Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 28, No.

5
Paper ID GTJ12212
Available online at: www.astm.org

Lok-Man Chu1 and Jian-Hua Yin2

A Laboratory Device to Test the Pull-Out

Behavior of Soil Nails

ABSTRACT: Soil nailing is an in situ soil reinforcing technique adopted for stabilizing existing slopes in Hong Kong and in many other countries
and regions. For the design of a soil nail system, pull-out capacity of a soil nail is an important design parameter. Field pull-out tests are then carried
out to verify the pull-out resistance assumed at the design stage. However, the pull-out capacity of a soil nail in the field is influenced by a number
of factors, such as variation in the soil properties, variation in the installation procedures, types of soil nail, and stress levels. Thus, field testing has
a number of limitations. To overcome the limitations, a new laboratory pull-out testing apparatus was developed to investigate the interface shear
strength behavior of the soil nails and surrounding soil. A numerical analysis was carried out to assess the initial stress conditions in the laboratory
pull-out test box. A series of laboratory pull-out tests was performed with a cement grouted nail in a Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG) soil.
It is aimed at studying the influence of overburden pressure, soil degree of saturation, and surface roughness of soil nail on the interface shear
strength. The results indicate that the curves for pull-out tests exhibit a significant peak and post-peak shear strength behavior. And the interface
shear strength between the nail and soil is shown to be dependent on the normal stress, the soil degree of saturation, and the surface roughness of
the nail. A correlation of the interface shear strength with major influencing factors is then derived for practice design applications. The findings in
this study may be a useful reference for geotechnical engineering in soil nailing design and constructions and for better understanding of the soil
nail pull-out performance in the soil.

KEYWORDS: soil nailing, interface shear strength, degree of saturation, surface roughness, slope

Introduction b. After drill hole is formed in the soil slope, the stresses in
the hole are zero (or released). Cement grouting a rebar
Soil nailing, defined as the inclusion of a slender unstressed re-
in the center of the hole is normally done under gravity
inforcement into an in situ soil mass, has been widely used in
(no pressure grouting in Hong Kong). The contact stress
slope stabilization in Hong Kong and other places during the past
between a cement grout and the surrounding soil is very
two decades due to its technical and economical advantages over
small and is unknown.
conventional methods such as mechanically stabilized earth walls,
c. The curing time of the cement grout is normally seven
sheet piles, and steep slopes. One of the most important parameters
days in Hong Kong before field pull-out testing. The ce-
governing the design and safety assessment of soil nailing is the
ment grout might not have enough strength before pull-out
ultimate shear strength at the interface between soil nails and the
testing. In other words, a failure between the cement grout
surrounding soil. However, the interface shear strength of a soil
and the rebar might occur, not achieving the goal of testing
nail is depending on a number of influencing factors, such as, soil
the interface between the cement grout and the surrounding
conditions (dry, wet), soil nail surface (roughness), and stress con-
soil.
ditions, etc. In current practice, this parameter is estimated from an
2. Nonworst testing condition for verifying soil nail pull-out
assumed skin friction on the interface between the soil nail and soil,
performance:
and is then verified by field pull-out tests during the construction
The field pull-out testing is normally carried out in the no-
stage (Powell and Watkins 1990). However, the field pull-out tests
rain weather condition. The soil is normally unsaturated or
have a number of limitations in the following two areas:
in a natural wet condition. However, the worst condition for
the soil nail is a fully or near-fully water saturated condition.
1. Uncertain field testing conditions:
Thus, the results of the field pull-out tests may not be very
a. Vertical and lateral stresses are normally calculated using
useful for verifying the soil nail pull-out performance in the
the overburden soil pressures (or stresses). This calcula-
worst condition.
tion is questionable since the vertical (or normal) stress on
the soil nail is normally not equal to the overburden soil
pressure for a sloping ground. Due to the above uncertainties, data from field pull-out tests are
very scattered and very difficult to understand. Laboratory pull-
Received September 23, 2003; Accepted for publication January 18, 2005; out tests can overcome the above limitations. Recently, researchers
published September 2005. have tried to investigate the interface shear strength behavior of
1 Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytech-
soil nail in laboratory pull-out model tests. Schlosser and Guilloux
nic University, Hun Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
2 Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong (1981), Cartier and Gigan (1983), Heymann et al. (1992), Heymann
Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China. Email: (1993), Berglund et al. (1996), and Franzen (1998) performed a
[email protected] series of field pull-out tests by using different types of driven nails

Copyright © 2005 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
1
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

