Soil Nailing: Application and Practice — part 1 by D.A. BRUCET, BSc, PhD, CEng, MICE, MIWES, MASCE, MHKIE, FGS and R.A. JEWELL, MA, PhD, MICE Preamble For wall over a decede now, engineers in France, Germany and W. America have been exploiting the special advantages of the ecru of Si rang Thin geoecricl ile rong (of appications for stabilizing “excavations ‘and slopes, has been researched with forge budgets since 1375 by collaborations of Contractors, universities snd goverment forganisations. t hae been the subject of International Conferences, Symposia ond Seminar since 1979, andhas givenise to rapidly expanding iterture ‘of technical pers and atcles, ‘There ave abundant incase histories to cite na wide of ground. conditions ond ‘sppliations ‘And vel, 85 far asthe outhors are aware, fengingars in’ ritain seem to have ether ignored these developments or have remained unaware of the pedigree’ the technique has now established over the vests. Tis review, compiled with the co- ‘operation of researcors and practitioners Eorope and the United States Is intended (0 reveal both the potential bensfits which the {system can provide, andthe means to realise ther. I summorsses the major features, and Historical evolution of “soi naling. it ilstrates the popular ppliations by brief Accounts of the mare eignficant projects fxecuted, and it describes the eonstvction ‘methods now being applied In 9 companion “Paper, the results obtained from measurements on full-scale ‘als and mode tests are introdiced, andthe fcurent understanding of naling a7 betwen a grvity wall and ‘nated si structure (Stocker #81 1979), behaviour and existing design methods ere described, 1. General introduction ‘Sol naling is practical’ and proven technique used in constructing excavations and ig slopes Photograph t and 2) by img the ground insitu with relatively. smal, fully bonded inclusions Usually stool bars. These are intraduced into the soit mass, the foce of wich hes been locally stabilised by sprayed conerete, and {acl to produce a zone of reinforced ground, This zane then performs as.4 homegencous and resistant unt to suppor theunreiniorced {round behind, n'a manner similar to: 8 Conventional grey retaining wal (Fig. 1) 19 and insitu reinforcement 2 wide and growing use of metal inclusions installed in sol, anit nportont between them. The two basic to-ditingu roupings are piling and insitu reinforcement, And the main distinction is 9 Follows Piling rters to inclusions ph to suppor external loads ep placed in the sol 10 maintain equi Fig, 2. The fami of insta so enforcement techniques (o) 201 ailing fatter Schosser, 1982) 0) reticulated micra ping lfter Boley {and Crayne, 1985} ond so dowelingffter Gudehus and Sehware, 1984) Photo. 2, Detail ofthe oi! nailing and rig at Boulevs by the Hurpinase system. fed eth 1989) Photo. 7. Excovation for the underground car park. Boulevard Victor, Paris 1978. ed ets. 71983)Under the soil sel-weight loading, and Surcharge fading on the 20, ‘The ater grouping inclodes the subject of this Paper 1.2 Insitu reinforcement techniqu “Thore are three main categories of sity ‘einforcement techniques ured to stabilise Soil slopes and excavations, Thece are ating. reteuisted micro ping, and oweling "soi nailing the enforcement installed horizontally or subhorzontaly so that it improves the shearing resistance of the soll Dy acting in tension, (Fa. 2a), "Reiculsted micopiles ore steepy inclined inthe. soll” at” "variout angies both Derpendicular and paral to the face, (Fig. 2b). The overall si is similar to soi mang, famelytoprovidea stable block of enforced oil which supports the unresntorced sol by bcting ikea grovty retaining structure. inthis technique the sol st held together by the Multiply "of teinforcement members Sctng to resist banding and shearing orees Fondedi’s Pair Radice system i the best known form otis construction (ies) 1982) ‘whist more recently Nicholson Coastruetion has opoied the technique in the USA under the mame Insert wal (Nicholson & Boley 1985). ‘Soil dowelling is applied to reduce or halt downslope movements onweldefined shear Surfaces, (Fg. 20) The slopes treated by owing are typically much tater than those in sol naling or reticulated micro-ple spplications. Gudehs has (1983) shown that the most efficient way to. improve ‘mechanically the shearing resistance on weakened shear surface tough the olisto ‘se ‘elatvely large diameter piles which fombine 9 lorge surface. area” with high Bencingstitnese. Thus the diameter of 2 soi dow genealy far grester than that of @ soitnail or mirople 1.3 Selecting insitu reinforcement ‘Aunough there ore fundamental sitforences inthe mechanical action ofthese three insity reinforcement techiques, there