See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272492928

Simplified Trial Wedge Method for Soil Nailed Wall Analysis

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · February 1999

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:2(117)

CITATIONS READS
29 1,154

2 authors, including:

Carlton L. Ho
University of Massachusetts Amherst
87 PUBLICATIONS   707 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Track Support Inspection View project

Design Response Spectra for Puget Sound Area Bridges View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlton L. Ho on 26 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Simplified Trial Wedge Method for Soil Nailed Wall Analysis
Thomas C. Sheahan1 and Carlton L. Ho2

Abstract: This paper presents a new approach that allows soil nailed walls to be analyzed using a trial wedge method. Most soil nailed
wall analysis methods are rooted in traditional slope stability solutions with curvilinear or bilinear slip surfaces. This has led to limited
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

access to these methods due to the cost of commercial software. In addition, there are at least two well-documented test walls brought to
failure that indicated evidence of relatively steep, approximately linear slip surfaces instead of the more complex surfaces assumed by
most software packages. The simplified trial wedge method is intended as a relatively simple and inexpensive method for preliminary or
supplemental design calculations for soil nailed walls. The method stems from the existing Federal Highway Administration analysis
guidelines. Procedures are outlined for implementing the trial wedge method using a spreadsheet-based approach. The method is applied
to two test walls that were intentionally brought to failure, the Amherst Test Wall in clay, and the Clouterre Test Wall No. 1 in sand. In
each case, the trial wedge analysis produces results consistent with the failure mode of the wall.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2003兲129:2共117兲
CE Database keywords: Soil nailing; Retaining walls; Lateral stability; Stability analysis; Earth reinforcement; Field tests; Limit
analysis.

Introduction
The application of soil nailing as an in situ ground reinforcement
technique has expanded rapidly in the past 25 years. Soil nails are
known as ‘‘passive inclusions’’ because they rely on very small
ground movements to mobilize their reinforcing stresses, which in
turn influence the mechanics near potential failure surfaces in the
soil mass. This is in contrast to ground anchorages 共such as tie-
backs兲 that are often post-tensioned after installation and are de-
signed to prevent ground movement by overstressing.
Because of these inherently different reinforcement mecha-
nisms, it became clear that new analysis methods were needed for
soil nailed cuts. This has led to debates about various aspects of
the analysis, including the importance of nail bending versus ten-
sion, the most realistic slip surface, etc. A number of software
packages have been developed to analyze soil nailed walls, with a
common characteristic among virtually all of the approaches
being that they are adaptations of slope stability analysis methods.
The use of modified slope stability programs has two problems:
First, it means that the geotechnical engineering practitioner must
usually purchase one of the software packages 共which can be
expensive兲 to do state-of-practice soil nailed wall analysis; and
second, there are so few test walls that have been brought to
failure that our knowledge of limit states in these walls is not well
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Northeastern Univ., Boston, MA 02115. E-mail: tsheahan@coe.neu.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2003. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on August 10, 2001; approved on June 26, 2002. This paper is
part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, Vol. 129, No. 2, February 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2003/2-117–124/$18.00.
known in different soil types. Regarding the latter point, there are
at least two full-scale soil nailed walls brought to failure in which
the failure surfaces were not typical slope stability slip surfaces,
but appeared to be approximately linear, wedge-type failures. A
method of wall analysis that stems from a trial wedge method
used for retaining walls would be more accessible for engineers to
implement, and provide a relatively simple and inexpensive
method for preliminary or supplemental design calculations for
soil nailed walls.
This paper presents a new approach that allows soil nailed
walls to be analyzed using a spreadsheet-based, trial wedge
method. This method stems from the existing U.S. Federal High-
way Administration 共FHWA兲 analysis method and considers only
tension in the nails as contributing to nail-soil mass stability. The
approach was used to evaluate two walls intentionally brought to
failure: the Amherst Test Wall, a soil nailed wall in clay that was
failed by overexcavation; and the Clouterre Test Wall No. 1, con-
structed in Fontainebleau sand and failed by backfill saturation.
Mechanics Underlying the Analysis Problem
The most widely accepted approach for characterizing the loading
mechanisms in a soil nailed wall assumes a block-type instability
caused by the weight of the soil and wall facing, and any surface
loading 共FHWA 1996兲. This is resisted by the soil’s shear strength
along a potential slip surface, the influence of the soil nails on the
shear strength, and the lateral force that comes from soil nail
support 共Fig. 1兲. For soil nails that intersect the slip surface, it is
assumed the nail tension has a twofold effect: It increases the
normal stress on the slip surface, thus increasing the soil’s fric-
tional resistance 共for soils with nonzero friction angle, ␾兲; and can
provide a force component opposite those driving the instability.
Fig. 2 shows the assumed tension distribution in the nail as given
by FHWA 共1996兲. It is based on the nail’s head strength where it
intersects the wall facing, the nail’s yield strength, and the nail-
soil pullout resistance.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 117

