Lecture 23

NPTEL Course

GROUND IMPROVEMENT
USING GEOSYNTHETICS

Prof. G L Sivakumar Babu

Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012
Email: [email protected]
A Brief Overview of Geosynthetics
and Their Major Applications*
1. Geosynthetic Materials
2. Transportation and Geotechnical
3. Geoenvironmental
4. Hydraulic Engineering
5. Private Development
6. Concluding Comments
1. Geosynthetic Materials

 Polymer Background
 Types of Geosynthetics
 Various Functions
 Design Methods
 Application Areas
 Polymer Background

 geosynthetics are really “geopolymers”

 feedstock is natural gas reacted to form
resin in a flake form
 mixed with additives into a formulation
 manufactured into a particular type of
geosynthetic material
Geosynthetic (GS) Materials

 geotextiles (GT)
 geogrids (GG)
 geonets (GN)
 geomembranes (GM)
 geosynthetic clay liners (GCL)
 geopipe (GP)
 geofoam (GF)
 geocomposites (G C)
 Geotextiles (GT)

 majority are made from polypropylene fibers

 standard textile manufacturing
 woven (slit film, monofilament or multifilament)
 nonwoven (needle punched or heat bonded)
 characterized by an open and porous structure
 mechanical and hydraulic properties vary widely
 very versatile in their primary function
 Geogrids (GG)

 unitized, woven yarns or bonded straps

 structure allows for soil “strike-through”
 bidirectional – equal strength in both directions
 unidirectional – main strength in machine direction
 focuses entirely on reinforcement applications, e.g.,
 walls, steep slopes, base and foundation reinforcement
 Geonets (GN)

 all are made from high density polyethylene

 results in parallel sets of ribs as a integral unit
 biplanar – flow is equal in all directions
 triplanar – flow much greater in machine direction
 function is always in-plane drainage
 surfaces must be covered; usually with GTs
 Geomembranes (GM)

 function is always containment

 represents a barrier to liquids and gases
 many types: HDPE, LLDPE, fPP, PVC, EPDM, etc.
 manufactured rolls are field seamed
 required by regulations for waste containment
 new applications in hydraulics and private development
Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCL)

 function is always containment

 common product is bentonite between 2-GTs
 internally reinforced by needle punched or stitching
 bentonite product bonded to GM is also available
 many other variations exist
 competitive with compacted clay liners (CCLs)
 beneath a GM; one has a composite liner
GEOPIPE
 Geopipe

 its really buried plastic pipe!

 function is always drainage
 HDPE and PVC most common
 both can be smooth walled or corrugated
 corrugated HDPE growth is enormous
GEOFOAM
 Geofoam (GF)

 EPS or XPS in block form

 lightweight fill on soft or sensitive soils
 relieves lateral pressure on walls
 also used for insulation of frost-sensitive
soils
 Geocomposites (GC)

 array of available products

 GT/GM; GT/GG; GT/GN; etc.
 considerable ongoing innovation
 primary function depends on final product
 Function vs. Geosynthetic Type
Type of Separation Reinforcement Filtration Drainage Containment
Geosynthetic
geotextile    
geogrid 
geonet 
geomembrane 
geosynthetic 
clay liner
geopipe 
geofoam 
geocomposite     
 Design Methods

(a) “Cost”-based on experience/availability

(b) “Specification” – for common applications
(c) “Function” – for specialty, critical and/or
permanent applications
 Design-by-Function

Allowable (Test) Property

FS 
Required (Design) Property
where

 test Methods are from ASTM, ISO or GRI

 design Models from the Literature
 factor-of-Safety is Application Specific
 Application Areas

Transportation/Geotechnical – GT, GG & GC mainly

Geoenvironmental – GM, GCL & GN mainly
Hydraulic Systems – GM, GP & GC mainly
Private Development – all types of GSs
 2. Transportation and
Geotechnical Applications

 GTs as filters
 GTs and GGs as wall reinforcement
 GTs and GGs as slope reinforcement
 GC Wick Drains (also called PVDs)
 GC Erosion Control Systems
 Geotextile Filtration
 refers to cross-plane flow, i.e., GT is acting as
a filter not as a drain
 three design requirements:
1. adequate flow
2. proper soil retention
3. long-term flow equilibrium
 many applications, e.g.,
 behind retaining walls
 under erosion control systems
 around pavement underdrains (follows)
 Pavement Topsoil
Stone 450 mm
base

GT
400 mm
Crushed
Soil subgrade stone/
perforated
300 mm pipe

(GT Filter in Excavated Trench) (Crushed Stone & Perforated Pipe)

 Wall Reinforcement Design Concepts

 internal design results in:

• spacing of GT or GG
• length of GT or GG
• facing connection stress
 external design used to assess:
• overturning stability
• sliding stability
• bearing capacity
 reduction factors on reinforcement
• put on laboratory values for allowable strength
 factor-of-safety
• on each design aspect to resist the “unknown”
 Elements of a GT or GG Wall Design
P1 P2(live loads)

Surcharge D

z
LR LE
hs + hq + ht = h
H sv
45+/2

L0 Total lateral
Soil Surcharge Live load
L pressure pressure pressure pressure

(With Concrete Facing) (Green Wall with Vegetated Facing)

