1 (s =0.5m; D/H=2.33)
STest2 (s =0.5m; D/H=1.5)
STest4 (s =0.5m; D/H=0.67)
STest6 (s =1.0m; D/H=2.33)
STest7 (s =1.0m; D/H=1.5)
STest8 (s =1.0m; D/H=1)
Distance from wall face / (H+D)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
c
m
)
0
10
20
30
40
DTest1 (D/H=2.33)
DTest2 (D/H/D=1.5)
DTest3 (D/H=1)
DTest4 (D/H=0.67)
DTest5 (H/D=2.33)
(b) (a)
s
f
= s
r
= 0.5 m ;
w=0.5 m
Zone I Zone II Zone I
Zone II
Location of
wall back
Figure 11. Surface settlement troughs: (a) single soldierpile wall (s ¼0.5 and 1.0 m) and (b) double soldierpile wall
(s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m; w¼0.5 m).
458 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
types of walls, the maximum surface settlement and
angular distortions in Zones I and II increase with
decreasing penetration depth (D). At a given ratio of
penetration to excavation depth (D/H), the calculated
vm
and in the double soldierpile wall are clearly less
than those in the single soldierpile wall (there is a
reduction by a factor of two to three).
The horizontal displacement and tilting angle of
wall at ground level are the maximum horizontal
displacement,
hm
, and the maximum tilting angle,
m
,
respectively, because they appear at the top of canti
lever soldierpile walls.
hm
and
m
are two key
parameters for evaluating the stability of such a
retaining wall system. The horizontal displacement of
a wall toward the excavation side and the angle of
tilting toward the excavation side are treated as
positive. These two values can be derived geometrically
from the two horizontal displacement readings
obtained at two different elevations on the pile above
the capping beam. The calculated maximum horizontal
displacements and maximum tilting angles for the
single and double soldierpile walls are listed in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively, and are also shown in
Figures 12(a) and (b).
Figures 12(a) and (b) demonstrate that a single
soldierpile wall composed of a row of closely spaced
piles (s ¼0.5 m) experiences less horizontal displace
ment and tilting than one composed of a row of
widely spaced piles (s ¼1.0 m). As expected, both
hm
and
m
increase with increasing excavation depth. In
particular, the calculated values of
hm
on the double
soldierpile wall for the values of D/H listed in
Tables 3 and 4 are clearly less than those observed
for the single soldierpile wall (there is a reduction
by a factor of three or four). These findings of the
model tests demonstrate that the use of a double
soldierpile wall in vertical excavations not only
effectively reduces damage on surrounding buildings
but also effectively reduces the deflection of the
retaining wall.
Table 4. Maximum surface settlement and pile responses of double soldierpile walls (s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m; w¼0.5 m) at various
excavation depths.
Test no. Dtest1 Dtest2 Dtest3 Dtest4 Dtest5
a
Excavation depth, H (m) 3 4 5 6 7
Ratio of penetration to excavation depth, D/H 2.33 1.5 1 0.67 0.43
Pile spacing, s (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Maximum surface settlement,
vm
(cm) 1.5 5.0 8.0 19.1 40
Angular distortion of Zone I,
1
1/467 1/133 1/118 1/47 1/23
Angular distortion of Zone II,
2
1/6406 1/1246 1/143 1/89 1/29
Maximum horizontal displacement,
hm
(cm) 0.74 2.5 4.9 11.2 18.5
Tilting angle,
m
(
) 0.02 0.36 0.91 1.89 7.36
CTRBM at the ground surface, (M
f
þM
r
)
z ¼0
(kNm/m) À10.9 À12.8 À15.8 À19.0 –
Estimated axial force of front pile (kN/pile) 10.9 12.8 15.8 19.0 –
Estimated axial force of rear pile (kN/pile) À10.9 À12.8 À15.8 À19.0 –
Ultimate load capacity of pile, Q
u
(kN/pile) 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 15.0
Ultimate uplift capacity of pile (kN/pile) À41.8 À41.8 À41.8 À41.8 À41.8
R 1.53 1.31 1.06 0.87 –
Note:
a
Instrumented soldier piles were not used in Dtest5.
Table 3. Measured maximum surface settlement, angular distortion, maximum horizontal displacement, and maximum tilting
angle for single soldierpile walls (s ¼0.5 and 1.0 m) at various excavation depths.
