DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT

THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Stockholm, Sweden 2021-10-31

Mark Bennyson – bennyson@kth.se

Alejandro García García – alejgg@kth.se

AF2026 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, ADVANCED COURSE

2021/2022
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Abstract

Design project of temporary sheet pile wall for a road culvert in Stockholm. This wall is to be installed to
carry out excavations for a road ramp which is part of large highway interchange at Trafikplats Värtan.
This construction will take place under an existing road which will fully operational during the entire
period of construction. The excavation is to be carried out at a depth of approximately 8 meters from the
ground surface. The borehole details and the initial details of the laboratory testing are provided by the
clients, data is processed, and a geotechnical profile is obtained from them.

Analytical calculations are carried out using the Ultimate Limit State method for dimensioning the
different elements of the structure (sheet pile, struts, and wale beam). A commercial software PLAXIS
was used check the deformations and the stability of the of the entire structure. A sensitivity analysis
was carried out for varying depths of clay to study the behaviour of the structure in respect to this
parameter.

Together with it, a comparison between analytical and numerical results is performed to show the
differences between both methods and different assumptions.

Safety would be the most important aspects that has to governed in all stages of the project. Thus, a
control statement has been provided, identifying the crucial areas of the project and counter measures
have been suggested to avoid any kind of possible failure.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Table of contents
1. OBJECT AND PURPOSE ..............................................................................................................3
2. BASIS FOR THE DESIGN AND VALID DOCUMENTS. ................................................................4
2.1 Valid documents. ....................................................................................................................4
2.2 Serviceability and ultimate limit state. ....................................................................................4
3. GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITIONS. ...................................................................................6
3.1 Boreholes and available information. .....................................................................................6
3.1.1 Soil/Rock probing JB-1 .................................................................................................6
3.1.2 Percussion sounding with registration..........................................................................7
3.1.3 Cone Penetration test...................................................................................................8
3.2 Soil profile section. .................................................................................................................9
3.3 Geological profile. ...................................................................................................................9
3.4 Water table. ..........................................................................................................................11
3.5 Geotechnical Profile .............................................................................................................11
4. CHARACTERISTIC VALUES. .....................................................................................................13
4.1 Information coming out from considered boreholes. ............................................................13
4.1.1 Natural water content. ................................................................................................13
4.1.2 Liquid limit. .................................................................................................................14
4.1.3 Bulk density. ...............................................................................................................14
4.1.4 Uncorrected shear strength. .......................................................................................15
4.1.5 Sensitivity. ..................................................................................................................15
4.1.6 Discussion on shear strength. ....................................................................................15
4.2 Values considered for the different soil layers. ....................................................................19
5. RECOMMENDATIONS. ...............................................................................................................20
6. DESIGN. .......................................................................................................................................21
6.1 Approaches for the design....................................................................................................21
6.2 Description of the construction. ............................................................................................21
6.3 Design Values. .....................................................................................................................22
6.4 Assumptions. ........................................................................................................................23
6.5 Calculations and design. ......................................................................................................23
6.5.1 Ultimate Limit State (ULS). .........................................................................................23
6.5.1.1 First excavation stage. ..................................................................................23
6.5.1.2 Second excavation stage ..............................................................................26
6.5.1.3 Third excavation stage. .................................................................................28
6.5.1.4 Fourth excavation stage. ...............................................................................30
6.5.1.5 Forces and Moments. ....................................................................................32
6.5.1.6 Design of struts. .............................................................................................33
6.5.1.7 Design of the sheet pile wall. .........................................................................35
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

6.5.1.8 Design of the wale beams. ............................................................................36

6.5.2 Serviceability limit state (SLS). ...................................................................................36
6.5.2.1 Description of the PLAXIS model. Decisions and assumptions. ...................37
6.5.2.2 SLS Design. ...................................................................................................38
6.5.2.3 Plastic points. ................................................................................................39
6.5.2.4 Maximum deformation. ..................................................................................40
6.5.2.5 Sensitivity analysis. Clay shear strength. ......................................................41
6.5.3 Discussion on the proposed number of struts. ...........................................................44
6.5.4 Comparison between analytical and numerical results. .............................................44
6.5.4.1 Comparison of strut forces. ...........................................................................45
6.5.4.2 Comparison of bending moments. ................................................................45
6.5.4.3 Comparison of earth pressure diagrams. ......................................................46
6.5.5 Design results. ............................................................................................................49
6.5.5.1 Sheet pile wall. ..............................................................................................49
6.5.5.2 Struts. ............................................................................................................49
6.5.5.3 Wale beams. ..................................................................................................50
7. CONTROL PROGRAM DURING EXECUTION. ..........................................................................51
8. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................53

Appendices
SOIL PROFILE PROPOSAL. DRAWING. ..................................................................................................
SHEET PILE WALL. CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE. ............................................................................
SHEET PILE WALL. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE. HAND CALCULATIONS. ...............................................
SHEET PILE WALL. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE. PLAXIS ...............................................................
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

TABLE OF SYMBOLS

Notation Particular Unit

𝝓′
Friction Angle [º]

c’
Cohesion Angle [kPa]

𝝈𝟏 , 𝝈𝟑
Main total soil stresses [kPa]

𝝈′𝟏 , 𝝈′𝟑
Main effective soil stresses [kPa]

𝝈′𝒄
Effective Consolidation Stress [kPa]

u
Pore water Pressure [kPa]

𝝉𝒇𝒖
Undrained shear strength [kPa]

t
time [s]

S’
Mean effective stress [kPa]

ko
Soil Pressure coefficient -

𝜸
Shear Strain -

t
Shear stress [kPa]

G0, G50
Shear Modulus [kPa]

𝛄𝐬
Specific weight of soil 𝐊𝐍
[ 𝟑]
𝐦
𝐎𝐂𝐑
Over consolidation Ratio

𝜸𝒘
Specific weight of water 𝑲𝑵
[ 𝟑]
𝒎
η
Form Factor -

𝛄𝒎 , 𝛄𝒏
Partial coefficients of safety -

xd
Design value -

PA
Active earth pressure KPa

PP
Passive earth pressure KPa

ha
Lever of active pressure m

hp
Lever of passive pressure m

1 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

𝝈𝒑,𝒏𝒆𝒕
Net pressure KPa

Ncb
Critical Stability number

Cud
Design value for undrained shear strength KPa

γd
Soil weigth 𝑲𝑵
[ 𝟑]
𝒎
H
Thickness of the soil layer m

qd
External loads

σi
Load Intensity KPa

b
Distance between point D and excavation m

Nrd
Resistant Axial Force KN/m

Nsd
Applied Axial Force KN/m

Q
Strut Force KN/m

c
Horizontal Spacing of struts m

L
Width of Excavation m

Msd
Resistant Bending Moment KNm/m

Mrd
Applied Bending Moment KNm/m

fyd
Design value for yield strength MPa

Wz,min
Minimum bending bearing capacity Cm3/m

2 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

1. OBJECT AND PURPOSE

A temporary sheet pile wall must be constructed for a road ramp near Värtan Trafikplats, in Stockholm.
The report briefly describes the process of the construction, from designing the basic support members
and properties to construction and control statement.

Thus, the aim of this report is to set out in a reasoned and organised manner the process by which the
design of the sheet pile has been carried out. As a result, the dimensions of the sheet pile, wale beam
and struts should be obtained. Together with it, the construction procedure will be exposed and a
control program for the worksite is also included.

Finally, given the didactic purpose of this report, analyses and discussions are included to show the
understanding of the geotechnical behaviour of the structure and to justify those engineering decisions
that had to be made in the design.

3 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

2. BASIS FOR THE DESIGN AND VALID DOCUMENTS.

This section contains relevant information on the design that applies to this phase of the project.

2.1 Valid documents.

The codes and guidelines required by the Swedish authorities have been used for the design in order to
guarantee the safety of the construction during its whole life cycle.

• Sponthandboken. Swedish method for the design of sheet piles.

• Eurocode 1993 – Design of steel structures.

• Rankine’s theory of soil pressures.

• Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.

• Client’s guidelines and provided geotechnical investigations.

2.2 Serviceability and ultimate limit state.

The design of the sheet pile will be based on the following two common structural design scenarios.

• Serviceability limit state (SLS). It verifies that the structure behaves adequately with the
characteristic loads to which it will be subjected, and that its functionality is ensured. In the case
of the sheet pile wall to be designed, the maximum horizontal displacement of the sheet pile
shall be limited to a value of less than 30 millimeters.

• Ultimate limit state (ULS). Its function is to ensure sufficient functioning of the structure for the
highest possible loads and under the worst possible circumstances just before the collapse of
the structure. In this way it is not the correct functioning of the structure that is tested, but its
safety in the event of collapse.

In order to work with one or the other scenario, the sheet pile calculation must be carried out
considering the geotechnical parameters corresponding to each scenario. Those different parameters
correspond to the characteristic ones coming from the geotechnical research being affected by the
following partial coefficients.

Table 1 Partial coefficients for temporary constructions.

ELS ELU
Existing fill, tan φ 1,0 1,1
Existing fill, E 1,0 1,6
Clay, C u 1,0 1,4
Clay, E 1,0 1,5
Friction material and moraine, tanφ 1,0 1,2
Friction material and moraine, E 1,0 1,2

4 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

As can be seen, there are certain parameters for which there is greater certainty, and which are
therefore affected with values closer to one. However, the shear strength of clays together with their
Young’s modulus is a very uncertain values where the material usually does not show a totally
homogeneous behavior. Therefore, it is affected by a larger coefficient.

The same comment is applied to the modulus of elasticity of the anthropogenic fill, which can vary very
significantly depending on the degree of compaction it may have received.

According with the safety class of the structure (safety class 3), a general safety factor of 𝛾𝑛 = 1,2 needs
also to be applied to the values affected by partial coefficients.

Finally, a partial factor of 𝛾𝑚 = 1,0 is to be applied to the steel yielding stress and young’s modulus as
stated by the client.

5 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

3. GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITIONS.

The aim of this section is to set out the following information that has been analysed in order to propose
the geotechnical profile in which the calculations for the stability of the sheet pile at the different stages
of construction are to be performed.

• Information provided by client.

o Geology identified in site.

o 7 boreholes with different tests being performed on them.

3.1 Boreholes and available information.

For the design section, the soil samples were collected from the seven boreholes. The parameters of the
soil were given in form a drawing from the showing the depth and type of soil layer. It is mainly to
determine the following

o Shear strength measurements

o Water content

o Liquid Limit

o Bulk Density of the soil

The following test were conducted to collect the necessary data.

3.1.1 Soil/Rock probing JB-1

JB-1 soil/rock probing test consists of driving a metal-tipped rod into the ground by striking a hammer
that is dropped freely from a free constant height. The number of blows required to advance the
hammer 20 centimeters in depth is recorded and presented as a bar graph in depth next to the
sounding.

It is a very cheap way of testing the soil conditions, and it is particularly suitable when looking for
transition in between a soft and a harder soil layer.

6 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 1 Example and dimensions of test. GEOTECNIA ETSICCP.

There are some empirical relationships proposed by different authors that allow relating the result of
the dynamic penetration test with the geotechnical parameters of the soil.

However, in the case of the present study, as the geotechnical parameters are known and provided by
the client, the test results have been used to know the transition between the frictional soil layer under
the clay and the moraine over the bedrock.

Information is available from the NPS119 test. NPS117 and NPS118 also contain information regarding
this kind of test, that has been also taking into consideration when defining the starting depth of the
moraine ever since those two boreholes are considered to be far away from de design section.

Figure 2 Extracts from the tests.

In the tests NPS117 and NPS119 it is very clear that there is a strong increase of the resistance of the
ground to penetration at around -6,5 m below surface.

3.1.2 Percussion sounding with registration

JB-2 test is a similar test to JB-1. The output is the number of seconds needed to make the rod move
forward 20 centimetres. We have information from borehole RV584.

7 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 3 Extract from the tests.

The number of seconds is constant from the beginning of the test. It is possible to intuit that the
penetration ratio increases from elevation -6m, which again anticipates a change from frictional soil
material to glacial moraine.

3.1.3 Cone Penetration test.

This method is used to determine the geotechnical properties of the soil. The cone tips having a cross-
sectional area of either 10 or 15cm2 for the diameter of 3.6 to 4.4 cm. In a controlled fashion, the cone
tip has penetrated at a rate of 1-2 cm per second. The resistance of the cone called the point resistance
qc for a given depth is recorded using the force sensors installed in the cone. Sleeve and cone when
penetrated together give a resistance qt. This process is repeated, and measurements are documented at
regular Intervals.

The penetrations resistance is recorded in the form of a diagram, where the unbroken line indicates the
point resistance qc. Frictional resistance fc is marked by the broken line. In our instance the borehole
LID_7.

Figure 4 Extract from the test.

8 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

3.2 Soil profile section.

The first step has been to select the design section for the soil profile. For this purpose, the main
conditioning factor has been that the design section needs to be perpendicular to the sheet pile to be
designed. In addition, the section has been selected in such a way that the maximum information from
the boreholes was available.

Therefore, the following image shows the design section that has been considered for the soil profile.

Figure 5 Soil profile section considered.

As it can be seen, this proposed section receives information from 5 boreholes: N4822, LID_3, NPS119,
RV584 and LID_7.

Thus, only two boreholes are discarded, NPS118 and NPS117. It is considered that the information
coming from these boreholes can be similar to that already obtained in the borehole NPS119, since the
three of them have the same kind of test performed on them and are in close positions as can be seen in
the Figure 5.

3.3 Geological profile.

Firstly, the geological information available in the boreholes has been taken in order to prepare a first
geological profile to approximate the next geotechnical profile.