and grouted nails. The scatter in the testing results was reported regular surface nails, respectively. The nails with irregular surface
and was due to influence factors in the field. Recently, Chang and were created by a diamond steel plate scratching on the drillhole
Milligan (1996), Milligan and Tei (1998), Franzen (1998), and Lee surface in the drilling process (see Fig. 2). A 32-mm-diameter
et al. (2001) conducted laboratory pull-out tests of steel bars and ribbed steel bar was centralized in the drillhole horizontally and
rubber tubes in yellow Leighton Buzzard Sand, Baskarp Sand, and a cement paste with a water-cement ratio of 0.45 was continu-
a loose CDG soil. ously grouted over the drillhole by gravity flow. The grouted nail
Soil nailing has been widely used to stabilize substandard soil was cured inside the soil for 28 days to achieve matured cement
slopes in Hong Kong. The most frequently encountered soil is strength.
a CDG soil. So far, pull-out testing study on this CDG soil has For pull-out test in a water submerged condition, two 5-mm-
been very limited. To carry out the soil nail stabilized slope de- diameter rubber pipes were connected to the bottom of the pull-out
sign, it is necessary to understand the interface shear behavior test box. Once the grouted nail was set at seven days after ce-
between the grouted nail and the CDG soil and to know the design ment grout, carbon dioxide (CO2 ) was pumped through the soil
parameters. The study on a cement grouted nail in CDG soil is sample via the rubber pipes. When the de-air operation was com-
limited. This paper is to examine a number of factors that affect pleted, de-aired water was then pumped into the box at a slow rate
the soil nail performance and to find quantitative interface param- and under a low water pressure. The degree of saturation of the
eters. Laboratory pull-out tests of grouted nail in CDG soil have soil inside the pull-out test box was measured after the pull-out
been conducted to investigate the shear strength behavior of the test.
soil nails and surrounding soil. The following influences on the After 28 days of curing, the desired normal pressure was ap-
interface shear strength are investigated in the laboratory pull-out plied through the pressurized water rubber diagram bag positioned
tests: between the topsoil surface and the top reaction plate against nor-
mal load reaction frame. The rubber diagram bag was filled with
1. Influence of different applied stress levels of 50, 100, and water and was used to produce a uniformly distributed pressure
300 kPa; on the top surface of the compacted CDG soil. The top flexible
2. Influence of soil degree of saturation on pull-out shear boundary is preferred for the purpose of measuring dilatancy of
strength; the soil-cement grout interface and slightly decreasing in friction
3. Influence of surface roughness of the soil nails with a reg- coefficient (Palmeira and Milligan 1989). A pull-out test was con-
ular or irregular nail surface. From the experimental results, ducted at a displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min. The pull-out force
empirical equations are established to correlate the interface was applied by a 100 kN capacity hydraulic jack through a pull-
shear strength with the major influencing factors. out load reaction frame mounted in front of the external reaction
frame (see Fig. 1). The pull-out load was measured by a load cell
located between the pull-out load reaction frame and the hydraulic
Laboratory Pull-Out Testing Apparatus and Procedure jack. Pull-out displacements were measured by two linear variable
differential transducers (LVDTs) pointed at the nail head. These
Cross-sectional views of the laboratory pull-out test box are instruments were linked to a data logger that took and recorded
shown in Figs. 1a and 1b. Photos of the laboratory pull-out testing data at desired time intervals.
are shown in Fig. 1c. The pull-out test box has internal dimensions
of 700 mm long by 560 mm wide by 605 mm high. Dimensions
of the box were chosen in order to compromise between the mini-
mal effects of the boundaries and the difficulty of preparing a huge Properties of the Soil and Cement Grout Specimens
volume of soil sample. The pull-out test box was built up by 5-mm Completely Decomposed Granite Soil
rolled steel plates and 38 mm × 38 mm steel angle bars using
welded and bolted connections. In addition, an external steel reac- The soil used in the laboratory pull-out tests was a CDG, which
tion frame was constructed outside the steel box in order to carry the was excavated from a cut-slope in Highland Park at Kwai Chung,
soil compacting force, constrain the lateral soil pressure, and react Hong Kong. The grain size distribution of the soil was determined
the pull-out load. A steel plate with a 140-mm-diameter opening by wet sieving and hydrometer tests as recommended in ASTM
hole is attached to the front side of the box for the cement-grouted Testing Method for Wet Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-
nail to be pulled out (see Fig. 1). Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants (D2217) and
The pull-out box was initially assembled and restrained by screws ASTM Testing Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (D422),
uniformly fixed against the external reaction steel frame. Friction respectively. The grain size distribution of the CDG soil is shown
between the soil and the sidewalls of the box was minimized by in Fig. 2. The soil has 28.22 % of gravel, 37.19 % of sand, 19.59 %
lubricating oil. The soil was then placed in the six layers and com- of silt, and 15.00 % of clay from the sieving test. According to
pacted to achieve a degree of compaction of 95 %. With respect ASTM Testing Method for Description and Identification of Soils
to CDG soil, the degree of compaction was determined accord- (D2488), the soil would be classified as yellowish brown, well-
ing to ASTM Test Method for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils graded clayey silty gravelly sand, SM. The specific gravity Gs of
and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 2.49 kg Rammer and 305 mm the soil is 2.64, and the permeability of the soil k is 4.54 ×
Drop (D698) and ASTM Test Method for Moisture Content Pen- 10−5 m/s. The maximum dry density ρd max of the soil from a
etration Resistance Relationships of Fine-Grained Soils (D1558). standard compaction test is 1.70 Mg/m3 and the corresponding
A 100-mm-diameter hole was predrilled into the compacted soil optimum moisture content mopt is 19.00 %. The shear strength pa-
by a rotary cutting tool with diamond bits. There is no water sup- rameters (c
, φ
) of the CDG soil obtained from large size direct
ply in the drilling. The application of the machine is according to shear tests and conventional consolidated undrained (CU) triax-
ASTM Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and ial tests are summarized in Table 1. It is noted that the speci-
Sawed Beams of Concrete (C42). The lengths of the soil nails in mens in CU triaxial tests were saturated with back pressure up to
the tests are 500 mm and 700 mm for regular surface nails and ir- 300 kPa.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 CHU AND YIN ON SOIL NAILS 3

FIG. 1—Views of a pull-out test apparatus: (a) longitudinal section, (b) cross section, and (c) photos.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

100

90

80

Percentage Finer
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 mm

STONE
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE
CLAY
SILT SAND GRAVEL

FIG. 2—Particle size distribution of a Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG) soil.

