Lecture 33

NPTEL Course
GROUND
IMPROVEMENT
GROUND REINFORFEMENT
USING SOIL NAILING

Prof. G L Sivakumar Babu

Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012
Email: [email protected]
 Definition
 Soil nailing consists of the passive
reinforcement of existing ground
by installing closely spaced steel
bars (i.e., nails), which may be
subsequently encased in grout.
 As construction proceeds from the
top to bottom, shotcrete or
concrete is also applied on the
excavation face to provide
continuity.
 In a soil-nailed retaining wall, the
properties and material behaviour
of three components—the native
soil, the reinforcement (nails) and
the facing element—and their
mutual interactions significantly
affect the performance of the
structure.
 Origin and Development

The origin of soil nailing can be traced to a support system for

underground excavations in rock referred to as the New Austrian
Tunneling Method (Rabcewicz, 1964a, 1964b, 1965). This tunneling
method consists of the installation of passive steel reinforcement in
the rock (e.g., rockbolts) followed by the application of reinforced
shotcrete.
 One of the first applications of soil nailing was in 1972 for a
railroad widening project near Versailles, France, where an
18 m (59 ft) high cut-slope in sand was stabilized using soil
nails (Rabejac and Toudic 1974). Clouterre research
program, (Schlosser 1983; Clouterre 1993) is another step.
 In Germany, the first use of a soil nail wall was in 1975
(Stocker et al. 1979). The first major research program on
soil nail walls was undertaken in Germany from 1975
through 1981 by the University of Karlsruhe and the
construction company Bauer. (Gassler and Gudehus 1981;
Schlosser and Unterreiner 1991).
 In US, the first FHWA document on soil nailing was issued
through FHWA’s Office of Research and Development
(Elias and Juran 1991). Updated version of above FHWA
soil nailing manual was made public in 2003 (Carlos et al.
2003).
 In India use of soil nailing technology is gradually
increasing and guidelines have been made by IRC with the
help of Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
 Favorable (Un-) Ground Conditions

 Critical excavation depth of soil is about 1m – 2m (3 to 6 ft) high

vertical or nearly vertical cut.

 All soil nails within a cross section are located above the
groundwater table and if the soil nails are below the groundwater
table, the groundwater does not adversely affect the face of the
excavation, the bond strength of the interface between the grout and
the surrounding ground, or the long-term integrity of the soil nails
(e.g., the chemical characteristics of the ground do not promote
corrosion).

 Favorable Soils : Stiff to hard fine –grained soils, Dense to very

dense granular soils with some apparent cohesion, Weathered rock
with no weakness planes and Glacial soils etc.

 Unfavorable Soils : Dry, poorly graded cohesion less soils, Soils

with high groundwater, Soils with cobbles and boulders, Soft to very
soft fine-grained soils, Organic soils etc.
Advantages

Requires smaller right of way.

Construction is less disruptive to traffic.

Causes less environmental impact.

Relatively fast in construction and uses typically less construction

materials and hence, economic.
Limitations
The occurrence of utilities may place restrictions on the location,
inclination, and length of soil nails (particularly in the upper rows).

Soil nail walls are not well-suited where large amounts of groundwater
seeps into the excavation because of the requirement to maintain a
temporary unsupported excavation face.

Construction of soil nail walls requires specialized and experienced

contractors.
Components of Soil Nail Wall
Construction Method
Applications
Applications
 Small and Large Scale Field Studies

 Stocker et al. (1979)  Kakurai and Hori (1990)

 Shen et al. (1981a, b)  Stocker and Riedinger
(1990)
 Shen et al. (1982)
 Nanda (1995)
 Gassler and Gudehus (1981)  Kim et al. (1995)
 Gassler (1988)  Kim et al. (1996)
 Juran (1985)  Yamamota et al. (2001)
 Kitamura et al. (1988)  Morgan (2002)
 Plumelle et al. (1990)  Menkiti and Long (2008)
 Plumelle and Schlosser (1990)  Li et al. (2008)
and many more….
 Studies on Analyses and Design
Aspects

Schlosser (1982) Juran et al. (1992a, b)

