The design of soil nailed structures
to AS4678
___
Dr Chris Bridges
7 December 2016 1
Contents
• Introduction
• Soil Nailing in AS4678
• Design Process
2
Soil Nail – Main Components
HDPE Sheath External
(for corrosion centraliser
protection)
Internal
Soil nail head centraliser
plate
(galvanised
for corrosion
protection)
Outer grout
tube
Inner grout
tube
Domed soil nail nut
(galvanised for
corrosion protection)
32mm diameter deformed soil
nail bar (galvanised for corrosion
protection)
3
Construction
Reinforcing the soil
How soil nails work
How soil
nails work
Soil nailed wall
7
Soil
Nailing – Is
it suitable?
8
Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
• construction flexibility • temporary conditions (cut
• cost must stand vertically)
• environmental/aesthetic • Groundwater
considerations • clay soils
• Complex excavation geometry • land issues
• Faster relative to other lateral • Corrosion
support systems • ground movement
• Permits top-down • Untried for depths beyond
construction about 25m
• Can be used in situations with • Not suitable for deep seated
limited access failures
AS4678 - 2002
7 December 2016 10
AS 4678 – 2002
• Design Considerations – Limit States
• Strength - Must consider all critical conditions
during the excavation/nail installation process
• Serviceability – must include movements during
excavation
• External Stability
• Internal Stability
• Design Loads – load combinations & factors
• Design Factors – factors on material properties &
uncertainty
11
AS 4678 – 2002
• Structures <15m
• Face angle <90⁰, >70⁰
• “Uncomplicated”
12
AS 4678 – 2002
• Informative Guidelines only
• Appendix C of AS4678
• Design principle is similar to
Reinforced Soil Walls
• Appendix C refers back to
Appendix B – Ground anchors
13
Design Process
7 December 2016 14
Design Process
15
Design Process
16
Step 2 – Input parameters
7 December 2016 17
Soil Properties – Uncertainty Factors
f* = design angle of internal friction of soil (deg.)
(= tan-1(Fuf (tanf’));
c* = design value of cohesion of soil (kN/m2)
(=c’ Fuc);
18
Bar size and hole dia.
19
Step 3 - Concept
7 December 2016 20
Nail spacing, length and inclination
MODEL 1 MODEL 8
MODEL 6
No soil nails Short soil nails Long, widely spaced soil nails
Planar failure L/H = 1
L/H = 0.32
Planar failure
Block failure
Ref.: Zhang et al, 2001
Nail spacing, length and inclination
TESTS 1-4
L/H = 0.67 (incl. 0-30 deg) TESTS 5-7
L/H = 0.67 & 1.0
Closely spaced
Widely spaced at 0 deg inclination
Two-part wedge: no difference in
Planar failure
failure with nail inclination 0-30 deg .