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Slip surface approach for analysis of soil nailed walls 共after FHWA 1996兲

This slip surface approach, with a number of variations 共in-
cluding the incorporation of nail bending effects兲 has been widely
adopted in practice 共e.g., Stocker et al. 1979; Shen et al. 1981;
Juran et al. 1990兲, and has been implemented in a number of
commercially available software programs. These programs cost
typically well over $1,000 共U.S. dollars兲, and are based on the
assumed behavior of the reinforced soil mass, slipping along a
curvilinear or bilinear surface as indicated in Fig. 1.
Two relatively well-documented case studies exist of full-scale
test walls that were intentionally brought to failure. The Amherst
Test Wall 共Sheahan 2000兲, shown in Fig. 3, was built in a stiff
varved clay and was brought to failure by overexcavating under
the existing nail-shotcrete lifts. The failure, monitored using both
inclinometers and surface settlement measurements, was esti-
mated as a relatively steep, linear wedge extending from the wall
base to the ground surface, about 60° to the horizontal. The Clou-
terre Test Wall No. 1 共Plumelle et al. 1990兲 was constructed in
Fontainebleau sand and was intentionally failed using surface
saturation. As shown in Fig. 4共b兲, instrumentation and observa-
tions indicate that the Clouterre wall failure extended back from
the wall a distance of 2 to 4 m. Cracks were observed 2.5 m from
the wall, and significant lateral deformation was measured at 4 m
from the wall, indicating a failure surface that can be approxi-
mated by a plane 60° to 70° to the horizontal extending from the
base of the wall to the ground surface.
These two cases of failed test walls suggest that a wedge-type
analysis for soil nailed walls could be reasonably assumed for
preliminary and/or supplemental analysis calculations. Such an
analysis method could also be implemented in a spreadsheet, thus
allowing practitioners easy access to the method and its results.
Simplified Trial Wedge Analysis for Soil Nailed
Walls
Once the two local tension failure modes of pullout and head
failure have been checked 共refer to FHWA 1996兲, the trial wedge
method can be applied as outlined in the following steps. This

Fig. 2. Assumed tension distribution in soil nail 共after FHWA 1996兲

118 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Side elevation view of Amherst test wall 共from Sheahan 2000兲

