OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF GROUTING

PRESSURE AND OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ON
THE PULLOUT RESISTANCE OF SOIL NAILS
Wan-Huan ZHOU, Jian-Hua YIN, Hong-Hu ZHU, Cheng-Yu HONG
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong, China

ABSTRACT
A series laboratory soil-nail pullout tests on complete decomposed granite at the saturated condition under different
grouting pressures and overburden pressures were carried out to study the effect of grouting pressure and overburden
pressure on the pullout resistance of soil nails. The pullout tests were fully instrumented and monitored. The bare Fibre
Bragg Grading point sensors were installed together with the strain gauges to measure the axial strain changes during
testing. Some latest test results are presented and discussed in this paper.

RÉSUMÉ
Des séries d’essais d’arrachement sol-ongle sur du granit complètement décomposé à l'état saturé, sous différentes
pressions de jointoiement et de surcharge, ont été effectués en laboratoire pour étudier leurs effets sur la resistance
d’arrachement des sols-ongles. Les essais d’arrachement ont été entièrement équipés et surveillés. Des sondes
d’évaluation de point de Bragg de fibre nue ont été installées ainsi que des jauges de contrainte pour mesurer les
changements axiaux de contrainte pendant l'essai. Les derniers résultats d'essai sont présentés et discutés en cet
article.

1 INTRODUCTION properties of the in-situ soils, the cement grout integrity

of nails, and some uncontrolled test parameters (e.g.
Soil nailing has been widely used worldwide as an vertical stresses, grouting pressure, the roughness of
economic, effective, and simple method for stabilization the drilled hole, etc). In addition, the field pullout tests
of new cut slopes and retaining structures. Since the are normally carried out in a no-rain weather condition
mid 1980s, the technique of soil nailing has been and in unsaturated soils. Such testing condition is not
applied for improving the stability of marginally stable the worst case and the measured pullout resistance is,
slopes and retaining walls in Hong Kong (GEO 2005). therefore, on the unsafe side. On the other hand,
In Hong Kong, most slopes are composed of completely laboratory soil nail pullout tests can be conducted under
decomposed granite (CDG) soils and soil nails are controlled conditions, so that some key influencing
installed by the drill and grout method. factors on the fundamental interaction mechanism and
shear resistance between a soil nail and the soils can
In the design of a soil nail system, the interface shear be studied. Chang and Milligan (1996) conducted
resistance between a soil nail and the surrounding soil laboratory pullout tests of steel bars and rubber tubes in
is a key parameter for design and safety assessment of yellow Leighton Buzzard Sand and Baskarp Sand. In
the soil nail stabilized slope (Powell and Watkins 1990). Hong Kong, Lee et al. (2001) and Junaideen et al.
Many factors have influences on the pullout resistance (2004) conducted laboratory pullout tests on soil nails in
of the soil nails, such as the overburden pressure, the a loose Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG) fill. Yin
soil dilation, the grouting pressure, the shear strength of and his co-workers (Yin and Su 2006, Su 2006, Yin et
the soil, the roughness of the nail surface, the degree of al. 2006) developed a new soil nail pull-out box and
saturation of the soil, and etc. It has been studied and carried out studies on the interface shear resistance
found by previous researchers that the pull-out between a grouted soil nail and CDG soils. A few key
resistance of grouted soil nails is largely contributed by influencing factors, including the overburden pressure,
the effect of soil dilation (Schlosser 1982). degree of saturation of the soil were investigated.

Extensive field pull-out tests (Schlosser and Guilloux Nowadays, in common practice of the soil nail
1981, Berglund and Oden 1996, and Franzén 1998) construction in Hong Kong, gravity or low pressure
have been carried out on different types of driven nails grouting is normally adopted. The effect of grouting
and grouted nails. Due to the uncertainties of the field pressure is seldom taken into account in the soil nailing
conditions, the reported test results are commonly design and studies on the contribution of the grouting
scattered. These uncertainties include the nonuniform pressure to the soil nail pullout resistance are limited in