Ref.: Vucetic et al, 1996
Nail spacing, length and inclination
Factor of safety for different soil nail inclinations Factor of safety for different L/H ratios
(90° wall face angle) (90° wall face angle)
2.40 0.070 5.2 0.025
4.8
f'=36°, c’=6kPa 0.060 4.4 0.020
2.00
Deformation (m)
Deformation (m)
0.050 4
3.6 0.015
0.040 3.2
F.O.S
F.O.S
1.60
0.030 2.8
2.4 0.010
1.20 0.020 2
1.6 0.005
0.010
1.2 f'=36°, c’=6kPa
0.80 0.000 0.8 0.000
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
Nail Inclination (deg) L/H Ratio
FOS Vertical Deformation FOS Vertical Deformation
Horizontal Deformation Horizontal Deformation
L
Inclination
23
Nail spacing, length and inclination
L
Distance from Wall Face (m)
20 25 30 35 40
0.000 Inclination
-0.010 1
-0.020 H 2
10 deg
3
-0.030 20 deg
4
Settlement (m)
End of 5m
-0.040
long nail
25 deg 5
-0.050 30 deg 6
-0.060
-0.070
-0.080 Wall face
-0.090
80.0 1.4
70.0 1.3
6 Nail 1
60.0 1.2
Nail 2
Factor of Safety
Nail Force (kN)
50.0 1.1
Nail 3
40.0 1 Nail 4
5
-ve Nail 5
30.0 0.9
+ve Nail 6
Effect of soil nail inclination on 20.0 0.8
FOS
nail force 10.0 4 0.7
(Nail 1 is top row of nails) 2 1
0.0 3 0.6
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Soil Nail Inclination below Horizontal (degrees)
24
Nail Spacing
• Closer spaced nails provide greater internal stability
• Wide spacing of nails can effect internal stability
• Soil nail spacing should not exceed 1 nail per 6m2 of hard
facing or 1 nail per 2m2 to 4m2 of flexible facing otherwise
the soil nailed structure will not act as a reinforced mass
(CIRIA C637)
• Max. spacing – typically 1 - 2m
25
Nail Length
• Short nails at bottom provides less stability – likely pullout
• Shorter nails at top, longer at bottom provides “excellent”
stability but shorter nails at the top will increase
deformations (Shui & Chang, 2005)
• As L/H increases, deformations decrease – no additional
effect when L/H>1
• Short nail lengths can effect external stability – thin gravity
wall
• Length of Nails - 0.8 - 1.2H (Clouterre)
• Soil nail lengths above 15m should be avoided due to drilling
difficulties and greater deformation required to mobilise
tensile capacity.
26
27
Nail Inclination
Nail inclination between 0 and 20 deg does not appear to affect
stability
>20 deg then rapid increase in wall deformation
28
Preliminary Sizing
The following relationships were derived by Bruce & Jewell (1987):
Length Ratio = Length of soil nail / Excavation height (L/H)
Bond Ratio = (Hole Dia. x L) / Nail Spacing
Strength Ratio = (Nail Dia.)2 / Nail Spacing
Nail Spacing = horizontal spacing x vertical spacing (m2)
Performance Ratio = Outward Movement = d
Excavation height H
Marl – mix of calcium carbonate & clay
Morraine – glacial debris (silt thru to boulders)
29
Step 4 - Analyses
7 December 2016 30
External Stability - Modes of Failure
External Stability
Stability Analyses
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
35 35
South Wall
Eastern Side
Name: Stiff Clay Unit Weight: 21 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 °
30 30
Name: Hard Clay Unit Weight: 21 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 28 °
Name: VLS - LS Siltstone Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³ Cohesion: 22.5 kPa Phi: 30 °
Name: MS Siltstone Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³ Cohesion: 200 kPa Phi: 40 °
1.333
25 25
Surcharge (Unit Weight): 32 kN/m³
20 20
Stiff Clay
Elevation (mRL)
15 15
Hard Clay
10 10
5 5
VLS - LS Siltstone
0 0
MS Siltstone
-5 -5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance
32
Nail Tension Forces
33
Modes of Failure
Internal Stability
Soil Nailing – Internal Stability
• Soil nail pull-out (grout-ground bond)
• Nail failure (i.e. tensile failure of nail)
• Pull-out of connection to facing material
35
Design pull-out capacity (AS4678)
T* = Fn .Fb ..D.Lf .u
Where: .
Fn = Structure classification design factor (Table 5.2)
= 0.9-1.1;
Fb = Bond reduction factor (Table B2) = 0.7;
D = Diameter of grout hole (m);
Lf = Fixed length (m);
u = Design grout/ground resistance (bond stress)
(kN/m2).
36
Bond Stress
• Effective stress design methods
• Pull out tests
• Empirical values
37
Design bond stress
(effective stress design method)
u = (c* + σ‘v tanf*) (kN/m2)
where:
σ‘v = effective vertical stress at the mid-depth of nail
behind the failure surface;
f* = design angle of internal friction of soil (deg.);
c* = design value of cohesion of soil (kN/m2).