 Segmental Retaining Walls (SRWs)
(also called modular block walls)
 design is same as described before
 refers to type of wall facing
 great variety of aesthetic blocks
 usually GG reinforced MSE system
 generic computer design codes available

Tiered Wall with Surcharge

 Reinforcement for Soil Slopes

 most soil slopes become unstable steeper

than 2(H)-to-1(V) (26.5°)
 use GT or GG reinforcement to increase
either the slope angle or height
 essentially no limit, except for erosion
 various placement patterns are possible
 Placement patterns for reinforcement

(a) Even spaced-even length (b) Uneven spaced-even length

(c) Even spaced-even length (d) Even spaced-uneven length

with short facing layers with short facing layers

(One that Failed)! (With Reinforcement-Steep & Stable)

 Geocomposite Wick Drains
 also called prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs)
 used for rapid consolidation of saturated fine grained
soils
 consists of a drainage core with a GT filter/separator
wrapped completely around it
 typically 100 mm wide, by 2 to 10 mm thick, by 100 m
long (in roll or coil form)

(Driving Wick Drains) (Ready for Surcharge Fill)

Geocomposite Erosion Control Systems

 huge array of products

 slope protection – modify USLE
 channel protection – increase shear stress
 temporary; permanent (soft); permanent (hard)
3. Geoenvironmental Applications

 Landfill liner systems

 Landfill cover systems
 Vertical Cutoff Barriers
 Liners for Surface Impoundments
 Liners for Heap Leach Ponds
 Nature of Waste Problem

 moisture within and precipitation on the waste

generates leachate
 leachate takes the characteristics of the waste
 thus leachate is very variable and is site-specific
 flows gravitationally downward
 enters groundwater unless a suitable barrier
layer and collection system is provided
 Double Liner System
(with leak detection layer)

GT

GN

GCL Gravel w/
GM perforated pipe
GG

CCL
 (Secondary Composite Liner) (Geonet Leak Detection)

(Primary Composite Liner) (Nine Layers of Geosynthetics)

Final Cover System
(Sequential Placement of GSs) (Areal View of 70 ha Site)

Possible Geosynthetic Layers

in a Waste Containment System

in Final Cover - 7
in Waste Itself - 2
in Base Liner - 9
18 Layers!
(Seven Layers of Geosynthetics)
 Vertical Geomembrane Cutoff Walls
 utilized at abandoned dumps or for the control of polluted
groundwater
 typically placed in a slurry supported trench with soil/cement,
soil/asphalt, or soil/fly ash as backfill
 system is greatly enhanced with a geomembrane placed up
gradient, thereby forming a vertical composite liner system

(Placement of GM Panels)
Liners for Surface Impoundments

 design is progressive with each decision leading

to the input for next consideration; i.e.,
 geometry
 cross section
 GM type selection
 GM thickness selection
 subgrade stability
 cover soil stability
 runout and anchor trench
(Double Lined Hazardous Waste Pond) (Lined Pond With Ugly Whales)

(Pond With Failed Subgrade)

(Electrical Leak Detection in Progress)
Commentary:

 major decision is whether to leave GM

exposed or cover it with soil
 exposed; durability is key to GM selection
 covered; many GMs are possible
(depending on liquid to be contained)
 if covered, slopes will be relatively flat
and stability is a major design issue
 Heap Leach Mining
 practiced in existing mining areas
 target metals are gold, silver and copper
 process uses cyanide and sulfuric acid
 chemicals strip trace amounts from the ore which
has been placed in “heaps”
 needs GM liner and collection system
4. Hydraulic Engineering Applications

 Waterproofing of Dams
 Waterproofing of Canals
 Reservoir Liners/Floating Covers
 Tunnel Waterproofing & Rehabilitation
 Pipe Rehabilitation & Remediation
 Waterproofing of Dams

 masonry, concrete, earth and RCC dams

 GM is not a structural element, its
waterproofing
 many dams over 50-years old often have
leakage; sometimes excessive leakage
 methods are under rapid development
mainly in European Alps and in China
 (Lining a
Concrete Dam)

(Concrete Dam Leaking!)

(Completed Concrete Dam Lining) (Lined Earth Dam: Before Rip-Rap)

 Waterproofing of Canals

 conveyance of all liquids; however, water is the

most common
 distances and quantities vary greatly
 fundamental issue is leakage (i.e., how much, if
any, is allowable)
 some type of liner (GM or GCL) is necessary
 many federal agencies involved (BuRec, COE,
DOA and NRCA)
(Lining a Canal: Before Soil Covering) (GCL Lining of a Canal)

(GM Canal 18 years after GM Lined) (Lining a “Live” Canal)

 Reservoir Liners/Floating Covers
 GM pond liners date back to 1930’s
 used to contain all types of liquids
 potable water  process waste waters
 architectural ponds  sewage sludge
 shutdown water  industrial sludge
 gray water  agricultural wastes
 industrial waters  hazardous liquids*
*EPA estimates 206,000 in USA alone!
 Common Characteristics

 generally shallow liquid depths

 typically 2 to 7 m
 side slopes from 4(H)-to-1(V) to 1(H)-to-
1(V), i.e.,  = 14 to 45
 both exposed and covered
 exposed – GM durability issue
 covered – soil stability issue
(Lined Potable Water Reservoir) (Floating GM Cover)