Test no. STest1 STest2 STest3 STest4 STest6 STest7 STest8
Excavation depth, H (m) 3 4 5 6 3 4 5
Ratio of penetration to excavation depth, D/H 2.33 1.5 1 0.67 2.33 1.5 1
Pile spacing, s (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maximum surface settlement,
vm
(cm) 4 8.2 23 33 8.68 14.6 31.29
Angular distortion of Zone I,
1
1/155 1/88 1/28 1/25 1/82 1/53 1/24
Angular distortion of Zone II,
2
1/2031 1/258 1/313 1/62 1/430 1/207 1/85
Maximum horizontal displacement,
hm
(cm) 2.1 7.1 17.3 33.0 3.73 12.37 20.57
Maximum tilting angle,
m
(
) 0.4 0.91 1.02 2.47 1.22 1.49 3.48
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 459
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
3.4. Bending moment profiles for the single and
double soldierpile walls
The regressed bending moment profiles for both the
front and rear piles in the double soldierpile walls with
a given pile spacing (s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m) at various excava
tion depths (D/H¼2.33, 1.5, 1.0, and 0.67) are shown
in Figures 13(a)–(d). The details of the regression
procedure have been reported by Lee et al. (2007).
Negative bending moments developed on the front and
rear piles in the double soldierpile wall, whereas a
negligible negative bending moment developed on the
pile in the single soldierpile wall with a pile spacing
of 0.5 m. Also, plotted for comparison in the
corresponding figures (Figures 13(a)–(d)) are the
computed total regressed bending moment (CTRBM)
profiles, defined as the sum of the regressed bending
moments of the front and rear piles (M
f
þM
r
)
z
at the
same elevation, and the regressed bending moment
profiles for the single soldierpile wall at the same
excavation depth. The CTRBM profile (see the dotted
line in Figure 13) can be considered to represent the
bending moment profile of the entire double soldier
pile wall system.
The CTRBM at z ¼0 m, ðM
f
þ M
r
Þ
o
, can be
calculated as follows
ðM
f
þ M
r
Þ
o
¼ ðM
f
Þ
z¼0
þ ðM
r
Þ
z¼0
: ð18Þ
The negative quantity ðM
f
þ M
r
Þ
o
that bends the
crest of the wall toward the retained side can reduce the
positive bending moment of the pile, so we expect a
decrease in the horizontal displacement and tilting on
the double soldierpile wall and an increase in its
stability. Hence the use of the maximum capable
mobilized moment, M
u
, on the equivalent single
soldierpile wall, as described in the proposed simpli
fied stability analysis and shown in Figure 7, is
confirmed. To enable consistent comparisons of the
measured ðM
f
þ M
r
Þ
o
for the walls with two different
pile spacings (s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 and 1.0 m), the magnitude of
ðM
f
þ M
r
Þ
o
was multiplied by two to obtain the
bending moment per meter in the case of the double
soldierpile wall with a pile spacing of 0.5 m: there was
no need for this multiplication in the case of the wall
with a pile spacing of 1.0 m. As listed in Table 4, a
more highly negative ðM
f
þ M
r
Þ
o
develops on a wall
with deeper excavation.
Referring to Figure 6(a) and Equations (10) and
(11), the mobilized (M
f
þM
r
)
o
is directly proportional
to the row distance, w, and the mobilized axial forces
on the soldier piles, (P
f
)
z ¼0
or (P
r
)
z ¼0
. The maximum
mobilized axial force is the smaller of (1) the ultimate
bearing capacity of the front pile, Q
u
, and (2) the
ultimate uplift capacity of the rear pile. For simplifi
cation in estimating the ultimate bearing capacity and
ultimate uplift capacity of the piles, the embedded
lengths of the front and rear piles are assumed to be the
penetration depth (D) and the full pile length
(L¼HþD), respectively. The ultimate bearing capac
ities of the front soldier pile (the shaft friction
contribution is neglected and only the tip resistance is
taken into account, somewhat conservatively) and the
ultimate uplift capacities of the rear soldier pile at
various penetration depths can be evaluated by
following ‘The Designers’ Codes and Guides for
Building Foundations Chapter 5.3’ (TGS 2001), the
(a) (b)
D/H
M
a
x
.
t
i
l
t
i
n
g
a
n
g
l
e
,
a
m
(
°
)
0
2
4
6
8
Single wall (s=0.5 m)
Double wall
Single wall
(s=1.0 m)
D/H
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
M
a
x
.
