Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Juran 1991
Juran 1991
26.1
INTRODUCTION
26.2.1
868
H.-Y. Fang (ed.), Foundation Engineering Handbook
Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991
Fig . 26.1
.D
Wall
Fractured
sandstone ........... /
Permanent
tiebacks
Permanent
tiebacks
(b)
(a)
Existing dam
',.
"
'-
... . F. ..
Permanent
tiedown
(c)
(d)
Fig.26.2 Typical applications of permanent ground anchors. (a) Concrete wall. (b) Landslide and tunnel portal. (c) Permanent tower
tiedown. (d) Dams. (After Weatherby, 1982.)
870
----(b)
(a)
(i) Conventional
(ii) Austrian tunneling
method
--method
I'"
///t t
Reinforced
concrete
Anchor pin
2f}[
~
TESTB
~t
..~ .. 1
20 ft
(c)
Fig. 26.3
(d)
Typical applications of soil nailing. (a) Landslide. (b) Retaining structures. (c) Tunnel portal. (d) Abutments.
26.3.1
A.
Ground Anchors
Tendon
Tendon
Grouting pressure = p
Effective increase in
diameter: grout
permeati~n, ground
compactIon
"-~~
Lateral friction
+ low end bearing
Lateral friction
(b)
(a)
0, D'
Ground root
system
Mechanical interlocking
(lateral friction + end bearing)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 26.4 Interaction mechanisms in ground anchors. (a) Tremie-grouted straight-shafted (rocks, stiff clays). (b) Low-pressure-grouted
anchors. (c) High-pressure-grouted anchors. (d) Underreamed anchors (stiff to hard cohesive clays).
872
B.
I Steel tendon
Sleeve-pipe
2 Plastic sheath
~~~SI
cement-filled)
Anchor
Strand
Rubber manchette
Soil Nailing
26.3.2
874
System
~.
EI-KSF/F
x 10 3
Moment
KF/F
Depth
Range, ft
3 to 50
10 to 125
15 to 70
Fair
Readily available
Effective in soft ground
Low cost
3 to 40
7 to 70
15 to 60
Controlled
by lagging
Ease of installation in
competent ground
Readily available
Low cost
70 to 800
100 to 400
20 to 60
Poor to
fair
Common technique
Can be stiffened by
adding core
Can be widely spaced
Water-tightness can be
improved by
overlapping
350 to 1600
30 to 400
20 to 100
Good
High strength
Durable
Can be permanent wall
High cost
15 to 260
20 to 100
Good
High strength
Durable
Can be permanent
Higher cost
Watertight
Technical Features
.~... : ..
~'i'"
.. ik
.........
,:~
d=
ISin to
3(iin
YLI DER PILES-TANGENT
.,
24in 10 36in
....
.'
.,. .....
B AM REINFORCEME T
= 24in to 36in
f::.~.'::~
/. >'.<.":')-:.:.~:' .<::".>:'.:~.~. i
~L..:-=-'':';,"-~'':~''':''''L;'''';':':''::L'' j~
300 to 1000
Depending on the application and soil (or rock) type, four types
of facing are presently used.
Shotcrete facing (10 to 25 cm thick) is currently used for
most temporary retaining structures in soils. This facing technology provides a continuous, flexible surface layer that can
fill voids and cracks in the surrounding ground. It is generally
reinforced with a welded wire mesh (Fig. 26.7c) and its required
thickness is obtained by successive layers of shotcrete (each 9
to 12 cm thick). This technique is relatively simple and inexpensive, but it may not provide the technical quality and aesthetics
26m
C = 0 <\>'
= 32
26m
2
3
E
~
a:N
24m
28m
C' =lO kP a
$' = 32
28m
28m
28m
30 m
C= 20 kP a
$' = 28
Schematic eroS
(b)
----
eetion
(b)
fig . 2.7 (,) So ldi "
pH " "d logging ,n, ho
" .,,11. (C ou "." Ni,ho
/'on con,,"uwon Co.) (b)
L" .,I m "" open "" ""
Mo nte Carlo. (Kerisel
io n in
et 81., 1981 .)
cont.
87 6
6"
S H O iC
R E iE
f/l.CI!-lG
_GRO
Ui
f'/l-O /l
-$ REQ
\.\IRE'.O
","OR,/lR f't>
cl( , 0
,N O S
COl'f('/l-I
1/l-C;E
N
GROIft.
CO~iEO
N/l-I\..