Gassler and Gudehus (1983) Jewell and Pedley (1992)
Blondeau et al. (1984) Kirsten and Dell (1992)
Sano et al. (1988) Kirsten (1992)
Juran and Chen (1989) Sabahit et al. (1995)
Bridle (1989) Bang et al. (1996)
Jewell and Pedley (1990a, b) Patra (1998)
Juran et al. (1990a, b) Bang and Nyaz (2001)
Long et al. (1990) Joshi (2003)
Jewell and Pedley (1990a-b, 1991) Sheahan and Ho (2003)
Leshchinsky (1990) Patra and Basudhar (2005)
Schlosser (1991) Mittal (2006)
and many more….
 Studies on Soil-Nail Interaction
(Pullout Behaviour)
Juran et al. (1983) Junaideen et al. (2004)
Palmeira (1987) Chu and Yin (2005a, b)
Tei (1993) Chai and Hayashi (2005)
Bridle and Davies (1997) Yin and Su (2006)
Pradhan et al. (2006)
Milligan and Tei (1998)
Su et al. (2007)
Morris (1999) Su et al. (2008)
Luo et al. (2000) Tan et al. (2008)
Tan et al. (2000) Zhou and Yin (2008)
Luo et al. (2002) Yin et al. (2009)
Hong et al. (2003) Zhang et al. (2009)
and many more….
 Studies on Numerical Studies on Seismic
Analyses and Modelling Stability and Performance

Sawicki et al. (1988) Sabahit et al. (1996)

Lee et al. (1995) Tatsuoka et al. (1996)
Kim et al. (1997) Vucetic et al. (1998)
Briaud and Lim (1997) Tufenkjian and Vucetic (2000)
Smith and Su (1997) Vucetic et al. (2001)
Zhang et al. (1999) Takahashi et al. (2001)
Ng and Lee (2002) Hong et al. (2005)
Sivakumar Babu et al. (2002) Saran et al. (2005)
Tan et al. (2005) and few more….
Cheuk et al. (2005)
Fan and Luo (2008)
and few more….
Studies on Application Studies Based on
Case Histories Reliability Analysis
Tan et al. (1988) Yaun et al. (2003)
Wong et al. (1997)
Maric et al. (2001)
Murthy et al. (2002)
Turner and Jensen (2005)
Sivakumar Babu et al. (2007)
Yang (2007)
and few more….
 Soil Nailing International Codes and
Standards
UK Codes and Standards

 BS 8006: 1995, BS 8002: 1994, BS 8081: 1989

 TRL Report 380 (1993)
 HA 68/94 (reinforced highway slopes)
 RT/CE/S/071 (2002) (design of earthworks & earthwork remediations)

Other International Codes and Standards

 Eurocode – EC7
 Euronorme – prEN 14490 (execution of special geotechnical works – soil
nailing)
 France – Recommendations Clouterre (1991)
 USA – FHWA manual for design & construction monitoring of soil
nail walls (1998 and 2003)
 Scandinavia – Nordic handbook (2002)
 Hong Kong – Watkins & Powell (1992) and many GEO publications
 Hong Kong - GEOGUIDE (2008)
 Conventional analysis and design Method

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has documented

comprehensive information on the analysis, design, and
construction of soil nail walls in highway engineering
applications in its technical manual FHWA (2003) entitled

“Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 – Soil Nail Walls”.

FHWA. (2003). Geotechnical engineering circular No. 7 - soil nail walls.

Report FHWA0-IF-03-017, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington D. C.
 FHWA (2003)

Principal failure modes of soil nail walls

 Global Stability Failure

Minimum recommended factor of

safety for global stability, FSG

Permanent
Temporary walls
Walls

Static Seismic Static Seismic

1.35 1.10 1.35 1.10

 R  cL  Teq cos    i    W  QT  Fv  cos   Teq sin    i   Fh sin   tan 

FSG 
F

D  W  QT  Fv  sin   Fh cos 
  45    / 2  (Sheahan and Ho 2003; FHWA 2003)
n
1
Teq [kN/ m] 
Sh
 T 
j1
all j
Tall  min.of R T and R P