Cement Grouted Nail y

Applied normal stress
Cement grout used for the tests was prepared from a cement
paste mixed with a water-cement ratio w/c of 0.45. The density
of cement grout is found to be 2.0 Mg/m3 . The average uniaxial Soil material
compressive strength σc for 28 days cement grout samples is
Gravity and stresses direction
56.81 MPa. The tangent Young’s modulus E50 and the correspond-
250 mm Soil nail
ing Poisson’s ratio νn is 16.37 GPa and 0.28, respectively. Soil nail
for 500 mm for 700 mm

FLAC-Analysis of Stress on a Soil Nail C x

L
Numerical Simulation and Modeling 50 mm 500 mm 200 mm

A two-dimensional explicit finite difference program, FLAC FIG. 3—Dimensions of a numerical model in FLAC.
(1996), was used to investigate the initial stresses around a 100-
mm-diameter of soil nail inside the laboratory pull-out test box
(Fig. 1). The three-dimensional (3-D) problem was simplified as a In the numerical model, two soil nail lengths of 500 mm and
two-dimensional (2-D) axisymmetrical problem, which considered 700 mm inside the pull-out box were examined. The details of
the pull-out test box as a cylindrical mass with the soil nail axis modeling and the boundary conditions are presented in Fig. 3. The
as the center axis of the cylindrical mass. Figure 3 shows the 2-D size of the domain was 0.7 m × 0.3 m with grid size of 0.01 m
axisymmetrical FLAC model. An elastic-perfectly plastic consti- in vertical and 0.01 m in horizontal direction. The vertical sides
tutive model with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion was used in the model were constrained in horizontal direction and the hor-
for the soil sample and an elastic model for the soil nail in the izontal size in the bottom of the model is the axisymmetric line
analysis. The properties of the soil are based on results of the con- with only vertical displacement constrained. The top is a pres-
solidated undrained triaxial tests in Table 1, and the properties of sure boundary with an initial pressure of zero. This pressure is
the soil nail are based on the laboratory testing results on the cement increased to 300 kPa in the FLAC modeling after the gravity is
grout. applied.

TABLE 1—Values of shear strength parameters from the direct shear tests and consolidated undrained triaxial tests.

Natural Wet Condition Submerged Condition

Testing Methods c , kPa φ , degree c , kPa φ
, degree E50 , Mpa νs

Direct shear box tests Peak shear strength 45.77 30.43 26.75 24.46 ··· ···
Shear strength at displacement 38.24 30.17 23.42 25.01 ··· ···
of 70 mm
Consolidated undrained Critical-state shear strength ··· ··· 0.00 31.20 14.00 0.49
triaxial tests

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 CHU AND YIN ON SOIL NAILS 5

The soil mass was initially simulated for gravity stresses, and the 310
displacements due to gravity were initialized to zero. A sufficient

Calculated normal stress (kPa)

number of steps were used to achieve an equilibrium state condi- 308
500 mm long soil nail

tion by assessing the equilibrium ratio. Drilling of a nail hole was

simulated with the FLAC model null material zone, and a model 306
elastic material was filled into the null zone to simulate the soil
nail material inclusion. After the soil nail installation, several steps 304 700 mm long soil nail
were carried out to reach an equilibrium state condition again. The
normal stress σn,top on the top surface of the box was simulated by
302
applying a pressure of 300 kPa on the top boundary. The stresses
inside the soil mass and on the soil nail were calculated using the
300
FLAC model.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance from the nail head (mm)

Numerical Analysis Results FIG. 5—The vertical stresses against distance from the nail head (x-
direction in Fig. 3) inside the pull-out test box from FLAC modeling.
Two soil nail lengths of 500 mm and 700 mm were considered
in the FLAC model. Figures 4a and 4b show the normal (or radial)
stress contours for a 500-mm-long nail and 700-mm-long nail. It
can be seen from Fig. 4a that the normal stress σ
n,nail on the 500-
mm-long soil nail is nearly uniform for 90 % length of the nail. But 305.9 kPa. It is found that the average normal stress σ
n,nail acting
there is stress concentration at the nail toe. From Fig. 4b, the normal along the nail (500 mm or 700 mm long) from the FLAC model is
stress σ
n,nail on the 700-mm-long soil is nearly uniform for the full shown equal to the applied overburden pressure σ
v0 at the midlevel
length of the nail. Calculated normal stresses for both 500-mm and of the nail plus the applied stress σn,top on the soil top surface, that
700-mm-long nails inside the box under the applied normal stress is, σ
n,nail = σ
v0 + σn,top = 20 × 0.3 + 300 = 306 kPa. The average
300 kPa are given in Fig. 5. It is seen from Fig. 5 that a more uniform unit weight of the CDG soil is 20 kN/m3 . In this paper, overburden
stress is obtained for the 700-mm-long nail, but the normal stress stress σ
v0 at the middle nail level is considered to evaluate the
on the 500-mm-long nail varies more. The average normal stress normal stress acting on the soil nail inside the laboratory pull-out
acting along the nail for 500 mm and 700 mm long is the same of test box.

Pull-out Capacity of a Soil Nail

(a) The average pull-out shear stress τs (kPa) of a soil nail can be
y
calculated from a measured pull-out load F (kN) divided by the
active nail surface area A (m2 ):

301 kPa F F
302 kPa
τs = = (1)
A (πD)Ls
250 mm 303 kPa 303 kPa The active nail surface area A is calculated by multiplying the
304 kPa 304 kPa embedded length Ls (m) of the soil nail in contact with the sur-
305 kPa
306 kPa 305 kPa rounding soil with the perimeter of the pulled-out nail πD(m).
Soil Nail CL In common practice, people use the following equation for cal-
x
500 mm
culation of a soil nail pull-out capacity per lineal meter T (kN/m)
200 mm
50 mm
(Wong 1995):