GO. G".
~e ?\..A1
E
E.I'O'J.'I
' CO/)
.1.0
SII.~
c lJ
& f lE i i O f li
IJ)
~I,H EPO~'plI.INi
I' PII.tJ\
lSi S
iA
" ,0 @ G E GRO\.)"r
>' <Ie
,O
."e
l c ) con
strUcti
f i g . 26 1
.
~a)
fig
d 1'
on e ta l
01
, (b) .
" " . ., "
', , .
26 8 I a) Pletabli
cated ste
. \
el pane
s.
R ."
. o r ,"
. ' so
O ' " ov
<o"r.<r
<'
s h o tc r e
a
,,0'"'' P 'o
"'~" " ,e
te tacin
g
'" , o d
0'"
'00 0""""'\
e,u,""
SO/,,,'O
,-)
Drainage
SOIL-INCLUSION INTERACTION:
PULL-OUT CAPACITY ESTIMATES
'ult
= n;'D'L"ult
= lO%'Sa
(26.1c)
25
.::
20
"<i!
0.
:i:.-..
i.E
15
"-II
"0.,~
o 0. 10
-Z;:.;;:
;.::.
E
(26.1)
cfJ
~'"
""-.,i
= p' A . tan
"'z
~~
26.4.1
(26.1b)
= IX' S.
(26.la)
o~----~~----~----~
2000
.><
Gravelly
sand
- U = dr:Jd
I--
1800
...
1600
SPT
Density
Typeo/soil
lO
= 1.6/0.16
Sandy gravel
N~,
blows/30 em
Very dense
120
Dense
60
Medium dense
43
Loose
II
> 130
1400
'"
'"<.>
1200
'u
Q.
U= 15/0.3
Very den e
01)
'>, 1000
.......
'"u
'"
..Q
-0
800
600
'5E
400
;;;
Sandy gravel
U=5to10
dense
===
Gravelly and
U=8tolO
=-=.,.,,;,.,
to coarse sand
(with gravel)
U = 3.5to 4.5
~~~~and
~~~ Medium
200
Bond-to-ground length L , m
Fig.26.10
Ultimate load holding capacity of anchors in sandy-gravel and gravelly sand. (After Ostermayer and Scheele, 1977.)
Bond/engtll
L,.,m
Soil density
0
Very dense
2.0m
4.5m
Dense
3.0m
Medium
dense
2.0m
4.5m
Loose
2.0 m
4.5m
'..."
1300
1200
\Loo
1000
ME
Z
.><
900
...3
700
.2
600
:E
SOO
u
c
:.;;;
Very dense
~ ----- -1 --
800
.~axl'
0,
-:
til
Medium
den e
_" . _ _ _~O--== -,;;;.:;.;-" -,-
100
""
max l, = mean "
~'D,~... Loose
~--~
------ ------_ ...
-----"'_~ ...
Length. m
L,. = 2.0 m
L,. = 3 .0 m
L, = 4.5 m
Fig. 26.11
Distribution of the lateral interface shear stress along
pressure-injected anchors at the ultimate load. (After Ostermayer
and Scheele, 1977.)
train
200
400
E.<>
8
9
10
Displacement V, mm
Mobilization of lateral friction
(a)
(b)
Fig.26.12 (a) Distribution of deformation along the length of an IRP anchor. (After Bustamante, 1972) . (b) Mobilization of the lateral
friction along an anchor in a plastic clay. (Winnezeele, Bustamente, 1980.)
100
200
Distance, d, cm
.2 4
U
:E
'0 3
C
Q)
'u
it:..,
0
C
..,
:;;
<
o
Depth of nail, cm
-,- t/AVERAGE
17 kN/ml
_ _
;;
c-
Q.
Q.
where
J;: 5
Z,m
SOIL: Sand <\> = 33 c
NAILS: Driven profile
= 10 kPa
(a)
-F
--
_
10
10
Specifications for
reinforced earth
tan<\>
Z,m
(b)
!mum:
D = 2in
200
150
-'"
100
summary of pull-out test results obtained with low-pressuregrouted nails in different types of soils.
Jet-grouted nails are installed under a grout pressure that
can exceed 20 MPa and is sufficiently high to cause hydraulic
fracturing of the surrounding ground (Louis, 1981). Similarly
to high-pressure grouting of anchors, the jet-grouting installation technique produces a mechanical interlocking between the
penetrating grout and the surrounding ground that results in
a substantial increase of the effective nail diameter. It also
provides recompaction of the surrounding ground that significantly improves the pull-out resistance of the composite nailedsoil inclusion. Field pull-out tests on jet-grouted nails (Louis,
1986) yielded ultimate lateral shear stress values as high as
400 kPa in sands and 1000 kPa in sandy gravels.