 R P z  kN    D L P q u  /1000  R   kN    0.25d f  /1000

T z
2
y
 Sliding Stability Failure

 R c B   W  Q  F  Psin   tan  Minimum recommended factor of

 
b L T v eq b
FSSL safety for sliding stability, FSSL
 D F  Pcos  h eq

Temporary walls Permanent Walls

H12  2q  cos     k 
P K 1  k v  1  S     tan 1  h 
2  H1  cos        1  kv 
Static Seismic Static Seismic
cos2      
K 2
 sin(  )sin(     )  1.30 1.10 1.50 1.10
cos  cos  cos       1 
2

 cos       cos(  ) 
 Nail Soil Pullout Failure

 R P z  Q u L P z
 FSP z  
 Tmax z  Tmax z

 Tmax z  K(qs  z)SHSV

Minimum recommended factor of
safety for pullout failure, FSP
Qu  q u DDH
Temporary walls Permanent Walls

Static Seismic Static Seismic

 (H  z)cos(  ) 
(L P )z  m   L   
 cos  sin(   i) 
2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50
 Nail Tensile Strength Failure

 R T z
 FST z 
 Tmax z

Minimum recommended factor of

safety for pullout failure, FST where: RT = Atfy = maximum
axial tensile load capacity of
Temporary walls Permanent Walls nail

At = c/s area of nail

Static Seismic Static Seismic

fy = yield strength of nail

1.80 1.35 1.80 1.35
 R FP
R FF FSFP 
FSFF  To
To

Minimum recommended factor of safety (FHWA 2003)

Static loading Seismic loading

Failure mode
Temporary Permanent Both temporary and
walls walls permanent walls

Facing flexure failure, FSFF 1.35 1.50 1.10

Facing punching shear failure,

1.35 1.50 1.10
FSFP
 DESIGN OF 7 m HIGH SOIL NAIL WALL

INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(a) Vertical height of wall: H = 7 m
(b) Face batter: α = 0.0 degrees; Backslope angle: β = 0.0
degrees
(c) Nailing type: Driven
(d) Soil nail spacing: Sh = Sv = 0.5 m
(e) Soil nail inclination: i = 25 degrees
(f) Soil nail material: Grade Fe 415; fy = 415 MPa
(g) Soil properties:
Soil type: Dense to very dense sands;
Cohesion: c = 0 kPa;
Friction angle:φ=28o ;
Unit weight: γ=17kN/m3.
Ultimate bond strength (from field pullout test):
Q u 3
q u [kPa ] = = = 47 . 75
π × 0 . 02 π × 0 . 02

(h) Surcharge: qs = 0.0 kPa

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
a) Determine maximum axial force Tmax
Maximum axial tensile force Tmax developed is
given by

T max [kN ]= K a ( q s + γ H )s h s v
1 sin φ 1 sin 28
Where; Ka = = = 0.36
1+ sin φ 1+ sin 28

T max [kN ] = 0.36(0 + 17 × 7)0.5 × 0.5 = 10.71

(b) Determine minimum nail length L and
nail diameter d
Factor of safety of against nail tensile failure

FST = 1.80,

The required cross-sectional area At of the nail

bar can be determined as:
Tmax FST 10.711000 1.80
At mm  
2
  46.45
fy 415
Select reinforcement bar of diameter d = 20 mm
providing cross sectional area At = 314 mm2 (>
46.45 mm2).
Minimum length of soil nail L is adopted as the
maximum of L1 and L2:
L 
H  S v 1 c o s 

2 T1
s i n   i   d q
1
u

Here: qu = 47.75 kPa; d = 20 mm; T1 = 0.38 kN

L1 
 7  0.25 cos59

2  0.38
 3.86 m
sin  59 15  0.02  47.75

L2 = 0.6 x 7 = 4.20 m
Hence, adopt nail length: L = 4.20 m
Summary: Adopt driven soil nails of 20 mm
diameter and 4.20 m length
CHECK FOR IMPORTANT FAILURE MODES

Global Stability:
Determination of equivalent nail force Teq
R P  kN  d LP q u   0.02  LP  47.75  3LP

 H  z c o s  
L m   L   
s i n   i  
P


d 2 f y  20 2  415
R T  kN     130.37
4  1000 4  1000
Allowable axial force carrying capacity Tall [kN] of nail
embedded at depth z is the minimum of RP and RT.
For Sh = 0.5 m, equivalent nail force Teq can be
determined as:
n
1 1
Teq  kN / m  
Sh
 T 
j1
all j

0.5
 100.27  200.54

Here: n = 14 and is obtained from Table 1.