The available results have been interpreted and drawn to arrive at the result available in the Figure 6.

9 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 6 Geological profile.

As it can be clearly observed.

• The terrain is relatively flat with an average elevation of 3.8 meters above sea level.

• There exists a human made fill layer in the top of the soil, varying in between 0.5 and 2 meters
of thickness.

• A clear clay layer is observed starting more or less at elevation 3 m down to -3 m.

• Beneath the clay, the boreholes show a very dispersed terrain in which different typologies have
been catalogued. Thus, it is possible to understand that the geological nature of the terrain is
complex which anticipates that certain simplifications will be necessary.

All the boreholes seem to indicate that it is mostly non-cohesive frictional soil under clay and up
to bedrock.

• Finally, the elevation at which bedrock is being located varies within the range of -7.5 to -9
meters below the sea level.

This information matches relatively well with the statement provided by the client.

10 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

3.4 Water table.

The water table cannot be lowered during the execution of the works as this is a requirement of the
client. Therefore, the decision on the location of the water table is very important. The presence of
water in the ground has the detrimental effect of increasing the thrust on the wall and reducing the
normal resistance of the ground. Other problems such as bottom heave or liquefaction can also be
increased by the variation of the water table.

The water table elevations that have been provided by Client can be consulted in Table 2.

Table 2 Water table elevations provided by Client.

WATER TABLE
Situation Elev. [m]
Highest ground water level - 100 years 1,3
Average ground water level -0,1
Lowest ground water level - 100 years -1,1

It would not be appropriate to consider the minimum 100-year water table level as this would
underestimate the thrust on the sheet pile to the detriment of its structural safety.

In addition, taking the maximum level for 100 years would mean significantly overestimating the thrusts
on the sheet pile, given that, being a temporary sheet pile, the probability of this event happening
during the works is very low. Moreover, there are already safety coefficients applied in the design to
cover any possible increase in the water table.

For all these reasons, it has been finally decided to consider the average elevation of the water table in
the design, as can be seen in the geotechnical profile prepared in this report in Figure 7.

3.5 Geotechnical Profile

The aim of the geotechnical profile is to try to model the complex nature of soil behaviour. This is a
powerful tool that allows the necessary calculations to be made for the soil pressures on the sheet pile
but requires several assumptions to be made. However, these assumptions have always been taken in
such a way that the calculations always remain on the safe side.

• Terrain has been considered horizontal at elevation 3,8 m.

• Bounds in between the different soil layers have been considered horizontal for calculations.

• A layer of dry crust has had to be considered bellow the man-made fill layer, as specified by the
client.

• A cohesion-less layer of soil has been considered for the elevations where the gravel, sand and
non-cohesive soil are shown in the soil profile.

• Moraine layer above the bed rock has been included in the geotechnical profile as specified by
the client.

11 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

The geotechnical profile has been drawn in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Geotechnical profile.

12 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

4. CHARACTERISTIC VALUES.
The aim of this section is to synthesise the relevant information obtained from the boreholes and to
obtain characteristic values for the geotechnical parameters of the soil layers. For this purpose, a series
of graphs showing the trend of these parameters with soil depth have been produced and are attached.

Together with them, the shear strength of the clay layer is exposed and treated. As this is a design-
relevant parameter that varies and is not provided by the client, a discussion and justification of the
considered values is included.

Finally, a summary table is included in the Table 4 with the parameters considered, both characteristic
and design values affected by partial coefficients.

4.1 Information coming out from considered boreholes.

4.1.1 Natural water content.

Figure 8 Natural water content from boreholes.

13 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

4.1.2 Liquid limit.

Figure 9 Liquid limit from boreholes.

4.1.3 Bulk density.

Figure 10 Bulk density from boreholes.

14 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

4.1.4 Uncorrected shear strength.

Figure 11 Uncorrected shear strength from boreholes.

4.1.5 Sensitivity.

Figure 12 Sensitivity from boreholes.

4.1.6 Discussion on shear strength.

One of the most relevant parameters that will have a direct effect on the sheet pile calculation is the
shear strength of the clay. This parameter can be determined by laboratory or in situ tests. Specifically,
measurements of the clay shear strength have been provided for boreholes LID_3, LID_7 and RV584.

15 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

The results of the boreholes are provided in tables such as the following attached to the geological
profile.

Figure 13 Uncorrected shear strength measurement for borehole RV584.

The resulting values coming from the boreholes need to be corrected taking into consideration the
liquid limit, that is also provided together with the shear strength as shown in Figure 13. This is done
according to equation (1).

0.43 0.45
𝜏𝑘 = 𝜏𝑢 ( ) (1)
𝑤𝑙

𝜏𝑢 : 𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

𝑤𝑙 : 𝐿𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡

Thus, the data for each depth provided by the different boreholes have been plotted together to try to
estimate the behaviour of this clay parameter, as shown in Figure 14.

16 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 14 Corrected shear strength from boreholes.

Together with it, the there is a requirement for the minimum shear strength to consider that is
depending on the effective vertical stress of the soil at every depth according to equation (2). That
minimum value has been calculated according to the in-situ soil stresses and added to Figure 14 as a
yellow line.

𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝜏𝑓 = 0,20 ∗ 𝜎𝑣′ (2)

The following comments can be made from the graph shown in Figure 14.

1. The values are very scattered and a constant value or a linear increase in shear strength cannot
be easily identified. There is therefore a wide variety of values.

2. There is a trend towards an increase in shear strength from an elevation of -0,5 m.

3. One of the points in the graph corresponding to the shear strength at elevation 1,7m for
borehole LID_3, is very high and contrasts notably with the rest of the values obtained for that
elevation. In addition, shear strength values at elevations above 1.5 metres above sea level are
higher than those observed at greater depths.

Consequently, taking these observations into account, the following hypotheses have been made
regarding the shear strength of clay.

• Values at elevations above 1.5 metres have been discarded. According to the information
provided by the client, and in accordance with the geological profile obtained from the
boreholes, those elevations correspond to the presence of both Dry Crust and anthropic fill, that
is not representative of the clay behaviour we want to model.

It is assumed that the higher value of the shear strength obtained in this area is therefore
derived from this fact, and thus, these points are excluded from the estimation of the parameter
for clay.

17 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

• Values below the minimum requirement of the shear strength have also been discarded
according to equation (2).

• With the purpose of modelling clay as close as possible to reality, it has been divided into three
different layers as shown in Figure 15.

o Clay layer 1. From elevation 1,3 m to -0,1 m., with a constant value of the shear
strength of 15,44 KPa.

o Clay layer 2. From elevation -0,1 m to -2,0 m, with a constant value of the shear
strength of 16,56 KPa.

o Clay layer 3. From elevation -2,0 m to -3,5 m, with a constant value of the shear
strength of 20,08 KPa.

Figure 15 Assumed values for the shear strength of the different two clay layers.

A further division of the clay layer into more sub-layers would not make much sense as it would only
complicate the model without a noticeable effect on the soil stresses. This is because the increase in
shear strength is small at depth, and the values do not change much.

Those three different clay layers can be summarized in Table 3.

18 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Table 3 Considered clay layers.

Upper elevation Lower elevation Undrained Shear strength [KPa]
Clay layer 1 1,30 -0,10 15,44
Clay layer 2 -0,10 -2,00 16,56
Clay layer 3 -2,00 -3,50 20,08

4.2 Values considered for the different soil layers.

Finally, once all the information described in the previous section has been considered, the proposal of
the geotechnical parameters to be considered for the calculation of the sheet pile is attached in Table 4.

Table 4 Geotechnical parameters for the different soil layers.

CHARACTERISTIC VALUES DESIGN VALUES

Existing fill material (SLS) Existing fill material (ULS)
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 27,94 º
Density, ρ k 1,80 t/m3 Density, ρ d 1,80 t/m3
Young's modulus, E k 6,00 Mpa Young's modulus, E d 3,13 Mpa
Dry crust (SLS) Dry crust (ULS)
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 25,93 º
Density, ρ k 1,50 t/m3 Density, ρ d 1,50 t/m3
Density, water saturated, ρ k 1,80 t/m3 Density, water saturated, ρ d 1,80 t/m3
Young's modulus, E k 5,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 3,47 MPa
Clay layer 1 (SLS) Clay layer 1 (ULS)
Undrained shear strength, c uk 15,44 Kpa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,19 Kpa
3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m3
Young's modulus, E k 3,86 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,15 MPa
Clay layer 2 (SLS) Clay layer 2 (ULS)
Undrained shear strength, c uk 16,56 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,86 Kpa
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m
Young's modulus, E k 4,14 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,30 MPa
Clay layer 3 (SLS) Clay layer 3 (ULS)
Undrained shear strength, c uk 20,08 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 11,96 Kpa
3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m3
Young's modulus, E k 5,02 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,79 MPa
Sand and silt beneath the clay (SLS) Sand and silt beneath the clay (ULS)
Internal angle of friction, φ k 32,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 23,46 º
Density, ρ k 2,10 t/m3 Density, ρ d 2,10 t/m3
Young's modulus, E k 10 MPa Young's modulus, E d 6,94 MPa
Moraine close to the bedrock (SLS) Moraine close to the bedrock (ULS)
Internal angle of friction, φ k 38,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 28,48 º
Density, ρ k 2,20 t/m3 Density, ρ d 2,20 t/m3
Young's modulus, E k 40,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 27,78 MPa

19 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS.
To drive the sheet pile wall into the soil up to the bedrock we recommend the use of piling rig that lifts
the sheet pile and drives it into the ground using vibrations, leaving about 1 meter above the ground
level and the second sheet pile wall is interlocked with the first sheet pile wall and the process is
repeated till the required height is reached.

It is essential to ensure that the sheet pile is fully watertight. Therefore, the interface in between the
sheet pile wall and bed rock must be sealed. It is recommended to use sealing techniques to secure and
make the system watertight as restraining the water flow to the passive side.

As the excavation progress, the pore water pressure contained in the clay layers will not be able to be
released due to the small permeability of the clay. This might be developed into pressure build-up in the
soils leading to base heave failure. To avoid this type of failure occurring, water pumps need to be
engaged to remove the water congestion on a timely basis which in turn reduce the pressure build-up in
the soils.

The project is adjacent to highway which is operational during the entire construction period. The safety
is of prime importance to the road users, people working on the site and the structure. It is highly
recommending the use of total stations and prisms to measure the deformations of the sheet pile walls
so that timely action can be taken to avoid any untoward incidents, as indicated in the Control program.

20 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

6. DESIGN.
This section covers the design and dimensioning of the sheet pile wall on the ramp from Nörra Länken,
at Trafikplats Värtan. Therefore, the purpose of this section is to set out the process by which the
structural elements that will comprise the sheet pile wall have been dimensioned.

In order to achieve this, a suggested construction process is first outlined. Given that the excavation is
more than 7 metres deep, and it must have different supporting levels, the construction process is
organised around different phases. Consequently, the calculations and stability checks have also been
carried out in an evolutionary phased manner.

For every construction stage, the moment and strut force values are obtained. The design and
dimensioning of the structural members of the sheet pile wall is done taking into consideration the
maximum value among all of them.

The method for the design is also exposed, including the parameters to be considered and the forces
involved. Some illustrative graphs are also included but detailed calculations may be consulted in the
appendices section.

Finally, Table 16 and Table 17 summarizes the design of the different structural members of the sheet
pile wall.

6.1 Approaches for the design.

Two different approaches to the design have been carried out

• Analytical approach, by using the ultimate limit state design considering the partial coefficients
in the design values. This approach is mainly based in hand calculations according to Swedish
Spont handboken and lecture notes and handouts from the course AF2609 Foundation
engineering.

• Numerical approach, by serviceability limit state design using the characteristic values of the
geotechnical parameters. The commercial finite element software PLAXIS 2D has been used for
this purpose.

As part of the educational purpose of this project, a comparison of results between the two methods is
included in the scope of the report.

6.2 Description of the construction.

In brief, the work consists of carrying out a temporary excavation 8 metres deep for the construction of
a concrete culvert for the passage of a road under a highway that must be kept in service during the
works. Therefore, the excavation must be supported by sheet pile wall to secure the soil and avoid any
untoward accidents during the construction.

The sheet pile will initially be driven to its final depth at the bedrock elevation. After that, the
excavations will be carried out in phases. Between the successive excavation phases, the strut levels will

21 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

be placed and installed. Once those struts are in place, the next excavation phase will be continued
successively. In order to do that, a margin of half a meter has been set in between the excavation stage
and the level of the strut.

During the construction, one of the first tasks is to prepare the site for excavation with all necessary
equipment and establishing the safety protocols. More about that may be found in section 7. Controlling
the deformations and pore water pressure acting on the sheet pile wall are included in these
preparations. It is also important to mention the precautions needed to be taken to evade the base
heave so crucial during the third stage, as the depth for clay will be very minimum to support the pore
pressure at contact with sand and silt layer.

The following table summarises the different elevations and depths relevant during the construction
procedure, which is to say location of stuts and excavation stages.

Table 5 Considered elevation and depths for the strut and excavation levels.
STRUTS AND EXCAVATIONS' ELEVATIONS AND DEPTHS

Elevation Depth
Strut 1 2,8 1,0
Strut 2 0,4 3,4
Strut 3 -2,1 5,9
Excavation 1 2,3 1,5
Excavation 2 -0,1 3,9
Excavation 3 -2,6 6,4
Excavation 4 -4,0 7,8

6.3 Design Values.

The geotechnical parameters obtained from the site investigation are processed. Safety factors have
been applied on them in order to perform the serviceability and ultimate limit state calculations. The
aim of those partial coefficients is to guarantee that structure is safe enough despite the possible design
and execution errors.