26.4.3
50
o
L , rn
Soil Type
Soil Nailing
(Elias and Juran, 1988)
Permanent Ground
Anchors
(Cheney, 1984
Rotary drilled
Silty sand
Silt
Piedmont residual
2 to 4
1.2 to 1.6
1.5 to 2.5
5 to 9
Driven casing
Sand
Dense sand/gravel
Dense moraine
Sandy colluvium
Clayey colluvium
6
8
7 to 13
10 to 20
Jet grouted
Augered
Fine sand
(medium dense)
Sand
Sand / gravel
Soft clay
Stiff to hard clay
Clayey silt
Calcareous sandy clay
Silty sand fill
8 to 12
2 to 4
1 to 2
3.5 to 4.5 b
20
4.5 to 8.5 b
8.5 to 11 .5b
0.4 to 0.6
0.8 to 1.2
2 to 4
1 to 2
1.5 c
4 to 6
0.4 to 0.6
Cheney recommends a safety factor of 2.5 With respect to the ultimate lateral shear stress values indicated
in thiS table.
b Values obtamed for pressure-injected anchors by Jorge (1969).
C Design value proposed by Weatherby (1982) for hollow-stem augered anchor (assuming a diameter of 6
mches) in both sandy and clayey soils.
882
0.7
00
0.5
0.4
~o
. :
<;>
.~
~y:
0~8,Q"""""~
\-t9 .. Y,"'/o/
.... v ~
..... lOXar
y>y......
'od.,,<
.
S:>'6"/ ,
o.
0.2
.. "
0.3
0.1
0.6
:2
00
..
;;.-"000
Type IRS:
Bustamante et al.
Fujita et al.
Type IGU: ... Bustamante et al.
~-...
Loose
Dense
Very dense
40
20
60
80
100
120
SPT(N)
(b)
IRS
0.3
.7.
c..
:2 0.2
..
o.
~-.'"
~ o
0.1
.,. ...._____
~ v.
?-:..""... ... v
'" "'",
"'''''"
1.5
10
15
oOstermayer
Type IGU: ... Bustamante et al. v Ostermayer
'" Jones, Turner, Spencer
0.5
IGU
20
SPT (N)
25
2.5
30
Fig.26.18 Empirical relationships for the determination of the lateral interface shear stress. (a) Lateral interface shear stress for sand and
gravel. (b) Lateral interface shear stress for silty clay soils. (After Bustamante and Doix, 1985.)
type anchors range from 1.1 in weathered rocks, silty clays, and
fine sands, to 1.4 in highly dilatant granular soils, while the a
values for IRS type anchors range from 1.4 in granular soils
and weathered rock, to 1.8 in stiff clays and marls.
The available field data pertaining to the pull-out capacity
of nails is presently still too limited to substantiate development
of reliable correlations. An attempt has been made by Guilloux
and Schlosser (1984) and Louis (1986) to correlate the measured
pull-out capacity of both driven and grouted nails with the
French recommendations (L.c.P.c. and S.E.T.R.A., 1985) for
the determination of lateral shaft friction on bored and driven
concrete piles from pressuremeter test results. Figure 26.19
shows that in fine-grained soils (i.e., fine sands, silts, non plastic
clays) predicted Tult values correlate reasonably well with
pull-out test results, while in dilatant gravelly soils, compacted
moraine, or fissured rocks they may significantly underestimate
the measured ultimate lateral shear stress.
It appears that further research and field testing could
significantly improve the database for estimating the pull-out
capacity of ground anchors and soil nails. The pressuremeter
test appears also to provide valuable data for grouting procedure, such as the maximum injection pressure that can be used
'"
Po.
~
-r::i
CLl
"3
u
100
'".,
....