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
d
h
m
(
c
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Single wall (s =0.5m)
Double wall
(s
f
=s
f
=0.5m; w=0.5m)
(s
f
=s
r
=0.5m; w=0.5m)
Single wall
(s =1.0m)
Figure 12. (a) Maximum horizontal displacements for single soldierpile walls (s ¼0.5 and 1.0 m) and a double soldierpile wall
(s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m; w¼0.5 m) and (b) maximum tilting angles for single soldierpile walls (s ¼0.5 and 1.0 m) and a double soldierpile
wall (s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 m; w¼0.5 m).
460 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
results are listed in Table 4. The ultimate uplift
capacity of a rear soldier pile of 10 m is 41.8 kN
regardless of excavation depth. In engineering practice,
the ultimate bearing capacity of the front pile might be
smaller than the ultimate uplift capacity of the rear pile
because of a marked decrease in the embedded depth
of the front pile at the maximum possible excavation
depth. Thus, the maximum mobilized bending moment
D/H=2.33
Bending moment (kN–m/per pile)
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Front pile (w=0.5 m; s
f
=0.5 m)
Rear pile (w=0.5 m; s
r
=0.5 m)
CTRBM
Stest1(s =0.5 m)
D/H=1.5
Bending moment (kN–m/per pile)
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Front pile (w=0.5 m; s
f
=0.5 m)
Rear pile (w=0.5 m; s
r
=0.5 m)
CTRBM
Stest2 (s=0.5 m)
Excavation
depth
Excavation
depth
D/H=1
Bending moment (kN–m/per pile)
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Front pile (w=0.5 m; s
f
=0.5 m)
Rear pile (w=0.5 m; s
r
=0.5 m)
CTRBM
Stest3 (s=0.5 m)
Excavation
depth
Excavation
depth
D/H=0.67
Bending moment (kN–m/per pile)
–20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50
–20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
–20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Front pile (w=0.5 m; s
f
=0.5 m)
Rear pile (w=0.5 m; s
r
=0.5 m)
CTRBM
Stest4 (s=0.5 m)
(c) (d)
(b)
(a)
Figure 13. Regressed bending moment profiles for various excavation depths for single and double soldierpile walls: (a) bending
moment profiles (D/H¼2.33); (b) bending moment profiles (D/H¼1.5); (c) bending moment profiles (D/H¼1); (d) bending
moment profiles (D/H¼0.67).
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 461
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
at ground level, M
u
, is assumed to be equal to the
ultimate bearing capacity of the front pile, Q
u
, multi
plied by the row distance, w.
The axial forces developed on the front and rear
piles at ground level in Test Series B can be estimated
with Equation (11) in terms of the measured
(M
f
þM
r
)
o
, and are listed in Table 4. The estimated
axial forces increase with excavation depth. Also, listed
in Table 4 are the ratios of the ultimate bearing
capacity to the estimated axial force on the front pile at
ground level, R, for Test Series B. For values of R41,
no bearing capacity failure should occur on the front
soldier pile. For values R51, the front pile would
enter the bearing capacity failure state, leading to
increased wall deformation (i.e., the maximum
horizontal displacement and tilting angle at ground
level). There are marked increases in the case of
R51 in the values of
hm
and
m
for Dtest4, as listed
in Table 4.
3.5. Response of double soldierpile walls with
various pile arrangements
Table 5 lists the performances of the double soldierpile
walls at an excavation depth of 5 m with three different
combinations of pile arrangements (w¼0.5 and 1.0 m;
s
f
¼s
r
¼0.5 and 1.0 m). As the row distance increases
from 0.5 m (Dtest3) to 1.0 m (Dtest6), the maximum
tilting angle,
m
, decreases from 0.91
to 0.59
, whereas
the maximum horizontal displacement,
hm
, undergoes
a small decrease from 4.9 to 4.3 cm. The regressed
bending moment profiles of the front and rear piles
and the CTRBM profile, (M
f
þM
r
)
z
, of the double
soldierpile walls (Dtest3 and Dtest6) and the single
soldierpile wall (Stest3; H/D¼1; s ¼0.5 m) are shown
in Figures 14(a) and (b) for comparison. Negative
bending moments developed on the front and rear piles
at a depth of z ¼0 m, and more significant negative
bending moments developed on the piles in the double
soldierpile wall with a large row distance, as shown in
Figure 14(b) and Table 5. The CTRBM profiles for the
double soldierpile wall and the bending moment
profile for the single soldierpile wall at the same
excavation depth are of similar shape, except for the
larger negative value of (M
f
þM
r
)
o
developed on the
double soldierpile wall. The magnitude of (M
f
þM
r
)
o
developed on the double soldierpile wall with a row
distance of 1.0 m is approximately twice as large as that
for a row distance of 0.5 m (Figure 14(b) and Table 5);
however, the two row distances require similar R
values (R¼1.06 and 1.05, respectively) in order to
prevent failure in terms of the bearing capacity of the
pile. The maximum positive CTRBM on the lower
portions of the piles for the wall with a row distance of
1.0 m is only slightly lower than that for the wall with a
row distance of 0.5 m. The higher magnitude of
(M
f
þM
r
)
o
on the crest of the wall leads to an increase
in the resistance to rotation, but not to a significant
reduction in wall deflection or to a decrease in the
positive bending moment on the lower portion of
each pile.
