© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link].

org (ISSN-2349-5162)

EVALUATION OF COST MATRIX FOR

STEEL SHEET PILING
Amitabh Srivastava1

Abstract
With the advancement in underground construction, the construction technology for deep excavation is gaining importance.
Excavation support is generally required to be planned specifically when the depth of excavation exceeds 10 to 20 feet or if the
excavation is not sloppy. Excavation support systems help in minimizing the excavation area and to maintain the stability of the sides
of the deep excavation. Steel sheet piling is one of the earth retention system which is made up of long structural section that uses
steel sheets with interlocking edges to retain earth or water. Sheet pile walls have been used to support excavations for underground
parking structures, basements, pump houses, and foundations, to construct cofferdams, and to construct seawalls and bulkheads.
This paper describes the cost involved in the method of steel sheet piling to support the sandy soil with different site conditions. A
relationship between the cost and parameters like retention height, embedment depth, bending moment, section sizes is obtained
which could help in assessing the cost implication of steel sheet piling on the project, hence helping in the forecasting cost, both for
client and other building contractors.

Keywords: Earth retention system, Deep excavation, Cost analysis, Cantilever steel sheet pile, Anchored steel sheet pile,
Graphical relationships
-----------------------------------------------------------***------------------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION internally stabilized systems are those which reinforce the
soil to provide the necessary stability [2].
In order to accommodate the growing demands of parking
space, transportation facilities, housing, amusement spaces Some of the excavation support methods are:
etc., it is required to either go vertically up or down due to o Soldier piles
o Soil nailing
limitation of expanding horizontally. One of the major
challenges faced during deep excavation which requires o Diaphragm wall
engineering solution is to select suitable method to support o Sheet pile
the deep excavation.
II. STEEL SHEET PILE
Excavation support is generally required to be planned
specifically when the depth of excavation exceeds 10 to 20
Sheet piles walls are the retaining walls constructed to
feet or if the excavation is not sloppy [1]. Excavation
retain earth, water or any other material. These walls are
support for deep excavation means providing an additional
thinner in sections as compared to gravity or cantilever
support in the form of sheet pile, diaphragm wall, soldier
walls [3].
pile, soil nailing etc. that is required to stabilize the soil so
that the soil does not fall back into the excavation pit and Steel sheet piling are the long structural section which
obstruct the deep digging process. uses steel sheets with interlocking edges to retain earth
or water. Sheet pile walls have been used to support
Excavation support systems are required in order to excavations for below-grade parking structures,
minimize the excavation area and to maintain the stability basements, pump houses, and foundations, to construct
of the sides of the deep excavation. Excavation support cofferdams, and to construct seawalls and bulkheads.
system are also known as earth retaining structures. Permanent steel sheet piles are designed to provide a
long service life.
O’Rourke and Jones in 1990 classified earth retaining
structures into two categories namely externally stabilized Vibratory hammers are typically used to install sheet
systems and internally stabilized systems. piles. If soils are too hard or dense, an impact hammer
can be used to complete the installation. At certain sites
Externally stabilized systems are those that resist the applied where vibrations are a concern, the sheets can be
earth load by the virtue of their weight and stiffness whereas hydraulically pushed into the ground.

1 Amitabh Srivastava, MBEM, Department of Building Engineering & Management, School of Planning and Architecture, 4 block-B, Indraprastha Estate,
New Delhi-110002, India, email- [Link]@[Link]. Presently working as an Associate in Project Management vertical of Colliers International,
Gurgaon.

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 15

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Sheet piles could be made of recycled steel and the piles

can often be reused. Cold rolled sheet piling is less
expensive but provides less water resistance. Hot rolled
sheet piling is more traditional and provides better water
resistance. The common uses of sheet piles are:

• It supports excavation.

• Creation of barrier to the groundwater flow.

• Construct seawalls and bulkheads.