process begins, as in most common soil nailed wall analysis
methods, by identifying a potential slip surface. As shown in Fig.
5 共a schematic of a simplified wall with two rows of nails兲, a
linear slip surface inclined at angle ␪ is assumed, which in turn
allows a spreadsheet approach to be implemented. For the proce-
dures given, and as shown in Fig. 5, it is assumed that the wall
face is vertical or near vertical and that the nails are declined at
angle ␣ to the horizontal. For each trial wedge, the analysis
should proceed as follows:
1. As in a conventional trial wedge method 共e.g., that given in
Das 1999兲, determine the weight of the soil in the trial
wedge per wall length W including the weight per wall
length of the wall facing and any surcharge being supported
in the trial wedge 共surcharge resultant per wall length is de-
noted by Q兲;
2. Evaluate the tension in each nail where it crosses the trial
wedge surface 共if the nail intersects it兲. The tension distribu-
tion recommended by FHWA 共1996兲 and shown in Fig. 2 can
be used for this purpose. The tension should then be divided
by the horizontal nail spacing (s h ) to give T, the nail tension
per wall length. Note that the tension distribution in Fig. 2
can be converted into an equation, and the spreadsheet used
to compute the value of T where the trial wedge intersects it
(T 1 and T 2 in Fig. 5兲. When the nails are relatively short, or
where the soil pullout strength is low, the tension distribution
can conservatively be approximated by a right triangle, ex-
tending from zero at the nail toe to either 共a兲 the nail head
strength or 共b兲 the product of the nail length times the nail
pullout resistance; again, this should be divided by s h ;
3. Compute the aggregate shear resistance along the trial slip
surface due to the following contributions 共Fig. 6 shows a
close up of the nail-slip surface interactions circled in Fig. 5
and the components of the shear resistance as follows兲:
• The shear resistance along the trial slip surface developed due
to soil frictional resistance 共represented by soil friction angle
␾兲 and/or inherent cohesion c 共i.e., prior to nail installation兲,
• For each nail crossing the slip surface, the nail’s tension com-
ponent parallel to the slip surface, T cos(␪⫹␣), i.e., if the nail
is perpendicular to the trial slip surface, this component would
be zero, and
• For soils with nonzero ␾ values and for each nail intersecting
the slip surface, the added frictional shear resistance caused by
each nail’s tension component normal to the slip surface; this
tension component is given as T sin(␪⫹␣), resulting in addi-
tional soil-to-soil friction of T sin(␪⫹␣)tan ␾.
4. Compare the aggregate resistance parallel to the slip surface in
Step 3 to the driving force parallel to the slip surface. The
driving force is the sum of the weight of the assumed unstable
soil mass, the weight of the wall facing, and any surcharge, as
computed in Step 1. Thus, for n nails, the factor of safety
against wedge failure can be summarized in the following
equation:

cH/sin ␪⫹ 共 W⫹Q 兲 cos ␪ tan ␾⫹ 兺 关 T i cos共 ␪⫹␣ 兲 ⫹T i sin共 ␪⫹␣ 兲 tan ␾ 兴

i⫽1
F.S.⫽ (1)
共 W⫹Q 兲 sin ␪

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 119

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Schematics of french soil nailing research program Clouterre Test Wall No. 1. 共a兲 after construction and prior to wall excavation; and 共b兲
after failure by surface saturation 共from Plumelle et al. 1990兲

Note that as with retaining wall trial wedge methods, resisting and
driving components are in units of force per wall length. Slip
surfaces with factors of safety of unity or below are potential
failure surfaces.
While additional shear resistance from nail bending could
have been added in Step 3 of the trial wedge method, the analyti-
cal work done by Jewell and Pedley 共1992兲 generally indicates
that this contribution to shear resistance is small. Further, this
reinforcement mechanism requires ground and soil deformations
that are incompatible with those required to mobilize nail tension.
Therefore, this is left out of the present analysis because this is
conservative and more realistic from a mechanics point of view.
Applying Trial Wedge Method to Test Walls Brought
to Failure
Amherst Test Wall
Fig. 3 shows a side elevation view of the instrumented, soil nailed
test wall that was designed and constructed at the National Geo-
technical Experimentation Site 共NGES兲 at the University of Mas-
sachusetts, Amherst. Construction details and field measurements
related to the wall are described by Oral and Sheahan 共1998兲 and
Sheahan 共2000兲.
The Amherst NGES test site has a surface layer of compacted
fill with a thickness of about 1 to 1.5 m over the natural deposits.
The wall was built in the upper natural deposits, locally referred
to as Connecticut Valley varved clay 共CVVC兲 and consisting of
alternating, thin layers of silt and clay. An overconsolidated crust
has developed to a variable depth of 4 to 6 m, and this grades into
a soft, nearly normally consolidated deposit. The plasticity index
varies from 17 to 22% and the undrained strength averages 34 to
38 kPa 共Benoit and de Alba 1993兲. No significant groundwater
was observed until the excavation was near its maximum depth of
6.1 m below ground surface. As previously noted and as indicated
in Fig. 3, the wall was intentionally failed by overexcavating
approximately 2.4 m below the overlying nail-shotcrete lifts.
The trial wedge method was applied to the Amherst wall to
determine if the observed failure would have been predicted using
this method. It is noted that when the wall was back-analyzed
using the conventional FHWA methods 共implemented in a com-
mercial software package兲, a factor of safety of 1.2 against failure
was obtained. For the trial wedge method, referring to Fig. 5, six