(b)
y
T = (πDc
+ 2D σ
v tan φ
) (2)


where D is the diameter of the soil nail, c is the soil cohesion, and
φ
is the internal angle of the soil friction. It is noted that T = F /Ls .
This equation assumes that the interface strength is the same as that
301 kPa
of the soil. This might not be true.
302 kPa It is noted in Eq 2 that πD is the perimeter of the nail and πDc

250 mm 303 kPa
is the adhesion resistance per nail length (kPa/m) due to interface
304 kPa
adhesion. For 2D σ
v tan φ
in Eq 2, the nail is considered to be a
305 kPa plate of zero thickness with width D. The vertical stress on two
sides of the plate is σ
v . Thus, the total frictional resistance per nail
306kPa

Soil Nail C
L x length (kPa/m) due to the interface friction is 2D σ
v tan φ
. This
700 mm approach gets rid of the uncertainty in calculation of the lateral
50 mm stress (or normal stress) on the nail.
FIG. 4—Contour of vertical stress inside the laboratory pull-out test In this paper, the following equation is proposed for the eval-
box: (a) 500-mm-long soil nail and (b) 700-mm-long soil nail. uation of the pull-out capacity per meter T (kN/m) of a soil

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

nail, considering the interface shear strength between the nail and Experimental Results and Analysis
soil:
Shear Stress-Displacement Behavior of Soil Nail Pull-Out Tests
T = (πDca
+ 2D σ
v tan δ
) (3) Figure 6 shows soil nail pull-out test results for a regular soil nail
surface in a natural wet condition. Figure 7 shows a comparison of
where ca
is the soil adhesion at the interface, and δ

is the angle results from soil nail pull-out tests for a regular soil nail surface and
of the interface friction. Equation 3 has the same form as Eq 2 for from soil-soil direct shear tests on the same soil used in the pull-out
easy practical applications. tests. In the natural wet condition, the moisture contents of the soil
From Eq 1 and Eq 3, the average shear strength is before and after the direct shear tests and pull-out tests are about
19 % (nearly to the optimum moisture content of the soil), and the
F T πDca
+ 2D σ
v tan δ

degree of saturation of the soil in the pull-out tests is approximately
τs = = = 70 %.
A πD πD
For the pull-out shear stress-displacement curves, the initial pull-


2 out shear stress increases linearly with pull-out displacement, and
= ca
+ σ
v tan δ
= ca
+ σ
v tan δ
(4)
π then the pull-out shear stress continues to increase with the dis-
placement, but at a decreasing rate until the maximum shear strength
where we introduce an interface friction angle δ
, with a relation- reaches at the peak. After the peak shear strength, the pull-out shear
ship of stress is observed to decrease gradually. A smaller pull-out displace-
ment is required to mobilize the peak pull-out shear strength. This is
π consistent with observations from Schlosser (1990), Bergado et al.
tan δ

= tan δ
(5) (1992), Milligan and Tei (1998), and Lee et al. (2001). The curves
2
for pull-out tests exhibit an obvious peak and post-peak shear stress
Equation 4 can be used to fit the shear strength data points to behavior, whereas the curves for soil-soil direct shear box tests
find the parameters of ca
and δ
. Use the relationship of tan δ

= exhibit a relatively small peak and high post-peak shear strength.
π
2
tan δ
, δ

can be found. This might be due to different confinements in the soil-soil direct

300
σn = 55 kPa σn = 105 kPa σn = 305 kPa
(a)
Pull-out shear stress (kPa)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm)

Horizontal displacement (mm)

0 50 100 150 200
-0.10
Vertical displacement (mm)

0.00
"-" for dilation
"+" for compression
0.10

0.20 σn = 55 kPa σn = 105 kPa σn = 305 kPa

0.30

0.40
(b)
0.50
FIG. 6—Pull-out test results of regular nails in natural wet condition: (a) pull-out shear strength versus displacement and (b) vertical displacement
versus horizontal displacement.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 CHU AND YIN ON SOIL NAILS 7

300 σn = 50 kPa σn = 100 kPa σn = 300 kPa

σn = 55 kPa σn = 105 kPa σn = 305 kPa

Pull-out shear stress (kPa)

250 Soil-soil direct shear tests

Regular nail pull-out tests

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm)
FIG. 7—Comparison of shear stress versus horizontal displacement curves between the direct shear tests and regular nail surface pull-out tests.

300
Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

(a) Regular nail pull-out tests:

y = 0.5652x + 63.458
250

200

150
Peak strength - Soil-soil direct shear tests:
φ'= 30.4o, c'= 45.8kPa
100 Soil-soil direct shear tests: Peak strength - Regular nail pull-out tests:
y = 0.5874x + 45.766 δ'= 29.5o, ca'= 63.5kPa
50 Peak strength - Regular nail pull-out tests
Peak strength - Soil-soil direct shear tests
Linear (Peak strength - Soil-soil direct shear tests)
Linear (Peak strength - Regular nail pull-out tests)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normal stress (kPa)
300
Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

(b)
250
Soil-soil direct shear tests:
y = 0.5813x + 38.241
200

150
Strength at disp. of 70mm - Soil-soil direct shear tests:

100 φ'= 30.2o, c'= 38.2kPa

Strength at disp. of 70mm- Regular nail pull-out tests:

Regular nail pull-out tests: δ'= 26.2o, ca'= 32.4kPa

50 y = 0.492x + 32.358 Strength at disp. of 70mm - Regular nail pull-out tests
Strength at disp. of 70mm - Soil-soil direct shear tests
Linear (Strength at disp. of 70mm - Soil-soil direct shear tests)
Linear (Strength at disp. of 70mm - Regular nail pull-out tests)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normal stress (kPa)