(Huge GM Bag Transporting Potable Water)

(Another Floating GM Cover)
 New Tunnel Waterproofing
 many old tunnels without GMs are leaking
 white staining on surface is the “tell-tale”
 key is to use a GT and GM behind the permanent
concrete surfacing
 in turn, this requires a GP drainage system
 Tunnel Rehabilitation
 concern is over excessive leakage
 leakage can lead to instability
 tunnels are essentially accessible pipes
 obviously, they are usually more critical
 water tunnels are the general target

SAN FIORANO, Italy

SPALOV TUNNEL, Czech Republic

Pipe Rehabilitation and Remediation
 focuses on old lifeline systems
 transmission lines (water, gas, oil)
 drainage (conduits, canals)
 sewers (sanitary and storm) … see photos
 Methods of Pipe Rehabilitation
 Coatings
 Slip Liners (Pipe-within-Pipe)
 Cured-in-Place Pipe
 Fold-and-Formed Pipe
 In-Situ Liners

(Epoxy Coated Pipe) (Pipe-within-Pipe)

 Private Development Applications

Selected Areas of Focus

 various dwellings  sport fields

 industrial buildings  golf courses
 storage/staging areas  airfields
 tank farms  agriculture
 parks and playgrounds  aquaculture
 pools and lakes  liquid transportation
 Tank Farms/Gas Stations
 concern is spillage into surface water
 also, leakage into ground water
 requires a GM or GCL Barrier
 classified as “secondary containment”
 barrier must be resistant to liquid
 Pools, Ponds and Lakes
 sites vary from small-to-huge
 usually access is limited
 liners required for leakage control
 covers sometimes required for contamination
control and for safety
 Golf Courses
 aesthetics, aesthetics, aesthetics
 drainage, drainage, drainage
 turf maintenance is a major issue
 essentially all geosynthetics are involved
 opportunities available in new sites and in
expansion/remediation of existing sites

(GM Lined Bunker) (Gravel & GP Drainage)

 Agriculture
 mega-farming is big business
 animal populations are enormous
 the major item of “non-point source pollution”
 animal waste conveyance, recovery and treatment are
critical topics and invariably they are “newsworthy”

(Lined Pond Behind Cattle Stalls) (Aerobic Decomposition of Waste)

 Aquaculture
 fish-farming is also big business
 generally shallow GM-lined ponds
 lining required for control purposes
(nutrition, oxygen, contamination)
 some enterprises are “awesome”

(GM Lined Shrimp Farm) (Lots & Lots of Them!)

6. Concluding Remarks

 Organizations
 Publications
 Current Status
 Summary
Web Sites of Geosynthetic Organizations

 Geosynthetic Institute (GSI)

<http://www.geosynthetic-institute.org>
 International Geosynthetics Society (IGS)
<http://www.igs.rmc.ca>
 Geosynthetics Materials Association (GMA)
<http://www.gmanow.com>
 International Standards Organization (ISO)
<http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage>
 ASTM International
<http://www.astm.org>
 Publications

 Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes - Prof. R. K. Rowe,

Editor
<www.sciencedirect.com>
 Geosynthetics International Journal - Dr. T. S. Ingold, Editor
<www.ifai.com>
 GFR Magazine - Mr. Chris Kelsey, Editor
<www.ifai.com>
 Designing With Geosynthetics - Prof. R. M. Koerner, Author
<www.geosynthetic-institute.org>
Comments on Current Status
Transportation & Geotechnical Applications
 most mature of application areas
 focuses on GTs, GGs and GCs
 moving toward generic specifications
Geoenvironmental Applications
 regulatory driven
 all GSs are involved with specs
 field performance is excellent
Hydraulic Engineering Applications
 lagging behind other applications
 focuses on GMs and GCLs
 tremendous opportunities available
Private Development Applications
 tremendous variety of applications
 all GSs are involved
 innovation and cost/benefit driven
 Summary
 Geosynthetics are bona fide engineering
materials and must be treated as such
 Test methods and designs are available –
challenge them accordingly
 Basic advantage of geosynthetics is quality
control of factory manufactured products
 Products must be accompanied by rigorous
CQC/CQA
 Field performance has been excellent
 Geosynthetics potential is awesome!
 Lecture 24

NPTEL Course

GROUND IMPROVEMENT
USING GEOSYNTHETICS

Prof. G L Sivakumar Babu

Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012
Email: [email protected]
Types, Functions and Applications
 Geosynthetics Terms
Geosynthetics

Permeable Nonpermeable

Geotextiles Geogrids Compo Geomembranes

sites waterproofing sheets
woven woven Elasto
nonwoven knitted all Thermo Geo
meric
knitted extruded+ combi plastic clay
Bitumi
stretched nations liner
nous
welded
 Polymers

Density Melting Strain@uts creep

(g/cm3) (o C) (%)