120 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Side elevation schematic of soil nailed wall, with trial wedge analysis input parameters
trial wedges were evaluated using ␪ values varying from 45° to
70° using the steps outlined previously. Table 1 summarizes the
input parameters used for the analysis. For the clay, since the
failure was assumed to be undrained, a value of ␾⫽0 and an
undrained cohesion (c u ) of 25 kPa were assumed; this c u repre-
sents the soil’s estimated residual shear strength. While use of the
residual strength is conservative, it is also realistic since some soil
mass deformation needs to occur for the nail tension to mobilize.
Table 2 summarizes the results for the six trial wedges ana-
lyzed using the trial wedge method. Obviously, as the trial wedge
angle 共␪ in Fig. 5兲 increases, the weight of the soil wedge de-
creases 共reflected in columns B and C of Table 2兲 and the slip
surface length is reduced, decreasing the soil shear resistance
from cohesion 共fourth column兲. With the soil’s friction angle as-
Fig. 6. Close up of nail and slip surface interaction, showing me-
chanics of shear resistance
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 121
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124
sumed to be zero, the nail tension effect on stability is confined to
the tension component parallel to the slip surface being consid-
ered 共sixth column兲. A factor of safety is shown in Column I for
each trial wedge.
The analysis shows that for the Amherst wall, the slip surfaces
with ␪ values approximately 60° and lower are unstable. This
means that as the trial wedge size increases 共i.e., ␪ value decreas-
ing兲, the soil/wall facing weight overwhelms the ability of the soil
and nails to support the load. As movement propagates back into
the soil from the wall face, one would expect the soil mass to
become unstable at the trial wedge with a factor of safety less
than or equal to unity closest to the wall face. This result is
consistent with the observed failure of the Amherst Test Wall.
Lateral soil movement of the 6.1 m deep excavation was mea-
sured back to the second row of inclinometers in the soil mass,
3.4 m behind the face, yielding a computed ␪ angle of 61°.
Clouterre Test Wall No. 1
As part of the French national project on soil nailing, known as
Clouterre, a test wall known as Test Wall No. 1 was constructed
using a backfill of compacted Fontainebleau sand 共FHWA 1993;
Plumelle et al. 1990兲. The sand had a laboratory measured fric-
tion angle, ␾⫽38° and cohesion, c⫽3 kPa. The 7 m high wall,
with 8 cm thick shotcrete facing, was reinforced with soil ‘‘nails’’
that were actually aluminum tubes in grout. Fig. 4共a兲 shows a side
elevation view of the wall prior to failure. Table 1 shows the input
parameters used to analyze the test wall, and Table 3 shows the
details of the different aluminum tubes used as nails in the wall
共since each nail level used a particular nail type, denoted by the
letters A through E in Fig. 4 and Table 3兲.
In order to analyze this wall using the simplified trial wedge
method 共or any method that relies on nail tension兲, an assumption
regarding tensile strength of the aluminum tubes had to be made.
If one were to assume a yield strength of 95,000 kPa 共13,800 psi兲
for the aluminum 共an upper bound for aluminum alloys兲, exces-
sively small maximum tension levels could be expected in the
nails 共i.e., on the order of 2 to 9 kN, or 0.5 to 2 kips兲. This is due
 Table 1. Input Parameters used to Analyze Amherst Test Wall and Clouterre Test Wall No. 1
Amherst test wall Clouterre test wall no. 1
Input parameters Soil Wall height m 共ft兲 6.1 共20兲 7.0 共23兲
Soil unit weight, kN/m3 共pcf兲 18.9 共120兲 20 共127兲
Friction angle, degrees 0a 38
Remolded cohesion, c u , kPa 共psf兲 25 共522兲 3 共63兲
Blow count, N, blows ft — 8 to 15
Nails Spacing, horizontal, m 共ft兲 1.5 共5.0兲 1.15 共3.77兲
Spacing, vertical, m 共ft兲 1.5 共5.0兲 1 共3.28兲
Number of rows 2b 7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Declination angle, ␣, degrees 20 10