.1
100
'ult
1000
Measured, kPa
883
26.6
FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
26.7
ASTM Standard
G-57-78 (ASTM)
G-51-77 (ASTM)
California DOT test 407
California DOT test 422
cohesive soils with undrained shear strength smaller than 0.5 tsf,
or soils susceptible to creep. A number of national codes
(German Standards and French Recommendations) index the
creep susceptibility to the Atterberg limits and natural moisture
content of the soil. They preclude the use of permanent ground
anchors in organic soils, and plastic clayey soils with liquid
limit (LL) greater than 50 and liquidity index (LJ) greater than
0.2 (or consistency index (Ic) less than 0.9). Soils with a plasticity
index (PI) greater than 20 must also be carefully assessed for
creep. In light of the limited experience with soil nailing in
clayey soils, the applicability criteria developed for ground
anchors are recommended for feasibility evaluation of soilnailed structures.
Critical Values
Below
Below
Above
Above
2000ohm/cm
4.5
500 ppm
100 ppm
Short-term Performance
A static loading of anchors or nails can cause several "shortterm" failure mechanisms:
a. Failure of the steel tendon or nails.
b. Shear failure of the soil mass owing to insufficient depth of
anchor embedment.
c. Failure of the grout-tendon or nail bond.
d. Failure of the soil-grout bond.
The engineering design of the anchored (or nailed) retaining
system for specific application and site conditions should
provide a proper selection of the inclusion (i.e., mechanical
properties, length, inclination, spacings, and corrosion protection) to prevent any of these failure modes.
(a) Selection of tendon or nail section should insure that the
working stress in the inclusion does not exceed its ultimate
tensile strength with an acceptable factor of safety. The Post
Tensioning Institute (PTI) recommends limiting the working
tensile stress in prestressed steel to 60 percent of the ultimate
tensile strength for permanent structures and 80 percent for
temporary applications.
(b) To prevent a shear failure of the shallow soil mass
overlying the upper anchors, the bond zone should be located
at a minimum depth of embedment that is generally of the
order of 15 ft (4.6 m). This embedment length should also permit
high-pressure grouting without damage to existing facilities.
(c) To insure that the strength of the ground is fully mobilized
the grout-tendon (or nail) bond should not be exceeded. The
mechanism of grout-tendon bond involves three components:
adhesion, friction, and mechanical interlock. The neat cement
26.7.2
long-Term Performance
L'll =!1lo + - - (t 1 1- m
m -
1)
(26.2)
where T and L'llo are respectively the applied pull-out force and
the initial displacement prior to creep; A, IX, and m are interface
creep parameters that are obtained from the experimental
log ~l-log t and log f,.l - T curves, and f,./ is the displacement
rate.
Figures 26.20b and c (Bustamente, 1980) illustrate the creep
behavior of an anchor in a plastic clay and the determination
of the relevant interface creep parameters. The test results
indicate a steady increase of the creep displacement almost up
to failure, which is consistent with the m = 1 value derived from
the experimental log f,.l-t curves.
In spite of the apparent similarity between the laboratory
creep test results and the soil-anchor interface creep behavior
observed in situ, more fundamental studies are required in order
to develop a rational creep model for anchors in plastic
fine-grained soils.
In practice, the critical creep load of an anchor or nail is
obtained from a load-controlled pull-out test following a
standard testing and interpretation procedure (DIN 4125,1972,
1974; Bureau Securitas, 1977; Cheney, 1984). The French
standard testing procedure is schematically illustrated in Figure
26.21a. Figure 26.21b shows actual results of a load-controlled
pull-out test on an anchor in a plastic clay (Bustamente, 1980).
It consists of I-hour sustained load increments of O.lF9 (where
Fg is the elastic limit strength of the steel tendon at which
permanent elongation is 0.1 percent). For each load increment
the anchor displacement (s) is plotted versus log time (T). An
upward concavity of the creep curve indicates an accelerated
creep inducing failure. The slope of the s vs.log T line is plotted
against the applied pull-out load to determine the critical creep
load Fc. The allowable anchor working load F w is the smaller
of either 0.9Fc or 0.6F g The loading increment period can
significantly affect the test result. Therefore, a second test is
conducted that includes a 72-hour sustained loading stage at
0.9F w to verify the long-term anchor performance.