Polyolefines .90 to .95 110 to 170 >100 high

PE,PP

Polyester 1.38 >240 10 to 15 low

PET
 Functions of Geosynthetics

 Filtration  Allow the passage of

fluids preventing the
migration of soil
particles(geotextiles,
geocomposites)
 Drainage  Transport of fluids
geonets,
geocomposites
 Functions of Geosynthetics

 Separation  Prevent the mixing of two

different soils or materials
using geotextiles,
geocomposites
 Protection  Avoid damages to a
structure, a material or
another geosynthetic using
nonwoven geotextiles,
geonets, geocomposites
Functions of Geosynthetics

 Impermeabilization  Fluid barrier using

Geomembranes,
geocomposites
 Reinforcement of  Provide tensile forces
walls/steep slopes in the soil using
geogrids,
and geotextiles
 Functions of Geosynthetics

 Reinforcement of  Increase the bearing

soft soil capacity using
bidirectional geogrids,
geotextiles,
geocomposites

 Reinforcement of  Provide tensile and

concrete, asphalt fatique resistance
bidirectional geogrids
 Functions of Geosynthetics

 Erosion control  Avoid the detachment and

or surfacial transport of soil particles by
stabilisation rain, runoff and wind; root
anchorage using geomats,
geocells, biomats, bionets

 Confinement  Restrain the lateral

movement of a soil mass
geocells
Functions of Geosynthetics

Separation Filtration Reinforcement

Protection Waterproofing Drainage

Erosioncontrol
 Application of Geosynthetics

Resevoirs, dams Liquid waste Solid waste Canals

Roads Railroads Retaining walls Erosionprotection

Tunnels Drainage systems

Retaining Walls, Slopes
Slope can be reinstated by reusing
the same landslide soil
 Railway Embankment

B - Original embankment profile

R - Cutting profile
S - Saving of right of way
U - Fill soil saving, Z - New railway lane
 Highway Embankments

.
Reinforced Pavements
Separation
Separation + Reinforcement
Reinforcement

8m

9.5m
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Reinforcement
Texsol
Reinforcement
Lining and Drainage

Capping of an
Drain
composite
old wastedump
GCL
Erosion Control
Hydraulic Engineering Applications

 Waterproofing of Dams
 Waterproofing of Canals
 Reservoir Liners/Floating Covers
 Tunnel Waterproofing & Rehabilitation
 Pipe Rehabilitation & Remediation
 Waterproofing of Dams

 masonry, concrete, earth and RCC dams

 GM is not a structural element, its
waterproofing
 many dams over 50-years old often have
leakage; sometimes excessive leakage
 methods are under rapid development
mainly in European Alps and in China
 (Lining a
Concrete Dam)

(Concrete Dam Leaking!)

(Completed Concrete Dam Lining) (Lined Earth Dam: Before Rip-Rap)

 Waterproofing of Canals

 conveyance of all liquids; however, water is the

most common
 distances and quantities vary greatly
 fundamental issue is leakage (i.e., how much, if
any, is allowable)
 some type of liner (GM or GCL) is necessary
 many federal agencies involved (BuRec, COE,
DOA and NRCA)
(Lining a Canal: Before Soil Covering) (GCL Lining of a Canal)

(GM Canal 18 years after GM Lined) (Lining a “Live” Canal)

 Reservoir Liners/Floating Covers
 GM pond liners date back to 1930’s
 used to contain all types of liquids
 potable water  process waste waters
 architectural ponds  sewage sludge
 shutdown water  industrial sludge
 gray water  agricultural wastes
 industrial waters  hazardous liquids*
*EPA estimates 206,000 in USA alone!
 Common Characteristics

 generally shallow liquid depths

 typically 2 to 7 m
 side slopes from 4(H)-to-1(V) to 1(H)-to-
1(V), i.e.,  = 14 to 45
 both exposed and covered
 exposed – GM durability issue
 covered – soil stability issue
(Lined Potable Water Reservoir) (Floating GM Cover)

(Huge GM Bag Transporting Potable Water)

(Another Floating GM Cover)
 New Tunnel Waterproofing
 many old tunnels without GMs are leaking
 white staining on surface is the “tell-tale”
 key is to use a GT and GM behind the permanent
concrete surfacing
 in turn, this requires a GP drainage system
 Tunnel Rehabilitation
 concern is over excessive leakage
 leakage can lead to instability
 tunnels are essentially accessible pipes
 obviously, they are usually more critical
 water tunnels are the general target

SAN FIORANO, Italy

SPALOV TUNNEL, Czech Republic

Pipe Rehabilitation and Remediation
 focuses on old lifeline systems
 transmission lines (water, gas, oil)
 drainage (conduits, canals)
 sewers (sanitary and storm) … see photos
 Methods of Pipe Rehabilitation
 Coatings
 Slip Liners (Pipe-within-Pipe)
 Cured-in-Place Pipe
 Fold-and-Formed Pipe
 In-Situ Liners

(Epoxy Coated Pipe) (Pipe-within-Pipe)