Partial coefficients applied can be consulted in Table 1.

This following equation (3) shows how the shear strength and the young modulus of the different soil
materials have been modified by applying partial factors.

𝑥𝑘
𝑥𝑑 = (3)
𝛾𝑚 . 𝛾𝑛

𝑥𝑑 = 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑥𝑘 = 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠

𝛾𝑚 = 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

𝛾𝑚 = 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

22 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

To reduce the internal angle of friction of the frictional soil layers, the tangent of the internal friction
angle has been modified by applying equation (18).

tan(∅′ 𝑘 )
∅′𝑑 = ( ) (4)
𝛾𝑚 . 𝛾𝑛

6.4 Assumptions.
Certain assumptions had to be made to perform the analytical and numerical calculations.

• Soil thickness and intersection of soil layers were drawn from the geotechnical tests and the
soil profile was determined.

• The distributed load, specified by the client is used for both and analytical and numerical
calculations. The load specified is set to 10KPa. This is treated with the partial coefficients
and the design load value of 12KPa is used for the ULS calculations.

• Assuming the vertical support to be sufficient, an 𝑁𝑐𝑏 critical stability number of 5.7 has
been used according to the Swedish method in Spont handboken.

• The active and passive soil pressures acting on the sheet pile wall for each stage of
excavation are determined by the Rankine theory of lateral earth pressure. It is important to
notice that Rankine theory assumes that the sheet pile will move as much as needed so that
total active and passive soil pressures are developed. This

This is not true, since both active and passive soil pressures are depending on the
movement of the sheet pile. An equilibrium might be found before those complete
pressures are developed. Therefore, Rankine Theory is based on a more conservative
method that overestimates soil pressures.

6.5 Calculations and design.

A brief description of the design and dimensioning of the sheet pile structural members is following for
both ULS and SLS.

6.5.1 Ultimate Limit State (ULS).

The calculations performed in the ULS aim to ensure sufficient functioning of the structure for the
highest possible loads and under the worst possible circumstances just before the collapse of the
structure. In this way it is not the correct functioning of the structure that is tested, but its safety in the
event of collapse.

6.5.1.1 First excavation stage.

The calculations for the first excavation stage include the first level of the excavation before any of the
three struts has already been installed. Therefore, in this phase the sheet pile wall will be working as a
cantilever.

23 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

This first excavation is mainly performed in the anthropic fill on the highest elevations of the
geotechnical profile as well as in the dry crust. It is performed until elevation 2,3 m, which matches a
depth of 1,5 m. A drawing sketch of this stage is found in Figure 16.

The minimum length of the sheet pile wall and forces acting are determined in this stage. This is
achieved by horizontal and moment equilibrium with the following equations.

𝑃𝑃 . ℎ𝑃 − 𝑃𝑎 . ℎ𝑎 = 0 (5)

𝑃𝑃 − 𝑃𝑃 = 0 (6)

The maximum moment acting in the sheet pile wall has been calculated at this stage finding the point
where the shear force is equal to 0.

Figure 16 First excavation stage drawing.

24 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 17 First excavation stage. Active and passive pressures.

Figure 18 Shear forces acting on the sheet pile wall during first stage.

The following tables summarize the calculations made for this stage. It is possible to consult them in the
appendices.

Table 6 Maximum bending moment during the first stage.

MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT-FIRST STAGE
Depth 3,3 m
Elevation 0,5 m
Max moment 29,63 mKN/m

25 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Table 7 Shear forces during the first stage.

CALCULATION OF THE SHEAR FORCES-FIRST STAGE
Depth Elevation Comment Shear force
[m] [m] [KN/m]
0,0 3,8 Top of sheet pile 0,00
0,8 3 Bound FILL-DC 5,56
1,5 2,3 Excavation level 14,23
2,5 1,3 Bound DC-Clay1 12,37
3,9 -0,1 Blound Clay1-Clay2 -9,33
5,8 -2 Bound Clay2-Clay3 -45,99
7,3 -3,5 Bound Clay3-Sand -92,86
9,8 -6 Bound Sand-Moraine -414,30
12,8 -9 Bottom of sheet pile -1175,81

6.5.1.2 Second excavation stage

At the second stage the excavation is carried down to 3,5 meters of depth at an elevation of -0,25 m. As
the excavation is in the clay areas in addition to Rankine Theory the net pressure is determined by the
Swedish Method given equation (7).

𝜎𝑝,𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑁𝑐𝑑 ∗ 𝑐𝑢𝑑 − (𝛾𝑑 ∗ 𝐻 + 𝑞𝑑 ) (7)

Here the 𝛾𝑑 is the total vertical stress acting on the active side for the depth of excavation H and 𝑞𝑑 is
the design traffic load.

As the first strut will already fixed, it becomes necessary to include its effect acting on the sheet pile wall
in the calculations. To avoid the moment generated by load Q1 coming from the strut, the maximum
bending moment and force is calculated taking moment equilibrium around that first strut elevation.

26 / 53
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 19 Second excavation stage drawing.

Figure 20 Second excavation stage. Active and passive pressures.

27 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 21 Shear forces acting on the sheet pile wall during second stage.

The following tables summarize the calculations performed for this stage. It is possible to consult them
in the appendices.

Table 8 Maximum bending moment and strut force during second stage.
RESULTS
a 0,941 m Problem parametre
-32,0 Kpa Net pressure at the bottom of the excavation
d 4,3 m Minimum depth of the sheet pile
Q1 65,24 KN force at the strut level
Maximum bending moment 123,55 mKN

Table 9 Shear forces during second stage.

CALCULATION OF THE SHEAR FORCES-SECOND STAGE
Depth Elevation Comment Shear force
[m] [m] [KN/m]
0,0 3,8 Top of sheet pile 0,00
1,0 2,8 Before Strut 7,93
1,0 2,8 After strut -57,31
2,5 1,3 Bound DC-clay1 -33,44
3,9 -0,1 Bound Clay1-2 13,34
5,8 -2 Bound Clay2-3 27,60
7,3 -3,5 Bound Clay3-Sand 20,93
8,2 -4,4414 Bottom of sheet pile 0,02

6.5.1.3 Third excavation stage.

Excavation is continued for 2,50 meters more down to a depth of 5.8 meter (an elevation of 2,6 m). Here
the second strut is positioned at 3,5 meter below ground level. As the two struts have already been
installed the length of the sheet pile wall cannot been determined using the equilibrium method. The
calculations are done according to the Swedish method.

28 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

The third strut is finally placed with a margin of 0,5 meters to the bottom of the excavation at the end of
this stage. Here, the pore pressure is below the 1,20 meter hence the water table must be decreased to
keep the excavation progress working.

Figure 22 Third excavation stage drawing.

29 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 23 Third excavation stage. Active and passive pressures.

The following tables summarize the calculations performed for this stage. It is possible to consult them
in the appendices.

Table 10 Moment and struts’ forces during stage 3.

ANCHOR FORCES
Q1 68,3 KN
Q2 193,8 KN
MOMENTS IN THE SHEET PILE
At the first anchor level 5,6 mKN/m
Between both anchors 21,1 mKN/m
Under lowest anchor level 225,5 mKN/m
Design value 225,5 mKN/m

6.5.1.4 Fourth excavation stage.

At the final stage the excavation is carried out from the -2,00 to -4,00 meters of elevation. With the
three operational struts in the place the sheet pile wall is restrained from any major deformation taking
place. The failure due to base heave might occur at the final stages so appropriate care has to be taken
to avoid it.

With the construction site fully completed, the construction of the road and the concrete culvert can
take place in a secure manner.

30 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 24 Fourth excavation stage drawing.

Figure 25 Fourth excavation stage. Active and passive earth pressures.

The following tables summarize the some of the calculations performed for this stage. It is possible to
consult them in the appendices.

31 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Table 11 Moment and struts’ forces during stage 4.

ANCHOR FORCES
Q1 83,8 KN
Q2 144,6 KN
Q3 231,9 KN
MOMENTS IN THE SHEET PILE
At the first anchor level 6,3 mKN/m
Between anchor 1 & 2 28,3 mKN/m
Between anchor 2 & 3 30,7 mKN/m
Under lowest anchor level 249,5 mKN/m
Design value 249,5 mKN/m

6.5.1.5 Forces and Moments.

The force acting on the sheet pile wall is calculated by using the Rankine Theory of lateral earth pressure
and Swedish Method for each stage of excavation.

The first stage was carried out using the Rankine theory as no support member installed. In the second
stage with a strut already installed, its force needs to be considered for the calculations. In these two
first stages the maximum bending moment has been located where the shear force becomes 0.

For the third and fourth stage, the number of equations to solve the unknowns Q1, Q2, Q3 and length of
the sheet pile wall are not enough. Therefore, the active earth pressure above rotation D point is
distributed according to Spont Handboken.

𝑃𝐴
𝜎𝑖 = (8)
0,9. 𝐻 + 𝑏

Where:

D is the midpoint between the lowest strut level and net pressure equal to Zero.

PA is active earth pressure above point D.

H is the excavation height

b is the distance between the point D and excavation level.

This pressure is distributed proportionally among the different struts. After that, the maximum bending
moment is calculated as indicated by lecturer Sadek Baker.

32 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 26 Method for calculating the maximum bending moment at stages 3 and 4 of
construction. Sadek Baker.

6.5.1.6 Design of struts.

The dimensioning of the struts is carried out both considering the yielding compression force and the
buckling stability of the strut. Therefore, two requirements are to be fulfilled by the considered steel
section.

33 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

• Yielding compression given by equation (9).

• Buckling stability given by equation (11).

𝑁𝑟𝑑 ≥ 𝑁𝑠𝑑 (9)

𝑁𝑠𝑑 = 1,5 ∗ 𝑄 ∗ 𝑐 (10)

Where:

𝑄 = 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒

𝑐 = ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑠. 5𝑚.

Buckling stability is given by:

𝑃𝑒𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑟 ≥ 𝑁𝑠𝑑 (11)

Where:

𝜋 2 𝐸𝐼
𝑃𝑒𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑟 = (12)
𝛽 2 𝐿2

𝛽𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 = 0,50; 𝛽𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 0,70

The value of β has been chosen as pinned to consider the worst scenario that might happen during
construction.

𝐿 = 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 18,3 𝑚

If this condition is not satisfied, then the struts must be resized accord to equation (13).

𝑁𝑠𝑑 . 𝛽 2 . 𝐿2 (13)
𝐼=
𝜋2. 𝐸
The dimensioning of the struts is showed in Table 12. A hollow circular section has been chosen in order
to get as much bending inertia as possible trying to reduce the needed amount of steel.

Table 12 Strut dimensioning.

STRUT STRICT DESIGN STRUT DIMENSIONING CHECKS
Q[KN] Nsd[KN] Amin [mm2] D[mm] t[mm] A[mm2] I*10^4[mm4] Nrd[KN] Nrd>Nsd Peul er Peul er>Nsd
STRUT 1 83,80 628,51 1770 244,5 10 7370 5073 2616,35 VERDADERO 640,75 VERDADERO
STRUT 2 193,82 1453,65 4095 323,9 10 9860 12158 3500,3 VERDADERO 1535,62 VERDADERO
STRUT 3 231,93 1739,47 4900 323,9 12,5 12230 14847 4341,65 VERDADERO 1875,25 VERDADERO

The following figure shows the steel section dimensions of the struts according to the available ones in
the Swedish steel market.

34 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 27 Dimensions of the struts. Konstruktionstabeller.

6.5.1.7 Design of the sheet pile wall.

To determine the dimension of the sheet pile, the condition 𝑀𝑟𝑑 ≥ 𝑀𝑠𝑑 , needs to be satisfied.

𝑀𝑠𝑑 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒. 249,49 𝑚𝐾𝑁

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑚𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 𝜂 ∗ 𝑓𝑦𝑑 ∗ 𝜔𝑥 (14)

Where:

𝑓𝑦𝑑 = 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙. 355𝑀𝑃𝑎.

𝜂 = 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙. 1,25

The value of 𝜂 is in between 1 and 1,25. A value of 1,25 has been considered as common for a Swedish
steel.

The calculation for the minimum bending bearing capacity is given by the next equation.

𝑀𝑠𝑑 249,49 3
𝜔𝑥,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = = 3
∗ 106 = 562,23 𝑐𝑚 ⁄𝑚 (15)
𝜂 𝑓𝑦𝑑 1,25 ∗ 355 ∗ 10

This value must be adjusted to one of the steel profiles available on the market. For this purpose, a
profile has been chosen satisfying the stability requirements in the most economical way. For this
reason, it was finally decided to choose the PU12 profile from the Arcelor Mittal product catalogue.

Figure 28 PU sketch. Arcelor Mittal.

35 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Table 13 Dimensions of the PU12 steel section. Arcelor Mittal.

6.5.1.8 Design of the wale beams.

To determine the dimensions of the wale beam, the same criteria must be met as already done for the
sheet pile dimensioning, i.e., 𝑀𝑟𝑑 ≥ 𝑀𝑠𝑑 .

𝑀𝑟𝑑 = 𝜂 ∗ 𝑓𝑦𝑑 ∗ 𝜔𝑥 (16)

𝑄. 𝑐 2
𝑀𝑠𝑑 = (17)
4

Those calculations have been performed in Excel, and the resulting design is following. Two alternatives
have been proposed, one of them with HEB profiles and the other with HEM profiles.

Table 14 Dimensioning of the wale beams.