Table 1: Allowable axial force carrying capacity of
nails at different levels
Effective
pullout Nail pullout Nail tensile Allowable axial force
Nail No. j Depth of length Lp capacity RP capacity RT carrying capacity of
(from top) nail z [m] [m] [kN] [kN] nail Tall [kN]
1 0.25 0.7 2.11 130.37 2.11
2 0.75 0.96 2.89 130.37 2.89
3 1.25 1.22 3.66 130.37 3.66
4 1.75 1.48 4.43 130.37 4.43
5 2.25 1.74 5.21 130.37 5.21
6 2.75 2.00 5.99 130.37 5.99
7 3.25 2.26 6.77 130.37 6.77
8 3.75 2.51 7.54 130.37 7.54
9 4.25 2.77 8.32 130.37 8.32
10 4.75 3.03 9.10 130.37 9.10
11 5.25 3.29 9.88 130.37 9.88
12 5.75 3.55 10.66 130.37 10.66
13 6.25 3.81 11.43 130.37 11.43
14 6.75 4.07 12.21 130.37 12.21
1 4

 T
j 1
a ll j  100.27
Determination of weight of failure wedge W

Weight of failure wedge can be determined as:

W kN/ m  0.5H2 cot 

W kN/ m  0.51772 cot59  250.26

Global stability safety factor FSG under static

conditions is given by

Teq cos    i    W  QT  cos   Teq sin    i   tan 

FSG 
 W  QT  sin 
200.54cos 59  25   250.26 cos59  200.54sin  59  25  tan28
FSG   1.37
 250.26 sin59
Sliding stability
Factor of safety for sliding stability of soil nail wall
FSSL in static condition is given by:
c b BL   W  QT  PA sin   tan b
FSSL 
PA cos 

For static case total active lateral earth pressure

PA can be determined as:
1 0.36 17 72
PA  kN/m  Ka H2  149.94
2 2

W [kN/m] = Unit weight x Area of sliding wedge =17 x

(7 x 4.2) = 499.8
QT [kN/m] = Surcharge load x Length AD = qs x BL =
0 x 4.2 = 0
 FSSL 
 0  4.2   499.8 149.94sin0 tan28
 1.77
149.94cos0
Soil nail pullout failure

For any particular nail embedded at depth z, factor

of safety against pullout failure FSP can be
obtained as:
R 
(FS P )z   P 
 T z

T kN  0.36 (0 176.75) 0.50.5  10.33

 12.21 
(FSP )z 6.75     1.18
 10.33 
Soil nail tensile strength failure
Factor of safety against nail tensile strength failure
FST for any nail embedded at depth z can be
obtained as:
R 
 FS T z  T
 T z

d2fy  202  415

RT  kN    130.37
4 1000 4 1000

 1 3 0 .3 7 
( F S T ) z  6 .7 5     1 2 .5 9
 1 0 .3 3 
 Table 2: FSP and FST of soil nails.

Factor of safety
Nail No. j (from Depth of nail z against pullout Factor of safety against nail
top) [m] failure FSP tensile strength failure FST
1 0.25 5.51 Very high
2 0.75 2.51 Very high
3 1.25 1.91 Very high
4 1.75 1.66 Very high
5 2.25 1.51 Very high
6 2.75 1.42 Very high
7 3.25 1.36 Very high
8 3.75 1.31 Very high
9 4.25 1.28 Very high
10 4.75 1.25 Very high
11 5.25 1.23 Very high
12 5.75 1.21 Very high
13 6.25 1.19 13.6
14 6.75 1.18 12.59
SHOTCRETE (TEMPORARY) FACING DESIGN AND
CHECKS

Step 1: Calculate design nail head tensile force at

the face To
For Tmax = 10.71 kN; and Smax =0.5 m, nail head
tensile force at the wall face To can be obtained
as:

To  kN Tmax 0.60.2(Smax 1) 10.710.60.2(0.51) 5.35

Step 2: Adopt wall facing thickness

Temporary facing thickness h: 50 mm
 Step 3: Adopt appropriate facing materials
(a) Steel reinforcement: Grade Fe 415 with
characteristic strength: fy = 415 MPa
(b) Concrete/shotcrete: Grade M20 with
characteristic compressive strength: fck = 20
MPa
(c) Welded wire mesh (temporary facing): WMM
102 x 102–MW19 x MW19
.
(d) Horizontal and vertical waler bars (temporary
facing): 2 x 10 mm diameter, (fy = 415 MPa, Avw
= Ahw = 2 x 78 = 156 mm2) in both directions.

(e) Bearing plate (temporary facing): Grade 250 (fy

=250 MPa); Shape: Square; Length: LBP = 225
mm; Thickness: tp = 25 mm
Step 4: Checks for facing reinforcement
Determine the minimum and the maximum
reinforcement ratios as:
f ck  MPa  20
 min  %   20  20  0.21
f y  MPa  415

fck  MPa   600  20  600 

max  %   50    50    1.42
f y  MPa   600  f y  MPa   415  600  415 

 In addition the ratio of the reinforcement in the

nail head and mid-span zones should be less
than 2.5 to ensure comparable ratio of flexural
capacities in theses areas.
Step 5: Verify facing flexural resistance RFF
Calculate facing flexural resistance RFF as:

CF S 
R FF  kN    a vn  a vm  mm2 / m   h h  m   f y  MPa 
265  Sv 

2
R FF  kN    472.4  1  0.05   415  74
265

 Safety factor against facing flexural failure FSFF

is given by
R FF 74
F S FF    1 3 .8 3
To 5 .3 5
Step 6: Verify facing punching shear resistance RFP

Facing punching shear capacity RFP is given by:

R FP  kN  330 fck  MPa  Dc'  m hc  m

Here: fck = 20 MPa;

hc = h = 0.05 m;
Dc’= LBP + h = 225 + 50 = 275 mm = 0.275 m

RFP  kN  330 20 0.2750.05  63.75

R FP 63.75
FS FP    11.91
To 5.35
 Table 3: Summary of factors of safety for various
failure modes
Failure mode Remarks Factor of safety
Global FSG -- 1.37
Sliding FSSL -- 1.77
1.18 (increases to 3 if
Pull-out resistance grouted nails (30 kN/m)
FSP Minimum at 1m spacing are used.

Nail bar tensile

strength FST Minimum 12.59

Facing flexure FSFF Temporary facing 13.83

Facing punching
FSFP Temporary facing 11.91
Table 4: Summary of temporary facing design (All
dimensions are in mm)
Element Description Temporary facing
Thickness h 50
General Facing type Shotcrete
Concrete grade M20
Type Welded wire mesh (WWM)
Reinforcement Steel grade Fe415
Denomination 102 x 102 – MW19 x MW19

Other reinforcement Type Waler bars 2 - 10 b/w

Type Square
Bearing plate Steel Fe250
Dimensions 225 x 225 x 25
E1
E2
E3

E4
E5

Typical Example of Soil Nail Wall Simulation

15 noded triangular elements

Coarse mesh density in general and fine to

very fine in soil nail wall zone.
Briaud and Lim
(2003)
Elastic plate structural elements to simulate
nails and facings.

Mohr-Coulomb model to simulate soil

behaviour.
2D ok if R i / Sh  1

3D ok if R i / Sh  1

For most soiling applications in

practice, radius of the influence
area Ri is approximately equal to
0.4 times the length of the nail.

R i  0.4L
Tan et al. (2005)
For example:

Wang and Richwein

2002

Junaideen et al.
2004

Pradhan et al. 2006

Gosavi et al. 2008

 Strength Reduction Technique
 In this method the strength parameters 'tan φ’and 'cohesion c' of the soil are
successively and simultaneously reduced until failure of the structure occurs
(equation 1).