FIBRES / TAPES
PP-Fibre Production
PP-Tape Production

PP-Tapes

PP-Film
WOVEN FABRIC
Weaving Machine
PET Multifilament Woven Fabric
PE/PET Woven Fabric
PE PET
PP-Tape Woven Fabric
PP-Tape Woven Fabric
Monofil (wire) Woven Fabric

Fixing
material
GEOGRIDS
Coated PET-Geogrid

Ca 25 mm
 Welded PET-Geogrids

Laserwelded

X-welded
Punched Holes in a PE-liner

33mm
Uniaxial Stretched PE-Geogrid

163mm
Biaxial Stretched PP-Geogrid
Knitted Structure
Nonwoven Production

 Fibre composition

 Forming a fleece of oriented fibres

 Multiple layers of fleece for desired

mua

 Bonding mechanically or thermally

Bales of Staplefibres
Staple Fibre Nonwoven
Staple Fibre Nonwoven

Orientation
of Fibres
Nonwoven Fleece of oriented fibres
Nonwoven Fleece of oriented fibres
Nonwoven Conveyor Crosslaying a Fleece
Staple Fibre Nonwoven

Needling device

5mm
Nonwoven Needle Punched
Nonwoven Heat Bonded
Nonwoven Heat Bonded
EXTRUDED MATS
Random Wire Draincore
Random Wire Draincore
Characteristic Properties

 Mechanical short/longterm

 Hydraulic short/longterm

 Durability

 Damage during installation

Force/Strain Geosynthetics

25

f
20

o
Kraft in kN

15

r
c 10

e 5

strain
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dehnung in %
PES-Gitter x PE-Gitter x PES-Gitter r PVA-Gitter w PES-w
PP-Bändchen w PES-Gitter w Aramid-Gitter r PES-Gitter T
Force/Strain up to 60 % UTS

UTS = 100 %
70

60

50
Kraft in %

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Dehnung in %
PES-w PES-Gitter x PE-Gitter x PP_Bändchen w PVA-Gitter w
PES-Gitter w PES-Gitter r Aramid-Gitter r PES-Gitter T
Concluding Remarks

 Organizations
 Publications
 Current Status
 Summary
Web Sites of Geosynthetic Organizations

 Geosynthetic Institute (GSI)

<http://www.geosynthetic-institute.org>
 International Geosynthetics Society (IGS)
<http://www.igs.rmc.ca>
 Geosynthetics Materials Association (GMA)
<http://www.gmanow.com>
 International Standards Organization (ISO)
<http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage>
 ASTM International
<http://www.astm.org>
 Publications

 Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes - Prof. R. K.

Rowe, Editor <www.sciencedirect.com>
 Geosynthetics International Journal - Dr. Bathurst,
Editor http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com
 GFR Magazine -<www.ifai.com>
 Designing With Geosynthetics - Prof. R. M. Koerner,
Author <www.geosynthetic-institute.org>
Comments on Current Status
Transportation & Geotechnical Applications
 most mature of application areas
 focuses on GTs, GGs and GCs
 moving toward generic specifications
Geoenvironmental Applications
 regulatory driven
 all GSs are involved with specs
 field performance is excellent
Hydraulic Engineering Applications
 lagging behind other applications
 focuses on GMs and GCLs
 tremendous opportunities available
Private Development Applications
 tremendous variety of applications
 all GSs are involved
 innovation and cost/benefit driven
 Summary
 Geosynthetics are bona fide engineering
materials and must be treated as such
 Test methods and designs are available –
challenge them accordingly
 Basic advantage of geosynthetics is quality
control of factory manufactured products
 Products must be accompanied by rigorous
CQC/CQA
 Field performance has been excellent
 Geosynthetics potential is awesome!
THANK YOU
 Lecture 25
NPTEL Course
REINFORCED SOIL
PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS

Dr G L Sivakumar Babu
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore
 Introduction

An externally stabilised system such as

cantilever retaining wall uses an external
structural wall against which stabilising
forces are mobilised.
An internally stabilised system such as
reinforced earth involves reinforcements
installed within and extending beyond the
potential failure mass
 Introduction
Soil reinforcement is a construction
technique that depends on friction between
soil and reinforcing element leading to
tensile force mobilization.
Reinforcement introduces pseudo-confining pressure
Failure occurs either due to tension or pull out of reinforcement
 Components

• The reinforcing elements (strip, grid or sheet,

fabricated from metals or geosynthetics)

• Facing units to prevent the soil from erosion

(Pre-cast concrete panels, metal sheets and plates,
gabions, welded wire mesh, shotcrete, wrapped
sheets of geosynthetics)

• Backfill materials (local soils, specified soils,

marginal materials)
 Technical Benefits

• Reduce the forces in the soil, which cause

failure
• Shearing resistance of soils does not dominate
design
• Efficient use of materials (shear resistance of
soil with tensile capacity of the reinforcement)
• Inherent flexibility and tolerance to deformation
• Improved overall performance of the structure
 Economic Benefits

• Cost savings relative to alternative designs

• Use of locally available and poor quality soils
• Land acquisition can be kept to a minimum
• Less construction time on projects
Mechanisms
P

Presisting force = Pv tan’

 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.
 Lecture 31

Reinforced Soil Retaining

Walls-Design and
Construction

Prof. G L Sivakumar Babu

Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012
Evolution of RS-RW
Classical gravity retaining walls