arecircumstances where more than onemay beapplied toslope stabilization as ilustrated in Figure 3. The following pointe ment Consideration when choosing the “propriate insta reinforcement technique, Laboratory experiments have shown the Influence ofthe nciation and properties of Itinforcing members on the shearing resist- ‘nce of reinforced sol for exomple Jewel {1980}. These indieate thatthe reinforce ‘ment gives the Dest increase in strength ‘ehenitsangled serossthe potential rupture Surface ino #9 thatthe reinforcement fs loaded intension Atother onentatonsin the soil the reinforcement provides less bene 8nd can even reduce the shearing resistance Of the sol! massif acts im compression, ‘The ‘conclusion. therefore, fe that in soplicetions where 9 steep slope is t0 be ‘xeavated in a homogeneous granular si ‘most efficient ta place the finforcement through the face ina ctection cloge tothe horizonal, a in Figure 3b. To stabilise the Sol with reinforcement plocod in substan: tally vertiel directions (Fig, 2c] witrequire much higher density of reinforcement. For this type! application sol nating a tkely to bbemorecostefectve than reticulated mic ing. In: marginally stable granulor or scr slopes when staiity must be improved, but ‘wht excavation i nt foreseen, then either Soil naling or reticulated miero-piing would Fig. 3. Overlap of isla v0 renforcoment “plications (and fin excavation, fe) and 1) for general slope stabitzotion 9nd (9 12 ‘obi resi eis in clay, bbe appropriate. Where ding equioment ‘cannot be placed on the slope, reticulated ‘micro-piling would be best (ig, So} Where ‘cess isnot problemstieal either technique ould be applied (Figs. 3d and Se), with ‘economic considerations being decisive. In later cay slopes where stability i ‘governed by a welldeined shor zone, larger Slometer soi dowels would be. mest ‘propriate (Fg. 3 ‘Reticulated micro pling and sil doweling are not deserved tarher in ths Paper The Tormor ate described n pbications by isi (1970, 1882), Dash and Jovino (1980), Berardi and La Magna (1884), end Boley and Crayne (1985). Sol doweling Is described by ‘Baker end Yoder (1958), Verdier and Merlete (1981), Winter et a/ (1983), ond Gudehus 11983} Rensonceo ean wat Fig. Contrast ofthe construction sequence) "ap down in sol naling and) “batom up” ‘enforced to es ES a 1.4 Fundamental design consider. Just asin the design of a gravity retaining wall the stoiity of nated sveture mat boa chckod agaist both ‘extra ond intemal forces Regarding externa forces ihe reinforced tone must be abet resist the outward thust from the uneintoreed Inter without sing, — the combined loading fom the reinforced oneself weight onde atera sl thrust is resisting must not cause 9 foundation Dearing fature, and the stabityof the retaining structure must ‘bo checked against the. deoper seated vera faire mechanisms, With respect to interna! stability, the infrcing elements must be installed ina pattern dense enoughto ensue an effective Interaction wih the sol to rented zone. The einforcemem elements must sso ieee sullen iongtn and capacity to ensures ‘stable reinforced zone. in partir “each individual reinforcement should be ‘2pable of holding the soil immediately $Suitounding iin equtionur. This local Stbity aspect dcttes the spacing ofthe ‘ermoreement nd —verl sip aloe in the reinforced zone ‘mut also be considered to ensure against {eiture by insufficient band, or breaking of the reinforcement. These criteria govern the required length of the reinforcement Ench of these aspect of design detaied Sand iasratd in the companion Paper. 1.5 Comparison with prestressed Ground anchorages ‘Superficial, there mould appear to be 2 rumor of sinilaties between nails and prestressed ground anchorages when used {er slope or excavation stbiity,Indood its Xempting to regard nals merely 2s “passive” small scale snchorages, However, there are ‘olor funetiona distinctions tobe made, ‘ohich wl favour the choice of the one ove the other. The following comparisons and contrasts may be dave “Ground anchorages are. stecsed ator Installation 20 that in sevice they Kall prevent any structural movement Dceurting In contrast. sll nals are notrestrssed" and require © finite (tbeit ‘ory sma soi deformation to cause ther als ae in contact with the ground over ‘most of their length {typically 3-10, ‘wheres ground anchorages tranate food ‘nly along the distal, fixed anchorage length. A direct consequence ofthis that the distribution of stresses in the retained ‘mass is different for each type. Since nails are installed at 2 far higher ensity (ypically 1 per 0.5 to Sm’) the consequences of a one unit fllure are not necessarily 0 severe. In. addition, the Consiructonal tolerances” of instalation