985
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

references. Yeung et al. (2005) carried out field pullout the box design and setup can be found in Yin and Su
tests on Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) pipes (2006).
in a CDG soil slope in Hong Kong and observed a
significant increase of the pullout resistance due to the Test procedures include box preparation, sample
pressure grouting. Yin et al. (2006) reported some preparation, placement of transducers, hole drilling, soil
laboratory pullout tests and discussed the influence of nail installation, pressure grouting, saturation with back
cement pressure grouting on the soil nail pullout pressure, pulling out of the soil nail. More descriptions
resistances. Totally four tests with grouting pressures of on the test procedures can be found in Su (2006) and
80kPa and 200kPa and overburden pressures of 80kPa Yin et al. (2006).
and 130kPa were carried out on the CDG soil with 50%
degree of saturation. 3 BASIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL AND CEMENT
GROUT AND RESPONSES OF SOIL AND NAIL
In the pullout testing, the axial strains of the nail can be DURING PULLOUT TESTING
measured in order to calculate the shear resistance at
the interface between cement grout and the 3.1 Basic properties of the soil and the cement grout
surrounding soils. Normally electrical resistance and
vibrating wire type strain gauges are used to measure The Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG) used in
the strain data. The Fibre Bragg Grading (FBG) sensor this study was taken from a highway construction site at
is an innovative technique for measuring the strains. Tai Wai, Hong Kong and was a typical in-situ soil
The concept is the wavelength changes of the FBG commonly found in Hong Kong. The composition of the
sensor are proportional to the strain changes at the CDG soil obtained for the present study was 9.3%
sensor point. Comparing to traditional strain gauge, this gravel, 62.5% sand, 25.0% silt and 3.2% clay, classified
optical fibre sensing technology has apparent as yellowish brown, very silty sand. The plastic and
advantages. It is immune to electromagnetic liquid limits of the soil were 27.3% and 35.5%
interference and highly resistant to corrosion. The respectively. The maximum dry density was 1.802
compact size makes it easy to install without affecting Mg/m3. The soil compacted in the box had the initial
the structural integrity. This technique has been widely degree of saturation of around 75%. The density of
applied in structure health monitoring (SHM). Chan et cement grout was 1.89 Mg/m3. The average uniaxial
al. (2006) has applied the FBG sensors in the compressive strength of the cement grout on the 5th
monitoring of Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong. However, day was 32.1 MPa. The secant Young’s modulus
its application in geotechnical field is still limited. Yin et (defined as the slope from the origin to the point of 50%
al. (2007) firstly applied this technique in field soil nail of the maximum axial stress in the axial stress-axial
monitoring and found that FBG sensors are more strain curve) and the corresponding Poisson’s ratio
reliable than electrical strain gauges for the strain were 12.6 GPa and 0.21 respectively. Other basic
monitoring. parameters and the shear strength parameters of the
soil and cement grout were summarized in Table 1 and
Recently, further studies on the influence of grouting Table 2 after Yin et al. (2006).
pressure on the shear resistance of soil-grouted nail
interface are in progress based on the previous studies 3.2 Typical experimental results during application of
(Yin and Su 2006, Su 2006, Yin et al 2006). A series of overburden pressure, pressure grouting, and the
laboratory soil nail pullout tests with different grouting pull-out of the soil nail
pressures and overburden pressures are proposed. All
the tests are performed on CDG soil under nearly Due to page limit, only typical results of the test nail
saturated condition, that is, the critical condition. Both subjected to an overburden pressure of 120 kPa and a
strain gauges and FBG sensors are used to measure grouting pressure of 200 kPa are presented and
the strain changes during testing. In the paper, some discussed in this section.
up to date test results are presented and discussed.
Overburden pressure was applied to the soil before
drilling a horizontal hole in the soil for the nail
2 SOIL NAIL PULLOUT BOX WITH installation. Figure 1 shows the vertical pressures
INSTRUMENTION AND TEST PROCEDURES measured by the six pressure cells (P-Cells 1 to 6)
versus time, after an overburden pressure of 120 kPa
The pullout box designed by Yin and Su (2006) was had been applied on the top soil surface in the pullout
used in the present study. The internal dimensions of box. The overburden pressure was applied gradually
the box are 1000 mm long, 600 mm wide and 830 mm and then maintained at 120 kPa. As shown in Figure 1,
high. The pullout box is fully instrumented with six earth the vertical pressures first increased to about 120 kPa
pressure cells, four pore water pressures cells, an and maintained constant afterwards, which indicates the
overburden pressure application system, an additional soil stresses in the pullout box were adequately
chamber at the box back covering the end of the soil established in simulation of the overburden pressures in
nail, a back pressure saturation system, a special a slope.
triaxial cell as a waterproof front cover, a pressure
grouting device, and a pullout device. More details on