Length, L, m 共ft兲 4.9 共16.0兲 6 to 8 共19.7 to 26.2兲c
Material ASTM A615, 60 ksi steel Aluminum tube
Nail diameter, D, cm 共in.兲 1.9 共0.75兲 1.6 to 4 共0.63 to 1.57兲c
Nail grout diameter, cm 共in.兲 10.2 共4.0兲 6.3 共2.48兲
Head strength, kN 共kip兲 86 共19.3兲 59 共13.3兲
Tensile strength kN 共kip兲 118 共26.5兲 15 共3.37兲d
Bonding strength, kN/m 共lb/ft兲 15 共1028兲 7.5 共514兲d
Shotcrete Thickness, cm 共in.兲 10.2 共4.0兲e 8 共3.15兲
Estimated weight kN/m 共lb/ft兲 14.6 共1,000兲f 13.2 共900兲f
a
Analysis assumed undrained conditions.
b
Two rows of nails plus two ‘‘rows’’ of overexcavation below the shotcrete.
c
Refer to Table 3 and Fig. 4共a兲 for specific dimensions at each nail level.
d
Based on pullout tests.
e
Shotcrete was placed on welded wire fabric (10.2 cm⫻10.2 cm).
f
Estimated weight of shotcrete added to soil weight in stability analysis.

to the thin tube walls, as indicated in Table 3. Plumelle et al.
共1990兲 reported results from a pullout test on one of these nails,
with an apparent yield tension of about 15 kN 共3.4 kips兲. Hence,
for the analysis of this wall, a constant tension of 15 kN 共3.4 kips兲
along the nail length was assumed, rather than using the FHWA
recommended distribution shown in Fig. 2. The other assumption
required for the analysis is the soil’s unit weight, which was set as
20 kN/m3 共127 pcf兲, considered reasonable for the compacted
sand with relative density, D r ⫽0.6.
As with the Amherst wall analysis, six trial wedges were
evaluated using ␪ values from 45° to 70° using the steps outlined
for the trial wedge method. Obviously, the primary difference in
this case versus the Amherst wall is the presence of a nonzero
friction angle, which results in frictional shear resistance being
generated at the slip surface, both by the soil’s inherent friction
and that added by the nail tension. As explained in the third part
of Step 3 of the trial wedge procedures, for a given nail, the nail
tension per wall length normal to the trial slip surface is multi-
plied by tan ␾ for the soil. A further difference between the two
cases is the additional level of complexity of the analysis due to
seven nail levels versus only two in the Amherst wall. The use of
a spreadsheet facilitates this change.
Table 4 shows the results for the Clouterre Test Wall No. 1
analyzed using the trial wedge method. It is noted that as the trial

Table 2. Trial Wedge Analysis Results for Amherst Test Wall

D
A C Resultant E F G H
Trial B Weight soil remolded Tension in Each Nail at Total nail Total forces Total forces
wedge Weight soil and shotcrete 储 c u on slip Trail Slip Surface Intersection 共kN/m兲c tension 储 resisting driving I
angle, ␪a and shotcrete to slip surface surface to slip surface sliding D⫹F sliding C F.S. against
共°兲 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲b Top Row Bottom row 共kN/m兲d 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲e sliding G⫼H
45 366.2 259.0 215.7 16.16 33.71 14.1 229.7 259.0 0.887
50 309.7 237.2 199.1 23.22 38.61 14.1 213.2 237.2 0.899
55 260.8 213.6 186.2 29.86 43.22 12.6 198.8 213.6 0.930
60 217.6 188.5 176.1 36.18 47.61 9.7 185.8 188.5 0.986
65 178.6 161.8 168.3 42.32 51.86 5.5 173.7 161.8 1.074
70 142.6 134.0 162.3 48.36 56.06 0.0 162.3 134.0 1.211
a
Refer to Fig. 5 for definition of ␪.
b
Obtained by multiplying (remolded c u ) * (slip surface length).
c
Obtained using T⫽ 关 (distance from slip surface to nail toe)⫻(pull-out strength of nail in clay) 兴 /S h ., where S h ⫽horizontal spacing⫽1.5 m.
d
Computed using (sum of tensions in fifth column)⫻cos(␪⫹␣), and ␣⫽nail declination to horizontal⫽20°.
e
If soil were frictional, this column would also include additional shear on the trial slip surface due to the soil’s inherent frictional resistance including the
effect of nail tension.