Figure 2: Anchored Sheet Pile
Some of the advantages of steel sheet are given below:
Braced sheeting in cuts are used when the depth pf
• It is relatively light weight. excavation is more than 4m, steel sheet piles are driven along
the length of the cut. As excavation proceeds, wales and
• It is easier to increase the pile length (either by
struts are inserted. The wales are made up of steel and struts
bolting or welding).
are made up of steel or wood. Excavation then proceeds to
• Its service life is comparatively more both lower level, and another set of wales and struts is installed
above and below the water table with modest (as shown in Figure 3). This process is repeated till the
protection. excavation reached the desired depth. It is advisable to drive
the sheet piles several meters below the bottom of the
• It is resistant to high driving stresses which excavation to prevent the local heaves.
might developed in rocky or hard materials.

• Moreover, steel sheet piles could be withdrawn

and reused.

A. Types of Sheet Piles

Steel sheet piles are classified on the basis of two types
(a) On the basis of mechanism of stability derived Figure 3: Braced Sheeting

(b) On the basis of shape of the pile. III. DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR STEEL
On the basis of mechanism of stability derived, the steel pile is SHEET PILE
divided into three categories namely cantilever steel sheet pile,
anchored steel sheet pile and braced steel sheet pile The loads governing the design of a sheet pile wall
Cantilever steel sheet pile are used when the height of the fill include applied forces from soils, water, surface
retained is small (<5m), sheet pile is simply driven into the surcharges and impact from external objects.
ground. It acts as a cantilever (as shown in Figure 1) and
therefore termed as cantilever sheet pile. The pile derived its Horizontal forces applied by soils include at-rest pressures,
stability from the portion below the dredge line. This active pressures and passive pressures. Water forces
embedded portion in the soil is termed as embedment depth. include hydrostatic pressures, which can occur due to
differential water levels on either side of the wall.

Surcharges include uniform or variable, strip or line and

point loads, which rest on the soil surface in the vicinity of
the wall and can increase the lateral pressures on the wall.

The design of a sheet pile retaining wall involves

the following steps:
• Evaluation of forces and lateral pressures acting
on the wall.
Figure 1: Cantilever Sheet Pile
• Determination of required depth of penetration
which is known as embedment depth.
When the height of the fill retained is relatively large, the
passive resistance of the soil in front of the embedded portion • Design of anchorage and waling system
of the sheet pile may not be sufficient to keep the wall stable. (if applicable).
To make the pile stable, it is held near the top using a tie bar • Calculation of maximum bending moments and
which is suitably anchored at some distance behind the wall. • Selection of the appropriate piling section based
This type of sheet pile is termed as anchored sheet pile or on allowable stresses.
anchored bulkhead (as shown in Figure 2). The use of anchor
tends to decrease lateral deflection, bending moment and the
depth of penetration of the pile [3]. In this paper, the result is obtained by using the renowned
geotechnical software ‘Tedds 2017’ by Tekla. This software is
used by most of the reputed consultants in the world for

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 16

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

the designing of earth retention structures. per their quotations.