38
Pull-out tests
u = Pult / DL (kPa)
where:
Pult = pull out resistance from pullout test (kN)
D = diameter of grout hole (m)
L = grouted length of soil nail (m)
39
Pull-out tests
u = Pult / DL ξ ϒp (kPa)
where:
Pult = pull out resistance from pullout test (kN)
D = diameter of grout hole (m)
L = grouted length of soil nail (m)
ξ = correction based on test results
ϒp = partial factor (1.25 temp, 1.5 perm)
40
Empirical Values
Apply a factor on ultimate of 0.5 - 0.66
Typical values of ultimate bond stress for various materials in the Sydney
region are given below:
Material Ultimate Bond Stress Material Ultimate Bond Stress
(kPa) (kPa)
Residual soil 50 – 75 Class V Sandstone 150
Class V Shale 75 – 100 Class IV Sandstone 250 – 800
Class IV Shale 150
See also:
FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 – Soil nail walls (2003)
CIRIA C637 Soil nailing – best practice guidance (2005)
Values should be confirmed by pull-out testing.
41
Design pull-out capacity
• Pull-out resistance is usually assumed to be
uniform along the length of the nail.
• This is reasonable if nails are short and stiff
(dia. of bar >20mm, bond length <5m)
• For more elastic nails (eg. fibre-composite
nails) the ave. bond stress reduces when bond
length >3m 350
300
Average Bond Stress (kPa)
250 GRP 22mm bar
CIRIA Report C637 200
150
GRP Strands
Steel 50mm bar
100
Steel 20mm bar
Power (GRP 22mm bar)
50
Power (GRP Strands)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Effect of Fixed Length on Bond Stress Fixed Length (m)
(Barley and Graham, 1997) 42
Nail tensile capacity
Bar strength (tension capacity) can be determined from
equation B4(1) in AS4678-2002
T = Fk Fn Ft fp Ap (kN)
where:
Fk = Importance category reduction factor
(Table B1) = 0.8 (perm.) - 0.9 (temp);
Fn = structure classification design factor (Table 5.2,
AS4678) = 0.9 - 1.1
Ft = Material reduction factor (Table B2) = 0.9;
fp = Tensile strength of nail (kN/m2);
Ap = Cross sectional area of nail (m2).
43
Facing
Facing can comprise:
• Individual plates or pads
• Mesh
• Shotcrete facing with steel mesh or steel fibre
reinforcement
• Vegetation
Flexible facing provides similar overall stability to
rigid facing, but more localised deformation
Facing type (based on case studies) –
• face angle ≥70°= hard
• face angle ≤70°= flexible
44
Soil nailed boulder walls
45
Vegetated Slope Works
July 2001 August 2001
September 2002 April 2003
June 2001
Facing
1. FHWA approach
2. FHWA Modified Approach (CIRIA C637)
3. Clouterre
• Shotcrete can be applied in one of two layers (a
temporary layer and a permanent layer). Typical
temp thickness is 75mm with a single layer of
mesh
• Shotcrete thickness for a soil nailed wall is
generally > 150mm (MRTS03 – 160mm)
• Shotcrete thickness for a slope 75-100mm
(MRTS03 – 120mm)
• Shotcrete thickness generally governed by min.
cover to steel requirements
47
Soil Nailing - Serviceability
Serviceability limit state of soil nailed structure is
similar to RSW.
Remember – movement is required to generate
resistance. Therefore beware of existing structures
on top of proposed cut.
Where special concrete facings are used, any
excessive deformation of the facing may constitute a
serviceability limit state.
48
49
Soil Nailing - Serviceability
50
27 November 2017
Drainage
51
Drainage
52
Conclusion
AS 4678 – 2002 can be used for soil nailing
But:
Lack of information and guidance in the standard limits its use
Clients specify different standards
And
53
Thank you
7 December 2016 54