122 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124

 Table 3. Details of Aluminum Tubes Used as Soil Nails in the Clou- Conclusions
terre Test Wall No. 1 共after Plumelle et al. 1990兲
This paper presents a simplified trial wedge method for analyzing
Nail label, Length Outside tube Tube wall
shown in Fig. 4 共m兲 diameter 共cm兲 thickness 共cm兲 soil nailed wall stability that uses the problem geometry, soil
properties, and the nail tension. Based on limited data from inten-
A 6 1.6 0.1 tionally failed soil nailed walls, the use of a linear slip surface to
B 8 3.0 0.2 define a wedge-type failure behind the wall is assumed. Proce-
C 6 dures are described for applying the analysis method and its
D 7.5 4.0 0.1 implementation in a spreadsheet-based solution.
E 8 The trial wedge method was used to backanalyze two test
walls intentionally brought to failure: The Amherst Test Wall con-
structed in varved clay, for which undrained, ␾⫽0 conditions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were assumed; and the Clouterre Test Wall No. 1 built in sand, in
wedge angle ␪ increases, the proportion of friction attributable to
which the primary resistance against failure was friction gener-
that caused by nail tension increases considerably. Comparing
ated by soil weight and nail tension. Both walls had vertical wall
columns D and G in Table 4, for ␪⫽45° the nail-induced friction
faces and level backfill, so the effects of wall geometry were not
is 17% of the total friction on the slip surface 共sum of the two
studied. For the Amherst wall, a series of trial wedges from 45° to
columns兲, while for ␪⫽70° nail-induced friction is 58% of the
70° was analyzed using a spreadsheet, and the slip surface nearest
total friction. The factor of safety against wedge failure exceeds
the face was found to be 60° to the horizontal, consistent with the
unity for ␪ values of 45° and 50°, but falls below unity for higher
limit condition observed in the field. The Clouterre wall was simi-
wedge angles, i.e., ␪ values of 55° and higher. This is reasonably
larly analyzed, and the slip surfaces inclined 55° or greater to the
consistent with the observed failure in the field 关Fig. 4共b兲兴: Sig-
horizontal had factors of safety below unity. This is, again, rea-
nificant lateral deformations were measured by inclinometers at 4
sonably consistent with the field observations of the failed wall,
m from the wall 共indicating a 60° failure plane兲, and cracks were
which indicated a failure surface inclined between 60° and 70° to
observed 2.5 m from the wall, indicating a 70° failure plane. As
the horizontal, measured from the base of the wall.
with the Amherst wall, the planar failure for the Clouterre wall is
The new method provides a rational way for engineers to
a simplifying assumption and the true failure surface was prob-
implement soil nailed wall analysis in a spreadsheet. While it
ably somewhere between these two measured/observed failure
cannot presently replace existing, more sophisticated analyses
points.
based on more complex slip surfaces and mechanics, the simpli-
The trend in the factor of safety values with ␪ is opposite to
fied trial wedge method provides an inexpensive and accessible
that observed in the Amherst wall, for which the factor of safety
method for preliminary wall analysis and/or a supplemental
increased as the wedge angle increased. This is primarily due to
analysis check on more advanced methods.
the cohesion resistance predominant in the Amherst wall versus
the frictional resistance in the Clouterre wall. In both cases, as ␪
increases, the wedge weight driving force 共second column in Acknowledgments
Tables 2 and 4兲 decreases significantly. For the Amherst wall, the
primary resisting force, the cohesion on the slip surface 共fourth Support for construction and analysis of the Amherst test wall
column in Table 2兲 is less dependent on the ␪ angle than the project was provided by FHWA’s Turner-Fairbanks Research
wedge weight, so that factor of safety increases with increasing ␪. Center and ADSC: The International Association of Foundation
For the Clouterre wall, as ␪ increases, the total frictional resis- Drilling, and was done in cooperation with the National Geotech-
tance, from the inherent soil friction and nail-induced friction nical Experimentation Site at Amherst, managed by Professor
共fourth and seventh columns and in Table 4兲, decreases more Alan Lutenegger. Tolga Oral, a graduate student at Northeastern
dramatically than the wedge weight, and the factor of safety de- University, worked on the Amherst test wall instrumentation and
creases. analysis.