DIMENSIONING PROPERTIES FOR WALE BEAMS
HEB HEM
Required wx
Profile wx *(103 mm3/m) Profile wx *(103 mm3/m)
Strut row 1 1180 HEB 280 1380 HEM 220 1220
Strut row 2 2730 HEB 400 2880 HEM 300 3480
Strut row 3 3267 HEB 450 3550 HEM 300 3480

6.5.2 Serviceability limit state (SLS).

The main purpose of the serviceability limit state design is to check that the structure will function
properly once built. This implies not only that stability is met but also that thresholds of movement,
vibration or cracking of structures are not exceeded.

Thus, there are structures in which the design is governed by the calculation of stability under worst-
case conditions (ULS), and structures in which the design of conditions for an adequate functionality is
more limiting for the design (SLS).

36 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

In the case of the sheet pile wall for the Nörra Länken's ramp, this section covers the design for the
Serviceability Limit State and how the structure has been redesigned in order to comply with the client’s
main requirement:

Table 15 Design condition of the serviceability limit state of the sheet pile.
Maximum horizontal deformation in the wall
30 millimetres

6.5.2.1 Description of the PLAXIS model. Decisions and assumptions.

The SLS design has been performed through a model of finite elements. Commercial software PLAXIS 2D
has been used in order to model the behaviour of the sheet pile and excavation during the different
construction stages.

The following is a list of the main assumptions and decisions that have been made while constructing
the model.

• The design has been performed for the most critical section of the excavation. Therefore, a flat
two-dimensional model with plane strain has been used.

• Triangular finite elements with 15 nodes have been used, as usual when working with PLAXIS
2D.

• The model has a width of 50 metres so that its contour does not influence the result. The
bedrock has been considered as an infinitely stiff and impermeable soil layer, and therefore, the
depth of the model only reaches the lower bound of the moraine. Thus, the lower bound of the
model acts like the bedrock.

• The excavation has a width of 18 metres as measured in the provided drawings and a depth of
7,8 meters as stated by the client.

• The different soil layers have been modelled according to the proposed geotechnical profile.
The failure criteria for all of them is Mohr-Coulomb. A differentiation has been applied
according to whether they are frictional or cohesive soils. The SLS geotechnical parameters
have been used, and therefore, without being affected by partial coefficients.

• The model is evolutionary, and therefore, a total of 7 construction stages are considered in
which the calculations are performed representing the different construction phases used
during the analytical calculations.

• The sheet pile and struts have been modelled according to their proposed design, using the
corresponding values for axial stiffness, and bending moment stiffness.

• In order to not excessively increase the computational cost of the model, two areas have been
defined for the finite elements’ mesh. One of them far away of the excavation with a
coarseness factor of 0,5 where not a huge accuracy is required, and a coarseness factor of 0,2
meters for the excavation and the soil surrounding it.

37 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

• An interface has been modelled in between soil and structure for the interaction between them.
Therefore, a value of Rinter of 0,5 has been chosen for cohesive soils and of 0,67 for frictional
soils.

• Two different scenarios have been modelled regarding the traffic load of the construction:

o Symmetric traffic load. Case in which the maximum strut forces and bending moments
in the sheet pile will be obtained.

o Traffic load only applied in one side of the excavation. Case in which the largest possible
horizontal movements will be achieved.

Figure 29 shows the model used in PLAXIS and the considered finite element mesh.

Figure 29 PLAXIS. Considered model and finite element mesh.

6.5.2.2 SLS Design.

When performing the calculations for the different stages of construction, it was noticed that the ULS
design proposed in section 6.5.1 Ultimate Limit State (ULS). was giving too large deformations above the
required limit by the client.

Therefore, it has been necessary to adapt the structural elements of the sheet pile wall accordingly.
Thus, the axial stiffnesses of the struts 2 and 3 has been increased together with the bending and axial
stiffnesses of the sheet pile. As a consequence, The ULS design would still be fully met.

The following tables summarize the design finally proposed for the struts and the sheet pile wall:

Table 16 SLS Strut dimensions.

SLS STRUT DIMENSIONS
D[mm] t[mm] A[mm2] I*10^4[mm4] Nrd[KN] EA [KN]
STRUT 1 244,5 10 7370 5073 2616,35 1,548E+06
STRUT 2 457,2 22,2 30300 71947 10756,5 6,363E+06
STRUT 3 457,2 22,2 30300 71947 10756,5 6,363E+06

Table 17 SLS Sheet pile dimensions.

SLS SHEET PILE DIMENSIONS
b[mm] h[mm] t[mm] s[mm] A[mm2] I [cm4/m] EA [KN] EI [m 2 KN]
AZ 44-700N 700 500 19 15 273 1,102E+05 5,73E+06 2,31E+05

38 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 30 Geometry of the stuts and sheet pile wall.

An AZ profile has been chosen since they offer a better bending inertia per unit of cross section area
than the PU profiles also available in the Arcelor Mittal catalogue. Thus, AZ profiles make a better use of
the mass of steel for the purpose of this design.

Together with it, a new method of excavation has been proposed to decrease the large horizontal
movements of the sheet pile. Instead of performing the excavation directly to the stage level, it has
been proposed to leave a berm in the middle of the excavation before installing the next level of struts.

With this berm in the middle of the excavation during every construction phase, the total vertical stress
is not that diminished due to the excavation. Consequently, the passive earth pressure acting on the
sheet pile is larger. The strut is already installed when the excavation goes on and the berm is
eliminated, decreasing the accumulative horizontal movements of every excavation stage.

This has been considered to be the smarter way to decrease the horizontal deformations without
increasing too much the dimensions of the structural elements and the budget of the construction.

The berms have been designed with a margin of 1 metre to the sheet pile to provide the necessary
space for the installation of the strut. As there will be workers working in the area, the berms need to be
fully stable, and have therefore been sloped with a 2H:1V slope to avoid any risk of slippage.

6.5.2.3 Plastic points.

One of the first verifications that has been performed in PLAXIS was to check that there are not plastic
points in the soil during the first phase of the calculation (that is to say, the initial condition of the soil in
which any excavation has been performed yet neither sheet pile wall driven down to its place).

It might sometimes happen that some points of the soil are plasticised when no excavation has yet been
performed in the initial soil conditions, especially regarding the clay layers. This may be due, among
other reasons, to the fact that a constant value of the shear strength of the soil at depth has been
assumed, whereas it usually increases.

Figure 31 shows how the initial calculation of PLAXIS plasticises almost all the clay.

39 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 31 PLAXIS. Plasticized points during Intial Phase.

This is not matching the reality and in situ conditions of the soil. Therefore, there are two recommended
ways of avoiding this plasticisation.

• Increasing the value of K0 for those plasticized soil layers.

• Increasing the shear strength of the plasticized clay layers.

Since a sensitivity analysis has been performed in which the values of the shear strength of the clay
layers have been increased, the way of solving this problem has been to increase the value of K0 for the
different clay layers. In order to do it, different calculations have been performed increasing K0 from its
original value of 0,50 to the values in which the clay no longer plasticises.

The following table summarizes the final values of K0 for the clay in which no plastic points were
obtained during the initial phase of calculation.

Table 18 Considered values of K0 for the clay layers in PLAXIS to eliminate plastic points in the initial
calculation phase.
Clay Layer 1 Clay Layer 2 Clay Layer 3
K0 0,55 0,60 0,55

6.5.2.4 Maximum deformation.

As indicated above, the maximum horizontal movements of the sheet pile have been evaluated in the
worst-case scenario. This corresponds to the asymmetric loading case where the traffic load only acts on
one side of the excavation, so the largest horizontal movements are obtained.

With this new sheet pile, the following movements were obtained during the construction phases.

Table 19 Movements of the sheet pile during the excavation stages.

SLS MOVEMENTS-ONE SIDE LOAD
Excavation Maximum Maximum
Percentage Percentage
stage displacement horizontal
[mm] [%] [mm] [%]
Stage 0 0 0% 0 0%
Stage 1 17,27 59% 14,37 66%
Stage 2 27,47 94% 17,95 83%
Stage 3 29,39 100% 20,31 94%
Stage 4 29,36 100% 21,64 100%

40 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

The following figure shows the accumulative increase of the horizontal deformations during the
different excavations’ stages. As it is possible to identify, it is the first excavation stage the one that has
a larger effect in this horizontal deformation.

Figure 32 Evolution of the horizontal displacement of the sheet pile during construction.

That is because during the first stage the sheet pile is behaving like a cantilever with any strut placed in
site yet.

6.5.2.5 Sensitivity analysis. Clay shear strength.

To check that the design is sufficient, a sensitivity analysis of the PLAXIS model has been carried out. As
it has been exposed in previous sections, there needs to be different assumptions when designing this
kind of structures. A sensitivity analysis has the aim of verifying that the design is resilient to acceptable
changes or variations in a given parameter.

The sensitivity analysis of the model has been carried out for the clay shear strength since this is one of
the most uncertain design parameters to accurately determine. Large safety factors are already applied
to this parameter. Nevertheless, it is pretended to verify that a wrong assumption in the value of the
shear strength would not have a large effect on the maximum allowable horizontal movement of the
sheet pile wall.

The following figure shows five different scenarios for the variation of the shear strength of the clay with
depth that have been considered in this sensitivity analysis. Traffic load has been considered to be
asymmetric so that largest possible deformations are taken into consideration.

41 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 33 Different scenarios considered for shear strength during sensitivity analysis.

Three different kinds of scenarios are differentiated:

• Case 3. Average value of the clay shear strength, a bit above the one used for the calculations
and the geotechnical profile.

• Cases 2 and 4. They represent the envelope of the maximum and minimum value of the shear
strength according to the data coming from the boreholes. Thus, if the shear strength has a
different trend from the one considered, it should probably be located in between cases 2 and
4.

• Cases 1 and 5. These are the extreme cases of shear strength variation, even above and below
the maximum and minimum values respectively of this parameter according to the tests
performed in the boreholes. Thus, their probability of occurrence is very low, and they are
included only for the purpose of extrapolating the sensitivity analysis.

The calculations for the five different scenarios have been performed, each of them representing a
different variation of the shear strength.

Table 20 Different scenarios considered for shear strength during sensitivity analysis.
[KPa] Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5
Clay layer 1 10,00 12,50 15,00 17,50 20,00
Clay layer 2 11,90 14,40 16,90 19,40 21,90
Clay layer 3 15,30 17,80 20,30 22,80 25,30

The values of the young’s modulus of the clay layers have been adjusted accordingly following equation
(18).

42 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

𝐸 = 250 𝐶𝑢 [𝐾𝑃𝑎] (18)

Figure 34 shows how the maximum horizontal displacement for the whole excavation is varying when
performing the calculations for the different scenarios. The values for every stage and every case are
gathered in Table 21.

Figure 34 Sensitivity analysis. Clay shear strength.

Table 21 Sensitivity analysis. Clay shear strength.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. CLAY SHEAR STRENGTH.

Maximum horizontal mov. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

Excavation stage [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
Stage 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stage 1 23,57 19,63 14,44 11,75 10,74
Stage 2 26,41 22,26 17,89 14,91 13,47
Stage 3 29,55 25,12 20,24 17,17 15,56
Stage 4 31,55 26,75 21,51 18,04 16,18

As is only logical, the maximum horizontal movement is decreasing when the shear strength of the clay
is being increased with the different cases. A trend for that variation might also be identified.

It can be seen that there is only one case in which the maximum horizontal displacement is located
above the client’s limit of 30 millimetres. That is only the case number 1.

As stated before, that would be the case in which the clay shear strength is located even below the
minimum values of its resistance according to the tests performed in the boreholes, and consequently,
very low probable. The most probable case in which the shear strength of the clay is below its expected
behaviour would the second case, in which there is a margin of 3,25 millimetres before the maximum
horizontal deformation is reached.

43 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Together with this, a control program is included in this report in section 7. The horizontal deformation
of the sheet pile will be measured during the whole construction, and an alarm value is set. In case that
the alarm value is reached, an action plan is in place to prevent the deformation from exceeding the
permissible limits.

Thus, it is concluded that the design is enough resilient to a reasonable and expected variation of the
clay shear strength.

6.5.3 Discussion on the proposed number of struts.

One of the most relevant decision that has been made during the design was the number of struts to
consider. More struts would have had the positive effect of decreasing the forces involved in the
structure. The horizontal deformation of the sheet pile would have been lower, and with it, the bending
moments in the sheet pile and the strut forces. That would have meant a cheaper sheet pile since not
that bending stiffness would have been required for the SLS design.

When performing the SLS calculations and noticing that the design would be governed by SLS and not
ULS, the option of increasing the number of struts to 4 arose.

Nevertheless, trying to keep the number of strut levels as low as possible also includes several benefits.
It decreases the construction stages and thus the duration or timeframe of the construction. It also
reduces the saturation of the excavation and makes the excavators' work much easier, since much more
space is available.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the largest contribution to horizontal deformation occurs
during the first phase of excavation, as shown in Figure 32. During that stage no strut is placed in site
yet, so that increasing the axial stiffness of the first level of struts would not have a large effect on the
horizontal deformation.

For all the above reasons, it was finally decided to increase the bending stiffness of the sheet pile rather
than including a fourth level of struts.

6.5.4 Comparison between analytical and numerical results.

Once both Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States have been calculated and finished, a comparison in
between the analytical and the numerical results has been performed. The aim of this is check that both
design methods give similar and consistent results and identify the reasons if they differ too much.

The numerical model made in PLAXIS does not take into consideration any partial coefficient. Therefore,
it works with the characteristic values of the geotechnical parameters, and it is needed to take that into
consideration when comparing analytical and numerical results. In order to do it, PLAXIS results have
been increased by an average value of the partial coefficients that takes both into consideration γn as a
global safety factor and the partial coefficients of every parameter. That value has been determined to
be 1,6.