26.7.3
Repetitive loading
Anchored structures are often subjected to repetitive (or fluctuating) live loads such as tidal variations, wind or sea wave
loadings, etc. Permanent ground anchors must be designed to
withstand such repetitive loadings throughout the service period
of the structure, which may include millions of cycles. Documented technical data on the long-term performance of anchors
under repetitive loadings are still very limited. Repetitive
loading tests on anchors for a seawall in France showed (Pfister
et a\., 1982) that for peak cyclic load levels smaller than 63
percent of Po (where Po is the ultimate static pull-out capacity)
anchor displacement became negligible after five cycles. However,
for larger cyclic loads anchor displacement continued to increase
at a constant or increasing rate. Begemann (1973) reported that
repetitive uplift loads on steel H-piles in sand under cyclic load
amplitude as low as 35 percent of Po generated progressive
pull-out of the piles. Laboratory model studies of repetitive
loading on plate anchors and friction piles have been conducted
by several investigators (Hanna et a\., 1978; Andreadis et a\.,
1978; Hanna, 1982) and suggest some trends in the anticipated
anchor response to cyclic loading. Specifically, Al-Mosawe
(1979) and Hanna (1982) showed that displacement rate (per
sc::
~....
c::
"
rJi
0.0002
0.0001
0.00004
0.00002
Time, min
(a)
m= 1
~:::::::~~~:;rcreeiDTm > 1
logt
c::
~e
c::
] 10- 1
e
e
10- 3
10-3~~~~__~~~__~~~~__~_
8 .9 10
Time, min
Fig. 26.20 (a) Strain rate vs. time relationship during undrained creep of alluvial clay. (After Murayama and Shibata, 1958.) (b) Modelling
creep of anchors in clays. (Winnezeele, Bustamante, 1980.)
/; 'f..
/; 'f..
I~.
10
/; 'f..
~il}
71]
6()
~il]
log T
0.1
(ii) Critical creep load
(a)
- - lOOkN
- - - -e- - 200kN
-_e-e-e-e300
ekN""e_-e-e-e ___
E --e-e_-e-e_e-e-e-._e_e_e
E
- e - e-.---e-e--_-____
~kN
e_e
e
e
_
e
.
-e-e
500kN
"u -.-e-.-e_e 600 kN_ _ e-e-e-._e
E
.....
- e _-e-e-e_e_e_
7iXJekN'".-e-e-__-.
<f - - - e _ . 800 kN --.-e_.
C
<Ll
E
<Ll
OJ
i5..
is'"
--e___............. -----------e-e_......---.-.
"
bn
0
e\
::;
"
<:l
.'.900 kN
1:j
c..
<Ll
<Ll
....
2
1
0.5
200
400
Pull-out load, kN
(b)
Fig. 26.21 (a) Anchor tension test for determination of critical creep load. (Bureau Securitas, 1977.) (b) Load-controlled pull-out test
on an anchor in plastic clay. (After Bustamente, 1980.)
O.OOOOOll:-_ _+
1
__
__~~----,;;;-l;:=---:;~.
Number of cycles, N
(a)
Number of cycles, N
(b)
Fig. 26.22 (a) Effect of number of cycles on the rate of anchor displacement. (b) Effect of number of load cycles on anchor displacement.
Pu = ultimate pull-out load. (After AI-Mosawe. 1979.)
DURABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
889
890
Fig. 26.23
Welding
Anti-corrosion
grease
Bearing plate
Trumpet
Anchorage
Anchor
head
Anti-corrosion
grease or grout
The anchor head is highly susceptible to corrosion, particularly below the bearing plate. It is usually protected by
encapsulation within a plastic or steel cap filled with anticorrosion grease, or cement grout. This encapsulation should
permit prestressing of the tendon and accommodate load
changes in the anchor during its service life. Figure 26.24 shows
anchor head details for multistrand and bar tendons.
26.9
26.9.1
overall shear resistance of the native ground. The main engineering concern in the design of these retaining systems is to ensure
that ground-inclusion interaction is effectively mobilized to
restrain ground displacements and can secure the structure
stability with an appropriate factor of safety.
In an anchored wall, the resisting tension force is mobilized
by prestressing the anchor to the design working load immediately
after its installation. As excavation proceeds, wall deflection is
mainly controlled by the bending stiffness of the wall, the
prestress load in the anchors, and the anchor longitudinal
stiffness (or elastic modulus).
The effect of prestress anchor loads on wall movement
measured in tied-back walls constructed both in sands and in
clayey soils is illustrated in Figure 26.26 (Clough, 1975). In
spite of the large scatter in the field data, which is mainly due
to the differences in the construction process, structural wall
components, and subsurface soil type, these results demonstrate
that an increase in the prestress level results in a significant
decrease of ground movement. For the sake of comparison,
prestress loads based on earth pressure design values proposed
by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) for braced excavations, as
discussed later in this chapter, are reported.