986
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

During the hole-drilling, the stresses in the surrounding

400
soils around the hole will release. it was observed that P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2 P-Cell 3
350
the earth pressures measured by P-Cell1 to P-Cell4 P-Cell 4 P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6
5
3
6
4
300
dropped to lower values after the hole-drilling. The earth

Pressure (kPa)
250 1 2
pressures measured by P-Cells 1,2,3 and 4 were not
200
reduced to zero because these cells were still in some
150
distance (about 40mm) from the hole. The 4 cells had
100
to be placed not too close to the perimeter of the
50
drillhole in order to avoid damage during the drilling.
0
-50
0 50 100 150 200 250
150 Time (min)

120
Figure 2 Measured earth pressures versus time during
Pressure (kPa)

Overburden pressure kept constant

90 5 6 grouting under the pressure of 250 kPa
3 4

60 1 2 For the axial strain monitoring, totally four electrical

Overburden pressure increasing resistance-type strain gauges are adhered along the
30 P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2
P-Cell 3 P-Cell 4 steel rebar to measure the strain distribution along the
P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6 soil nail. In addition, three FBG sensors are applied to
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 compare and verify the results from the strain gauges
Time (min) during testing. The FBG strain sensors were
temperature compensated by a reference sensor and
Figure 1 Measured earth pressures versus time after multiplexed in serials to form a quasi-distributed
having applied an overburden pressure of 120 kPa on sensing array. The locations of the strain gauges and
the top soil surface in the pullout box FBG sensors are shown in Figure 3. Using the
measured strain data, the frictional force between the
After the hole was drilled, a high yield steel bar of nail surface and the surrounding soils during the pullout
40mm in diameter was inserted in the centre of the hole test can be determined.
and the cement slurry was grouted under pressure of
200kPa. Figure 2 shows rapid increases of the earth
pressures at the six pressure cells due to the grouting
pressure. The pressure increases at P-Cells 1,2,3, and
4 were more than those at P-Cells 5 and 6. The
pressures decrease gradually during the curing of the SG 1 SG 2 & FBG 2 SG 3 & FBG 3 SG 4 & FBG 4
cement grout, which are consistent with the
observations of the tests done by Yin et al. (2006), Pulling out
where one can find more discussions on the 50
300 300 300
50
observations. Yin et al. (2006) also reported that, for the
pressure grouting tests on the soil with 50% saturation
degree, the soil nail pullout resistance had significantly
been increased even though the earth pressures only
increased for a short duration. Figure 3 Locations of strain gauges and FBG sensors
along the soil nail
About two days after the pressure grouting, a back
pressure of 30 kPa was applied from six holes at the Figure 4 shows variations of (a) soil nail pullout force,
sides, the waterproof front cap and back extension (b) effective vertical stresses at six locations and (c)
chamber of the pullout box. After five curing days when axial strains along the soil nail measured by strain
the developed strength of the cement grout was about gauges and FBG sensors, versus time during the
32MPa, the nail was pulled out using a hydraulic jack pullout for the soil nail pullout test under an overburden
against a steel reaction frame. The load was applied pressure of 120 kPa and a grouting pressure of 200
step by step with 5 kN increment and held for about one kPa. Effective vertical stresses were calculated by
hour for each loading step. After the peak pull-out subtracting the average pore water pressure from the
resistance was achieved, the nail was continuously total earth pressure at the six locations. It can be seen
pulled out by displacement control using displacement that the effective vertical pressures around the soil nail
rates of 1mm/min for tests. The displacement at the end (measured by P-Cells 1 to 4) and axial strains in the
of the test was 100mm. During the pullout of the soil steel bar showed corresponding response at the same
nail, the variations of pullout force, pullout time when the pullout force was applied step by step at
displacement, vertical earth pressures, pore water the increment of 5kN,. The increase of normal
pressures at four locations around the soil nail and the pressures around the soil nail demonstrated the
axial strains along the soil nail were monitored. constrained dilation of the surrounding soil during
pullout of the soil nail. The pressures at P-Cells 5 and 6