FIG. 8—Comparison of shear strength parameters between the direct shear box tests and pull-out tests: (a) peak shear strength and (b) shear strength
at shear displacement of 70 mm.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

testing and in the pull-out testing. Direct shear box would particles during shearing. The effect of an increase in normal stress
have a higher restriction on soil particles compared to the pull-out δσ
n around a soil nail can be indicated in an apparent coefficient of
box. In addition, the cavity arching effect of the drillhole in the friction µ∗ . The apparent friction coefficient µ∗ is defined by
pull-out box might contribute to the lower post-peak shear strength τs
in the pull-out test results. An empty space in the section of the µ∗ = (6)
drillhole and the nail is produced in the pull-out process. The σ
v
restriction of soil particle rearrangement is smaller at the shearing The apparent coefficient of friction µ∗ is a direct indication of the
interface in the pull-out tests as the stresses near the empty area shear strength τs over the vertical effective stress σ
v . µ∗ may indi-
are reduced. cate the restrained dilatancy. The restriction of dilatancy increases
with the confining stress locally around the nail, resulting in a
higher pull-out shear strength. Figure 9 presents the relationship of
Effects of Normal Stress on Pull-Out Test Results
the apparent coefficient of friction with the applied normal stress for
The effects of the normal stress on the soil nail pull-out shear the laboratory pull-out tests. The apparent coefficient of friction is
strength can be studied in the laboratory pull-out test results. The higher at lower normal stress and smaller for higher normal stress.
shear stress-normal stress envelopes for the pull-out tests and the The behavior of the laboratory results for the “peak pull-out shear
soil-soil direct shear tests are shown in Fig. 8. The results for both strength” in Fig. 9a is generally above the curve of test results of
tests are shown to follow the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion: shear ribbed strips in Schlosser and Guilloux (1981).
stress is increased with increasing the applied normal stress. The The apparent coefficient of friction at a pull-out displacement of
nonlinearity of the failure envelope in the pull-out test results was 200 mm is plotted against the normal stress in Fig. 9b. A nearly
explained by Bishop (1966) and Bolton (1986), and is attributed constant apparent friction coefficient is observed in the results and
to soil dilatancy and considered to be due to the crushing of soil the values are close to the limit values for smooth strips as suggested

2.00
Apparent coefficient of friction, µ *

Peak apparent coefficient of friction

(a)
Ribbed strip (Schlosser and
1.50 Guilloux 1981)

1.00
µ∗ = τ'/σn'=0.788

0.50 µ∗ = 0.4
Smooth strip(Schlosser and
Guilloux 1981)
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal stress (kPa)

2.00
Apparent coefficient of friction, µ *

'Strength at disp. of 200 mm' apparent coefficient of friction

(b)

1.50
Ribbed strip (Schlosser and Guilloux
1981)

1.00

µ∗ = τ'/σn'= 0.749

0.50 µ∗ = 0.4
Smooth strip (Schlosser and
Guilloux 1981)

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal stress (kPa)
FIG. 9—Apparent coefficient of friction for the pull-out tests in a natural wet condition: (a) peak strength and (b) strength at shear displacement of
200 mm.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 CHU AND YIN ON SOIL NAILS 9

TABLE 2—Values of apparent coefficient of friction µ∗ from the laboratory pull-out tests.

Apparent Coefficient of Friction, µ∗

Natural Wet Soil Condition (Sr = 70%) Submerged Soil Condition (Sr = 86%)
σ
v = 55 kPa σ
v = 105 kPa σ
v = 305 kPa σ
v = 52 kPa σ
v = 102 kPa σ
v = 302 kPa

Peak shear strength Pull-out tests (regular nail surface) 1.52 1.30 0.76 0.88 0.68 0.36
Pull-out tests (irregular nail surface) 1.61 1.24 0.82 0.84 0.63 0.39
Shear strength Pull-out tests (regular nail surface) 0.62 0.57 0.49 0.24 0.22 0.11
at displacement Pull-out tests (irregular nail surface) 0.63 0.54 0.52 0.40 0.24 0.17
of 200 mm

300
Sr=70% Sr=74% Sr=78% Sr=86%
(a)
Pull-out shear stress (kPa)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm)
Horizontal displacement (mm)
0 50 100 150 200
0.00
Vertical displacement (mm)

1.00
"-" for dilation
2.00 "+" for compression

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00
(b) Sr=70% Sr=74% Sr=78% Sr=86%
7.00
FIG. 10—Pull-out test results of regular nails in the degree of saturation, Sr of 70 %, 74 %, 78 %, and 86 % under the normal stress of 300 kPa:
(a) pull-out shear strength versus displacement and (b) vertical displacement versus horizontal displacement.

by Schlosser and Guilloux (1981), indicating that the restrained 74 %, 78 %, and 86 % under the normal stress of 300 kPa.
dilatancy of the nail no longer exists and the nail behaves as a Table 3 presents the results of the laboratory pull-out tests of reg-
smooth inclusion in a larger pull-out displacement. The values of ular surface nails in a natural wet condition (Sr = 70 %) and in a
apparent coefficient of friction obtained from the laboratory pull- submerged condition (Sr = 86 %). The pull-out shear strength is
out tests are given in Table 2. shown significantly dependent on the degree of saturation of the
soil. The peak angle of interface friction δ
is reduced from 29.5◦
in the natural wet condition (Sr = 70 %) to 13.6◦ in the water sub-
Effects of Soil Degree of Saturation on Pull-Out Shear Strength
merged condition (Sr = 86 %), while the “shear strength at shear
Figure 10 shows the pull-out test results for a regular surface of displacement of 200 mm” angle of interface friction δ
is reduced
soil nails for different values of degree of saturation Sr of 70 %, from 24.6◦ in the natural wet condition (Sr = 70 %) to 4.3◦ in

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 10 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 3—Values of shear strength parameters and coefficients fa and fδ from the laboratory pull-out tests.