Table I: Quotations of steel sheet pile as received from vendors

IV. COST ANALYSIS OF STEEL SHEET PILE

Cost analysis of steel sheet pile, here, refers to the cost

computation of the steel sheet pile for both cantilever and
anchorage condition in case of sandy soil only. The rates
used in the calculation are derived from the market based
on the quotation received from the vendors for the
specialized work. Four cases have been assumed for cost
calculation of steel sheet pile and based on these cases
V. ANALYSIS
conclusions were obtained.
For the purpose of analysis of cost the following four cases
A. Assumptions in the analysis
have been used. The embedment depth for the four cases
are computed for different retention height and suitable
• Four cases have been assumed for the designing section of the steel sheet pile is chosen.
of steel sheet pile and cost have been calculated
for these four cases only. Case 1: Sandy soil with no water table and surcharge
• Anchors are considered at a centre to centre
distance of 1m along the width of the sheet pile. Soil type: Dense sand
• The length of anchors is assumed to be 8m so that Bulk Density of soil in kN/m3 = 18
uniform base could be achieved for comparison. Submerged Density of soil in kN/m3 = 22
• Anchors are installed at an angle of 20˚ to Angle of internal friction = 30˚
the horizontal.
• Anchors are installed at a height of 1.5m from Case 2: Sandy soil with water table at 4m
the ground level.
• Waler beams are installed at the level of Soil type: Dense sand
anchors only. Bulk Density of soil in kN/m3 = 18
Submerged Density of soil in kN/m = 22
B. Cost assumed in analysis Angle of internal friction = 30˚
Depth of water table from ground level = 4m
• Rate of steel sheet pile is taken as ₹45/kg.
• Rate of anchor is taken as ₹49/kg. Case 3: Sandy soil with variable surcharge and no
• Rate of waler beam is assumed to be ₹45/kg. water table
• The crane used for holding the vibratory hammer for
the installation of steel sheet pile charges rent @ Soil type: Dense sand
₹2.5 lac to 3 lacs per month (i.e. 260 hours) for 4 Bulk Density of soil in kN/m3 = 18
tonnes capacity. This information is provided by Submerged Density of soil in kN/m3 = 22
Auskini Infraqp PVt. Ltd. Sector 5, Noida who are Angle of internal friction = 30˚
specialized vendor for the selling and renting of Surcharge as per IRC-6:2016 for adjacent road in kN/m2
heavy construction equipments. = 24
• The vibratory hammer used for the installation of
steel sheet pile charges rent @ 5 lacs per month Case 4: Sandy soil with variable surcharge and water
(i.e. 260 hours) for 4 tonnes capacity. This table at 4m
information is provided by Indigo Infra Delhi who
are the prime vendor for vibratory hammer Soil type: Dense sand
(selling and renting) in Delhi-NCR. Bulk Density of soil in kN/m3 = 18
• The productivity of vibratory hammer is assumed Submerged Density of soil in kN/m = 22
to be 0.6m/min (i.e. approx. 20 minutes for 12m Angle of internal friction = 30˚
installation) which includes lifting of steel pile, Depth of water table from ground level = 4m
placing in position and driving it to the desired Surcharge as per IRC-6:2016 for adjacent road in kN/m2
depth. Based on the length of the sheet pile, = 24
corresponding rent is calculated for the installation
on the basis of vibratory hammer productivity. Table II and Table XIII showing the results obtained from
• The cost of anchorage is taken as ₹6000/m which the design calculation of steel sheet pile for the four cases
• includes the labour and the machine cost. assumed. Furthermore, the results obtained from the cost
analysis are presented in the self-explanatory graphical
• The rates of steel sheet pile were taken from the
form from graph 1 to graph 4.
following vendors and is tabulated in Table 1 as

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 17

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Table II: Sandy soil with no water table and surcharge

Table III: Sandy soil with no water table and surcharge

Table IV: Waler beam sections used at anchorage locations

(for height of excavation of 6 to 11m)

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 18

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Table V: Sandy soil with water table only

Table VI: Sandy soil with water table only

Table VII: Waler beam sections used at anchorage locations

(for height of excavation of 4 to 12m)

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 19

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Table VIII: Sandy soil with surcharge only

Table IX: Sandy soil with surcharge only

Table X: Waler beam sections used at anchorage locations

(for height of excavation of 5 to 11m)

Table XI: Sandy soil with surcharge and water table only

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 20

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Table XII: Sandy soil with surcharge and water table only

Table XIII: Waler beam sections used at anchorage locations

(for height of excavation of 5 to 11m)

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 21

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Graph 1: Graph showing relationship between the retention height and

the associated cost for sandy soil with no surcharge and water table

Graph 2: Graph showing relationship between the retention height and

the associated cost for sandy soil with water table

Graph 3: Graph showing relationship between the retention height and

the associated cost for sandy soil with surcharge

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 22

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Graph 4: Graph showing relationship between the retention height and

the associated cost for sandy soil with surcharge and water table

The results obtained from the calculations of the four cases XIV and XV) for both cantilever and anchorage steel sheet
assumed are summarized in the matrix form (as shown in table pile and are given below.