44 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

6.5.4.1 Comparison of strut forces.

As it was mentioned before, the maximum strut forces have been obtained in the case of symmetric
traffic load. PLAXIS offers the node-to-node strut forces in KN, while analytical calculations give strut
forces in KN/m. Thus, PLAXIS results have been converted to KN/m according to the horizontal spacing
of the struts and corrected with the average partial coefficient.

Table 22 Comparison between numerical and analytical strut forces.

STRUT FORCES. PLAXIS OUTPUT. [KN]
Strut 1 Strut 2 Strut 3
Excavation 1 - - -
Excavation 2 321,25 - -
Excavation 3 216,58 384,30 -
Excavation 4 192,00 608,64 406,17
CORRECTED STRUT FORCES. PLAXIS OUTPUT. [KN/m]
Strut 1 Strut 2 Strut 3
Excavation 1 - - -
Excavation 2 102,80 - -
Excavation 3 69,31 122,97 -
Excavation 4 61,44 194,76 129,98
CORRECTED STRUT FORCES. PLAXIS OUTPUT. DESIGN VALUE[KN/m]
102,80 194,76 129,98
STRUT FORCES. ANALYTICAL CALCULATIONS. [KN/m]
Strut 1 Strut 2 Strut 3
83,80 193,82 231,93
RELATIVE ERROR [%]
Strut 1 Strut 2 Strut 3
22,67% 0,49% 43,96%

6.5.4.2 Comparison of bending moments.

PLAXIS obtains the bending moments for the plates in the same units as the analytical analysis. The
largest bending moments are obtained when considering symmetric traffic load. Thus, the comparison
of results is as follows.

Table 23 Comparison between numerical and analytical sheet pile bending moments.
PLAXIS MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENTS [mKN/m]
Excavation 1 -40,8 mKN
Excavation 2 167,0 mKN
Excavation 3 243,2 mKN
Excavation 4 239,9 mKN
Design value 243,20 mKN
CORRECTED PLAXIS MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENTS [mKN/m]
Excavation 1 65,3 mKN
Excavation 2 267,2 mKN
Excavation 3 389,1 mKN
Excavation 4 383,8 mKN
Design value 389,12 mKN
ANALYTICAL MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT [mKN/m]
Design value 249,49 mKN
RELATIVE ERROR [%]
Design value's error 36%

45 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

It can be seen that both methods coincide appreciably in the order of magnitude of the results.
Nevertheless, there are some important differences between the analytical and numerical results. This
may be due to several reasons that introduce errors, like the difference between the numerical
calculations and the Rankine’s theory, the effect of the berms that is not considered in the analytical
calculations or the partial coefficients not being applied in the PLAXIS model.

6.5.4.3 Comparison of earth pressure diagrams.

The following figures show a comparison in between the different soil pressures for every construction
stage. For an easier interpretation of the graphs:

• Active soil pressures are showed in orange. Dotted for Plaxis and continuous line for analytical
calculations.

• Passive soil pressures are showed in blue. Dotted for Plaxis and continuous line for analytical
calculations.

• Net soil pressures are showed in orange. Dotted for Plaxis and continuous line for analytical
calculations.

• A dimensionless deformation of the sheet pile is included in red dotted line. That will facilitate
the following comments.

Figure 35 First stage. Comparison between analytical and numerical soil pressures.

46 / 53
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 36 Second stage. Comparison between analytical and numerical soil pressures.

Figure 37 Third stage. Comparison between analytical and numerical soil pressures.

47 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 38 Fourth stage. Comparison between analytical and numerical soil pressures.

It is important to mention that no partial coefficient has been applied in the numerical stresses shown in
the above figures. Consequently, analytical earth pressures include partial coefficients while numerical
ones do not. Nevertheless, there are some interesting comments coming out from these comparisons to
mention.

• Rankine’s theory versus numerical calculations. When performing analytical calculations,

Rankine’s theory assumes that the sheet pile will move as much as needed till full active and
passive soil pressures are developed.

This is an assumption that keeps the calculation in the safety side since it overestimates the soil
pressures. Nevertheless, the numerical calculations that PLAXIS performs for the soil pressures
are based on the actual movement of the sheet pile at every depth.

This difference can easily be seen when comparing the active analytical soil pressures in the
graphs (the numerical active pressure is always lower than the analytical one).

• Passive numerical soil pressure being increased by the berms. The above comment may also be
applied to the passive earth pressure, that should be larger in the analytical curves than in the
numerical ones. Nevertheless, the berms used during the construction stages increase the total
vertical pressure in the excavation and consequently the numerical passive soil pressure.

• PLAXIS passive soil pressure decreases significantly at lowest elevations. It is well known that
passive soil pressure requires a much larger horizontal movement of the sheet pile than the
active soil pressure to be fully developed.

48 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

The lowest elevations of the sheet pile do not move enough as the dimensionless deformation
curve shows for every construction stage. If that is the case, there is not enough horizontal
movement to develop the fully passive earth pressure that the Rankine’s theory assumes. That
is the reason why PLAXIS and analytical passive soil pressures differ at the deeper sections of the
sheet pile, where the horizontal movement is lower.

• Net pressure in clay layer is constant. One of the main assumptions that the Swedish method
does when calculating the soil pressures is that it assumes that the net pressure in the clay
layers will be constant in depth.

It is possible to verify that indeed the numerical net pressures in the clay layers of construction
stages one and two remain constant and at a value very close to the analytical one. The
hypothesis put forward by the Swedish method is thus verified.

6.5.5 Design results.

The following is a summary of the design as outlined and detailed throughout this section.

6.5.5.1 Sheet pile wall.

SLS SHEET PILE DIMENSIONS
b[mm] h[mm] t[mm] s[mm] A[mm2] I [cm4/m] EA [KN] EI [m 2 KN]
AZ 44-700N 700 500 19 15 273 1,102E+05 5,73E+06 2,31E+05

Figure 39 Final design of the sheet pile wall.

6.5.5.2 Struts.
SLS STRUT DIMENSIONS
D[mm] t[mm] A[mm2] I*10^4[mm4] Nrd[KN] EA [KN]
STRUT 1 244,5 10 7370 5073 2616,35 1,548E+06
STRUT 2 457,2 22,2 30300 71947 10756,5 6,363E+06
STRUT 3 457,2 22,2 30300 71947 10756,5 6,363E+06

Figure 40 Final design of the struts.

49 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

6.5.5.3 Wale beams.

DIMENSIONING PROPERTIES FOR WALE BEAMS
HEB HEM
Required wx
Profile wx *(103 mm3/m) Profile wx *(103 mm3/m)
Strut row 1 1180 HEB 280 1380 HEM 220 1220
Strut row 2 2730 HEB 400 2880 HEM 300 3480
Strut row 3 3267 HEB 450 3550 HEM 300 3480

Figure 41 Final design of the wale beams.

50 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

7. CONTROL PROGRAM DURING EXECUTION.

The project is going to be executed near a highway interchange which will be under operation the whole
time. Thus, safety becomes the prime focus in all the phases right from designing, construction and
commission and operation.

There will be a main focus on three different parameters, which must be measured and documented
throughout the construction process for safety purposes.

• Deformations on the sheet pile walls (Horizontal and Vertical).

• Forces from the struts.

• Pore water pressure.

Since there is a high uncertainty of how the structure is going to behave during and after the
construction, it is needed to carry out a risk analysis for the structure to take the rational decisions
based on the safety interest. However, some uncertainties do occur during the constructions leading to
take decisions on the go. That must be totally avoided. To achieve it, different measurements will be
done, considered, and carried out during the whole construction and installation of the sheet pile wall.

If the alarm value of any of those measurements is exceeded, the construction needs to be stopped until
the reason is clarified. Client shall be immediately notified, and no further action shall be taken until
client has given his approval even a new structural design might be required.

Deformations on the sheet pile walls must be measured and documented using the total stations and
prisms. Inclinometer casing all along the excavation shall also be installed. Prisms are to be placed at the
crest of the wall and at every strut level. Due to presence of the highway located at proximity,
measurements must be noted automatically and continuously.

A horizontal displacement alarm level of 22 millimetres is proposed. All necessary precautions have
been taken in the design to ensure that the probability of exceeding this value is low, as shown in this
document. However, there is always a geotechnical uncertainty about the behaviour of the structure.
There is a margin of 8 millimetres up to the maximum 30 millimetres allowed by the client, that is to say,
36% of the maximum expected horizontal deformation, which is considered to be an enough margin.

Deformations surpassing 22 millimetres must be noted and the excavations must be stopped until
necessary precautions have been taken. Actions like providing additional struts will be carried out with
proper supervision and care if needed.

Settlement plates will be installed in order to measure in an hourly basis the settlements around the
construction.

Extensometers will be installed at the struts to measure their forces after their installation to support
the wall. Before continuing the excavations, they will be perfectly welded to the wale beams. The
measurements are noted in case the strut forces in an hourly basis. In case of forces surpassing the

51 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

design values by 1,1 times the expected value, the excavation is halted, and additional struts need to be
provided and installed.

Any deviation from the design must be noted and the excavation needs to stop until the reason is
perfectly identified and there is no more risk for the safety of the structure and the workers.

Pore water pressure is a very relevant parameter and will be monitored continuously. As the water will
be filtering into the soil layer through continuous rains, measurements have to be taken to pump the
excess wate from the soil layer. The excavation bottom needs to be dry at any time to guarantee the
safety of the construction site.

Generating sets and back-up pumps will be available to ensure the safety of the site at all times.

52 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

8. REFERENCES
1. Rafael Jiménez Rodríguez (2017). Compresión y consolidación (de suelos saturados). Madrid,
España: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.

2. Project Information (2021) AF2611 Geotechnical Engineering, advanced course. KTH, Stockholm.

3. Didactic material of the course AF2609, Foundation Engineering. KTH, Stockholm.

4. System of Notations for geotechnical Investigations. Swedish Geotechnical Society (SGF) Society
of Engineering Geology (BGS)

5. Sponthandboken: handbok för konstruktion och utformning av sponter. Stockholm, 1996.

6. Commercial catalogues of Arcelor Mittal and Tibnor.

7. Image source from http://www.railsystem.net/sheet-pile-wall-construction/ in Appendix section

3.

53 / 53
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT

THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Appendix 1

SOIL PROFILE PROPOSAL. DRAWING.

 CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

SOIL PROFILE PROPOSAL

ALEJANDRO GARCÍA GARCÍA
Soil profile section
MARK BENNYSON

NPS119
NPS119

N4822

RV584
N4822

RV584

LID_3

LID_7
LID_3

LID_7

Fill
Fill
Dry cust

Clay layer 1
Water table (average elevation)
-0.1m Clay
Clay layer 2

Clay layer 1 Not defined

Gravelly soil
Non-cohesive soil
Non-cohesive soil
Sand Till

Till

Bedrock Bedrock

CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

 CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

NPS119
N4822

RV584
LID_3

LID_7

CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

Fill
Dry cust

Clay layer 1
Water table (average elevation)
-0.1m
Clay layer 2

Clay layer 1

Non-cohesive soil

Till

Bedrock

CREADO CON UNA VERSIÓN PARA ESTUDIANTES DE AUTODESK

 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT

THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Appendix 2

SHEET PILE WALL. CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE.

 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE
A graphical representation of the methodology for the installation of the sheet pile wall follows.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT

THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Appendix 3

SHEET PILE WALL. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE. HAND

CALCULATIONS.
BOREHOLE N4822 BOREHOLE N4822 Elevation σ'v_act Minimum value of Shear strength
3,8 12 2,4
Upper bound Lower bound Depth
Natural watercontent Penetration resistance Weight sounding 3 26,4 5,28
3,6 3 Man-made ground, fill (code 30) 2,8 26% 42 s/0,20m 3 26,4 5,28
3 -3,2 Clay and cohesive soil (code 37) 2,1 57% 2,8 29,4 5,88
-3,2 -8,2 Non-cohesive soil, general (ode 33-35, 37) 1,1 62% 2,3 36,9 7,38
-8,2 -15 Rock surface (code 94) 0,1 67% 1,3 51,9 10,38
-0,9 52% 1,3 51,9 10,38
0,3 68,9 13,78
-0,1 75,7 15,14
BOREHOLE LID_3 -0,2 76,4 15,28
-0,5 78,5 15,7
Upper bound Lower bound Depth
Natural watercontent Bulk density
Liquide limit τf [t/m
[Kpa] (corrected) Depth
τf [Kpa] (okorrigerad) -0,5 78,5 15,7
3,7 2,3 Man-made ground, fill (code 30) 1,7 44% 35% 1,75 24,13531 1,7 22 -0,6 79,2 15,84
2,3 -2 Clay and cohesive soil (code 37) 0,7 56% 51% 1,7 15,74357 1,2 16 -0,7 79,9 15,98
-2 -3,3 Soil type not defined 0,2 59% 55% 11,637 0,7 17 -0,8 80,6 16,12
-3,3 -8,2 Non-cohesive soil, general (ode 33-35, 37) -0,8 56% 52% 1,7 14,68856 0,2 13 -0,9 81,3 16,26
-8,2 -11 Rock surface (code 94) -2,3 50% 45% 1,75 18,61525 -0,3 15 -1 82 16,4
-0,8 16 -1,1 82,7 16,54
-1,3 17 -1,2 83,4 16,68
-1,8 18 -1,3 84,1 16,82
BOREHOLE NPS119 -2,3 19 -1,4 84,8 16,96
-1,5 85,5 17,1
Upper bound Lower bound Ram soundingsl/0,20m -1,6 86,2 17,24
3,8 3,2 Man-made ground, fill (code 30) -1,7 86,9 17,38
3,2 2,8 Soil type not defined -1,8 87,6 17,52
2,8 -3,6 Clay and cohesive soil (code 37) -1,9 88,3 17,66
-3,6 -7,4 Sand (code 38) -2 89 17,8
-7,4 -15 Rock surface (code 94) -2,1 89,7 17,94
-2,2 90,4 18,08
-2,3 91,1 18,22
-2,4 91,8 18,36
BOREHOLE RV584 -2,5 92,5 18,5
-2,6 93,2 18,64
3
Upper bound Lower bound τf [Kpa]
Depth
(okorrigerad) Shear
Sensitivity
strength
St Natural watercontent Bulk density [t/m ]
Liquide limit τf [Kpa] (corrected) -2,7 93,9 18,78
3,7 2,1 Man-made ground, fill (code 30) 1,7 22 20% 72% 68% 1,6 17,90 -2,8 94,6 18,92
2,1 -3,5 Clay and cohesive soil (code 37) 0,7 15 18% 56% 52% 1,7 13,77 -2,9 95,3 19,06
-3,5 -5,3 Gravelly soil (code 39) -0,8 17 22% 57% 54% 1,7 15,34 -3 96 19,2
-5,3 -8,2 Sand (code 38) -2,2 22 31% 50% 45% 1,75 21,55 -3,1 96,7 19,34
-3,2 97,4 19,48
-3,3 98,1 19,62
-3,4 98,8 19,76
BOREHOLE LID_7 -3,5 99,5 19,9
-3,5 99,5 19,9
3
Upper bound Lower bound τf [Kpa]
Depth
(okorrigerad) Shear
Sensitivity
strength
St Natural watercontent Bulk density [t/m ]
Liquide limit τf [Kpa] (corrected)
3,5 2,2 Man-made ground, fill (code 30) 1,5 21 18% 75% 73% 1,6 16,55
2,2 -3,8 Clay and cohesive soil (code 37) 0,5 18 18% 53% 50% 1,75 16,82
-3,8 -9,1 Till, glacier sediment (code 84) -0,5 20 22% 88% 79% 1,55 15,21
-9,1 -12 Rock surface (code 94) -1,5 18 24% 55% 48% 1,7 17,13
-2,5 18 21% 45% 42% 1,75 18,19

Natural water content from boreholes Liquid limit from boreholes Bulk density [t/m3]
4 2 2

1,5 1,5
3
1 1

2 0,5 0,5

0 0
Elevation [m]

Elevation [m]

Elevation [m]
1
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1,5 1,55 1,6 1,65 1,7 1,75 1,8 1,85 1,9 1,95 2
-0,5 -0,5
0
-1 -1
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

-1 -1,5 -1,5

-2 -2
-2
-2,5 -2,5

-3 -3 -3
Water content [%] Liquide limit [%] Bulk density [t/m3]

N4822 LID_3 RV584 LID_7 LID_3 RV584 LID_7 LID_3 RV584 LID_7

Uncorrected shear strength τf [KPa] Sensitivity [%] Corrected shear strength τf [KPa]
5 2 5

4 1,5 4

1 3
3

0,5 2
2
Elevation [m]

0 1
Elevation [m]

Elevation [m]

1 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

-0,5 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-1 -1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
-1 -2
-1,5

-2 -3
-2
-4
-3 -2,5 Shear strength [KPa]

-4 -3 LID_3 RV584 LID_7

Shear strength [KPa] Sensitivity [%]
Minimum value of Shear strength LID_3 RV584
LID_3 RV584 LID_7 Minimum value of Shear strength RV584 LID_7 LID_7 Minimum value of Shear strength

Corrected shear
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS PARTIAL COEFFICIENTS
Depth [m]
strength [KPa]
Borehole Comment CORREC TED SHEAR STRENGTH [KPA]
CHARACTERISTIC VALUES DESIGN VALUES 1,7 24,14 LID_3 Discarded point Discarded points Clay Layer 1 Clay layer 2 Clay layer 3 Minum shear strength Upper elevation Lower elevation Undrained Shear strength [KPa]
Existing fill material (SLS) Existing fill material (ULS) ELS ELU 1,7 17,90 RV584 Discarded point Clay layer 1 1,30 -0,10 15,44
2
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 27,94 º Existing fill, tan φ 1,0 1,1 1,5 16,55 LID_7 Discarded point Clay layer 2 -0,10 -2,00 16,56
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, ρ d 1,80 t/m Existing fill, E 1,0 1,6 0,2 11,64 LID_3 Discarded point Clay layer 3 -2,00 -3,50 20,08
Young's modulus, E k 6,00 Mpa Young's modulus, E d 3,13 Mpa Clay, C u 1,0 1,4 -0,8 14,69 LID_3 Discarded point
1
Dry crust (SLS) Dry crust (ULS) Clay, E 1,0 1,5 -0,8 15,34 RV584 Discarded point
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 25,93 º Friction material and moraine, tanφ 1,0 1,2 -0,5 15,21 LID_7 Discarded point
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,50 t/m Density, ρ d 1,50 t/m Friction material and moraine, E 1,0 1,2 -2,5 18,19 LID_7 Discarded point
3 3 0
Density, water saturated, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, water saturated, ρ d 1,80 t/m 0,7 15,74 LID_3 Clay Layer 1 5 , 00 10 , 00 15 ,00 2 0, 0 0 2 5, 0 0 30 , 00
Young's modulus, E k 5,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 3,47 MPa 1,2 0,7 13,77 RV584 Clay Layer 1
ELEVATION

Clay layer 1 (SLS) Clay layer 1 (ULS) 0,5 16,82 LID_7 Clay Layer 1
-1
Undrained shear strength, c uk 15,44 Kpa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,19 Kpa -1,5 17,13 LID_7 Clay Layer 2
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m -2,2 21,55 RV584 Clay Layer 3
Young's modulus, E k 3,86 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,15 MPa -2,3 18,62 LID_3 Clay Layer 3
Clay layer 2 (SLS) Clay layer 2 (ULS) -2

Undrained shear strength, c uk 16,56 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,86 Kpa
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m
Young's modulus, E k 4,14 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,30 MPa -3

Clay layer 3 (SLS) Clay layer 3 (ULS)

Undrained shear strength, c uk 20,08 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 11,96 Kpa
3 3 -4
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m SHEAR STRENGTH [KPA]
Young's modulus, E k 5,02 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,79 MPa
Sand and silt beneath the clay (SLS) Sand and silt beneath the clay (ULS)
Internal angle of friction, φ k 32,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 23,46 º
3 3
Density, ρ k 2,10 t/m Density, ρ d 2,10 t/m
Young's modulus, E k 10 MPa Young's modulus, E d 6,94 MPa
Moraine close to the bedrock (SLS) Moraine close to the bedrock (ULS)
Internal angle of friction, φ k 38,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 28,48 º
3 3
Density, ρ k 2,20 t/m Density, ρ d 2,20 t/m
Young's modulus, E k 40,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 27,78 MPa
 CHARACTERISTIC VALUES DESIGN VALUES SOIL PROFILE Elevation Depth_act Soil Comment qd σv_act σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act σa Depth_pas σv_pass u_pass σ'v_pass σp σnet CALCULATION OF THE SHEAR FORCES-FIRST STAGE
Existing fill material (SLS) Existing fill material (ULS) Soil layer Upper level Lower level Width [m] [m] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] Depth Elevation Comment Shear force
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 27,94 º Antropic fill 3,8 3 0,8 3,8 0,0 FILL Ground level 12 0,0 12 0 12 4,34 0,0 0 0 0 0,00 4,34 [m] [m] [KN/m]
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, ρ d 1,80 t/m Dry crust 3 1,3 1,7 3,0 0,8 FILL BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0 26,4 9,55 0,0 0 0 0 0,00 9,55 0,0 3,8 Top of sheet pile 0,00
Young's modulus, E k 6,00 Mpa Young's modulus, E d 3,13 Mpa Clay layer 1 1,3 -0,1 1,4 3,0 0,8 DRY crust BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0 26,4 10,34 0 0 0 0 0,00 10,34 0,8 3 Bound FILL-DC 5,56
Dry crust (SLS) Dry crust (ULS) Clay layer 2 -0,1 -2,0 1,9 2,8 1,0 DRY crust 1st strut 12 17,4 29,4 0 29,4 11,51 0 0 0 0 0,00 11,51 1,5 2,3 Excavation level 14,23
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 25,93 º Clay layer 3 -2,0 -3,5 1,5 2,3 1,5 DRY crust 1st excavation 12 24,9 36,9 0 36,9 14,45 0 0 0 0 0,00 14,45 2,5 1,3 Bound DC-Clay1 12,37
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,50 t/m Density, ρ d 1,50 t/m Non Cohesive soil -3,5 -6 2,5 1,3 2,5 DRY crust BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0 51,9 20,32 1 15 0 15 -38,31 -18,00 3,9 -0,1 Blound Clay1-Clay2 -9,33
3 3
Density, water saturated, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, water saturated, ρ d 1,80 t/m Till -6 -9 3 1,3 2,5 CLAY 1 BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0 51,9 21,51 1 15 0 15 -33,39 -15,50 5,8 -2 Bound Clay2-Clay3 -45,99
Young's modulus, E k 5,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 3,47 MPa Bed rock -9 not defined not defined -0,1 3,9 CLAY 1 WATER/BND./2nd exc 12 63,7 75,7 0 75,7 45,31 2,4 38,8 0 38,8 -57,19 -15,50 7,3 -3,5 Bound Clay3-Sand -92,86
Clay layer 1 (SLS) Clay layer 1 (ULS) WATER TABLE -0,1 3,9 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 63,7 75,7 0 75,7 55,98 2,4 38,8 0 38,8 -58,52 -19,29 9,8 -6 Bound Sand-Moraine -414,30
Undrained shear strength, c uk 15,44 Kpa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,19 Kpa Situation Elev. [m] -2,0 5,8 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19 89 88,28 4,3 71,1 19 52,1 -90,82 -19,29 12,8 -9 Bottom of sheet pile -1175,81
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m Highest ground water level - 100 years 1,3 -2,0 5,8 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19 89 84,09 4,3 71,1 19 52,1 -95,01 -31,25
Young's modulus, E k 3,86 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,15 MPa Average ground water level -0,1 -3,5 7,3 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34 99,5 109,59 5,8 96,6 34 62,6 -120,51 -31,25 MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT-FIRST STAGE
Clay layer 2 (SLS) Clay layer 2 (ULS) Lowest ground water level - 100 years -1,1 -3,5 7,3 SAND BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34 99,5 76,84 5,8 96,6 34 62,6 -179,40 -102,56 Depth 3,3 m
Undrained shear strength, c uk 16,56 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,86 Kpa -6,0 9,8 SAND BOUND 12 174,0 186 59 127 113,68 8,3 149,1 59 90,1 -268,27 -154,59 Elevation 0,5 m
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m LOAD FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC -6,0 9,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 174,0 186 59 127 103,98 8,3 149,1 59 90,1 -313,38 -209,40 Max moment 29,63 mKN/m
Young's modulus, E k 4,14 MPa Young's modulus, Ed 2,30 MPa Charc. Value Partial factor Design value -9,0 12,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 240,0 252 89 163 146,73 11,3 215,1 89 126,1 -445,02 -298,28
Clay layer 3 (SLS) Clay layer 3 (ULS) 10 1,2 12
Undrained shear strength, c uk 20,08 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 11,96 Kpa
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m SOIL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
Young's modulus, E k 5,02 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,79 MPa ka kp cud
Sand and silt beneath the clay (SLS) Sand and silt beneath the clay (ULS) Antropic fill 0,3618 2,764 -
Internal angle of friction, φ k 32,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 23,46 º Dry crust 0,3915 2,554 -
Density, ρ k
3
2,10 t/m Density, ρ d 2,10 t/m
3
Clay layer 1 - - 9,19
FIRST EXCAVATION STAGE FIRST EXCAVATION STAGE FIRST EXCAVATION STAGE-SHEAR FORCE
Young's modulus, E k 10,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 6,94 MPa Clay layer 2 - - 9,86 4,0 4,0 4

Moraine close to the bedrock (SLS) Moraine close to the bedrock (ULS) Clay layer 3 - - 11,96
3,0
Internal angle of friction, φ k 38,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 28,48 º Non Cohesive soil 0,4305 2,323 -
3 3
Density, ρ k 2,20 t/m Density, ρ d 2,20 t/m Till 0,3542 2,823 -
2,0 2,0 2
Young's modulus, E k 40,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 27,78 MPa
PROBLEM PARAMETERS
1,0
Ncb 5,7
0,0 0,0 0
200,00 150,00 100,00 50,00 0,00 -50,00 -100,00 -150,00 -200,00 -250,00 -300,00 -350,00 -400,00 -450,00 -500,00 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50,00 -40,00 -30,00 -20,00 -10,00 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00
-1,0
STRUTS AND EXCAVATION ELEVATIONS AND DEPTHS
Elevation Depth Distances -2,0 -2,0 -2
Strut 1 2,8 1,0 1,0

Elevation [m]

Depth [m]

Depth [m]
Strut 2 0,4 3,4 2,4 -3,0
Strut 3 -2,1 5,9 2,5
Dpoint -4,8 8,6 2,7 -4,0 -4,0 -4
Excavation 1 2,3 1,5 0,0
Excavation 2 -0,1 3,9 2,4 -5,0
Excavation 3 -2,6 6,4 2,5
Excavation 4 -4,0 7,8 1,4 -6,0 -6,0 -6