In contrast to the pile arrangements described in
the preceding paragraph, the values of
m
and
hm
measured in Dtest7 undergo marked increases with the
increase in the pile spacing from 0.5 to 1.0 m.
This finding may imply that a reduction in pile spacing
Table 5. Maximum surface settlement and pile responses of double soldierpile walls with an excavation depth of 5 m for three
different pile arrangements.
Test no. Dtest3 Dtest6 Dtest7
Excavation depth (m) 5 5 5
Row distance (m) 0.5 1.0 0.5
Pile spacing (m) Front pile, s
f
0.5 0.5 1
Rear pile, s
r
0.5 0.5 1
Maximum surface settlement,
vm
(cm) 8.0 8.5 21
Angular distortion of Zone I,
1
1/118 1/154 1/36
Angular distortion of Zone II,
2
1/143 – –
Maximum horizontal displacement,
hm
(cm) 4.9 4.3 8.8
Tilting angle,
m
(
) 0.91 0.59 2.35
CTRBM at the ground surface, (M
f
þM
r
)
o
(kNm/m) À15.8 À31.8 À11.63
Estimated axial force of front pile (kN) 15.8 15.9 23.3
Estimated axial force of rear pile (kN/pile) À15.8 À15.9 À23.3
Ultimate bearing capacity of pile, Q
u
(kN/pile) 16.7 16.7 16.7
Ultimate uplift capacity of pile (kN/pile) À41.8 À41.8 À41.8
R 1.06 1.05 0.71
462 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
(i.e., an increase in the area of the pile shaft in contact
with the soil) might be more effective in improving the
stability of the double soldierpile wall than an increase
in the row distance.
3.6. Comparison of the factors of safety and the
measured wall deformations
The proposed simplified stability analysis was used to
evaluate the factors of safety for the soldierpile wall
models examined in this study. The critical normalized
moment ratios of the model walls can be obtained from
Equation (7b) or Equation (17b) and from the design
charts in Figures 5 and 10. Tables 6 and 7 list the
critical normalized moment ratios, the factors of
safety, the measured wall deformations (
hm
and
m
),
and the ratios of maximum horizontal displacement to
the retained soil height,
hm
/H, for the single and
double soldierpile walls at various excavation depths.
These two tables reveal that once the factor of safety is
less than 1 or even when it approaches 1, there are
marked increases in
hm
and
m
and the wall becomes
unstable. The comparison of the factors of safety of the
single and double soldierpile walls at the same
excavation depth reveals that the use of a double
soldierpile wall leads to improved wall stability and an
increase in the excavation depth of about 2 m. The use
of F
s
¼2.0 in the proposed stability analysis was found
to be appropriate engineering practice for ensuring
that the temporary cantilever doublepile walls are
stable and that the ratio
hm
/H does not exceed 1%, as
shown in Tables 6 and 7.