 The parameters with the subscript 'input' refer to the input properties and
parameters with the subscript 'reduced' refer to the reduced properties used
in the analysis. This ratio is set to 1.0 at the start of a calculation to set all
material strengths to their actual values. These values with subscript
'reduced' are successively reduced until failure of the structure occurs. At this
point the factor of safety is given by equation 2.

tan input c input

  1.0 …(1.)
tan reduced c reduced

available strength
FS  …(2.)
strength at failure
Simulated wall
Study on Implications of using Advanced
Soil Models
MC – Mohr Coulomb model
HS – Hardening soil model (Schanz et al. 1999)
HSsmall – Hardening soil with small strain stiffness (Benz 2007)
Phi/c reduction technique used in the present computational code has the
limitation of accounting stress dependent stiffness and hardening behaviour of
soils. Therefore, a similar response.
MC-model over-estimates the base
heave (Brinkgreve et al. 2006;
Callisto et al. 1999).

May be attributed to the

consideration of linear elastic pre-
failure soil behavior assumed in
MC-model formulation.

Advanced soil models shall be

preferred in soft soil conditions.

This aspect may be useful from the

consideration of stability of soil nail
walls during construction stages.

HSsmall model predicts excavation

heave even lesser than HS-model
attributing to the role of increased
stiffness of soils at small strains
(Brinkgreve 2006; Benz 2007)
Upto 60% CS, MC > HS and HSsmall. Beyond 60% CS, HS > HSsmall > MC.

Possibly due to a hyperbolic stress-strain relationship with control of stress level

dependency of soil stiffness in advanced models.

Unlike, advanced models, MC model has fixed yield surface in the principal stress
space, which do not account for plastic straining due to the increasing construction
stages.
Similar response of the maximum axial force developed in soil nails.

MC-model predicts slightly conservative estimate of axial force development.

 Implications of Consideration of Bending
Stiffness of Soil Nails

Plate structural element can be used

to perform analysis of soil nail walls
considering bending stiffness of soil
nails as they require both axial
stiffness EA and bending stiffness EI
as the main material parameters.

Geogrid structural elements can be

used to model soil nails with
considering bending stiffness of soil
nails as they require only axial
stiffness EA as the main input
parameter

Trend of global factor of safety

of soil nail wall with
construction stage Using MC soil model
 Almost same lateral displacements
observed.

The bending and shear capacities of

soil nail start mobilising with increasing
construction stages.
Tmax in nails simulated using
geogrid elements is found to
be 15% more than plate.

Very similar response

Seismic Analysis Soil Nail Walls

 Soil nail walls reported to have performed

remarkably well during high intensity earthquakes
(Felio et al. 1990; Vucetic et al. 1998; Tatsuoka et
al. 1997; Tufenkjian 2000).

 In order to study the performance of soil nail walls

in seismic conditions, a typical soil nail wall of 8 m
height is conventionally designed using allowable
stress design approach presented in FHWA (2003).

 Conventionally designed soil nail wall is then

simulated under static and seismic (pseudo-static
and time history data) conditions.
Ground acceleration time histories for
three earthquakes
In general a very similar
response

Upper nails (top two or three):

more for the pseudo-static

Lower nails: very close for both

pseudo-static and time history
data
In general a very similar response

Very conservative for the pseudo-static

Tolerable seismically induced

displacement corresponds to 0.63-1.25%
of H (FHWA 2003)
Original L = 4.70 m
 Conclusions
 Conventional design procedure using FHWA (2003) provides a safe but
conservative design.

 Provision of facing results in the significant improvement of the stability and

performance of soil nail walls.

 Intermittent facing with a small offset in each construction stage is found to

be more effective in reducing the lateral deformation of soil nail walls than
regular continuous vertical facing.

 For soil nail walls with rigid facing the axial force developed at the head (i.e.
at facing end) of a given soil nail is generally 80-90% of the maximum axial
force developed in it.

 In addition to the peak seismic acceleration, the overall stability (i.e. external
as well as internal) and performance of the soil nail walls is dependant on the
other spectral properties (e.g., strong motion duration and peak
displacement) of the time history data of an earthquake.

 Pseudo-static analyses is found to provide conservative estimate of

displacements and factor of safety values.