987
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

changed little during pullout as they were further away the nail with measured diameter. One can see clearly a
from the nail, suggesting that the effect of pulling of the strength softening behavior of the soil nail shear
soil nail to the surrounding soil was localized. Some resistance during pulling out. In this test, the peak shear
inconsistent variations were observed in the measured stress occurred at a pullout displacement of 7mm.
earth pressures at the pressure cells above and below
the soil nail (Figure 4b). A possible explanation is that (a) Relationship between pullout shear resistance and displacement
the nail or the line of action of the pullout was not 100

Average pullout shear stress (kPa)

perfectly horizontal due to the self weight of the steel
nail bar, and the nail tilted slightly when being pulled 80
out. The tilt of the nail induced different earth pressures
60
above and below the nail.
40
(a) Relationship between pull out force and time
30 20

25 0
Pullout force (kN)

0 20 40 60 80 100
20 Pullout displacement (mm)

15 (b) Relationship between effective stress and pullout displacement

10 250
P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2
5 6 P-Cell 3 P-Cell 4
5

Effective stress (kPa)

200
3 4 P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6
0 1 2
150
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (min)
100
(b) 200
P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2 50
5 6 P-Cell 3 P-Cell 4
160 3 4 P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6
Effective stress (kPa)

0
1 2 0 20 40 60 80 100
120 Pullout displacement (mm)

(c)
80 Relationship between strain and pullout displacement
150
40 SG1
120
0
90
Micro-strain

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (min)
60
(c) Relationship between strain and time
FBG2 SG2
150 30 FBG3
SG1 SG3 FBG4 SG4
120
0
Micro-strain

90
-30
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
FBG3 SG3 FBG2 SG2
30 Pullout displacement (mm)
FBG4 SG4
0
Figure 5 Variations of (a) average interface shear
-30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 stress, (b) effective vertical stresses at six locations and
Time (min) (c) axial strains along the soil nail measured by strain
gauges and FBG sensors, versus pullout displacement
during pulling out
Figure 4 Variations of (a) soil nail pullout force, (b)
effective vertical stresses at six locations and (c) axial
The diameter of the steel rebar was 40mm. Although it
strains along the soil nail measured by strain gauges
is commonly used in Hong Kong soil nailing practice,
and FBG sensors versus time during pulling out
the strain responses in the present soil nail pullout
testing are quite small, with the maximum strain of
Figure 5 shows variations of (a) average shear stress,
around 100 micro strains during pull-out. Two methods
(b) effective vertical stresses at six locations and (c)
were used to measure the strain changes along the soil
axial strains along the soil nail measured by strain
nail, which are traditional strain gauges (SG) and Fibre
gauges and FBG sensors, versus pullout displacement
Bragg Grading (FBG) sensors. As shown in Figure 3,
during pulling out the soil nail. The deduced average
the axial strains at 4 locations along the steel bar were
shear stress was calculated using the measured axial
monitored by 4 strain gauges. To increase the reliability
force at nail head divided by the total surface area of
of the testing results, FBG strain sensors were

988
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

employed and located beside SG2, SG3, and SG4 decreased as the soil is saturated and the pullout failure
respectively. The variations of the axial strains (Figure is more likely to occur in the soil rather than at the soil-
4c and Figure 5c) along the steel bar show that, as the grout interface.
soil nail was pulled out the strains at Location 1 (near
the soil nail head) responded distinctly and reached the Figure 8 plots the increasing trends of peak shear
highest value, the strains at Location 2 responded the stress, shear stress at the pullout displacement of
second, while the strains at Location 4 (near the end of 50mm, and shear stress at the pullout displacement of
the soil nail) changed little and the values were below 5 100mm in relation to the grouting pressure under the
micro strains. From the comparison of the measured same overburden pressure (a) for VP=80kPa and (b)
results between strain gauges and FBG sensors, it for VP=120kPa.
shows that for the small value strain monitoring, the
FBG sensors provide higher sensitivity than the 120
GP=0 kPa (after Su 2006) GP=80 kPa
traditional strain gauges.
GP=130 kPa GP=250 kPa

