VERIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM PYWALL

AS A VALID TOOL FOR DESIGN OF

FLEXIBLE RETAINING WALLS
Shin-Tower Wang and Jose A. Arrellaga
July 6, 2007

1. Introduction
Flexible retaining structures have received much attention since 1940 because of
the widespread use in engineering construction. Flexible retaining walls, in contrast to
more-or-less rigid, gravity walls, usually mean a single row of piles that may be of
timber, reinforced concrete, or sheet steel that are mostly driven by hammers and have
their lower ends embedded in soil. Tschebotarioff presented the results of his famous
large-scale model tests for retaining structures in 1948 (Tschebotarioff, 1948). One of
the most important conclusions was that the distribution of earth pressure on sheet piles is
highly influenced by the deformations of walls.
The conventional method of design is based on a limit-equilibrium theory that has
a theoretical weakness for soil-structure-interaction problems. The behavior of retaining
structures is largely a matter of soil conditions and the details of the structural system.
Therefore, a rational method of design must include the nonlinear soil-resistancedisplacement relationships, shaft spacing, penetration depth, and structural properties.
As mentioned above, the interactions between the structure and the soil on
retaining walls will be governed by the retained soil at the back, supporting soil in the
front, as well as the structure itself. The response of the soil is a function of the soilstructure system and of the permissible deflections of this system. It is recognized that
the limit-equilibrium analysis does not take into account the nonlinear mobilization of
soil reaction with wall deflection in the analysis and should not be recommended as
appropriate design procedure. The finite-element method shows promise to handle the
complicated stress-strain relationship for the retaining system. However, the constitutive
law of soil has not been understood well enough for this method to be used in engineering

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 1 of 17

practice with confidence. The behavior of a retaining wall, in results from the finiteelement method, is very difficult to interpret if the soil is not modeled correctly. In
addition, the level of efforts necessary to create and to evaluation a proper finite-element
model is very demanding.

2. Methods of Solution
The method of analysis for beams on nonlinear foundations, that employs the soil
response curves derived from full-scale experiments, has been accepted as a rational
design method by many engineers. The method commonly is referred to as p-y method
and has been very successful for the design of laterally-loaded piles. A flexible earthretaining structure is similar to piles loaded by lateral forces. The p-y method for
analyzing a beam on nonlinear foundation is basically a modified form of the subgrade
reaction method. Usage of the p-y curves for retaining systems has been introduced in
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 Ground Anchors and Anchored System from
the Federal Highway Administration (Federal Highway Administration FHWA-IF-99015, 1999).
The program PYWALL considers the effects of soil-structure-interaction by using
a generalized beam-column model and analyzes the behavior of a flexible retaining wall
or soldier-pile wall with or without tiebacks or bracing systems. Displacements or
rotational restrains may be specified at any depth of the wall to simulate bracings or
tiebacks. The user may also specify active earth pressure as the distributed load, or ask
the program to generate the earth pressures internally. Passive soil resistance can be
represented either by linear springs or nonlinear soil-resistance curves. The program will
calculate the earth pressure above the dredge line, wall deflection, shear force, bending
moment, and force on the struts.
Soil behavior is modeled with p-y curves that are internally generated by the
computer program following published recommendations for various types of soils;
alternatively, the user can manually introduce external p-y curves. Special procedures are
programmed for developing p-y curves for layered soils and for rock.

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 2 of 17

Input parameters consist of the geometry of the retaining wall, structural

properties of the wall element, restrained conditions applied on the wall by the tiebacks
or other bracing systems, soil-resistance curves, unit weight of soils, strength parameters
of soils, and location of the water table.
The p-y method is being used extensively in the United States and elsewhere. To
illustrate its use, references are cited from Italy (Jamiolkowski, 1977), France (Baguelin
et al., 1978), Britain (George and Wood, 1976), and Australia (Poulos and Davis, 1980).
The p-y method is also included in publications from the following agencies:

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (Reese,

1984), and adopted by most of the State Highway Departments in the United
States;

Det Norske Veritas and Riso National Laboratory on Wind Turbines (DNV,
2001);

Det Norske Veritas, on Offshore Structures, (DNV, 1977); and the

American Petroleum Institute (1993). The publications of the API have guided
the design of onshore and offshore pile foundations in the United States and
elsewhere.