Reinforced concrete types

Buttressed and counterfort

walls

Prefabricated and
compartmentalized
gravity walls
(cribs and Bins, gabions)

MSE with metal reinforcement

MSE with Geosynthetic

reinforcement
 segmental
facing units
shear key or
mechanical
connector
geosynthetic
reinforcement
layer reinforced soil

geotextile
wrapped drain
retained soil

granular
levelling pad

foundation soil
Component parts of Reinforced Earth wall
(Vidal’s Reinforced Earth system)
Steel strips
Geotextile materials
– Conventional geotextiles
nonwovens, woven, knitted and stretch
bonded textiles
– special geotextiles
geosynthetics in two forms geo-grids and
geo-composites
 The principal requirements of
reinforcement
strength and stability (low tendency to
creep),
durability, ease of handling,
high coefficient of friction and/or
adherence with the soil,
low cost and
ready availability.
geosynthetic acts as reinforcement
and the most important properties
are
– tensile strength,
– tensile modulus and
– interface shear strength
 General
Limit equilibrium approach
Two primary forms of stability must
be investigated:
– External stability
– Internal stability
Critical state soil properties (’cv and
c’cv)
Design strength of the grids
MILTS = Pc/(fm x fe x fd x fj)
External stability
Tie back wedge method
Coherent gravity method
 External Forces
ws

Wall fill Backfill

c’w, ’w, w c’b, ’b, b
KabwsH
H
Rv
0.5KabH2 H/2
e H/3

v Foundation Soil
L - 2e c’f, ’f, f
1  sin b
L K ab  (Rankine )
1  sin b
 External Sliding
Factor of Safety for sliding is given
by:
Re sisting force 2   H  w 
Fos  
w s

 H
K   H  2w   
Sliding force
ab b s
 L
where  is the coefficient of friction
on the base of the reinforced soil
block (= tan’w or tan’f )
Target factor of safety is usually 2.0
 Overturning Failure
Factor of safety against overturning
is given by:
Re storing moment 3  w H  w s 
Fos   2
 H
K ab   b H  3w s  
Overturning moment
 L

Target factor of safety is usually 2.0

Seldom a critical failure criterion
 Bearing Capacity
Assume a Meyerhof pressure distribution at
the base of the structure
Usually, an allowable bearing pressure of half
the ultimate pressure is satisfactory providing
settlements can be tolerated (i.e. factor of
safety = 2.0)
The ground bearing pressure is given by

v 
  H w 
w s

K   H  3w   H  2

1  
ab b s

3  H  w   L 
w s

Allowable bearing pressure given in codes.

 Slip Failure
All potential slip surfaces should be
investigated
Target factor of safety of 1.5 usually
adopted for rotational slip type
failures
 Internal Stability
Two main failure mechanisms need
to be investigated:
– tension failure
– pull-out failure

Tension Failure Pull-out Failure

 Tension Failure (1)
ws

hi
Ti
Vi

vi Note: Vi is the effective

vertical spacing for grid i

45 - ’w/2
Potential failure plane

Ti has four components:

Weight of fill Surcharge on top of RSB
Active pressure from behind RSB c’ within RSB (restoring force)
 Tension Failure (2)
Grids carry tension as a result of the
self weight of the fill and the
surcharge acting on top of the
reinforced soil block
   
   

Ti   K aw 
 w i s
 h  w  
2   2c' w
K ab   b h i  3 w s   h i 
K aw  Vi
 1     
  3  w i s   L  
 h  w 
 Tension Failure (3)
A spacing curve approach is used
Effective vertical spacing, Vi

55RE
80RE

Depth, hi
For a given design strength,
the maximum vertical grid
spacing Vi(max) can be
calculated for a range of
depths
 Wedge/Pull-out Failure (1)
Consider the possibility of failure
planes passing through the wall and
forming unstable
S1 wedges
F1 ws

Potential
T failure plane
h ’w
 R
 Wedge/Pull-out Failure (2)
Assumptions:
– each wedge behaves as a rigid body
– friction between the facing and the fill is
ignored
Investigate series of wedges as
shown below:
Potential failure
planes
a
b
c
 Wedge/Pull-out Failure (3)

Mobilising force
– At any level, by changing , a value
for Tmax can be determined
S1
For simple cases, F1 ws
T Tmax given when
 = 45 - ’w/2 W
Tmax
T
h
’w

 R
h tan   w h  2ws 
T
2 tan 'w   
Wedge/Pull-out Failure (4)
Resisting force
– This is normally the design strength of the
grid
– Account must be taken of the anchorage
ws
effects
Overburden
h pressure
H
Grid under

consideration

Lip
L
 Wedge/Pull-out Failure (5)
Resisting force (continued)
– Anchorage force, Tai available in a grid is given
2L ip  p tan ' w   w h i  w s 
by:
Tai 
factor of safety
For each layer of reinforcement cut by the
wedge, the lower of the design strength, Tdes or
Tai is used to determine the contribution from
the reinforcement
Compare the mobilising force with the resisting
force
i.e. Tai or Tdes) T
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Walls