Peak shear stress (kPa)

100

4 INFLUENCES OF GROUTING PRESSURES 80

AND OVERBURDEN PRESSURES ON THE
60
BEHAVIOUR AND RESISTANCE OF SOIL NAIL
40
Results from the five latest soil-nail pullout tests under
20
different grouting pressures and overburden pressures
are presented here. Su (2006) have conducted the tests 0
under different overburden pressures without grouting 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
pressure for the same soil at the saturated condition. In Overburden pressure (kPa)
the following section, those results are interpreted
together with the newly test results to examine the Figure 6 Relationship between average peak shear
influences of grouting pressures and overburden stress and overburden pressure with grouting pressures
pressures on the soil nail behaviour and pullout (GP) of 0kPa, 80kPa, 130kPa and 250kPa
resistance for the CDG soil at the saturated condition.

Figure 6 summarized the average peak shear stresses 100

GP=0 kPa; VP=120 kPa (After Su 2006)
of the latest five pullout tests under grouting pressure of GP=130 kPa; VP=120 kPa
Average interface shear stress (kPa)

80kPa, 130kPa and 250kPa together with the results GP=250 kPa; VP=120 kPa
80
from Su (2006) under no grouting pressure and
saturated condition. From the figure we can see that,
comparing to Su‘s results, generally the grouting 60

pressure has positive effect on the soil nail pullout

resistance. For the tests under VP=80kPa, the peak
40
shear stress increased 23.5% when the grouting
pressure increased to 80kPa. For the tests under
VP=120kPa, the peak shear stress increased 8.7% and 20

35.2% when the grouting pressure increased to 130kPa

and 250kPa, respectively.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 7 shows the average shear stress versus pullout Nail head displacement (mm)

displacement for grouting pressures of 0, 130 and 250

kPa under the same overburden pressure of 120kPa. It Figure 7 Measured average interface shear stress
can be clearly seen the increase of shear stress with versus pullout nail head displacement for grouting
the increase of grouting pressure. However, the pressures (GP) of 0, 130 and 250 kPa with the same
increase is much less than the case for the soil at Sr = overburden pressure (VP) of 120 kPa
50% (Yin et al, 2006). In Yin et al.’s study, for the tests
under overburden pressure of 200kPa, comparing to (a) 120
Peak shear stress: VP=80kPa Peak shear stress
Average interface shear stress (kPa) a

the results without grouting pressure, the peak shear 100 Shear stress at disp=50mm: VP=80kPa Shear stress at disp=50mm
stresses increased about 60% and 150% for the Shear stress at disp=100mm: VP=80kPa Shear stress at disp=100mm
80
grouting pressure of 80kPa and 130kPa, respectively.
That is to say, the effect of grouting pressure on the 60

pullout resistance for the saturated soil is much less 40

than that for the unsaturated soil. On the other hand, it 20

was also observed that for the tests under pressure
0
grouting and saturated condition, the measured 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
diameter of the soil nail after testing is about 105 to 115 Grouting pressure (kPa)