3. Basic Equations for the p-y Method

The laterally loaded beam column is modeled as shown in Fig. 1.

The

mechanisms shown to represent the soil depict the soil as a nonlinear material. The
deformation of an elastic member under axial and lateral loading can be found by solving
Eq. 1, the standard beam-column equation.

d2
dx 2

d2y
d2y
E p I p 2 + Px 2 p W = 0 ............................................ (1)
dx

dx

where
Px

axial load on the beam column, F,

lateral deflection of the beam column at point x along

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 3 of 17

the length of the beam column, L,

p

soil resistance per unit length, F/L,

distributed load along the length of the beam column, F/L,

EpIp

flexural stiffness, FL2.

Figure 1 Model of laterally loaded beam column

A physical definition of the soil resistance p is given in Fig. 2. Figure 2a shows a

profile of a beam column, and shows a thin slice of soil at some depth xi below the
ground surface. The assumption is made that the beam column has been installed without
bending so that the initial soil stresses at the depth xi are uniformly distributed, as shown
in Fig. 2b. If the beam column is loaded laterally so that a beam deflection yi occurs at
the depth xi the soil stresses will become unbalanced, as shown in Fig. 2c. Integration of
the soil stresses will yield the soil resistance pi with units of F/L:
pi = Esyi.................................................................................................. (2)
where

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 4 of 17

Es

a parameter with the units F/L2, relating beam

deflection y and soil reaction p.

It is evident that the soil reaction p will reach a limiting value (and perhaps decrease)
with increasing deflection. Furthermore, the soil strength in the general case will vary
with depth. Therefore, only in rare cases will Es, sometimes called the soil modulus, be
constant with depth.

Figure 2 Definition of p and y as related to the response

of a beam column to lateral loading

The bending stiffness EpIp of a metal beam column will probably be constant for
the range of loading of principal interest. However, the EpIp of a reinforced-concrete
section will change with the bending moment. In view of the nonlinearities of Eq. 1,
numerical methods must be utilized to obtain a solution. The difference-equation method
can be employed with good results. Eq. 3 is the differential equation in difference form,
where the beam column is subdivided as shown in Fig. 3.
PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 5 of 17

ym 2Rm-1 + ym-1(-2Rm-1 2Rm + Qh2) + ym(Rm-1 + 4Rm +Rm+1 2Qh2 + kmh4) +

ym+1(-2Rm 2Rm+1 + Qh2) + ym + 2Rm+1 Wmh4 = 0 ........................... (3)
where
Rm = EmIm, ........................................................................................ (4)
km = Esm ............................................................................................ (5)
The beam column is subdivided into n increments and n+1 equations can be
written of the form of Eq. 3, yielding n+5 unknown deflections.

Two boundary

conditions at the bottom of the beam column and two at the top of the beam column
allow for a solution of the n+5 equations with selected values of R and k. The value of n
and the number of significant figures in y are selected to yield results with appropriate
accuracy. The solution of the equations proceeds readily by Gaussian elimination. The
value of n ranges from perhaps 50 to 200; on most computers double-precision arithmetic
is necessary with about 15 significant figures.

Figure 3 Representation of deflected beam column

The solution proceeds as illustrated in Fig. 4. Figure 4a shows a beam column

subjected to a lateral load. Figure 4b shows a family of p-y curves where the curves are

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 6 of 17

in the 2nd and 4th quadrants because soil resistance is opposite in direction to beamcolumn deflection. Also in Fig. 4b is a dashed line showing the deflection of the beam
column, either assumed or computed on the basis of an estimated soil response. Figure
4c shows the upper p-y curve enlarged with the beam-column deflection at that depth
represented by the vertical, dashed line.

A line is drawn to the soil resistance p

corresponding to the deflection y with the slope of the line indicated by the symbol Es.
Figure 4d shows the values of Es plotted as a function of x. In performing a computation,
the computer utilizes the computed values of Es and iterates until the differences in the
deflections for the last two computations are less than a specified tolerance. If desired,
bending moment along the beam column can be computed during iterations, using the
appropriate difference equation, and the value of EI can be computed and varied along
the beam column with each iteration.