GRS walls are increasingly becoming popular.

geosynthetics

Concrete facing Wrapped geotextile facing

GRS-RW Features
Advantages
Stability Considerations:
– External stability
– Internal stability
Design methods (koerner (2001)
– Modified Rankine approach-most conservative
– FHWA method- intermediate
– NCMA approach- least conservative
 Example masonry
concrete segmental
retaining wall units

Not to scale
Different Styles of Facing
Blockwork wall
Wall in Residential Development
Blockwork Wall Adjacent to Highway
Construction of Walls
 Modes of Failure

External

a) base sliding b) overturning c) bearing capacity

(excessive settlement)

Internal
d) pullout e) tensile over-stress f) internal sliding

Facing

g) connection h) column shear failure i) toppling

failure
External Modes of Failure

L
a) base sliding b) overturning c) bearing capacity
(excessive settlement)
Internal Modes of Failure

d) pullout e) tensile over-stress f) internal sliding

Facing Modes of Failure

g) connection failure h) column shear failure i) toppling

Global Stability
Typical Factors of Safety Against
(Collapse) Failure Mechanisms
a) Base sliding 1.5
b) Overturning 2.0
c) Bearing capacity 2.0
d) Tensile over-stress 1.0
e) Pullout 1.5
f) Internal sliding 1.5
g) Connection failure 1.5
h) Column shear failure 1.5
i) Toppling 2.0

Global stability 1.3 - 1.5

Construction
Details
Wall Construction
Locking Bar
General view
on Wall
During
Construction
Placing Facing Blocks
Wall Ties Fixing False Facing
Locking Geogrid Between Blocks
Safety Barriers at Top of Wall
Completed Wall with Fence
Examples Of Finished Structures
Examples Of Finished Structures
Examples Of Finished Structures
Goegrid-reinforced soil RW along JR Kobe Line (1992)
Goegrid-reinforced soil RW along JR Kobe Line (1995)
Damaged masonry RW,
reconstructed to
a GRS RW with a full-
height rigid facing
Some examples of poor quality
 Example calculation

An 8 m high wall is to be built using sand fill and

polymer-grid reinforcement. The sand has ’ = 300, =
18 kN/m3 and is to be used for the wall and the
backfill. A surcharge loading of 15 kPa is to be
allowed for, and the maximum safe bearing pressure
for the foundation soil is 300 kPa. Two grids of
different design strength are available: grid A at 20
kN/m and grid B at 40 kN/m (both have a bond
coefficient fb of 0.9). The fill will be compacted in
layers 250 mm thick.
 External stability (sliding)

Ka = (1 – sin 300) / (1+ sin 300) = 0.333

 = fb tan  = 0.9  tan (30)  0.5.

For a factor of safety against sliding of 2.0, the

minimum length of layers is:

FS K ab H  w H  2w 
L min  S
2 μ  w H  w S 

2x0.333  8  18  8  2  15

L  5.83m.
2  0.5  18  8  15
Therefore adopt a length of 6m.
 External stability (Overturning)

Overturning moments H3 ws H 2
(k ab b  k ab )
about the toe = 6 2
2 2
Restoring moments HL w L
about the toe = ( )( s )
2 2
Factor of safety 3( w H  w s )
against overturning = k ab ( b H  3w s )(H / L) 2

3(18 x8  15)
FS   4.26  2
0.333(18 x8  45)(8 / 6) 2
 Bearing pressure

Using trapezoidal distribution,

v max = (18  8 + 15) + 0.333  (18  8 + 45) (8/6)2 = 159 +

112 = 271 kPa. (< 300 kPa)

Check that contact stresses at the base of reinforced zone

are compressive everywhere (i.e. no tension):

v min = 159 – 112 = 47 kPa. (> 0)

 T = h SV = Kv SV

v = (z + wS) + Ka (z + 3wS) (z / L)2

Ti = 0.333 [(18z + 15) + 0.333 (18z + 45) (z/6)2] SV

Pd
S v max 
2
0.333 18z  15  0.333 18z  45 z 6  
 
 Maximum spacing of geogrids, (Sv)max
z (m) Grid A Grid B
(Pd=20 kN/m) (Pd=40
Two different grids kN/m)
that are available 0.5 2.46 4.93
1.0 1.73 3.46
the use of above 1.5 1.29 2.58
equation results in 2.0 1.00 2.00
the values 2.5 0.79 1.59
presented in the 3.0 0.64 1.28
Table. 3.5 0.52 1.05
4.0 0.43 0.86
4.5 0.36 0.72
5.0 0.30 0.60
5.5 0.26 0.51
6.0 0.22 0.44
6.5 0.19 0.37
7.0 0.16 0.32
7.5 0.14 0.28
8.0 0.12 0.24
 Spacing versus depth plot for grids A
and B

Maximum vertical spacing (m)

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
0
1
Grid 'A' (20 kN/m)
Depth below top of wall (m)

2
3
Grid 'B' (40 kN/m)
4
5
6
7
8
 Wedge stability check

Select trial wedges at depths, 1 to 8 m below the top of

the wall and calculate the total required force T. Carry
out check with and without surcharge ws. For critical
wedge angle  = (450 - 'w/2 = 300 for a wedge of
height h, the total tension force T is given by

h tan 30 0 18h  2  15

T  3h 2  5h

2 tan 30 0  30 0 
For a reinforcing layer at depth z below the top of the
wall, the pullout resistance is given by
PP = 2 [L – (h – z) tan ]  (z + ws)  0.9  tan 300 / 2.
The factor 2 in the numerator denotes the upper and lower
surfaces on either side of the geogrid and factor 2 in the
denominator refers to the factor of safety.