Table 4. Trial Wedge Analysis Results for Clouterre Test Wall No. 1
D
Friction G
C on slip F Additional H I
A Weight soil surface due Total nail friction Total nail Total forces
Trial B and shotcrete 储 to soil and E tension ⬜ due to nail tension 储 resisting J
wedge Weight soil to slip surface shotcrete Cohesion on to slip tension to slip sliding Total forces K
angle, and shotcrete 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲 sliding surface surface 共kN/m兲 surface D⫹E⫹G⫹H driving sliding F.S. against
␪ 共°C兲 共kN/m兲 B sin ␪ B cos ␪ tan ␾ 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲a F * tan ␾ 共kN/m兲a 共kN/m兲 C 共kN/m兲 sliding I⫼J
45 503.2 355.8 278.0 29.7 74.8 58.4 52.4 418.5 355.8 1.176
50 424.4 325.1 213.1 27.4 79.1 61.8 45.7 348.0 325.1 1.070
55 356.3 291.9 159.7 25.6 82.7 64.7 38.6 288.5 291.9 0.989
60 296.1 256.4 115.7 24.2 85.8 67.0 31.2 238.2 256.4 0.929
65 241.7 219.0 79.8 23.2 88.2 68.9 23.6 195.5 219.0 0.893
70 191.5 180.0 51.2 22.3 89.9 70.3 15.9 159.6 178.0 0.887
a
Nail tension of 15 kN assumed in each of seven nail rows; sixth column obtained using (7 * 15 kN/s h )sin(␪⫹␣), where S h ⫽horizontal spacing
⫽1.15 m, and ␣⫽nail declination to horizontal⫽10°. Eighth column obtained using (7 * 15 kN/s h )cos(␪⫹␣).

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003 / 123

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124

 References
Benoit, J. and de Alba, P. 共1993兲. ‘‘Catalog of national geotechnical ex-
perimentation sites.’’ Report to National Science Foundation 共NSF兲
and Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲, Washington, D.C.,
247.
Das, B. M. 共1999兲. Principles of foundation engineering, 4th Ed., PWS
Publishers, Pacific Grove, Calif., 862.
Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲. 共1993兲. ‘‘Recommendations
Clouterre 1991 共english translation兲.’’ Report on the French National
Project Clouterre, Rep. No. FHWA-SA-93-026, Washington, D.C.,
321.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 08/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲. 共1996兲. ‘‘Manual for design
and construction monitoring of soil nail walls.’’ FHWA Rep. No.
FHWA-SA-96-069, Washington, D.C., 468.
Jewell, R. A., and Pedley, M. J. 共1992兲. ‘‘Analysis for soil reinforcement
with bending stiffness.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 118共10兲, 1505–1528.
Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Farrag, K., and Elias, V. 共1990兲. ‘‘Kinematical
limit analysis for design of soil-nailed structures.’’ J. Geotech. Eng.,
116共1兲, 54 –72.
124 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2003
View publication stats J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(2): 117-124
Oral, T., and Sheahan, T. C. 共1998兲. ‘‘The use of soil nails in soft clays.’’
Design and construction of earth retaining systems, R. J. Finno, Y.
Hashash, C. L. Ho, and B. P. Sweeney, eds., Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 83, ASCE, Reston, Va., 26 – 40.
Plumelle, C., Schlosser, F., Delage, P., and Knochenmus, G. 共1990兲.
‘‘French national research project on soil nailing: Clouterre.’’ Design
and performance of earth retaining structures, P. C. Lambe and L. A.
Hansen, eds., Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, ASCE, Re-
ston, Va., 660– 675.
Sheahan, T. C. 共2000兲. ‘‘A field study of soil nails in clay at the Univer-
sity of Massachusetts—Amhurst National Geotechnical Experimenta-
tion Site,’’ National geotechnical experimentation sites, J. Benoı̂t and
A. J. Lutenegger, eds., Geotechnical Special Publication No. 93,
ASCE, Reston, Va., 250–263.
Shen, C. K., Bang, S., and Hermann, L. R. 共1981兲. ‘‘Ground movement
analysis of earth support system.’’ J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ.
Eng., 107共12兲, 1609–1624.
Stocker, M. F., Korber, G. W., Gassler, G., and Gudehus, G. 共1979兲. ‘‘Soil
nailing.’’ Proc., Conference on Soil Reinforcement, Paris, 2:469– 474.