need not be so high, given their overal, interactive mode of operation, As high loads. have to be. applied to ‘anchorages, appropriate bearing facilities ‘must be provided atthe head to eliminate the possiblity of “punching” through the facing of "the retained. siucture Substantial bearing arrangements are not ecessary with nals whose low individ hhead loadings are easy accommodate ‘on smal steel bearing plates placed onthe Shotereted surface Individual anchoroges tend to be longer (soy 15-45m) and so may necessitate larger sale instalation equipment. Also an lnehorage system is often provided to Stabiise 8 substantial eetaining structure, such as a diaphragm wall or bored pile wal, which will Heel! necessitate large Scala construction equipment In general if the. overall stability calculations show the problem to be dee Seated, thon ground anchorages wil most probably be requied, Conversely, for verial excavations, soll naiing haa’ frequently proved preferable toothermethods of ateral ‘suppor incorporating prestressed ground ‘anchorages (such ¢ Borin or ciaphragm wal, 41.6 Comparison with reinforced earth walle ‘Although soit nating shares certain features with the older and more widely known technique of reinforced earth for fetaining. wall codstevction (Vidal 1966) there are also some fundamental ferences which are important to" note (Schlosser 7902) The main similarities are: The reinforcement is placed in the soil unstressed the reinforcement forees are ‘mobilised by subsequent efocmation of the sol Phote. 3. Genera! iow ofthe eaument and the Sequence in 9 soi! hotingexcevotion Tho reinforcement forces are sustained by Irctional bord between ths soil ond thy ‘einforcing element Thereinforeed zones Stable and resists the thrust form the lunreinforced soi it support, hike» gravity Fetaining structure The facing of the retained structure is thin prefabricated elements in the ease of reinforced earth and, usualy choterete in sol naling — and doesnot play a major ‘ole in the overll structural stabi, The main dissimilarities sre: Although at the end of construction the ‘wo. structures may look sila, the onstruction sequence ie. radically diferent. Soil naling # constructed by Staged excavations from “top down” while Feinforced earth constructed “bottom Up", (Fig. ). This hes an. important infdence on the distribution ofthe frees which “develop inthe reinforcement, Particularly during the construction period Soi nang is an insty reinforcement technique exploiting naturel ground the properties of which cannot be preselected ‘nd contolled 98 they are oF reinforced ‘crt file ~ Grouting techniques are usually employed to "bond. the. teinorcement 10. the Surrounding ground: lod i transfered ‘long the” grout to soll interface. In feinforced earth, trction is. generated irectly along the stip to so itertace 1.7 Benofits ond limitations of soil nailing, ‘Several factors have contributed to the growing popuirity of sol naling as 2 onstruction technique, and these include: = Economic advanigge— based on fiscustions with specie in Europe, ft ‘would. seem that the cost saving for ‘excavations of the order of Tom deep fs 10% to" 30% ‘lative to an anchored Fig. 5. Field performance of open excavation ‘systems (Peck, 1969) Fig. 6 Schematic comparison of the New Austen Tunneling ttethod ‘ond conventional method of support diophragm or Bern wallalternative. This is “Supported by eaimed saving of S054 ona Sollnailed excavation in Portland, Oregon (enn. 1976), = Consiruction equipment diting rigs for reinforcement instalation and ‘guns for shoterete application are relatively small le mobile end quiet (Photograph 3). This is highly advantageous in ‘uban environments were note, vibration oF fccess may pose problems Equally in emote rural areasitmey prove impossible to deploy large scale equipment for ping ‘oF diaphragm waling, Construction silty 20H aling can proceed rapidly and the excavation can be Shaped easily I is 2 lee technique, Feadhly accommodating variations in tol conditions and. work programmes “as ‘excavation progresses. Performance ~tield measurements indicate “that the overall movements Fequired to mobilise. tho reinforcement forces are ‘Surprisingly Sma These generally correspond to the movements to be" expected for, wall broced. systems (Category in Pecks (1989) eassifeation (Fig. 5). Furthermore, naling s applied ot the earliest possible time ater excavation, ‘and in intimate contact with the eut sot Surface. This minimises the disturbance to the ‘ground and so the possiblity of damage being ceused to" adjacent Stctures Natu the technique has. certain fooded Fig. 7. Subway underground sation formed Using the ATMS. Marsborg, W. Germany (Bouernteind et 31 1977)