Figure 26.27 (Goldberg et ai., 1976) illustrates for braced
excavations the effect of the wall bending stiffness, defined as
EI I S~ (where E and I are, respectively, the elastic modulus and
moment of inertia of the wall, Sv is the vertical spacing between
braces), on its lateral deflection in clayey soils characterized by
the stability numberyH ISu (where H is the total structure height
and Su is the undrained shear strength of the soil). Clough and
Tsui (1974) have reported that wall movement and ground
settlement in anchored walls are generally smaller than those
observed in braced excavations.
The design procedure of anchored walls should include the
following steps.
1. Select structural wall element, and for the specified wall type,
estimate the design working prestress loads in the anchors
required to limit ground movement to allowable displacement values.
2. Select anchor type, corrosion protection system, length, and
spacings, and verify that the anchor resistance (tensile
strength and pull-out capacity) is sufficient to withstand the
design working load and testing overloads to ensure longterm performance.
3. Verify that the anchor bond length is located beyond the
potential sliding surface.
4. Verify that the global stability of the retaining system
(ground-anchors-wall) and the surrounding ground with
respect to general sliding along a potential failure is maintained with an acceptable factor of safety.
5. Structural design of the wall element with respect to the
applied system of forces and bending moments.
6. Evaluation of basal stability of the wall elements (i.e.,
required soldier pile penetration, bearing capacity of the
foundation soil below a diaphragm wall, required embedment
depth of a sheet pile, etc.)
7. Select drainage system.
(a)
Fig. 26.25
:x:
..
1.6
.E
1.4
'0
..c
1.2
.g
1.0
.e -8
c
> c
>(
E 0.
.,"E>
<> "
E
::J
Load-transfer mechanism in ground anchors and soil nails. (a) Ground anchor. (b) Soil nailing.
...
0.6
0.4
0.2
'x
yH
~.
--,
:x:
..
<l
1.8
.c
1.6
'0
..c
c
1.4
1.2
5<
>
13
>< -c:
"c: ""
~ ~
0.
Movements generally
<3cm
Flexible -
Increasing
prestress
1.0
OAy H
'-
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
'"
:::E
0.8
E
E
'x
o SCll lement
(a)
::J
S"
~~
rCdicted by F.E.M.
'"
:::E
Movements generally
>8cm
O~
o __~~~==~~==~~~
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
"E
"c>
10
o Selliement
Lateral wall dcnection
Increasi ng
prestress
0.8
(b)
o
- E
~ E
0. 1
0.2
0.3
0.4
E....:,,"o.r.l
'" .'"
:a-=
c;o
0.5
-0.
Co
0_
u
.~
~..c
0_
:r:
(b)
Wall height . m
Soil
+ Medium sand
*
0
Nail
Driven
Reference
Grouted
Driven
Gassleretal. (1981)
Shcnelal. (1981)
Carlier and Gigan (1983)
Grouted
Grouted
Plumelle (1986)
892
A.
TN
= 0.65K.
For a cohesive soil with both cohesion (c) and friction angle (cfJ):
TN =
K.( 1 - ~. ~)
CJh =
Yh =
:Terzaghi and
Peck (1967)
..n-ATI'~oC- _ _ _ _ _ J
= 0.65Ka
)0
TN
(26.3b)
where K. = tan 2 (n/4 - cfJ/2) is the Rankine active earth pressure coefficient, H is the total excavation depth, Sh and Sv are,
respectively, the horizontal and vertical anchor spacings.
Juran and Elias (1987) have shown through analysis of
field measurements obtained on soil-nailed retaining structures
that these earth pressure design diagrams provide a rational
estimate of working tensile forces generated in the nails. On
the basis of the reviewed field data, Terzaghi and Peck's design
diagram for sands has been slightly modified (Fig. 26.29) in
order to calculate nail forces. Figure 26.30 shows nail forces
and structure displacements measured in two instrumented
soil-nailed structures (field data reported by Shen et aI., 1981;
Plumelle, 1986). Table 26.4 summarizes the main characteristics
of these structures. The measured nail forces were found to
agree fairly well with the assumed earth pressure design diagram.
These results illustrate that the observed behavior of nailed cut
slopes is similar to that of braced excavations.
The use of the empirical earth pressure diagrams in the
design of anchored and soil-nailed retaining walls presents some
T
TN
10(
(26.3a)
I 0(
)0
CLAYEY
SAND:
TN = Ka
CLAY: TN
(4C
1- -
1)
,-;- .;; 0.65 Ka
yH vKa
Empirical earth pressure design diagram. (After Juran and Elias, 1987.)