STRUTS AND EXCAVATIONS' ELEVATIONS AND DEPTHS

-7,0
Elevation Depth
Strut 1 2,8 1,0 -8,0 -8,0 -8
Strut 2 0,4 3,4
Strut 3 -2,1 5,9 -9,0
Excavation 1 2,3 1,5
Excavation 2 -0,1 3,9 -10,0 -10,0 -10
Excavation 3 -2,6 6,4 Active and passive pressures [KPa] Active and passive pressures [KPa] Shear force [KN/m]
Excavation 4 -4,0 7,8
σa σp σnet σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act u_pass SHEAR FORCES

FIRST EXCAVATION STAGE

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

Elevation [m]
150,00 100,00 50,00 0,00 -50,00 -100,00 -150,00 -200,00 -250,00

-1,0

-2,0

-3,0

-4,0

-5,0
Active and passive pressures [KPa]

σa σp σnet
 CALCULATION OF MINIMUM LENGTH AND STRUT FORCE RESULTS CALCULATION OF THE SHEAR FORCES-SECOND STAGE
CHARACTERISTIC VALUES DESIGN VALUES SOIL PROFILE Elevation Depth_act Soil Comment qd σv_act σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act σa Depth_pas σv_pass u_pass σ'v_pass σp σnet Area [KN] Distance [m] Moment [Mkn] a 0,941m Problem parametre Depth Elevation Comment Shear force
Existing fill material (SLS) Existing fill material (ULS) Soil layer Upper level Lower level Width [m] [m] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] 1 4,34 -0,50 -2,17 -32,0Kpa Net pressure at the bottom of the excavation [m] [m] [KN/m]
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 27,94 º Antropic fill 3,8 3 0,8 3,8 0,0 FILL Ground level 12 0,0 12 0 12 4,34 0 0 0 0 0,00 4,34 2 3,58 0,33 1,19 d 4,3 m Minimum depth of the sheet pile 0,0 3,8 Top of sheet pile 0,00
Density, ρ k 1,80 t/m3 Density, ρ d 1,80 t/m
3
Dry crust 3 1,3 1,7 3,0 0,8 FILL BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0 26,4 9,55 0 0 0 0 0,00 9,55 3 17,27 0,75 12,95 Q1 65,24KN force at the strut level 1,0 2,8 Before Strut 7,93
Young's modulus, E k 6,00 Mpa Young's modulus, E d 3,13 Mpa Clay layer 1 1,3 -0,1 1,4 3,0 0,8 DRY crust BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0 26,4 10,34 0 0 0 0 0,00 10,34 4 6,61 1,00 6,61 Maximum bending moment 123,55 mKN 1,0 2,8 After strut -57,31
Dry crust (SLS) Dry crust (ULS) Clay layer 2 -0,1 -2,0 1,9 2,8 1,0 DRY crust 1st strut 12 17,4 29,4 0 29,4 11,51 0 0 0 0 0,00 11,51 5 16,66 2,43 40,54 2,5 1,3 Bound DC-clay1 -33,44
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 25,93 º Clay layer 3 -2,0 -3,5 1,5 2,3 1,5 DRY crust 1st excavation 12 24,9 36,9 0 36,9 14,45 0 0 0 0 0,00 14,45 6 30,12 2,20 66,26 3,9 -0,1 Bound Clay1-2 13,34
Density, ρ k 1,50 t/m3 Density, ρ d 1,50 t/m
3
Non Cohesive soil -3,5 -6 2,5 1,3 2,5 DRY crust BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0 51,9 20,32 0 0 0 0 0,00 20,32 7 14,26 3,85 54,90 5,8 -2 Bound Clay2-3 27,60
3
Density, water saturated, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, water saturated, ρ d 1,80 t/m3 Till -6 -9 3 1,3 2,5 CLAY 1 BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0 51,9 21,51 0 0 0 0 0,00 21,51 8 -6,67 5,55 -37,01 7,3 -3,5 Bound Clay3-Sand 20,93
Young's modulus, E k 5,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 3,47 MPa Bed rock -9 not defined not defined 0,4 3,4 CLAY 1 2nd strut 12 55,2 67,2 0 67,2 36,81 0 0 0 0 0,00 36,81 9 -11,71 6,77 -79,30 8,2 -4,4414 Bottom of sheet pile 0,02
Clay layer 1 (SLS) Clay layer 1 (ULS) WATER TABLE -0,1 3,9 CLAY 1 WATER/BND./2nd exc 12 63,7 75,7 0 75,7 45,31 0 0 0 0 0,00 45,31 10 -9,22 6,93 -63,89
Undrained shear strength, c uk 15,44 Kpa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,19 Kpa Situation Elev. [m] -0,1 3,9 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 63,7 75,7 0 75,7 55,98 0 0 0 0 -19,72 7,51 0,1
3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m3 Highest ground water level - 100 years 1,3 -2,0 5,8 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19 89 88,28 1,9 32,3 19 13,3 -52,02 7,51 CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM MOMENT
Young's modulus, E k 3,86 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,15 MPa Average ground water level -0,1 -2,0 5,8 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19 89 84,09 1,9 32,3 19 13,3 -56,21 -4,45 dmax 0,2993 m Elevation max moment
Clay layer 2 (SLS) Clay layer 2 (ULS) Lowest ground water level - 100 years -1,1 -3,5 7,3 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34 99,5 109,59 3,4 57,8 34 23,8 -81,71 -4,45 dmax 3,5007 m Depth max moment
Undrained shear strength, c uk 16,56 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,86 Kpa -3,5 7,3 SAND BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34 99,5 76,84 3,4 57,8 34 23,8 -89,28 -12,44 Area [KN] Distance [m] Moment [Mkn]
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m LOAD FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC -6,0 9,8 SAND BOUND 12 174,0 186 59 127 113,68 5,9 110,3 59 51,3 -178,15 -64,47 1 3,96 2,83 11,23
Young's modulus, E k 4,14 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,30 MPa Charc. Value Partial factor Design value -6,0 9,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 174,0 186 59 127 103,98 5,9 110,3 59 51,3 -203,83 -99,85 2 -50,16 1,75 -87,81
Clay layer 3 (SLS) Clay layer 3 (ULS) 10 1,2 12 -9,0 12,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 240,0 252 89 163 146,73 8,9 176,3 89 87,3 -335,47 -188,74 3 -17,90 2,00 -35,82
Undrained shear strength, c uk 20,08 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 11,96 Kpa 4 -16,72 0,67 -11,15
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m SOIL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS Maximum bending moment 123,55 mKN
Young's modulus, E k 5,02 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,79 MPa ka kp cud
Sand and silt beneath the clay (SLS) Sand and silt beneath the clay (ULS) Antropic fill 0,3618 2,764 -
Internal angle of friction, φ k 32,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 23,46 º Dry crust 0,3915 2,554 -
Density, ρ k 3
2,10 t/m Density, ρ d 2,10 t/m
3
Clay layer 1 - - 9,19
SECOND EXCAVATION STAGE SECOND EXCAVATION STAGE SECOND EXCAVATION STAGE-SHEAR FORCE
Young's modulus, E k 10,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 6,94 MPa Clay layer 2 - - 9,86 4,0 4,0 4

Moraine close to the bedrock (SLS) Moraine close to the bedrock (ULS) Clay layer 3 - - 11,96
Internal angle of friction, φ k 38,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 28,48 º Non Cohesive soil 0,4305 2,323 -
3 3 3
Density, ρ k 2,20 t/m Density, ρ d 2,20 t/m Till 0,3542 2,823 -
2,0 2,0
Young's modulus, E k 40,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 27,78 MPa
PROBLEM PARAMETERS
2
Ncb 5,7
0,0 0,0
200,00 100,00 0,00 -100,00 -200,00 -300,00 -400,00 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
1

STRUTS AND EXCAVATION ELEVATIONS

Elevation Depth Distances -2,0 -2,0
Strut 1 2,8 1,0 1,0 0

Elevation [m]

Depth [m]

Depth [m]
-70,00 -60,00 -50,00 -40,00 -30,00 -20,00 -10,00 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00
Strut 2 0,4 3,4 2,4
Strut 3 -2,1 5,9 2,5
Dpoint -4,8 8,6 2,7 -1
-4,0 -4,0
Excavation 1 2,3 1,5 0,0
Excavation 2 -0,1 3,9 2,4
Excavation 3 -2,6 6,4 2,5 -2
Excavation 4 -4,0 7,8 1,4 -6,0 -6,0

-3

-8,0 -8,0
-4

-10,0 -10,0 -5
Active and passive pressures [KPa] Active and passive pressures [KPa] Shear force [KN/m]

σa σp σnet σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act u_pass Shear force

 CHARACTERISTIC VALUES DESIGN VALUES SOIL PROFILE Elevation Depth_act Soil Comment qd σv_act σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act σa Depth_pas σv_pass u_pass σ'v_pass σp σnet Pa CALCULATION OF THE ANCHOR FORCES
Existing fill material (SLS) Existing fill material (ULS) Soil layer Upper level Lower level Width [m] [m] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] Ap 209,7 KN
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 27,94 º Antropic fill 3,8 3 0,8 3,8 0,0 FILL Ground level 12 0,0 12 0,0 12 4,34 0 0 0 0 0 4,34 Location of D point a 3,2 m
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, ρ d 1,80 t/m Dry crust 3 1,3 1,7 3,0 0,8 FILL BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0,0 26,4 9,55 0 0 0 0 0 9,55 5,56 b 0,2 m below excavation level
Young's modulus, E k 6,00 Mpa Young's modulus, E d 3,13 Mpa Clay layer 1 1,3 -0,1 1,4 3,0 0,8 DRY crust BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0,0 26,4 10,34 0 0 0 0 0 10,34 0,00 H_Height of excavation 6,4 m
Dry crust (SLS) Dry crust (ULS) Clay layer 2 -0,1 -2,0 1,9 2,8 1,0 DRY crust 1st strut 12 17,4 29,4 0,0 29,4 11,51 0 0 0 0 0 11,51 2,18 0,2H 1,3 m
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 25,93 º Clay layer 3 -2,0 -3,5 1,5 2,3 1,5 DRY crust 1st excavation 12 24,9 36,9 0,0 36,9 14,45 0 0 0 0 0 14,45 6,49 Pa_active earth pressure above D 262,5 KN/m2
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,50 t/m Density, ρ d 1,50 t/m Non Cohesive soil -3,5 -6 2,5 1,3 2,5 DRY crust BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0,0 51,9 20,32 0 0 0 0 0 20,32 17,38 σi 44,05 KPa
3 3
Density, water saturated, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, water saturated, ρ d 1,80 t/m Till -6 -9 3 1,3 2,5 CLAY 1 BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0,0 51,9 21,51 0 0 0 0 0 21,51 0,00
Young's modulus, E k 5,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 3,47 MPa Bed rock -9 not defined not defined 0,4 3,4 CLAY 1 2nd strut 12 55,2 67,2 0,0 67,2 36,81 0 0 0 0 0 36,81 26,25 ANCHOR FORCES
Clay layer 1 (SLS) Clay layer 1 (ULS) WATER TABLE -0,1 3,9 CLAY 1 WATER/BND./2nd exc 12 63,7 75,7 0,0 75,7 45,31 0 0 0 0 0 45,31 20,53 Q1 68,3 KN
Undrained shear strength, c uk 15,44 Kpa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,19 Kpa Situation Elev. [m] -0,1 3,9 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 63,7 75,7 0,0 75,7 55,98 0 0 0 0 0 55,98 0,00 Q2 193,8 KN
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m Highest ground water level - 100 years 1,3 -2,0 5,8 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19,0 89 88,28 0 0 0 0 0 88,28 137,05 MOMENTS IN THE SHEET PILE
Young's modulus, E k 3,86 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,15 MPa Average ground water level -0,1 -2,0 5,8 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19,0 89 84,09 0 0 0 0 0 84,09 0,00 At the first anchor level 5,6 mKN/m
Clay layer 2 (SLS) Clay layer 2 (ULS) Lowest ground water level - 100 years -1,1 -2,1 5,9 CLAY 3 3rd strut 12 97,7 109,7 20,0 89,7 85,79 0 0 0 0 0 85,79 8,49 Between both anchors 21,1 mKN/m
Undrained shear strength, c uk 16,56 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,86 Kpa -2,6 6,4 CLAY 3 3rd excavation 12 106,2 118,2 25,0 93,2 94,29 0 0 0 0 -23,91 38,05 30,96 Under lowest anchor level 225,5 mKN/m
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m LOAD FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC -3,5 7,3 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34,0 99,5 109,59 0,9 15,3 9 6,3 -39,21 38,05 7,61 Design value 225,5 mKN/m
Young's modulus, E k 4,14 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,30MPa Charc. Value Partial factor Design value -3,5 7,3 SAND BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34,0 99,5 76,84 0,9 15,3 9 6,3 -23,63 53,21
Clay layer 3 (SLS) Clay layer 3 (ULS) 10 1,2 12 -6,0 9,8 SAND BOUND 12 174,0 186 59,0 127 113,68 3,4 67,8 34 33,8 -112,51 1,17
Undrained shear strength, c uk 20,08 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 11,96 Kpa -6,0 9,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 174,0 186 59,0 127 103,98 3,4 67,8 34 33,8 -129,43 -25,44 262,5116
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m SOIL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS -9,0 12,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 240,0 252 89,0 163 146,73 6,4 133,8 64 69,8 -261,07 -114,33
Young's modulus, E k 5,02 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,79 MPa ka kp cud -2,6 0
Sand and silt beneath the clay (SLS) Sand and silt beneath the clay (ULS) Antropic fill 0,3618 2,764 - Extra point -2,6 94,29
Internal angle of friction, φ k 32,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 23,46 º Dry crust 0,3915 2,554 -
Density, ρ k 2,10 t/m
3
Density, ρ d 2,10 t/m
3
Clay layer 1 - - 9,19
THIRD EXCAVATION STAGE THIRD EXCAVATION STAGE
Young's modulus, E k 10,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 6,94 MPa Clay layer 2 - - 9,86 4,0 4,0
Moraine close to the bedrock (SLS) Moraine close to the bedrock (ULS) Clay layer 3 - - 11,96
Internal angle of friction, φ k 38,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 28,48 º Non Cohesive soil 0,4305 2,323 -
3 3
Density, ρ k 2,20 t/m Density, ρ d 2,20 t/m Till 0,3542 2,823 -
2,0 2,0
Young's modulus, E k 40,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 27,78 MPa
PROBLEM PARAMETERS
Ncb 5,7
0,0 0,0
200,00 150,00 100,00 50,00 0,00 -50,00 -100,00 -150,00 -200,00 -250,00 -300,00 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