mm while the diameter of the drilled hole is about

100mm. This shows that the strength of the soil

989
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

(b)
Average interface shear stress (kPa) a
120
Peak shear stress: VP=120kPa Peak shear stress
Chang, K.T. and Milligan, G.W.E. 1996. Effects of the
100 Shear stress at disp=50mm: VP=120kPa Shear stress at disp=50mm transition zone in a nailed wall model test. Proc. of
Shear stress at disp=100mm: VP=120kPa Shear stress at disp=100mm
80
Earth Reinforcement, Ochiai, Yasufuku & Omie
(eds.), Balkema, 333-338.
60
Franzen, G. 1998. Soil nailing – A laboratory and field
40 study of pullout capacity. Doctoral thesis,
20 Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers
0
University of Technology, Sweden.
0 50 100 150 200 250 Junaideen. S.M., Tham L.G., Law K.T., Lee C.F., and
Grouting pressure (kPa)
Yue Z.Q. 2004. Laboratory study of soil-nail
interaction in loose, completely decomposed
Figure 8 Relationship of average interface shear stress granite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41, 274-
(at peak, at 50mm pullout disp. and at 100mm pullout 286.
disp.) and different grouting pressures with the same Lee, C.F., Law, K.T., Tham, L.G., Yue, Z.Q. and
overburden pressure (a) VP= 80kPa (b) VP=120kPa Junaideen, S.M. 2001. Design of a large soil box for
studying soil-nail interaction in loose fill. Soft Soil
5 CONCLUSIONS Engineering, Lee et al (eds.), 413-418
Powell, G.E. and Watkins, A.T. 1990. Improvement of
The authors present some latest results of laboratory marginally stable existing slopes by soil nailing in
soil nail pullout tests under different grouting pressure Hong Kong. Proc. of the Int. on Reinforced Soil,
and overburden pressure under the saturated condition. Glasgow, 241-247.
The following conclusions and can be drawn from the Schlosser, F. 1982. Behaviour and design of soil
above: nailing. Proc. on Recent Developments in Ground
Improvement Techniques, Bangkok, Thailand, 399-
The constrained dilation of the surrounding soils was 413.
clearly observed during the pullout. Schlosser, F. and Guilloux, A. 1981. Le frottement dens
les sols. Revue Francaise de Geotechnique, (16),
In the strain monitoring during pullout of the soil nail, the 65-77.
FBG sensors provide higher sensitivity than the Su, L.J. 2006. Laboratory pull-out testing study on soil
traditional strain gauges. nails in compacted completely decomposed granite
fill. Ph.D. Thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
The effect of grouting pressure on the pullout resistance University.
for saturated soil is much less than that for the Yeung, A.T., Cheng Y.M., Lau C.K., Mak L.M., Yu
unsaturated soil because the pullout failure is more R.S.M., Choi Y.K., and Kim J.H. 2005. An
likely to occur in the soil rather than at the soil-grout innovative Korean system of pressure-grouted soil
interface at the saturated condition. nailing as a slope stabilization measure. The HKIE
Geotechnical Division 25th Annual Seminar, Hong
It should be noted that more tests under higher grouting Kong, published by HKIE-GDC and HKGES, 43-49.
pressures and overburden pressures are to be carried Yin, J.H., and Su, L.J. 2006 An innovative laboratory
out and reported in the near future. box for testing nail pull-out resistance in soil. ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 29(6): 1-11.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Yin J.H., Su L.J., Cheung R.W.M., Shiu Y.K., and Tang
C. 2006. The Influence of Grouting Pressure on the
Financial supports from The Hong Kong Polytechnic Pullout Resistance of Soil Nail in Compacted
University and a grant from Research Grants Completely Decomposed Granite Fill. Submitted to
Committee (RGC: PolyU 5174/04E) of the Hong Kong Geotechnique.
Special Administrative Region Government of China are Yin, J.H., Zhu, H.H., Jin, W, Yeung, A.T., and Mak, L.M.
gratefully acknowledged. 2007. Performance evaluation of electrical strain
gauges and optical fiber sensors in field soil nail
REFERENCES pullout tests. Geotechnical Advancements in Hong
Kong since 1970s, The HKIE Geotechnical Division
Berglund, C. and Oden, K. 1996. The pullout resistance 27th Annual Seminar, Hong Kong, published by
of different types of nails. Department of HKIE-GDC and HKGES 249-254.
Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers University of
Technology, Report No. X 1995:6.
Chan, T. H. T., Yu, L., Tam, H. Y., Ni, Y. Q., Liu, S. Y.,
Chung, W. H., and Cheng, L. K. 2006. Fiber Bragg
grating sensors for structural health monitoring of
Tsing Ma bridge: Background and experimental
observation. Engineering Structures, 28(5), 648-
659.

990