4. Conclusions
The cantilever double soldierpile wall used in vertical
excavations is well known for its superiority in terms of
easy and rapid construction, and for minimizing wall
deformation. To evaluate the external stability of a
double soldierpile wall, an equivalent single soldier
pile wall with twice the bending stiffness, 2EI, of a
single soldierpile wall, twice the area of pile shaft in
contact with the soil below the excavation level, and
subjected to a maximum capable mobilized moment at
ground level to take into account the interaction
between the front and rear piles, is proposed. A series
of centrifuge model tests at an acceleration of 30 Âg
were conducted to study the behaviors of cantilever
single and double soldierpile walls in sand under
various test conditions. The test results show that the
use of a double soldierpile wall can effectively reduce
surface settlement, horizontal displacement, tilting
angle, and the maximum positive bending moment
on the soldier pile by more than half of that experi
enced by single soldierpile walls. The stability of a
double soldierpile wall is influenced by the bearing
capacity of the piles, the row distance, and in particular
the number of piles per meter of wall. After detailed
assessment of the distribution of the bending moment
Bending moment (kN–m/per pile)
–40 –20 0 20 40
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
DTest6 (Front w=1.0 m)
DTest6 (Rear w=1.0 m)
DTest3 (Front w=0.5 m)
DTest3 (Rear w=0.5 m)
STest3 (s =0.5 m)
D/H=1
s =s
f
=s
r
=0.5 m
Excavation
depth
Bending moment (kN–m/per pile)
–30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
DTest3 (w=0.5 m)
DTest6 (w=1.0 m)
STest3
D/H=1
Excavation
depth
(a)
(b)
s =s
f
=s
r
=0.5 m
Figure 14. Regressed bending moment profiles for double
soldierpile walls with two different row distances (w¼0.5
and 1.0 m) and a single soldierpiled wall (D/H¼1.0): (a)
regressed bending moment profiles for each pile and (b) sums
of the regressed bending moment profiles of the front and
rear piles and the regressed bending moment profiles of the
single soldierpile wall.
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 463
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
obtained from the instrumented piles, the use of the
maximum capable mobilized moment in our stability
analysis was confirmed. The proposed stability analysis
provides satisfactory predictions of the factors of
safety for double soldierpile walls with various
excavation depths and pile arrangements, as verified
by the results obtained from centrifuge model tests.
The use of F
s
¼2.0 in the proposed stability analysis
was found to be an appropriate engineering practice
for ensuring that the temporary cantilever doublepile
walls are stable and that the ratio
hm
/H does not
exceed 1%.
Acknowledgments
Financial support provided by the National Science Council,
Taiwan (grant NSC 932211E008006) is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors are thankful to Dr HsiiSheng
Hsieh of Trinity Foundation Engineering Consultants Co.
Ltd. for his great kindness in providing many valuable
comments and suggestions during the course of the research.
Nomenclature
B flange width of soldier pile (mm)
C
u
uniformity coefficient
D penetration depth (m)
D
50
median grain size (mm)
D
r
relative density (%)
EI flexural stiffness (kNm
2
)
F
s
factor of safety
G
s
specific gravity of sand
H depth of retained soil (m)
K
a
coefficient of active earth pressure
K
p
coefficient of passive earth pressure
K
p(design)
coefficient of passive earth pressure used
in design
L full pile length (m)
M
d
driving moment (kN m/m)
M
r
resisting moment (kN m/m)
M
r
=M
d
ratio of the resisting moment to the
driving moment
(M
f
)
z ¼0
bending moment on the front pile at a
depth of z ¼0 (kN m/m)
(M
r
)
z ¼0
bending moment on the rear pile at a
depth of z ¼0 (kN m/m)
M
u
maximum capable mobilized moment
(kN m/m)
(P
f
)
z ¼0
axial force on the front pile at a depth of
z ¼0 (kN/m)
(P
r
)
z ¼0
axial force on the rear pile at a depth of
z ¼0 (kN/m)
Q
u
ultimate bearing capacity of the pile
(kN)
Table 6. Comparison of the calculated factors of safety and the measured wall deformations for single soldierpile walls at
various excavation depths.
H (m) 7 6 5 4 3
D (m) 3 4 5 6 7
D/H 0.423 0.667 1 1.5 2.33
Critical normalized moment ratio n ¼2 0.02204 0.053117 0.10666 0.1907 0.314315
n¼1 0.012068 0.031055 0.0678 0.134106 0.247366
hm
(cm) n ¼2 – 33 17.3 7.1 2.1
n ¼1 – – 31.3 14.6 8.68
m
(
) n ¼2 – 2.47 1.02 0.91 0.4
n ¼1 – – 3.48 1.49 1.22
F
s
n ¼2 0.3 0.72 1.45 2.60 4.28
n ¼1 0.16 0.42 0.92 1.83 3.37
Table 7. Comparison of the calculated factors of safety and measured wall deformations for a double soldierpile wall
(w¼0.5 m) at various excavation depths.