STRUTS AND EXCAVATION ELEVATIONS

Elevation Depth Distances -2,0 -2,0
Strut 1 2,8 1,0 1,0

Elevation [m]

Depth [m]
Strut 2 0,4 3,4 2,4
Strut 3 -2,1 5,9 2,5
Dpoint -4,8 8,6 2,7 -4,0 -4,0
Excavation 1 2,3 1,5 0,0
Excavation 2 -0,1 3,9 2,4
Excavation 3 -2,6 6,4 2,5
Excavation 4 -4,0 7,8 1,4 -6,0 -6,0

-8,0 -8,0

-10,0 -10,0
Active and passive pressures [KPa] Active and passive pressures [KPa]

σa σp σnet σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act u_pass

 CALCULATION OF THE ANCHOR FORCES
CHARACTERISTIC VALUES DESIGN VALUES SOIL PROFILE Elevation Depth_act Soil Comment qd σv_act σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act σa Depth_pas σv_pass u_pass σ'v_pass σp σnet Pa Location of D point 0,78 m below excavation surface
Existing fill material (SLS) Existing fill material (ULS) Soil layer Upper level Lower level Width [m] [m] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [m] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] [Kpa] H_Height of excavation 7,8 m
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 27,94 º Antropic fill 3,8 3 0,8 3,8 0,0 FILL Ground level 12 0,0 12 0,0 12 4,34 0 0 0 0 0 4,34 0 0,2H 1,56 m
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,80 t/m Density, ρ d 1,80 t/m Dry crust 3 1,3 1,7 3,0 0,8 FILL BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0,0 26,4 9,55 0 0 0 0 0 9,55 5,56 Pa_active earth pressure above D 460,3 KN/m2
Young's modulus, E k 6,00 Mpa Young's modulus, E d 3,13 Mpa Clay layer 1 1,3 -0,1 1,4 3,0 0,8 DRY crust BOUND 12 14,4 26,4 0,0 26,4 10,34 0 0 0 0 0 10,34 0,00 σi 59,0
Dry crust (SLS) Dry crust (ULS) Clay layer 2 -0,1 -2,0 1,9 2,8 1,0 DRY crust 1st strut 12 17,4 29,4 0,0 29,4 11,51 0 0 0 0 0 11,51 2,18
Internal angle of friction, φ k 35,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 25,93 º Clay layer 3 -2,0 -3,5 1,5 2,3 1,5 DRY crust 1st excavation 12 24,9 36,9 0,0 36,9 14,45 0 0 0 0 0 14,45 6,49 ANCHOR FORCES
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,50 t/m Density, ρ d 1,50 t/m Non Cohesive soil -3,5 -6 2,5 1,3 2,5 DRY crust BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0,0 51,9 20,32 0 0 0 0 0 20,32 17,38 Q1 83,8 KN
Density, water saturated, ρ k
3
1,80 t/m Density, water saturated, ρ d 1,80 t/m
3
Till -6 -9 3 1,3 2,5 CLAY 1 BOUND 12 39,9 51,9 0,0 51,9 21,51 0 0 0 0 0 21,51 0,00 Q2 144,6 KN
Young's modulus, E k 5,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 3,47 MPa Bed rock -9 not defined not defined 0,4 3,4 CLAY 1 2nd strut 12 55,2 67,2 0,0 67,2 36,81 0 0 0 0 0 36,81 26,25 Q3 231,9 KN
Clay layer 1 (SLS) Clay layer 1 (ULS) WATER TABLE -0,1 3,9 CLAY 1 WATER/BND./2nd exc 12 63,7 75,7 0,0 75,7 45,31 0 0 0 0 0 45,31 20,53 MOMENTS IN THE SHEET PILE
Undrained shear strength, c uk 15,44 Kpa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,19 Kpa Situation Elev. [m] -0,1 3,9 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 63,7 75,7 0,0 75,7 55,98 0 0 0 0 0 55,98 0,00 At the first anchor level 6,3 mKN/m
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m Highest ground water level - 100 years 1,3 -2,0 5,8 CLAY 2 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19,0 89 88,28 0 0 0 0 0 88,28 137,05 Between anchor 1 & 2 28,3 mKN/m
Young's modulus, E k 3,86 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,15 MPa Average ground water level -0,1 -2,0 5,8 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 96,0 108 19,0 89 84,09 0 0 0 0 0 84,09 0,00 Between anchor 2 & 3 30,7 mKN/m
Clay layer 2 (SLS) Clay layer 2 (ULS) Lowest ground water level - 100 years -1,1 -2,1 5,9 CLAY 3 3rd strut 12 97,7 109,7 20,0 89,7 85,79 0 0 0 0 0 85,79 8,49 Under lowest anchor level 249,5 mKN/m
Undrained shear strength, c uk 16,56 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 9,86 Kpa -2,6 6,4 CLAY 3 3rd excavation 12 106,2 118,2 25,0 93,2 94,29 0 0 0 0 0 94,29 45,02 Design value 249,5 mKN/m
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m LOAD FROM CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC -3,5 7,3 CLAY 3 BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34,0 99,5 109,59 0 0 0 0 0 109,59 91,75
Young's modulus, E k 4,14 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,30 MPa Charc. Value Partial factor Design value -3,5 7,3 SAND BOUND 12 121,5 133,5 34,0 99,5 76,84 0 0 0 0 0 76,84 0,00
Clay layer 3 (SLS) Clay layer 3 (ULS) 10 1,2 12 -4,0 7,8 SAND 4th excavation 12 132,0 144 39,0 105 84,21 0 0 0 0 0 84,21 40,26 400,9661
Undrained shear strength, c uk 20,08 KPa Undrained shear strength, c ud 11,96 Kpa -6,0 9,8 SAND BOUND 12 174,0 186 59,0 127 113,68 2 42 20 22 -71,10 42,58 59,35 460,3180
3 3
Density, ρ k 1,70 t/m Density, ρ d 1,70 t/m SOIL PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS -6,0 9,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 174,0 186 59,0 127 103,98 2 42 20 22 -82,11 21,87
Young's modulus, E k 5,02 MPa Young's modulus, E d 2,79 MPa ka kp cud -9,0 12,8 MORAINE BOUND 12 240,0 252 89,0 163 146,73 5 108 50 58 -213,75 -67,02
Sand and silt beneath the clay (SLS) Sand and silt beneath the clay (ULS) Antropic fill 0,3618 2,764 -
Internal angle of friction, φ k 32,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 23,46 º Dry crust 0,3915 2,554 -
Density, ρ k
3
2,10 t/m Density, ρ d 2,10 t/m
3
Clay layer 1 - - 9,19
FINAL EXCAVATION STAGE FINAL EXCAVATION STAGE
Young's modulus, E k 10,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 6,94 MPa Clay layer 2 - - 9,86 4,0 4,0
Moraine close to the bedrock (SLS) Moraine close to the bedrock (ULS) Clay layer 3 - - 11,96
Internal angle of friction, φ k 38,00 º Internal angle of friction, φ d 28,48 º Non Cohesive soil 0,4305 2,323 -
3 3
Density, ρ k 2,20 t/m Density, ρ d 2,20 t/m Till 0,3542 2,823 -
2,0 2,0
Young's modulus, E k 40,00 MPa Young's modulus, E d 27,78 MPa
PROBLEM PARAMETERS
Ncb 5,7
0,0 0,0
200,00 150,00 100,00 50,00 0,00 -50,00 -100,00 -150,00 -200,00 -250,00 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
55,98
STRUTS AND EXCAVATION ELEVATIONS
Elevation Depth Distances -2,0 -2,0
Strut 1 2,8 1,0 1,0

Elevation [m]

Depth [m]
94,29
Strut 2 0,4 3,4 2,4
Strut 3 -2,1 5,9 2,5 109,59 76,84
Dpoint -4,78 8,6 2,7 84,21 -4,0 -4,0
Excavation 1 2,3 1,5
Excavation 2 -0,1 3,9 2,4 42,58
Excavation 3 -2,6 6,4 2,5 21,87
Excavation 4 -4,0 7,8 1,4 -6,0 -6,0

-8,0 -8,0

-67,02

-10,0 -10,0
Active and passive pressures [KPa] Active and passive pressures [KPa]

σa σp σnet σvtotal_act u_act σ'v_act u_pass

AN. FORCES Q1 Q2 Q3
Excavation 1 - - -
Excavation 2 65,24 - - c 5m
Excavation 3 68,28 193,82 - E 210
Excavation 4 83,80 144,59 231,93 fyd 355
Design value 83,80 193,82 231,93 L 18,3
Max 231,93 KN 0,7
STRUT STRICT DESIGN STRUT DIMENSIONING CHECKS
MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT Q[KN] Nsd[KN] Amin [mm2] D[mm] t[mm] A[mm2] I*10^4[mm4] Nrd[KN] Nrd>Nsd Peuler Peuler>Nsd
Excavation 1 29,6 mKN STRUT 1 83,80 628,51 1770 244,5 10 7370 5073 2616,35 VERDADERO 640,75 VERDADERO
Excavation 2 123,5 mKN STRUT 2 193,82 1453,65 4095 323,9 10 9860 12158 3500,3 VERDADERO 1535,62 VERDADERO
Excavation 3 225,5 mKN STRUT 3 231,93 1739,47 4900 323,9 12,5 12230 14847 4341,65 VERDADERO 1875,25 VERDADERO
Excavation 4 249,5 mKN
Design value 249,49 mKN
STRUT DIMENSIONING
D[mm] t[mm] A[mm2] I*10^4[mm4] Nrd[KN]
STRUT 1 244,5 10 7370 5073 2616,35
STRUT 2 323,9 10 9860 12158 3500,3
STRUT 3 323,9 12,5 12230 14847 4341,65
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT

THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Appendix 4

SHEET PILE WALL. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE. PLAXIS

DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

TOTAL DEFORMATIONS. ONE SIDE TRAFFIC LOAD.

Figure 42 PLAXIS. Deformations during first construction stage. One side traffic load.

Figure 43 PLAXIS. Deformations during second construction stage. One side traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 44 PLAXIS. Deformations during third construction stage. One side traffic load.

Figure 45 PLAXIS. Deformations during fourth construction stage. One side traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

HORIZONTAL MOVEMENTS. ONE SIDE TRAFFIC LOAD.

Figure 46 PLAXIS. Horizontal movements during first construction stage. One side traffic load.

Figure 47 PLAXIS. Horizontal movements during second construction stage. One side traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 48 PLAXIS. Horizontal movements during third construction stage. One side traffic load.

Figure 49 PLAXIS. Horizontal movements during fourth construction stage. One side traffic load.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

HORIZONTAL MOVEMENTS IN THE SHEET PILE. ONE SIDE TRAFFIC LOAD.

Figure 50 PLAXIS. Horizontal displacements of the sheet pile during first construction stage. One side traffic load.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 51 PLAXIS. Horizontal displacements of the sheet pile during second construction stage. One side traffic load.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 52 PLAXIS. Horizontal displacements of the sheet pile during third construction stage. One side traffic load.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 53 PLAXIS. Horizontal displacements of the sheet pile during fourth construction stage. One side traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

PLASTIC POINTS. ONE SIDE TRAFFIC LOAD.

Figure 54 PLAXIS. Plastic points during first construction stage. One side traffic load.

Figure 55 PLAXIS. Plastic points during second construction stage. One side traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 56 PLAXIS. Plastic points during third construction stage. One side traffic load.

Figure 57 PLAXIS. Plastic points during fourth construction stage. One side traffic load.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

SHEAR FORCES IN THE SHEET PILE. SYMMETRIC TRAFFIC LOAD.

Figure 58 PLAXIS. Shear forces in the sheet pile during first construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 59 PLAXIS. Shear forces in the sheet pile during second construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 60 PLAXIS. Shear forces in the sheet pile during third construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 61 PLAXIS. Shear forces in the sheet pile during fourth construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.
 DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

BENDING MOMENTS IN THE SHEET PILE. SYMMETRIC TRAFFIC LOAD.

Figure 62 PLAXIS. Bending moments in the sheet pile during first construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 63 PLAXIS. Bending moments in the sheet pile during second construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 64 PLAXIS. Bending moments in the sheet pile during third construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.
DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY SHEET PILE WALL AT THE NÖRRA LÄNKEN RAMP. TRAFIKPLATS VÄRTAN.

Figure 65 PLAXIS. Bending moments in the sheet pile during fourth construction stage. Symmetric traffic load.