"'"
0.25
"I
0.50
0.75
1.00
e Inclinometer at
1.5 m from the
facing
;'
yH
I
I
leo
I I i =0.124
I Y
..- <I>=W
o
)
= 0.114
<I> = 33
o Inclinometer at 4.5 m
from the facing
e End of construction
Experimental results
ZIH
H=9.2m
(a)
Horizontal displacement, mm
0
20
TN=
10
0.05
y. H SH Sv
0.10
0.15
of construction
Experimental results:
0
\
oH=3m
eH=5m
.H=7m
\
\
0.25
\
\
,,
,
o.
0.75
1.00
e Facing
displacement
(H = 7 m)
o Facing
displacement
(H = 3 m)
Kinematical
approach
ZIH
(b)
Fig. 26.30 (a) Davis wall-Experimental data and theoretical predictions of tension forces. (b) Full-scale experiment CEBTP-Experimental
data and theoretical predictions of tension forces.
Structure
Hom
Soil
Classification
Davis wall
(Shen et al..
1981 )
9.2
Heterogeneous
SM
CEBTP wall
(Plumelle.
1986)
7.5
SP
<p.
degrees
c.
kPa
I'.
kN/m3
36.5
18.5
16.3
38
o to
15
Type of Nail
#8 rebars
AI. tubes
40 x 1 mm or
30 x 2 mm
L.m
Sh/Sv.
Inclination.b
degrees
Installation
Technique C
1.85
1.85
20
6 to 8
1.15
1.00
10
F,.
kN/m
4.5t05.5
(26.4)
Kp
\./--~-=-~
y
HrW
dd~
K=L
yH
p=ky
Ko
-0.1 -0.2
Compression
Extension
Relative wall displacement
(y/H)
Fig. 26.31
Finite-Element Analysis
e
-5p..
r-----
10
D.
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15
Slurry wall
'" Sheet pile wall
20
Medium clay
C1)
Cl 25
W Deflection scale
30mm
(a)
30
o
5
Medium clay
10
15
'" Stiff tiebacks
Flexible tiebacks
L.......J Deflection scale
30mm
20
25
(b)
12
10
E%
1OEolo
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inclination 30
I
I
I
I
:~!
I
I
I
6~Y ____
:
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inclination 20<>----~
9
I
l00E%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: Inclination 0 :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O~--~--------~----------~----
(c)
Fig. 26.32 Effect of (a) wall and (b) anchor stiffness on the
movements of an anchored structure in clay; finite-element simulations. (After Clough and Tsui, 1974.) (c) Effect of the bending
stiffness and the inclination of reinforcement on the facing displacements. (After Shafiee, 1986.)
L6
( KhD)
yH Sh'Sv
(26.5)
(a)
~ __
T",ma:;;:cx_ _
Tmax '
f
0.2
0.4
ZIH
0.6
0.8
1.0
<II
0.2.1
i 0~~Iq,50
"
\ I=
-~\
'max
f~Tc '(Y.H.SH.SV
"'... /
\
Tmax
\\
t!
'b.
Tc k'/ y .
0.4 i:/Tmax
jO,
y. H SH Sv
0.1
0.2
ZIH
i
i /
....".".
:----~
0.8 i!..
Tmax
H
SH Sv
I
I
Rigid
/J--inclusions
l---
Flexible
;----- inclusions
1.0
Tc = shear force
Tmax = tensile force
/3=0
Fig.26.33 (a) Effect of bending stiffness of the inclusions on the maximum tensile forces in inclined nails. (After Shafiee, 1986.)
(b) Effect of the bending stiffness of the inclusions on the maximum tensile forces in horizontal nails. (After Juran et al., 1985.)
= T.m/Y H S~ So),
(TN
~/Y H . S~ So),
o
p
K(a)FH
Loading effect
on nail forces
(a)
/ Failure surface
(b)
Fig. 26.34 Kinematical limit analysis approach. (a) Mechanics of failure and design assumptions. (b) Theoretical solution for infinitely long
bar adopted for design purposes. (After Juran et al., 1988.)
where
TN
')'RS.S.
walls)
= __T.-"m::;.:.=-._
fult'D
J.L=--
')'S.S.
fall A ~ TN
')'RS"S.
where fall and A. are the allowable tension stress and crosssectional area of the inclusion, respectively.