Submerged Soil Condition

Natural Wet Soil Condition (Sr = 70%) (Sr = 86%)
ca
, kPa δ
, degree fa fδ ca
, kPa δ
, degree

Peak shear strength Pull-out tests (regular nail surface) 63.46 29.48 1.39 0.97 38.52 13.56
Pull-out tests (irregular nail surface) 58.21 32.21 1.27 1.06 30.90 16.30
Shear strength at Pull-out tests (regular nail surface) 32.36 26.20 0.85 0.87 24.76 7.72
displacement of 70 mm Pull-out tests (irregular nail surface) 36.82 25.27 0.96 0.84 25.49 12.29
Shear strength at Pull-out tests (regular nail surface) 10.28 24.60 11.32 4.28
displacement of 200 mm Pull-out tests (irregular nail surface) 6.08 26.40 12.35 7.24

300 Peak pull-out shear strength

Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

Pull-out shear strength at disp. of 200mm

250

y = 3E+08x-3.3203
200
R2 = 0.8119

150

100

50 y = 1E+15x-7.0788
R2 = 0.9431

0
65 70 75 80 85 90
Degree of saturation, Sr (%)
FIG. 11—Correlation between pull-out shear strength and the degree of saturation, Sr of 70 %, 74 %, 78 %, and 86 % under the normal stressof 300 kPa.

the water submerged condition (Sr = 86 %). A comparison of the Kulhawy and Peterson 1979; and Uesugi et al. 1990). An irreg-
pull-out test results with the different degrees of saturation, Sr , ular surface of soil nails was created in a natural wet condition
of 70 %, 74 %, 78 %, and 86 % under the applied normal stress (see Fig. 12) and in a water submerged condition. The asperity
of 300 kPa is shown in Fig. 11. The main trend for the “peak height of the irregular surface is about 2 mm into the soil and the
pull-out shear strength” and the “pull-out shear strength at dis- asperity spacing is about 3 mm. Figure 13 shows the pull-out test
placement of 200 mm” of pull-out tests is a nonlinear behavior and results of irregular nails in a natural wet condition and Fig. 14
the pull-out shear strength decreases as the degree of saturation Sr shows the pull-out test results of irregular nails in submerged con-
increases. dition. A comparison of the shear strength parameters between
For estimating the pull-out shear strength, τs,300 , for the soil the regular and irregular surface nails in the natural wet condition
degree of saturation in the range of 70–86 % under the applied (Sr = 70 %) and in the submerged condition (Sr = 86 %) is given
normal stress of 300 kPa in the design of a soil nail system, the in Table 3. Ratio of soil adhesion over soil cohesion fa and ratio
following empirical equations were derived:

τs,300 = 3 × 108 × Sr−3.3203 (7)

for “peak pull-out shear strength”, and

τs,300 = 1 × 1015 × Sr−7.0788 (8)

for “pull-out shear strength at displacement of 200 mm.” These de-

sign parameters are for slopes recompacted to degree of compaction
to 95 %.

Effects of Surface Roughness of the Soil Nail on Pull-Out

Shear Strength

Surface roughness of shearing materials is one of the important FIG. 12—An irregular drillhole surface created in a natural wet condi-
factors influencing the interface shear behavior (Potyondy 1961; tion by a rotary cutting tool with diamond bits.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 CHU AND YIN ON SOIL NAILS 11

300
(a)

Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

σn = 55 kPa σn = 105 kPa σn = 305 kPa
250

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm)

Horizontal displacement (mm)

0 50 100 150 200
0.00
Vertical displacement (mm)

0.20 "-" for dilation

"+" for compression

0.40

0.60 σn = 55 kPa σ n = 105 kPa σ n = 305 kPa

0.80
(b)
1.00
FIG. 13—Pull-out test results of irregular nails in a natural wet condition: (a) pull-out shear strength versus displacement and (b) vertical displacement
versus horizontal displacement.

of interface friction angle over soil friction angle fδ are defined as 0.85 for the regular (smooth) surface nails to 0.96 for the irregular
follows: (more rough) surface nails in the “shear strength at displacement
c
of 70 mm.” The interface surface for the irregular (more rough)
fa = a
(9) surface nails shows smooth interfacial shear behavior in the larger
c
shear displacement. The lower interface friction for the irregular
δ
(more rough) surface nails in the “shear strength at displacement
fδ = (10) of 70 mm” is mainly due to the crushing and becoming looser of
φ

the soil particles at the interface shear surface in the large shear
Values of fa and fδ are presented in Table 3 and are used to displacement.
examine the interfacial shear behavior in the pull-out tests. Figure 15 shows the comparison of the pull-out shear strength
The ratiofδ can be used to indicate the interface frictional an- parameters between the regular (smooth) surface nails and irregu-
gle of different soil nail surface roughness referring to the fric- lar (more rough) surface nails in a natural wet condition. The peak
tion angle of the soil. For the “peak shear strength,” the ratio fδ shear strength line for irregular surface of soil nails is mostly above
is increased from 0.97 for the regular (smooth) surface nails to the peak shear strength line for regular surface of soil nails. The
1.06 for the irregular (more rough) surface nails. In addition, the interface friction angle of irregular surface soil nails is approxi-
ratiofa is reduced from 1.39 for the regular surface nails to 1.27 mately 9.3 % higher than that of regular (smooth) surface nails.
for the irregular (more rough) surface nails. It can be seen that However, at the lower normal stress, the interface adhesion for
there is a great advantage of the nail surface roughness in the the irregular (more rough) surface nails is reduced approximately
interface friction. On the contrary, the ratio fδ is reduced from 8.3 %. The shear strength line at displacement 200 mm for irregular
0.87 for the regular (smooth) surface nails to 0.84 for the irregu- surface of soil nails is all above the line for regular surface of soil
lar (more rough) surface and the coefficient fa is increased from nails.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 12 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