Figure 4 Procedure for solving for response of a laterally loaded beam column

After deflections have been computed, difference equations can be employed to

compute rotation, bending moment, shear, and soil reaction as a function of x. The
number of iterations for a tolerance of 0.00025 mm is usually less than 20. A high-speed
computer can converge to a solution in less than one second of central-processor time.
Thus, if p-y curves are available, a solution to a given problem can be obtained with little
difficulty.
PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 7 of 17

4. Soil Response Curves

Soil-response curves have been obtained from several full-scale experiments. The
piles were instrumented for the measurement of bending moment as a function of depth.
Loads were applied in increments and a bending-moment curve was obtained for each
load. Two integrations of each curve yielded pile deflection and two differentiations
yielded soil reaction (Matlock and Ripperger, 1958). The cross-plotting of deflection and
soil resistance yielded experimental p-y curves.
Methods for predicting p-y curves have been worked out for soft clay (Matlock,
1970), for stiff clay below the water surface (Reese et al., 1975), for stiff clay above the
water table (Welch and Reese, 1972), and for rock (Nyman, 1980). Several authors have
made use of reports in the technical literature on instrumented tests and on
uninstrumented tests to make other recommendations (Parker and Reese, 1971; Sullivan,
1977; Bhushan et al., 1981, O'Neill and Murchison, 1984; O'Neill and Gazioglu, 1984).
Some modifications of standard p-y curves obtained for piles are necessary for
applications to flexural retaining walls. The following considerations should be included:
(1) the active-pressure condition will exist in the soil behind the wall above the dredge
line; (2) the p-y curves for a continuous wall are the same as those for closely-spaced
piles except that the p-values are reduced by a group-reduction factor based on the
spacing; and (3) the p-y curves for the wall below the dredge line may be constructed
initially by using the recommended values on the passive-pressure side (inside the wall)
and subtracting from the ultimate p-values the portion of the value of the active pressure
(outside the wall) due to the overburden pressure. The p-y curves should include the
effect of active pressure from the backfill side.

5. Validation Examples
5.1

EXAMPLE 1. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE ON SHEET PILE

Sheet pile wall sections are to be used to shore up the sides of a trench. This problem
was analyzed using Program PYWALL 2.0. The trench is 19.7 ft (6 m) wide and 20 ft

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 8 of 17

deep (6.1 m) (Fig. 5). It is embedded in two soil layers and the groundwater pumped out
of the excavation side. The contractor will place struts and wales at the height of the
water table (Fig. 6), which are assumed to compress no more than 0.2 in (5 mm).

+1.5 m
6m

0m

Sand, =0.9 T/m3

=25 o

6.1 m

-4.6 m
-5.1 m

Stiff Clay 2
Cu=6.0 T/m
2

Cu,ave=1.05 T/m 2
-16 m

Figure 5 Profile of Trench

Figure 6 Profile of Sheet Wall and Soil Layers

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 9 of 17

The sheet piles used to construct the wall are 49.6-in. (1.26 m) wide steel AZ26 sections,
with moment of inertia equal to 1680 in4 (69,940 cm4), elastic section modulus equal to
200 in3 (3,280 cm3), and area equal to 38.6 in2 (249 cm2). The wall was divided into 100
increments of 5-in. (127 mm) in length.

The program was asked to generate the

triangular-distribution earth pressure and the p-y curves. The soil input parameters are
provided in Table 1.
Table 1 Soil Input Parameters for Trench Sheet Wall Problem
Soil type

Sand
Stiff Clay

Layer
thickness
(in.)
260
429

Total Unit
Weight
(lbs/in3)
0.0686
0.0682

Cohesion
(lbs/in2)
0
8.68

Friction
Angle
(deg.)
25
0

E50

K
(lbs/in3)

0
0.007

20
300

A rough hand check of the earth pressure behind the wall at the bottom of the excavation
is done to check the program output. The depth of the soil above the water line is
approximately 4.9 ft. (1.5 m) and the depth below to the bottom of the excavation is
approximately 15.1 ft (4.6 m). The active earth factor, Ka, is calculated to be:
Ka = tan 2 (45 / 2) = tan 2 (45 25 / 2) = 0.406
Thus, the pressure behind the wall is:

lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
K a 118.5 3 4.9 ft + 56.1 3 15.1 ft + 62.4 3 15.1 ft = 1522 2 = 10.6 2
ft
ft
ft
ft
in

To determine the distributed load produced by the earth pressure, the pressure is
multiplied by the width of the sheet pile section, 49.6-in. (1.26 m), resulting in an earth
pressure of 525.8 lb/in. The maximum earth pressure at the bottom of the excavation
from the PYWALL output is 524 lb/ft (Fig. 7), which is in close agreement with the hand
computations.