For rigid nails that can withstand both tension and shear
forces,
(26.8)
(26.9)
where
K.q = [(TN)2
(26.6)
TS
+ 4'(TS)2r /2
1'c
')'RS.S.
Mp>FrnMm..
(26.10)
Mm
= 0.321'c Lo
o 0 1 020304
1
0.2 0.1
0.3
0.7 -
0.9
1.0
-1
I
I'-'
hence,
B.
0"
(26.11)
ITS
,\TN
0
0.6 -
\O~
0.5
0.8
1 ~/
0.4
21H
.1
TN and TS
004 006 008 0 10 0 12 0 14
\
0
I
I
P
(a)
0.40
TN
yH
RL
(26.12)
Rm
As shown in Figure 26.36 the total force Rm required to maintain
limit equilibrium is readily obtained using the polygon of forces
acting on the rigid soil wedge. The resisting forces (R L ) are
provided by the pull-out capacity of the anchors. Cheney
recommends that the anchor bond length be located at a
distance of at least H /5 beyond the assumed failure surface or
a minimum distance of 15 ft from the facing, whichever is greater.
FS=-
SH
-50..
Failure sllrface
Sc
Q)
"0
.9
~T
'OJ
>
'u"
><
u.l
---..... T
p
/
p
~T
(b)
Fig.26.35 (a) Typical example of design output provided by the
kinematical limit analysis approach. (b) Design charts for perfectly
flexible nails. Notes: 1, Nail inclination 15. 2, Vertical force.
3, Horizontal backfill. 4, No surcharge. (After Juran et a/., 1988.)
FS = RL = I:Fw
Rm
I:T
Fig. 26.36 Global stability analysis of an anchored wall using force
equilibrium method with a plane failure surface.
W,
Internal force
soil- wall
interaction
p_____
/
_
~::-'=-+--4..-1
_ _- - - Potential failure
surface
3.0
H=25ft
L = 15ft
(a)
~-----aH----~~
Element 1
H
Element 2
N2
Element 1
(b)
Tp
= 'ull . 1t D . La; Fe = F~ = FL = FS
Fig. 26.39 (a) Contours of factor of safety derived from finite-element analysis. (b) Limit force equilibrium method for stability analysis
of nailed soil-retaining structures. (After Shen et al., 1981.)
901
(26.14 )
A multicriteria analysis, illustrated in Figure 26.40, is
conducted to evaluate the global stability of the nailed-soil
system with respect to four potential failure modes: shear failure
of the soil along the critical sliding surface, pull-out failure of
the nail, nail breakage by either excessive bending or combined
effect of tension and shear forces, and creep or plastic flow of
the soil between the nails. The global factor of safety is defined
by Equation 26.13 (Le., Fe = F4> = F, = F.) and a minimum
safety factor of 1.5 is generally required. This multicriteria
analysis procedure uses a slices method (see Chapter 10) that
is modified to take into account the resisting nail forces in the
equilibrium of each slice. This procedure permits an evaluation
(b)
~-"""''"fE
~~__ Tmax
fmax
1/ ...O(E----;L,....-I:~
--I,';..........-~
I
I"---Slip surface
Failure criteria:
Tensile strength and shear resistance of the bar: Tmax
Soil bar friction: Tmax ~ ltDtu l t L.
Normal lateral earth thrust on the bar: P ~ P max
Shear resistance of the soil: t < c + (1 tan '"
(After Schlosser. 1983.)
Fig. 26.40
= As fy;
Tc ~ Rc
= As fy/2
moments.
2. Structural analysis (i.e., calculation of internal stresses and
moments) and selection of appropriate wall or facing elements.
3. Stability analysis of the structural element base.
REFERENCES
AI-Mosawe, M. M. (1979), The effect of repeated and alternating
loads on the behavior of dead and prestressed anchors in sand,
Thesis, University of Sheffield, England.
Andreadis, A., Harvey, R. c., and Burley, E. (1978), Embedment
anchors subjected to repeated and alternating loads, Ground Engineering, 11, No.3.
Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Shields, D. H. (1978), The Pressuremeter
and Foundation Engineering, Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal,
Germany.
Lehigh University.
Clough, G. W. and Tsui, Y. (1974), Performance of tied-back walls in
clay, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 100,
No. GT-12, pp. 1259-1273.
Clough, G. W., Weber, P. R., and Lamont, J. (1974), Design and
observations of a tied back wall, Proceedings of the Specialty
Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures,
905