H (m) 7 6 5 4 3
D (m) 3 4 5 6 7
D/H 0.423 0.667 1 1.5 2.33
Critical normalized moment ratio 0.038599 0.085129 0.156454 0.253446 0.385313
hm
(cm) n ¼2 18.5 9.6 4.9 2.5 0.74
m
(
) n ¼2 7.36 2.02 0.91 0.36 0.02
F
s
n ¼2 0.5 1.11 2.03 3.3 5
hm
/H n ¼2 2.7% 1.6% 1.0% 0.62% 0.24%
464 C.J. Lee et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1
R ratio of the ultimate bearing capacity to
the estimated axial force on the front pile
at ground level
(V
f
)
z ¼0
shear force on the front pile at a depth of
z ¼0 (kN/m)
(V
r
)
z ¼0
shear force on the rear pile at a depth of
z ¼0 (kN/m)
n number of soldier piles per meter of wall
s pile spacing (m)
t depth of the pivot point below the
excavation level (m)
t
c
critical depth of the pivot point below
the excavation level (m)
w row distance of piles (m)
m
maximum tilting angle (
)
1
angular distortions in Zone I
2
angular distortions in Zone II
unit weight of the soil (kN/m
3
)
internal friction angle (
)
bearing capacity factor of soldier pile
vm
maximum surface settlement (cm)
hm
maximum horizontal displacement (cm)
References
Canadian Geotechnical Society, 1992. Canadian foundation
engineering manual: Part 4. Canada: Canadian
Geotechnical Society, Technical Committee on
Foundations.
Chen, H.M., 1999. Study of the behavior of selfstand two
row sheet piles used in excavation. Sinogeotechnics, 75,
41–48 (in Chinese).
Clayton, C.R.I. and Militisky, J., 1993. Earth pressure and
earth retaining structures. New York, USA: Blackie
Academic & Professional.
Das, B.M., 1998. Principles of foundation engineering. 4th ed.
Boston: PWS Publishing.
Hong, S.H., Lee, F.H., and Yong, K.Y., 2003.
Threedimensional pilesoil interaction in soldierpiled
excavation. Computers and geotechnics, 30, 81–107.
Hsieh, H.S., Shih, C., and Lin, T.M., 2003. A note on the
behavior of doublerail earth retaining system.
Sinogeotechnics, 97, 5–14 (in Chinese).
Hwang, R.N., Moh, Z.C., and Wang, C.H., 2007.
Performance of wall systems during excavation for core
Pacific City. Journal of geoengineering, 2 (2), 53–60.
King, G.W.J., 1995. Analysis of cantilever sheetpile walls in
cohesionless soil. Journal of geotechnical and geoenviron
mental engineering, 121 (9), 629–635.
Lee, C.J., et al., 2007. Centrifuge modeling of a self
supported double soldierpiled wall in sandy soil. Journal
of geoengineering, 2 (3), 97–109.
Lee, C.J. and Chiang, K.H., 2007. Response of
single piles to tunnelinduced soil movements in
sandy ground. Candian geotechnical journal, 44 (10),
1224–1241.
Lee, C.J., et al., 2006. Tunnel stability and arching effects
during tunneling in soft clayey soil. Tunneling and under
ground space technology incorporating trenchless technology
research, 21 (2), 119–132.
Madabhushi, S.P.G. and Chandrasekaran, V.S., 2005.
Rotation of cantilever sheet pile walls. ASCE, journal of
geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 131 (2),
202–212.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982. Design manual
7.2: foundations and earth structures. Washington, DC:
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command.
Ohori, K., et al., 1988. Static analysis model for double sheet
pile wall structures. Journal of geotechnical engineering,
114 (7), 810–825.
Ou, C.Y., Hsieh, P.G., and Chiou, D.C., 1993.
Characteristics of ground surface settlement during
excavation. Canadian geotechnical journal, 30 (5), 758–767.
Ruhul, M., et al., 2006. Centrifuge model tests on behavior
of double sheet pile wall cofferdam on clay.
IJPMGInternational journal of physical modeling in
geotechnics, 6 (3), 1–23.
Sawaguchi, M., 1974. Lateral behavior of a double sheet pile
wall structure. Soils and foundations, 14 (1), 45–59.
Technical Committee on Geotechnical Structures, 2001.
Designers’ codes and guides for building foundation.
Taiwan: Pile Foundation, Taiwan Geotechnical Society,
Technical Committee on Geotechnical Structures
(In Chinese).
Vermeer, P.V., Punlor, A., and Ruse, N., 2001. Arching
effects behind a soldier pile wall. Computers and geotech
nics, 28, 379–396.
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 465
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
[
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
a
i
w
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
]
a
t
2
0
:
4
3
2
4
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
1