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 10 of 17

Figure 7 Earth Pressure Distribution from PYWALL

Other output graphs from the PYWALL software are shown in Figs. 8 to 11. The
maximum deflection in the wall is 0.9 in. at a depth of approximately 18.5 ft. The
maximum moment of 3,030 in-kips occurs at a depth of 16.7 ft. Therefore, the maximum
stress in the section is:

max =

M 3030in kips
=
= 15.2kip / in 2
S
200in3

This stress is well below the maximum allowable stress of 50 kip/in2 for the sheet pile
section. The maximum shear (35.4 kips) and the maximum reaction (37.9 kips) per 49.6in. sheet wall unit occur at the height of the supports. The structural engineer will design
the struts and wales based on these results.

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 11 of 17

Figure 8 Deflection of Sheet Pile Wall from PYWALL

Figure 9 Bending Moment in Sheet Pile Wall from PYWALL

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 12 of 17

Figure 10 Shear in Sheet Pile Wall from PYWALL

Figure 11 Sheet Pile Wall Reaction from PYWALL

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 13 of 17

6. Concluding Comments
Several steps have been undertaken in-house by Ensoft to verify the output of
Program PYWALL. The user, if desired, may easily perform some of the elementary
computations shown below.
1. With regard to the static equilibrium of the lateral forces on a single pile, the
values of soil resistance can be computed and plotted along the length of the
pile. With the lateral loads at the top of the pile, a check on the equilibrium of
lateral forces can be made. A satisfactory check has been made by estimation;
a more comprehensive check can be made by use of numerical integration of
the distributed loads. The program will also conduct such checks internally to
ensure the equilibrium of forces.
2. The final internal check relates to the computed movement of the system. The
first step is to refer to the computer output to confirm that the distributed load
(soil resistance) and the distributed deflections along the length of the pile are
consistent with the associated p-y curves. If equations were used to compute
the values of p and y, it is necessary to interpret the equations at a sufficient
number of points to shown that the soil criteria for lateral load was followed.
The second step with respect to lateral load is to employ the diagram in Step 1
and to use principles of mechanics to ascertain that the deflection of the
individual piles was computed correctly.
While employing the steps shown above have confirmed the internal functioning
of Program PYWALL, the application of the program to results of field experiments is
useful. As noted earlier, the book by Reese & Van Impe (2001)1 presents a discussion of
the development of the methods used in Program PYWALL and applies the methods to
several cases. Although the program has been used with apparent success in many
analyses, new information is being developed and new versions may be written from time
to time. No warranty, expressed or implied, is offered as to the accuracy of results from
the program. The program should not be used for design unless caution is exercised in
interpreting the results and independent calculations are available to verify the general
1

Reese, L. C., & W. F. Van Impe, Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 2001, 463 pages.

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 14 of 17

correctness of the results. All users are requested to inform ENSOFT, INC. immediately
of any errors that are found in the coding for study and correction.
6.1

REFERENCES

American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and

Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, API Recommended Practice 2A (RP
2A), Seventeenth Edition, April 1, 1993.
Baguelin, F., J. F. Jezequel, and D. H. Shields, The Pressuremeter and Foundation
Engineering, Trans Tech Publications, 1978.
Bhushan, K., L. J. Lee, and D. B. Grime, Lateral Load Test on Drilled Piers in Sand,
Preprint, ASCE Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, October 26-30, 1981.
Broms, B. B., Design of Laterally Loaded Piles, Proceedings, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 91, No. SM3, May, 1965, pp. 77-99.
Det Norske Veritas and Riso National Laboratory, Guidelines for Design of Wind
Tunnels, 2001, 253 pages.
Det Norske Veritas, Rules for the Design, Construction, and Inspection of Offshore
Structures, Veritsveien 1, 1322 Hovek, Norway, 1977.
Federal Highway Administration, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems, Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 4, June 16, 1999.
George, P. and D. Wood, Offshore Soil Mechanics, Cambridge University Engineering
Department, 1977.
Georgiadis, M., "Development of p-y Curves for Layered Soils," Proceedings,
Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, April, 1983, pp. 536-545.
Jamiolkowski, M., Design of Laterally Loaded Piles, General Lecture, International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1977.
Matlock, H., "Correlations for Design of Laterally-Loaded Piles in Soft Clay," Paper No.
OTC 1204, Proceedings, Second Annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, Vol. 1, 1970, pp. 577-594.
Matlock, H. and A. T. Haliburton, "Finite-Element Method of Solution for Linearly
Elastic Beam Columns," Research Report No. 56-1, Center for Highway
Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, September, 1966.