PP = 2 [6 – (h – z) tan 300]  (18z + 15)  0.9  tan 300 / 2.

For each reinforcement intersected, the available

force is taken as the lesser of the pullout resistance
PP and the design tensile strength Pd. For all wedges
and both load cases, available force is greater than
required force, T. A suitable reinforcement layout is
arrived at based on the above considering the
thickness of compaction lifts.
Calculation of mobilizing and resisting forces for
wedge stability

Force to be resisted Design Pullout resistance Available force

Wedge Tensile (kN/m) (minimum
T (kN/m) Grids Pp (kN/m)
Depth force, of Pd & Pp)
Involved
(m) w = 0 w = 15 kPa Pd ws = 0 ws = 15
s s ws = 15
(kN/m) ws = 0 kPa
kPa
1 8 3 2A 40 42 16 40 16
2 22 12 4A 80 141 80 80 80
3 42 27 6A 120 318 213 120 120
4 68 48 9A 180 732 548 180 180
5 100 75 13A 260 1495 1189 260 260
6 138 108 15A+2B 380 2538 2092 380 380
7 182 147 15A+6B 540 3905 3301 540 540
8 232 192 15A+10 700 5639 4859 700 700
B
 Reinforcement Layout
(8‐0.25) tan 30o (6‐4.47)
= 1.53 m
= 4.47 m

0.25 m
1m
2m
1.25 m Pd = 20 kN/m
3m @ 0.5 m c/c.
4m 2.25 m

5m
3.25 m
6m
Pd = 20 kN/m
7m 4.25 m @ 0.25 m c/c.
8m
5.25 m

6.25 m Pd = 40 kN/m
@ 0.25 m c/c.
7.25 m
7.75 m
L=6m
 Provisions of FHWA
Recommended minimum factors of safety with respect to
External failure modes

F.S >= 1.5 (MSEW); 1.3

Sliding (RSS)

Eccentricity e, at Base <= L/6 in soil L/4 in rock

Bearing Capacity F.S. >= 2.5
Deep Seated Stability F.S >=1.3
Compound Stability F.S. >= 1.4

Seismic Stability F.S. >= 75% of static F.S.

Table1.2: Recommended minimum factors of safety
with respect to internal failure modes

Pullout Resistance F.S. >= 1.5 (MSEW and RSS)

Internal Stability for

F.S >= 1.3
RSS
Allowable Tensile
Strength
0.55 Fy
(a) For steel strip
reinforcement
(b) For steel grid 0.48 Fy (connected to
reinforcementpanels concrete Panels or blocks)
Empirical curve for estimating probable anticipated lateral
displacement during construction for MSE walls
Table1.3: Recommended backfill requirements for
MSE & RSS construction
U.S Sieve Size % Passing
For MSE Walls
102 mm 100
0.425 mm 0-60
0.075 mm 0-15
For RSS Walls
20mm 100
4.76mm 100-20
0.425mm 0-60
0.075mm 0-50
Table 1.4: Recommended limits of electrochemical
properties for backfills when using steel
reinforcement

Property Criteria Test Method

>3000 ohm-
Resistivity AASHTO
cm
pH >5<10 AASHTO

Chlorides <100 PPM AASHTO

Sulfates <200 PPM AASHTO

Organic Content 1% max AASHTO

Seismic external stability of a MSE wall under level
backfill condition
 Select a horizontal ground acceleration (A) based
on design earthquake
• Calculate maximum acceleration (Am) developed
in the wall using Am =(1.45-A)A
• Calculate the horizontal inertial force (PIR) and
the seismic thrust (PAE) using
PIR = 0.5 Am γr H2
PAE= 0.375 Am γf H2
Add to static force acting on the structure, 50%
of the seismic thrust PAE and the full inertial;
force as both forces do not act simultaneously
Location of potential failure surface for internal
stability design of MSE walls
Location of potential failure surface for internal stability
design of MSE walls for extensible reinforcement.
Distribution of stress from concentrated vertical load
Pv for internal and external
stability calculations.
Distribution of stresses from concentrated
horizontal loads for external stability.
Distribution of stresses from concentrated
horizontal loads for internal stability.
 Concluding remarks
Reinforced retaining walls have evolved as
viable technique and contributed to
infrastructure in terms of speed, ease of
construction, economy, aesthetics etc.
It is a technology that needs to be understood
well in terms of its response, construction
features etc. Failures of RE walls have also been
noted in a few places due to lack of
understanding of behavour of RE walls.
FWHA, NCMA guidelines need to be studied in
detail for seismic stability and deformation
issues.
THANK YOU
THANK YOU