150
(a)

Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

σn = 52 kPa σn = 102 kPa σn = 302 kPa

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200
Displacement (mm)

Horizontal displacement (mm)

0 50 100 150 200
0.00
Vertical displacement (mm)

2.00

"-" for dilation

"+" for compression

4.00

(b)
6.00

σ n = 52 kPa σn = 102 kPa σn = 302 kPa

8.00
FIG. 14—Pull-out test results of irregular nails in a submerged condition: (a) pull-out shear strength versus displacement and (b) vertical displacement
versus horizontal displacement.

A comparison of the pull-out shear strength parameters between 1. The shear stress-displacement curves of soil nail pull-out
the regular (smooth) surface nails and irregular (more rough) sur- tests exhibit an obvious peak and post-peak shear stress-
face nails in a submerged condition is shown in Fig. 16. The peak displacement behavior, whereas the curves for the soil-soil
shear strength line for irregular surface of soil nails is above the direct shear box tests have a relatively small peak and high
peak shear strength line for regular surface of soil nails at higher post-peak shear strength.
normal stress, but smaller at lower normal stress. The shear strength 2. The pull-out shear strength increases with applied normal
line at displacement 200 mm for irregular surface of soil nails is all stress. A modified strength equation based on the Mohr-
above the line for regular surface of soil nails. All above data indi- Coulomb failure criterion is proposed to take into account
cate that irregular (more rough) surface nails have higher interface of the interface shear strength of cement grouted soil nails.
shear strength than that of regular (smooth) surface nails at larger This modified interface shear strength equation is used to an-
displacements. alyze data from soil nail pull-out tests. From the analysis, the
interface shear strength parameters can be obtained. The mod-
ified interface shear strength equation can be used for design
of soil nail stabilized slopes.
Summary of Observations 3. Values of the apparent coefficient of friction µ∗ from pull-
out tests is large at a smaller normal stress and is gradually
On the basis of the testing results, discussions, and evalua- reduced under a higher normal stress.
tions presented above, a summary of observations is presented as 4. The peak apparent coefficient of friction µ∗ from pull-out
follows: tests ina natural wet condition (Sr = 70 %) is higher than the

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 CHU AND YIN ON SOIL NAILS 13

300
(a)
Irregular surface nails:

Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

250 y = 0.6299x + 58.207 Regular surface nails:
y = 0.5652x + 63.458

200

150
Peak strength - Irregular surface nails:
100 δ'= 32.2°, ca'= 58.2kPa
Peak strength - Regular surface nails:
δ'= 29.5°, ca' = 63.5kPa
50 Peak strength - Irregular surface nails
Peak strength - Regular surface nails
Linear (Peak strength - Irregular surface nails)
Linear (Peak strength - Regular surface nails)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normal stress (kPa)

300
(b)
Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

250

200 Irregular surface nails:

Regular surface nails:
y = 0.4963x + 6.0801
y = 0.4579x + 10.277

150

Strength at disp. of 200mm - Irregular surface nails:

100 δ'= 26.4°, ca'= 6.1kPa
Strength at disp. of 200mm- Regular surface nails:
δ'= 24.6°, ca'= 10.3 kPa
50 Strength at disp. of 200mm - Irregular surface nails
Strength at disp. of 200mm- Regular surface nails
Linear (Strength at disp. of 200mm - Irregular surface nails)
Linear (Strength at disp. of 200mm- Regular surface nails)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normal stress (kPa)
FIG. 15—Comparison of pull-out shear strength parameters between regular surface nails and irregular surface nails in a natural wet condition:
(a) peak shear strength and (b) shear strength at shear displacement of 200 mm.

suggested value for ribbed strips in Schlosser and Guilloux 6. The interface shear behavior of soil nails in the pull-out tests
(1981). However, the peak apparent friction coefficient µ∗ for can be assessed by using the ratio of soil adhesion over soil
the pull-out tests in the submerged condition (Sr = 86 %) is cohesion fa and ratio of interface friction angle over soil
slightly lower than the suggested value for ribbed strips in friction anglefδ . The peak shear strength line for irregular
Schlosser and Guilloux (1981). (more rough) surface of soil nails is above the peak shear
5. The degree of saturation of the CDG soil has a significant strength line for regular surface of soil nails at higher normal
influence on the soil nail pull-out shear strength. The rela- stress, but smaller at lower normal stress for both a natural
tionship between the pull-out shear strength and the soil de- wet condition and a water submerged condition. The shear
gree of saturation for the CDG soil recompacted to degree of strength line at displacement 200 mm for irregular surface
compaction to 95 % is shown nonlinear, and empirical equa- of soil nails is all above the line for regular surface of soil
tions are derived for the relationship between the pull-out nails for both a natural wet condition and a water submerged
shear strength and the soil degree of saturation (Sr rang- condition. All above data indicate that irregular (more rough)
ing from 70 % to 86 %) under the applied normal stress of surface nails have higher interface shear strength than that of
300 kPa. regular (smooth) surface nails at larger displacements.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 14 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

150
(a)

Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

Irregular surface nails:
y = 0.2925x + 30.88

Regular surface nails:

100 y = 0.2412x + 38.524

Peak strength - Irregular surface nails:

50 δ'= 16.3o, ca'= 30.9kPa
Peak strength - Regular surface nails:
δ'= 13.6o, ca'= 38.5kPa
Peak strength - Irregular surface nails
Peak strength - Regular surface nails
Linear (Peak strength - Regular surface nails)
Linear (Peak strength - Irregular surface nails)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normal stress (kPa)

150 Strength at disp. of 200mm - Irregular surface nails

(b) Strength at disp. of 200mm- Regular surface nails
Linear (Strength at disp. of 200mm - Irregular surface nails)
Pull-out shear strength (kPa)

Linear (Strength at disp. of 200mm- Regular surface nails)

Strength at disp. of 200mm - Irregular surface nails:
δ'= 7.2o, ca'= 12.4 kPa
100 Strength at disp. of 200mm - Regular surface nails:
δ'= 4.3o, ca'= 11.3 kPa

Irregular surface nails:

y = 0.127x + 12.351
Regular surface nails:
y = 0.0748x + 11.316
50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Normal stress (kPa)
FIG. 16—Comparison of pull-out shear strength parameters between regular surface nails and irregular surface nails in a submerged condition:
(a) peak shear strength and (b) shear strength at shear displacement of 200 mm.

Acknowledgments 2.49 kg Rammer and 305 mm Drop, ASTM International, West

Conshohocken, PA.
The work presented in this paper has received financial supports
ASTM Standard D 1558, 1999: Testing Method for Moisture Con-
from a RGC grant and from The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
tent Penetration Resistance Relationships of Fine-Grained Soils,
These financial supports are gratefully acknowledged.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard D 2217, 1999: Testing Method for Wet Preparation
of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and Determination of
References
Soil Constants, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard C 42, 1999: Testing Method for Obtaining and ASTM Standard D 2488, 1999: Testing Method for Descrip-
Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete, ASTM tion and Identification of Soils, ASTM International, West
International, West Conshohocken, PA. Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard D 422, 1999: Test Method for Particle-Size Anal- Bergado, D. T., Chai, J. C., and Balasubramanan, A. S., 1992, “In-
ysis of Soils, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. teraction between Grid Reinforcement and Cohesive-Frictional
ASTM Standard D 698, 1999: Testing Method for Moisture- Soil,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth
Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures using rcement Practice, Kyushu, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 29–34.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 CHU AND YIN ON SOIL NAILS 15

Berglund, C. and Oden, K., 1995–1996, “The Pullout Resistance of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 5., No. 2,
Different Types of Nails,” MS thesis, Department of Geotechnical pp. 225–236.
Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Report No. 10, Lee, C. F., Law, K. T., Tham, L. G., Yue, Z. Q., and Junaideen,
1995; No. 6, 1996. S. M., 2001, “Design of a Large Soil Box for Studying Soil-Nail
Bishop, A. W., 1966, “The Strength of Soils as Engineering Mate- Interaction in Loose Fill,” Soft Soil Engineering, Lee et al., Eds.,
rials,” Geotechnique, London, No. 16, pp. 89–130. pp. 413–418.
Bolton, M. D., 1986, “The Strength and Dilatancy of Sands,” Milligan, G. W. E. and Tei, K., 1998, “The Pull-Out Resistance of
Geotechnique, London, No. 36, pp. 65–78. Model Soil Nails,” Journal of Soils and Foundations, Vol. 38,
Cartier, G. and Gigan, J. P., 1983, “Experiments and Observa- No. 2, pp. 179–190.
tions on Soil Nailing Structures,” Proceedings, European Confer- Palmeira, E. M. and Milligan, G. W. E., 1989, “Scale and Other
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, Factors Affecting the Results of Pull-Out Tests of Grids Buried
pp. 473–476. in Sand,” Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 511–524.
Chang, K. T. and Milligan, G. W. E., 1996, “Effects of the Tran- Potyondy, J. G., 1961, “Skin Friction between Various Soils and
sition Zone in a Nailed Wall Model Test,” Proceedings of Earth Construction Materials,” Geotechnique, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 339–
Reinforcement, Ochiai, Yasufuku, and Omie, Eds., Balkema, 353.
pp. 333–338. Powell, G. E. and Watkins, A. T., 1990, “Improvement of
FLAC, 1996, “Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua,” User Marginally Stable Existing Slopes by Soil Nailing in Hong
Manual, a Consulting Group, Minneapolis, MN. Kong,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Rein-
Franzen, G., 1998, “Soil Nailing—A Laboratory and Field Study of forced Soil, Glasgow, pp. 241–247.
Pullout Capacity,” doctoral thesis, Department of Geotechnical Schlosser, F., “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Structures
Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. in Europe,” Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Struc-
Heymann, G., “Soil Nailing Systems as Lateral Support for Surface tures, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, 1990, pp. 347–
Excavations,” master’s thesis, Faculty of Engineering, University 377.
of Pretoria, South Africa, 1993. Schlosser, F. and Guilloux, A., 1981, “Le Frottement Dans Les
Heymann, G., Rhode, A. W., Schwartz, K., and Friedlaender, E., Sols,” Revue Francaise de Geotechnique, No. 16, pp. 65–77.
1992, “Soil Nail Pullout Resistance in Residual Soils,” Proceed- Uesugi, M., Kishida, H., and Uchikawa, Y., “Friction Between Dry
ings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Sand and Concrete Under Monotonic and Repeated Loading,”
Practice, Kyushu, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 487–492. Soil and Foundations, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1990, pp. 115–128.
Kulhawy, F. H. and Peterson, M. S., 1979, “Behavior of Sand- Wong, H. Y., “Soil Nails Design Manual for Slopes (with Worked
Concrete Interfaces,” Proceedings, 6th Pan-am Conference on Example),” Architectural Services Department, 1995.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Feb 19 00:44:33 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Swets Blackwell pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.