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 23

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Table XIV: Comparative

Matrix for Cantilever Steel
Sheet Pile

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 24

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

Table XV: Comparative Matrix

for Anchorage Steel Sheet Pile

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 25

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 [Link] (ISSN-2349-5162)

VI. CONCLUSION • By providing anchorage sheet pile for the retention

height of 6m, it is observed that the approximate
saving in cost is 40% as compared to cost of cantilever
On the basis of the analysis done following conclusions are
derived for different cases as discussed below sheet pile.

Case 1: Sandy soil with no surcharge and water table In general, following conclusions can be derived from the
analysis done:
• In case of sandy soil with no surcharge and water
table, it is observed that the cantilever sheet pile is cost • Cantilever sheet piles are found to be cost effective up
effective only up to a retention height of 5m. to a retained height of 4m to 5m.
• Anchored sheet piles are observed to be cost effective
• By providing anchorage sheet pile for the retention
up to a retained height of 9m to 11m.
height of 6m, it is observed that the approximate
saving in cost is 20% as compared to the cost of • Comparative matrix is developed based on the cost
cantilever sheet pile. analysis performed for different conditions.
• These matrices could be used to understand the
Case 2: Sandy soil with water table at 4m variation of embedment depth, maximum bending
moment, sections used and the associated cost for
• In case of sandy soil with water table at 4m and no different soil conditions.
surcharge, it is observed that the increase in cost from • These matrices could be used for developing
retention height of 3m to 4m (retention height is equal preliminary estimates, bidding etc.
to the depth of ground water table) is more than twice.
It is because of the additional lateral pore water VII. REFERENCES
pressure exerted by the soil.
• Cantilever sheet pile is observed to be cost effective [1] P. K. M. Nemati, "Temporary Structures: Excavations
only up to a retention height of 5m. and Excavation," UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
• By providing anchorage sheet pile for the retention WASHINGTON, 2007.
height of 6m, it is observed that the approximate [2] M.-c. R. Y. W. A. K. Donald P. Coduto, Geotechnical
saving in cost is 25% as compared to the cost of Engineering Principles and Practises, second ed.,
cantilever sheet pile. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2011.
[3] S. Saran, Analysis and Design of substructures- Limit
Case 3: Sandy soil with variable surcharge and no water table state design, Second ed., New Delhi: Oxford and IBH
Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd., 2012.
• In case of sandy soil with variable surcharge (due to
vehicular traffic), it is observed that the increase in cost
[4] P. D. M. Dr. Amlan K Sengupta, Prestressed Concrete
from retention height of 3m to 4m is more than twice.
Structures, Madras: Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, 2013.
• Cantilever sheet pile is observed to be cost effective
only up to a retention height of 4m.
• By providing anchorage sheet pile for the retention
height of 5m, it is observed that the approximate OTHER REFERENCES
saving in cost is 23% as compared to the cost of
cantilever sheet pile. 1) IS code 2314:1986 (Reaffirmed 2003) Specifications
• By providing anchorage sheet pile for the retention for steel sheet pile sections
height of 6m, it is observed that the approximate
saving in cost is 35% as compared to the cost of 2) IRC 6:2016 - standard specifications and Code of
cantilever sheet pile. practice for Road bridges, Indian Road congress,
December 2016
Case 4: Sandy soil with variable surcharge and water table at 4m
• In case of sandy soil with water table at 4m and variable 3) Broms, B. B., 1988. Design and Construction of
surcharge, it is observed that the increase in cost from Anchored and Strutted Sheet Pile Walls in Soft Clay.
retention height of 3m to 4m (retention height is equal to Singapore, Missouri University of Science and
the depth of ground water table) is more than twice. It is Technology, Scholar's Mine.
because of the additional lateral pore water pressure
exerted by the soil and the variable surcharge. 4) Howard A. Perko, J. J. B., 2008. Lateral Earth
• Cantilever sheet pile is observed to be cost effective Pressure on Lagging in Soldier Pile Wall Systems.
only up to a retention height of 4m. DFI Journal, 2(1), pp. 46-54.
• By providing anchorage sheet pile for the retention
height of 5m, it is observed that the approximate
saving in cost is 23% as compared to cost of cantilever
sheet pile.
12

JETIRDH06002 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) [Link] 26