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 15 of 17

Matlock, H. and W. B. Ingram, "Bending and Buckling of Soil Supported Structural

Elements," Paper No. 32, Proceedings, Second Pan American Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, July, 1963.
Matlock, H. and L. C. Reese, "Generalized Solution for Laterally Loaded Piles,"
Transactions, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 127, Part I, 1962, pp.
1220-1251.
Matlock, H. and E. A. Ripperger, Measurement of Soil Pressure on a laterally Loaded
Pile, Proceedings, American Society for Testing Materials, Vol. 58, 1958, pp.
1245-1259.
Nyman, K. J., Field Load Tests of Instrumented Drilled Shafts in Coral Limestone,
Unpublished Masters Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, May 1980, 181
pages.
ONeill, M. W. and S. M. Gazioglu, Evaluation of p-y Relationships in Cohesive Soil,
Proceedings, Symposium on Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations, ASCE,
San Francisco, October 1-5, 1984, pp. 192-213.
ONeill, M. W. and J. M. Murchison, Evaluation of p-y Relationships in Cohesionless
Soils, Proceedings, Symposium on Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations,
ASCE, San Francisco, October 1-5, 1984, pp. 174-191.
Parker, F., Jr. and L. C. Reese, "Lateral Pile-Soil Interaction Curves for Sand,"
Proceedings, The International Symposium on the Engineering Properties of SeaFloor Soils and Their Geophysical Identification, The University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, July, 1971.
Peck, R. B, Hanson, W.E. and T. H. Thornburn, Foundation Engineering, 2nd Edn,
Wiley, New York, 1974.
Poulos, H. G., and E. H. Davis, Pile Analysis Foundation and Design, Wiley, New York,
1980.
Price, G. and I. F. Wardle, "Lateral Load Tests on Large Diameter Bored Piles,"
Contractor Report 46, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of
Transport, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England, 1987, 45 pages.
Reese, L. C., "Analysis of a Bridge Foundation Supported by Batter Piles," Proceedings,
Fourth Annual Engineering and Geology and Soils Engineering Symposium,
Moscow, Idaho, April, 1966, pp. 61.
Reese, L. C., "The Analysis of Piles under Lateral Loading," Proceedings, Symposium
on the Interaction of Structure and Foundation, The Midland Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering Society, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
England, July, 1971, pp. 206-218.

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 16 of 17

Reese, L. C., Handbook on Design of Piles and Drilled Shafts under Lateral Load, a
report prepared for Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Research, Development and Technology, McLean, VA, FHWAIP-84-11, July, 1984, 360 pages.
Reese, L. C., W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop, "Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand,"
Paper No. OTC 2080, Proceedings, Fifth Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, 1974 (GESA Report No. D-75-9).
Reese, L. C., W. R. Cox, and F. D. Koop, "Field Testing and Analysis of Laterally
Loaded Piles in Stiff Clay," Paper No. OTC 2313, Proceedings, Seventh Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1975.
Reese, L. C. and H. Matlock, "Numerical Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles,"
Proceedings, Second Structural Division Conference on Electronic Computation,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1960, pp. 657.
Reese, L. C., and W. F. Van Impe, Single Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Loading,
Balkema, 2001, 463 pages.
Sullivan, W. R., Development and Evaluation of a Unified Method for the Analysis of
Laterally Loaded Piles in Clay, Unpublished Masters Thesis, The University of
Texas at Austin, May, 1977.
Tschebotarioff, G. P., Large scale earth pressure tests with model flexible bulkhead,
Final Report, Bureau of Yards and Dock, Department of Navy, pp 1-112, 1948.
Welch, R. C. and L. C. Reese, "Laterally Loaded Behavior of Drilled Shafts," Research
Report No. 3-5-65-89, conducted for Texas Highway Department and U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Public
Roads, by Center for Highway Research, The University of Texas at Austin, May,
1972.

PYWALL VALIDATION NOTES

Page 17 of 17