Performance of Two Anchored Walls Under Cut and Fill Construction Sequences

  • Jorge Romana Giraldo
  • L. Sebastian BrysonEmail author
  • Mariantonieta Gutierrez Soto
Original Paper


Tieback walls are typically designed using apparent earth pressures that are obtained initially by back-calculating earth pressures from measured support loads for excavation only. For construction activities involving both excavation and backfilling aspects, the use of apparent earth pressures might not be adequate. This paper investigates the performance of two tieback walls constructed using a combination of fill and cut construction sequences. Results obtained from data collected using load cells and strain gages along with the soldier piles of both walls, show the correlation of axial loads and bending moments to construction activities. Results show that some load is transferred to the soldier piles during anchor installation, despite using steel casings to prevent this action. Backfilling behind the wall created significant curvature in the soldier piles based on the measured bending moments. Moreover, results evidence that the apparent earth pressure does not reflect the observed bending moments in the walls. However, a beam model including lateral displacement is presented to represent the measured response in both walls. The results unveil differences in anchor loads estimations, evaluates the appropriateness of apparent earth pressures for the design of tieback walls and provides design recommendations.


Tieback wall Shale Bending moment Axial load Construction sequence Excavation 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Robert Liang for providing the original Sum 82 report materials and for giving insight into the installation and monitoring activities for the project. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Christopher Merklin and Mr. Stephen Taliaferro from the Office of Geotechnical Engineering at the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for providing project exploration and correspondence data that was not included in the Final Sum 82 report. These data were invaluable for performing the analyses used in this paper.


  1. AASHTO (2010) Moisture density relations of soils using a 2.5 kg rammer and a 305 mm drop. AASHTO T99, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. AASHTO (2014) Standard method of test for density of soil in-place by the sand-cone method, single. AASHTO T 191, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Benmokrane B, Ballivy G (1991) Five-year monitoring of load losses on prestressed cement-grouted rock anchors. Can Geotech J 28(5):668–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilgin Ö (2012) Lateral earth pressure coefficients for anchored sheet pile walls. Int J Geomech 12(5):584–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briaud J-L, Griffin R, Yeung A, Soto A, Suroor A, Park H (1998) Long-term behavior of ground anchors and tieback walls. FHWNTX-99/1391-1, Federal Highway Administration, AustinGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai F, Ugai K (2003) Response of flexible piles under laterally linear movement of the sliding layer in landslides. Can Geotech J 40(1):46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gorsevski PV, Brown MK, Panter K, Onasch CM, Simic A, Snyder J (2016) Landslide detection and susceptibility mapping using LiDAR and an artificial neural network approach: a case study in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio. Landslides 13(3):467–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guerra NMdC, Cardoso AS, Fernandes MM, Correia AG (2004) Vertical stability of anchored concrete soldier-pile walls in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(12):1259–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones ML, Shakoor A (1989) Some landslide hazards in northern Summit County, Ohio. Environ Eng Geosci 26(3):351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambe TW, Wolfskill LA, Wong IH (1970) Measured performance of braced excavation. J Soil Mech Found Div 96(3):817–836Google Scholar
  11. Liang RY (2000) Instrumentation and monitoring of tieback wall on Sum 82 at Brecksville. FHWA/OH-2000/015, ed.ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  12. Nandi A, Shakoor A (2010) A GIS-based landslide susceptibility evaluation using bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Eng Geol 110(1–2):11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ou CY (2006) Deep excavation: theory and practice. Taylor & Francis Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Peck RB (1969) Deep excavations and tunneling in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering. ISSMGE, Mexico City, pp 225–281Google Scholar
  15. PTI (2014) Recommendations for prestressed rock and soil anchors. Post-Tensioning Institute, PhoenixGoogle Scholar
  16. Sabatini PJ, Pass DG, Bachus RC (1999) Ground anchors and anchored systems. Report FHWA-IF-99-015, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. SAP2000 Version 20.0.0 [Computer software]. Computers and Structures, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Smethurst JA, Powrie W (2007) Monitoring and analysis of the bending behaviour of discrete piles used to stabilise a railway embankment. Géotechnique 57(8):663–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Tschebotarioff GP (1973) Foundations, retaining, and earth structures. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Weatherby DE, Chung M, Kim N-K, Briaud J-L (1998) Summary report of research on permanent ground anchor walls, volume II: full-scale wall tests and a soil-structure interaction model. Federal Highway Administration, McLeanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations