Information Paper On Long-Term Durability of Soil Nail (2012)

Information Paper
Long-Term Durability of Soil Nail
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
July 2012
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 1 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

Revision No. : 0 CTW/KYT/MKL
First Issue Date : July 2012 Current Issue Date : July 2012
1. Introduction
1.1 GEO (2008) issued Geoguide 7: Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction
(“Geoguide 7”), which specifies the method to assess the degrees of corrosion potential
of soil nails by considering the soil aggressivity in a site. Based on a marking system, a
site can be classified into: non-aggressive, mildly aggressive, aggressive, and highly
aggressive. Geoguide 7 then recommends the appropriate corrosion protection measure
for each type of site.
1.2 The following paragraphs will:

a) review the literature on the background of the assessment method in Geoguide 7;
b) compare it with international practices, especially the method recently included in
EN 14490:2010: Execution of Special Geotechnical Works - Soil Nailing (BSI
2010).
2. Background on Geoguide 7
2.1 Steel soil nails are used extensively for slope improvement works in Hong Kong.
However, corrosion of steel reinforcement reduces the durability of a soil-nailed system.
Geoguide 7 gives the following two steps in choosing the appropriate corrosion
protection measure for the soil nails to suit the soil conditions of each site:
a) classification of soil aggressivity; and

b) choosing the appropriate corrosion protection measure.
2.2 Classification of soil aggressivity
2.2.1 In order to study the long-term durability of soil nails, GEO in the late 1990s and early
2000s reviewed relevant literature on corrosion protection for steel soil nails, and then
tested and/or collected the relevant properties of the Hong Kong soils. Their findings
were summarized in GEO Report No. 135: Long-Term Durability of Steel Soil Nails
(2003) (Shui and Cheung 2003) and Shui and Cheung (2008). The soil aggressivity
assessment scheme was then devised, which had been based on similar methods in
France, the UK and the US. The soil aggressivity is affected by the physical and
chemical characteristics of the soil, and Geoguide 7 lists out eight parameters to be
considered, which include: soil composition; resistivity; moisture content; groundwater
level; pH; soluble sulphate; made ground; and chloride ion content. Each parameter is
then assigned a mark under the soil aggressivity assessment scheme (Table 1), and will
summated to give a total mark for the soil in a site (Table 2).

Table 1: Soil Aggressivity Assessment Scheme in Geoguide 7
(Source: Geoguide 7 Table 4.2)

Table 2: Classification of Soil Aggressivity in Geoguide 7
2.2.2 Soil resistivity
Soil resistivity is a measure of the ability of a soil to conduct a current. The lower the
resistivity of a soil, the better is the soil's electrolytic properties and the higher is the rate
at which the corrosion can proceed. Soil resistivity is related to the soluble salt content,
which form anions and cations in the soil solution. The major dissolved anions in soil
systems are chloride, sulphate, phosphate and bicarbonate, with chloride and sulphate
the most important anionic constituents in corrosion phenomena. The electrolytic
conductivity is thus the sum of all the individual equivalent ionic conductivities times
their concentration. Besides the amount of soluble salts, particular size distribution also
affects the soil resistivity by changing the aeration and moisture content of the soil
(Chaker 1996). Thus, the measured soil resistivity has incorporated the combined effect
of soluble salts content, the particular size, the void ratio, and the moisture content.
A number of methods have been available to measure soil resistivity. BS 1377-3:1990

gives three laboratory methods: disc electrodes test on undisturbed or compacted soil
sample (Test 10.2), Wenner’s four probe electrodes test on undisturbed or disturbed soil
sample (Test 10.3), and open container test (Test 10.4). Instead of using laboratory tests,
in-situ tests are also available, e.g. ASTM G57-06: Standard Test Method for Field
Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method.
Although Shui and Cheung (2003) noted that resistivity is an important parameter for
assessing soil aggressivity, the database in GEO did not contain any test results on
resistivity. Hence, they adopted the values of in-situ soil resistivity measured at five
sites in Hong Kong reported in Chan and Chen (1999). Geoguide 7, however, specifies
that the test for soil resistivity shall follow BS 1377-3:1990 Test 10.4, i.e. open
container test on a soil sample in laboratory. BS 1377-3:1990 states that one of the
limitations of such test is that the soil shall consist of “relatively free-draining materials
into which water can percolate easily”, as the test requires the soil sample to be
saturated with water. This requirement implies that the specified method may not be
applicable to clayey soil. Moreover, by applying this test on clayey soil a lower

resistivity is expected, and this, coupling with the higher moisture content of such type
of soil, may over-estimate the soil aggressivity.
The procedures of BS 1377-3:1990 Test 10.4 further require the soil sample to be
saturated by pouring water. SGE/NP explained that “[r]esistivity do not stay consist in
field. Therefore, it can be argued that the resistivity should be determined under the
most adverse condition in order to obtain a comparable resistivity that is independent of
seasonal and other variations in soil-moisture content. AASHTO has adopted Method
T-288 for measuring resistivity after review and analysis of a number of available
methodologies. This laboratory test to measure resistivity of a soil at various moisture
contents up to saturation and reports the minimum obtained resistivity” (Elis et al 2009).
SGE/NP further noted that NGG (2004) states that “[t]he resistivity depends on the
water content of the soil. Hence it is recommended that the tests are preformed for the
most severe conditions i.e. the soil is fully saturated. For a field test it is impossible to
choose the conditions but the water content should be accounted for when evaluation
the test. There are a number of different methods to determine the resistivity both in
laboratory and the field.”
It is therefore evident that measuring resistivity under the most adverse condition (i.e.
saturated state) is to obtain a comparable resistivity that is independent of seasonal and
other variations in soil moisture content. This may be understandable if moisture
content and groundwater level were not separately measured and marked. However, in
assessing soil aggressivity, both moisture content and groundwater level are included as
parameters and marked. The corresponding clause in both EN 14490:2010 and EN
1997-2:2007 does not specify the method. However, the National Foreword to EN
1997-2:2007 specifies that the test methods in BS 1377-3:1990 are continued to be
preferred; whilst in the US, the test method is specified to be the in-situ Wenner’s four
probe electrodes test according to ASTM G57-06.
2.2.3 pH
For pH, zinc is vulnerable to corrosion in both strongly acidic and alkaline soils.
Geoguide 7, therefore, considers that the galvanized coating will more easily be
corroded in either acidic or alkaline regimes, although it is well-known that steel is
passivated in alkaline environments (i.e., pH>10).
2.3 Choice of corrosion protection measure
2.3.1 Geoguide 7 classifies the corrosion protection measures used in Hong Kong into the
following three classes:

Class 1 - hot-dip galvanising steel nails in corrugated plastic sheathing with in-
filled grout, which are then installed in pre-drilled grout hole
Class 2 - hot-dip galvanising steel nails plus a 2mm sacrificial thickness
allowance in pre-drilled grout hole
Class 3 - hot-dip galvanizing steel nails in pre-drilled grout hole
2.3.2 Once the soil aggressivity has been classified, an appropriate class of corrosion
protection measure (Table 3) can be provided to the soil nails, which are required to
carry transient loads. For a design life exceeding 2 years, Class 1 corrosion protection
measure (i.e. hot-dip galvanizing soil nails in grouted corrugated plastic sheathing with
in-filled grout) is recommended for both highly aggressive and aggressive soil, whilst
Class 2 corrosion protection measure (i.e. hot-dip galvanizing soil nails with a 2mm
sacrificial thickness allowance) can be used for mildly aggressive and non-aggressive
soil. Geoguide 7 further recommends that for potentially aggressive soil where no soil
aggressivity assessment has been carried out, Class 1 corrosion protection measure
should be adopted, irrespective of the actual site condition. Geoguide 7 gives the
following examples for potentially aggressive sites: a site that has the potential of being
affected by the leakage or discharge of fluids from developments, public roads, landfill,
sewage treatment plant, industrial plant, water-carrying services, etc., a site that shows
constant seepage or high groundwater levels, the source of which is uncertain.
Table 3: Recommended Corrosion Protection Measures in Geoguide 7
2.3.3 Grout Protection
In Hong Kong, soil nails are mostly installed in pre-drilled grouted holes, and the grout
can prevent corrosion by forming a physical barrier and protecting the steel in an
alkaline environment. Table 3 does not consider the contribution of such grout

encapsulation of the soil nails as corrosion protection measure, though in Class 1
corrosion protection measure, the plastic sheathing is filled with grout in order to
protect the nails. Shui and Cheung (2003) noted that the grout is usually assumed to
offer no protection and that the corrosion rate is assumed to be the same as that for the
steel installed directly in the ground, though they noted that this is a rather conservative
approach. The rationale advanced by Shui and Cheung (2003) to support these
conservative assumptions are:
a) the cement grout is subject to tensile stresses when the steel bar is under load, and
micro-cracks will then occur;
b) shrinkage cracks may also form during the setting of the cement grout; and
c) it is very difficult to check the quality of the grout in the ground, e.g. drillhole
collapses.
SGE/NP noted that though international practice does allow the use of grout to provide
corrosion protection, some comes with a qualification. For example, EN 14490:2010
states that “[e]ncapsulation of the steel in grout will reduce the corrosion. If the grout is
evenly distributed along the nail with a thickness of the cover corresponding to the
environment and it can be guaranteed that no cracks larger than 0.1 mm will occur, then
the grout cover itself might be considered as a satisfactory corrosion protection.
However, usually there will be cracks and therefore the grout usually combined with
some type of corrosion protection system.”
In reply to a), our ex-SGE/NP, Dr H Y Wong, once said, “[t]his is a practice adopted in
permanent prestressed anchors”, where the anchors are subjecting to high prestress
tension throughout their whole life span, and he further said, “[a]ny corrosion in the
steel reinforcement will result in a loss in the prestress tension force and hence the
working load of the anchor. On the other hand, soil nails installed in slopes in Hong
Kong are basically unstressed …. unless there is very large slope movement.” This
comment is echoed in NGG (2004), where it is said that “[a] soil nail installed in the
natural slope will be non-tensioned as long as no further movement of the active wedge
of the slope occurs”, i.e. when the FOS of the slope is less than 1.0, active movement of
the slipping surface under service load is expected. Thus, in the majority of cases where
soil nails are installed to upgrade the FOS of slope to the required value of 1.2 or 1.4
from a FOS of not less than 1.0, it is unlikely that the grout in service load will be
subjected to tensile stress and hence cracked.
For shrinkage crack, the steel soil nail itself acts as temperature reinforcement to control
the shrinkage of the cement grout during setting. There may be cases where cracks may
occur due to shrinkage. Such micro-cracks are usually of width less than 0.1mm, and it
has been known (e.g. EN 14490:2010) that they are self-healing. For micro-cracks of
width greater than 0.1mm, it is unlikely that the crack width, similar to other rc

structures, will exceed 0.3mm. For fine cracks less than 0.3mm, they will heal
completely under moist conditions. This is called “autogenous healing” (Neville 2002),
and is due to “the hydration of the hitherto unhydrated cement” (Neville 2011). Neville
(2002) noted that opening of cracks exposes the interior of cement paste, including
cement hydrates as well as the hitherto unhydrated remnants of cement powder. As long
as they are exposed to air, no autogenous healing takes place. However, when the air
becomes replaced by water, hydration restarts and calcium hydroxide and calcium
silicate hydrate are formed.
For the quality of grout, Shui and Cheung (2003) quoted a case at a re-development site
on the Hong Kong Island, where the grout cover was found to be only 5mm even
though the drillhole was greater than 100 mm in diameter. However, it should be noted
that the reduction mostly occurs locally, and that soil nails are usually installed at close
spacing, say 1.5m c/c. The risk of such localized areas is therefore averaged out by
other soil nails, and the risk is also within those allowed in the FOS.
3. Comparison with Overseas Studies and Practices
3.1 Before publication of Geoguide 7 (2008), Shui and Cheung (2003, 2008) have surveyed
extensively the literature and overseas experience on this topic. Project officer can
therefore refer to the summary contained in their publication. The following paragraphs
will therefore provide a brief review of their summary together with latest research, and
will then present the provisions on this topic introduced in EN 14490:2010.
3.2 Loss of Thickness of Bare Steel in Soils
3.2.1 The leading authority on the loss of thickness of bare steel (i.e. without any corrosion
protection measure) embedded in soil is Eurocode 3 Part 5: Design of Steel Structures –
Piling (as modified by the UK National Annex), which states that the corrosion rates of
steel piles in soils are affected by the type of soil, the level of the groundwater table, the
presence of oxygen, and the presence of contaminants, and then recommends a
corrosion rate in term of the loss of steel thickness (Table 4(a)) for various design life.
For a design life of 125 years, the losses of thickness of steel piles in aggressive and
non-aggressive soils are respectively 4mm and 2.7mm. This should serve as an upper
bound for corrosion of bare steel embedded in soil, and most bare steel with a 2mm
sacrificial thickness allowance can survive a design life of 120 years, unless embedded
in aggressive or polluted soils.

Table 4(a): Loss of Thickness (in mm) due to Corrosion for Piles in Soil
in Eurocode 3
(Source: Eurocode 3 Part 5 Table 4.1 as modified by UK National Annex)
3.2.2 For soil nails, Table 4(b) summarizes the design corrosion rates for bare soil nails with
no surface treatment or grout encapsulation for different soil aggressivity in EN
14490:2010. The values tally with those given in Eurocode 3 Part 5, i.e. most bare
steel soil nails with a 2mm sacrificial thickness allowance can survive a design life of
120 years unless embedded in aggressive or highly aggressive soils.
Table 4(b): Design Corrosion Rates for Bare Steel Soil Nails in EN 14490:2010
Total loss of steel thickness up to
Classification of Soil Aggressivity
100 years (reduction of radius)1
Highly aggressive -
Aggressive -
Slightly aggressive 4.00mm (2.00mm)
Non-aggressive 2.00mm (1.00mm)
Note: 1) The corrosion rate given in EN 14490:2010 is the total reduction of diameter.
(Source: EN 14490:2010 Table B.3)
3.2.3 Limited data are available in Hong Kong. Shui and Cheung (2008) measured two
19mm sacrificial bare soil nails installed in 50mm grouted holes in aggressive soil in
Tai Po, and found that there had been a maximum pitting depth of corrosion of 3mm
after nine years of embedment (Photo 1). They then averaged the result to give a
localized corrosion rate to give about 0.3mm/year, which is much higher than that given
in either Eurocode 3 Part 5 or EN 14490:2010. They also measured a number of
32mm hot-dip galvanized soil nails installed in 100mm grouted holes in aggressive
soil in Ho Man Tin, and found that a maximum pitting depth of corrosion of 0.085mm
after ten years of embedment. They again averaged the result to give a localized

corrosion rate of 0.0085mm/year. However, it should be noted that rather than the
maximum pitting corrosion depth, the main concern for the structural design of soil
nails is the percentage reduction of area, which determines the maximum force on the
nails. Moreover, even if the corrosion is assumed to be uniform across the whole
section, it should be noted that the corrosion rate of steel is not linear with time, with
faster rate initially which falls to a steady rate. Hence, simply averaging the total
corrosion depth with time is not an accurate estimate. Even with such average corrosion
rate, the loss of thickness for a hot-dip galvanized soil nail for a design life of 120 years
would be in the range of 2mm (for the diameter), or 1mm (for the radius). Hence, the
current practice of providing a 2mm sacrificial thickness allowance around hot-dip
galvanized soil nails can be enough for a design life of 120 years.
Photo 1: Pitting Corrosion of 3mm Depth

in an Exhumed Bare Soil Nail at Tai Po
(Source: Shui and Cheung 2003 Plate 3)
3.3 Guidance in the US
3.3.1 Classification of soil aggressivity
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7: Soil Nail Walls (2003) issued by the US
Federal Highway Administration (Lazarte et al 2003) categorizes soil aggressivity into
two types: aggressive and non-aggressive. Rather than using eight parameters as in
Geoguide 7, Lazarte et al (2003) use five, which include: resistivity, pH, soluble
sulphate, chloride ion content, and stray current. When one of the parameters falls
within the aggressive category (Table 5), the soil will be categorized as aggressive.

Table 5: Classification of Site by Lazarte et al 2003
Parameter Aggressive Non-Aggressive
Resistivity (ohm-cm)
(measured by in-situ Wenner’s 2,000 5,000
four probe electrodes test)
pH pH4.5 or pH10 5.5pH10
Soluble sulphate (ppm) 200 200
Chloride ion (ppm) 100 100
Stray current Present -
(Source: Lazarte et al 2003)
3.3.2 Choice of corrosion protection measure
There are two corresponding classes of corrosion protection measures: Class 1 (epoxy-
coated soil nail with grout encapsulation, or soil nail encapsulated in plastic sheathing
and grout) and Class 2 (soil nail with grout encapsulation). For aggressive soil, Class 1
corrosion protection measure is mandated (Chart 1). Similar to Geoguide 7, where no
soil aggressivity assessment has been carried out, Class 1 corrosion protection measure
is recommended. Moreover, even for non-aggressive soil, Class 1 corrosion protection
measure is recommended when the failure consequence is serious or the cost of
increasing corrosion protection is small.
Although this seems a rather strict categorization, Class 1 corrosion protection measure,
besides using plastic sheathing, can be achieved by epoxy-coating plus grout
encapsulation. Epoxy-coated soil nails are not commonly used in Hong Kong, as “the
coatings have to be impermeable to gases and moisture and free of gaps at the interface
between the steel and the coating” (Shui and Cheung 2008). Hence, although in theory
epoxy-coated soil nails can have a longer life in soil, EN 14490:2010 considers that
epoxy coating is taken as equivalent to hot-dip galvanizing, provided that hot-dip
galvanizing has been performed according to EN ISO 1461. In Hong Kong, nearly all
permanent soil nails installed inside a pre-drilled grout holes are hot-dip galvanized to a
thickness of 85m according to EN 14490:2010, and hence according to the US practice,
they can fulfill Class1 corrosion protection measure.
Moreover, Class1 corrosion protection measure in the US does not consider the 2mm
sacrificial thickness allowance provided to the steel, which is provided for all permanent
soil nails in Hong Kong. Hence, our current practice, with a combination of different
corrosion protection measures, should be enough for a design life of 120 years.

Chart 1: Criteria for Selection of Corrosion Protection Measure for Soil Nail
(Source: Lazarte et al 2003)
3.4 Guidance in Nordic countries
3.4.1 Nordic countries consist of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Nordic
Geosynthetics Group of the Geotechnical Societies and the Nordic Industrial Fund
issued Nordic Guidelines for Reinforced Soils and Fill (Revision A) (NGG 2004), which
gives the following procedures to classify the soil aggressivity for a site and to choose
the appropriate corrosion protection measures.
NGG (2004) notes that the major factor affecting soil aggressivity is the soil type, and
hence differs from the practice in Hong Kong, the US and other European countries in
that the classification involves two staged procedures – preliminary and detailed. In the
preliminary estimate, points are summated from the soil type (Table 6(a)) and its
specific site or soil composition (Table 6(b)).

Table 6(a): Basic Point for Different Soil Type in NGG (2004)
Soil Type Point
Clay with salt content, organic soil (e.g. gyttja), fibrous 10
peat, fill, industrial waste (cinders, ashes, coal)
Other clay and peat, construction waste (plasters, brick) 6
Silt, dry crust clay, moraine 2
Rock, sand, gravel, sandy and gravely moraine 0
(Source: NGG (2004) Table 7.5)
Table 6(b): Adjustment Point for Specific Site and Soil Composition in NGG (2004)
Based on the total point, the site is classified to have a low (Class I), normal (Class II)
or high (Class III) potential for corrosion (Table 7). If the total amount of points from
this preliminary estimate is less than 5, no further information is needed to determine
the necessary corrosion protection. Detailed study of the soil aggressivity for a site is
only required when the preliminary estimate gives a total point greater than 5.
Table 7: Classification of Site in NGG (2004)

In the detailed study, eight parameters are used, including: soil type, resistivity,
moisture-salt, pH, vertical layering, and other factors (e.g. presence of industrial waste)
(Table 8). NGG (2004) notes that a higher environmental class may be required in
some situations, e.g. flowing water, soil nails subjected to high stress level or cyclic
loads, site with contaminated soil or high concentration of sulphate, etc.
.
Table 8: Detailed Assessment of Soil Aggressivity by NGG (2004)
NGG (2004) lists four corrosion protection measures (no corrosion protection, 2 mm of
sacrificial thickness or grout, 4 mm of sacrificial thickness or grout at least 20 mm thick
combined with plastic barrier or sacrificial thickness, and plastic barrier) depending on
the environmental class and design life. For a design life exceeding 80 years, NGG
(2004) does not specifically recommend the corrosion protection measure for Class II
and III environmental class; but states that special investigation should be carried out,
probably in the form of a combination of the corrosion protection measures. In a
subsequent example, NGG (2004) considers that soil nails with grout combined with
either sacrificial thickness or plastic sheathing could be used for a design life of 100

years in Class III environmental class (i.e. high potential for corrosion) for a slope with
serious consequence upon failure.
3.5 Guidance in the Europe
3.5.1 EN 14490:2010 (BSI 2010) is the most recent publication on this topic to standardize
soil nailing works, and is now being used throughout EU countries. That document has
incorporated the various previous European guidance including those used in Germany,
France, the UK, and Switzerland.
3.5.2.1 Similar to Geoguide 7, the soil aggressivity in a site has to be classified by a number
of parameters, which include: soil type; resistivity; moisture content; and pH, and a
weight A will be assigned to each parameter (Table 9). Once the weight A from each
parameter has been assigned, they are summated to give an overall index. The soil
aggressivity can then classified into (Table 10): Class 1 (highly corrosive), Class 2
(corrosive), Class 3 (average corrosive), and Class 4 (slightly corrosive).
3.5.2.2 Differences between Geoguide 7 and EN 14490:2010
Although similar parameters have been chosen in classifying soil aggressivity in

Geoguide 7 and EN 14490:2010, the following are the major differences:
a) The marks for corrosive and highly corrosive are 9-12 and 13 or above
respectively for EN 14490:2010, whereas in Geoguide 7, -5 to -10 for aggressive
and -11 for highly aggressive.
b) In the parameter of soil type, Geoguide 7 includes detailed indices including

Atterberg limits, particle size distribution, organic content, whilst EN 14490:2010
adopts a broad-brush approach similar to NGG (2004). Wong (2009) commented
that as only limited soil test results are available, these detailed indices “are not
contributing a lot to soil corrosivity”, and suggested that reference should be made
to site specific conditions, such as organic matters, leakage of sewers and water
mains. Similarly, as stated above, Chaker (1996) noted that the measured soil
resistivity has incorporated the combined effect of soluble salts content, the
particular size, the void ratio, and the moisture content. It is, therefore, doubted
whether it is necessary for such detailed indices.
c) The parameter of ground water level has been included in the moisture content.
This seems to be more rational, as by assigning two different types of mark for
moisture content and groundwater level as in Geoguide 7, the effect of

groundwater will be counted twice, especially in the case that soil nails are
embedded above water table and the moisture content is likely to be high.
d) The parameters of soluble sulphate and chloride ion contents in Geoguide 7 are not
included in EN 14490:2010. Chloride ions are found naturally in soils as a result
of brackish groundwater and in site close to sea. The presence of chloride ions
results in anodic dissolution reactions of metals and also decreases the soil
resistivity. Its effect (and similarly the effect of soluble sulphate) on soil
aggressivity is therefore included in the parameters of soil type and soil resistivity.
e) For pH value, a higher alkaline soil of pH greater than 10 will be classified as

aggressive according to Geoguide 7, in line with the Lazarte et al (2003) and Shui
and Cheung (2003. However, as stated above, a highly alkaline environment will
affect zinc but will passivate steel. Therefore, no such provision has been included
in EN 14490:2010, and soil with pH greater than 6 will get a weight of 0 in this
parameter.
3.5.2.3 Two examples have also been included in Annex A to compare the classification of
two different sites according to Geoguide 7 and EN 14490:2010. These examples
illustrate that the classification according to Geoguide 7 is in general more
conservative than that in EN 14490:2010.
3.5.3.1 EN 14490:2010 gives the following six corrosion protection measures:

a) sacrificial thickness allowance;
b) encapsulated in grout;
c) surface coating in the forms of hot-dip galvanized or epoxy-coated;
d) encapsulated with plastic sheathing;
e) stainless steel;
f) a combination of the above.

Table 9: Assessment of Soil Aggressivity in EN 14490:2010
Note: 2) The value of the weight of criterion for "Types of soil" would be the maximum value
applicable to that soil from subgroups "texture", "peat", "industrial waste" and "liquid". The
maximum weight for each of the four criteria is less than or equal to 8.

Table 10: Classification of Site in EN 14490:2010
3.5.3.2 The listed measures are similar to those given in Geoguide 7, except that stainless steel
soil nails are introduced. Moreover, unlike those in Geoguide 7, there are no
recommended corrosion protection measures for different classes of soil aggressivity.
The only recommendations on the appropriate corrosion protection measures are:
a) sacrificial thickness allowance alone shall not be used for Class I (highly
corrosive) or Class II (corrosive) sites for a design life exceeding 30 years, and
soil nails with plastic sheathing shall then be used; and
b) soil nails encapsulated with grout alone shall not be used for Class I (high
aggressive) site and shall only be used for Class II (corrosive) site for a design life
of 100 years with special consideration of the grout cover (Table 11).
3.5.3.3 In the earlier paragraph, it has been mentioned that Shui and Cheung (2003) had
reservation on the effectiveness of grout, and that they concluded that the grout is
usually assumed to offer no protection. However, EN 14490:2010, besides stating that
research has indicated that micro-cracks of width of less than 0.1mm are self-healing,
considers that the grout cover is one of the major contributors to corrosion protection.
Table 11 shows the minimum grout cover as corrosion protection measure for
different design life, which shows that a cover of 50mm alone (i.e. without hot-dip
galvanized or sacrificial allowance) can provide effective protection of 50 years in
aggressive soil and 75 years in slightly aggressive soil, and a cover of 75mm alone can
provide effective protection of 75 years in aggressive soil.
Table 11: Grout Cover for Steel Nail for Different Design Life

4. Discussion and Recommendation
a) Limited data have been available on the long-term loss of thickness of soil nails in
Hong Kong. The corrosion rate is estimated from using the measured depth of
pitting corrosion in limited number of soil nails embedded in soil for about 10
years with no deduction for the faster initial corrosion rate. Moreover, localized
pitting corrosion in the diameter of the steel nails will not result in the
corresponding area reduction in the area of the nails, and hence will not affect the
structural strength of the nails. According to EN 14490:2010, the total loss of bare
steel diameter is only 4mm and 2mm respectively in slightly and non-aggressive
environment.
b) In assessing the environment around soil nails and on the choice of corrosion
protection measures, Geoguide 7 assumes that the grout around soil nails is not
effective to provide both physical and chemical protection. With such assumption,
it is true that the bare steel soil nails will be severely affected by soil parameters,
e.g. pH, soil resistivity, moisture content, and hot-dip galvanized soil nails in
plastic sheathing in-filled with grout is therefore recommended for both
“aggressive” and “highly aggressive” soil. This is, however, a rather conservative
approach. In Hong Kong, all permanent soil nails are installed in pre-drilled grout
holes, and the environment in direct contact with the soil nail is modified by the
cement grout. The pH in contact with soil nail is exceeding 10, and soil resistivity
is of less importance. Even if there are micro-cracks in the grout cover, the cracks
are normally sealed by autogenous healing under moist condition. Study should
therefore be carried out on “cement grouted aggressivity” rather than on “soil
aggressivity”. Though with limited research in this area, it is likely that the
environment can be classified as slightly or non-aggressive. In such cases, 75mm
grout cover, according to EN 14490:2010, is good enough for a service life of 75
years. International practices have not ignored the contribution of grout as a
corrosion protection measure. In the US and European practice, soil nails with
plastic sheathing is only reserved for highly aggressive soil. For other soil
aggressivity, hot-dip galvanized soil nails with 2mm sacrificial thickness
allowance in pre-drilled grouted holes can provide effective corrosion protection
for a design life of 120 years.
c) Geoguide 7 lists out comprehensively the parameters to be considered in

classifying the soil aggressivity of a site. However, some parameters (e.g.
groundwater level, moisture content, soil resistivity, soluble sulphate, chloride
ions content) are not independent on each other. Furthermore, the mark for
classification of aggressive soil is -5, which is much lower than 10 used in other
standards, though the marking system is different.

d) From Annex A, it can be seen that classification based on Geoguide 7 is generally
more conservative than that based on EN 14490:2010. Hence, project officer
should exercise judgment on using this classification method, especially when the
total mark falls marginally into the “highly aggressive”. Detailed laboratory tests
may be required for sites with highly polluted soil (such as sites with records of
contaminated soil, organic peat, leakage of sewers), highly acidic soil with pH4,
or high concentration of sulphate soil. For sites with high aggressive soils, the use
of soil nails with double corrosion protection using plastic sheathing warrants.
Project officer should then specify such nail via a particular specification in the
contract. A particular specification is being prepared by SGE/NP.
References:
ASTM (2006), ASTM G57-06 Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner
Four-Electrode Method (West Conshohocken: ASTM International) (available:
www.astm.org/Standards/G57.htm; accessed: 29 February 2012).
BSI (1990), BS 1377-3:1990 Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes (London: BSI).
BSI (2007), Eurocode 3 Part 5 Design of Steel Structures – Piling (BS EN 1993-5) (London: BSI).
BSI (2010), BS EN 14490:2010 Execution of Special Geotechnical Works - Soil Nailing (London: BSI).
BSI (2007), Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-2:2007) Geotechnical Design Part 2 - Ground Investigation and Testing
(London: BSI).
Chan, L S and Chen, Q F (1999), Integrated Geophysical and Radiometric Surveys at Five Sites in Hong Kong
(GEO: Hong Kong).
Elias V, Fishman K L, Christopher B R and Breg R R (2009), Report No. FHWA-NHI-09-087:

Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced
Soil Slopes (Washington, DC: National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration) (available:
www.fhwa.dot.gov; accessed: 20 June 2012).
GEO (2008), Geoguide 7: Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction (Hong Kong: GEO).
ISO (2009), BS EN ISO 1461: Hot Dip Galvanized Coatings on Fabricated Iron and Steel Articles --
Specifications and Test Methods (Geneva: ISO).
NGG (2004), Nordic Guidelines for Reinforced Soils and Fills (Nordic Geotechnical Societies, Revision A)
(available: www.danskgeotekniskforening.dk/media/nordisk_handbok_armerad_jord-engelsk.pdf;
accessed: 29 February 2012).
Lazarte, C A, Elias, V, Espinoza, D R and Sabatini, P J (2003), Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7: Soil
Nail Walls (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration) (available:
www.scribd.com/doc/27487989/GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING-CIRCULAR-NO-7-Soil-Nail-
Walls; accessed: 29 February 2012).

Neville, A M (2011), Properties of Concrete (New York: Pearson, 5th ed).
Neville, A M (2002), “Autogenous Healing — a Concrete Miracle?”, Concrete International 24(11) pp.76–82.
Shui, H Y K and Cheung, R W M (2008), “Long-Term Durability of Steel Soil Nails in Hong Kong”,
Transactions Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, 15(3), pp. 24-32(available:
www.hkie.org.hk/html/publications/transactions/html/2008/v15n3/v15n3_abstract4a.htm; accessed: 29
February 2012).
Shui, H Y K and Cheung, R W M (2003), GEO Report No. 135: Long-Term Durability of Steel Soil Nails (Hong
Kong: GEO).
Wong, H Y (2009), “Discussion on ‘Long-Term Durability of Steel Soil Nails in Hong Kong’”, Transactions
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, 16(1), pp. 45-7.

Annex A
Examples of Classification of Sites

Shui and Cheung (2003) surveyed comprehensively the database in GEO, and summarized the
parameters of the soil in Hong Kong. However, for the data of resistivity, they had adopted
the in-situ measured resistivity reported in Chan and Chen (1999) rather than using the
suggested laboratory open container test. As such, their typical values of resistivity of 30000-
50000 ohm-cm may not be the laboratory values, which require the soil sample to be saturated
by pouring water. In order to model the actual laboratory values, a typical value of resistivity
of 100 ohm-cm will be adopted in the following examples. Other than this, the following two
examples have considered two hypothetic sites with such typical types of soil in Hong Kong -
Site A with CDG and Site B with CDV. Table A.1 lists the soil parameters of two sites.
Table A.2 and Table A.3 compute the soil aggressivity of the sites based on Geoguide 7 and
EN 14490:2010.
Table A.1: Soil Parameters of Sites
Site A (CDG) B (CDV)
Soil composition 10% < fraction passing 63μm 10% < fraction passing 63μm
sieve ≤ 75% sieve ≤ 75%
Fraction passing 2μm sieve ≤ Fraction passing 2μm sieve ≤
10% 10%
PI = 0-5 PI = 0-5
organic content < 1.0% organic content < 1.0%
Resistivity (ohm-cm) 100 100
Moisture content 22.5% 17.5%
Groundwater level groundwater level near groundwater level near
ground level ground level
pH 4.5 5.5
Soluble sulphate < 200 < 200
(ppm)
Made ground none none
Chloride ion (ppm) < 300 < 300
Soil type Permeable, sandy Permeable, sandy
Table A.2: Soil Aggressivity Assessment based on Geoguide 7

Site A B
Soil composition 0 0
Resistivity (ohm-cm) -4 -4
Moisture content -1 0
Groundwater level -4 -4
pH -2 -1
Soluble sulphate (ppm) 0 0
Made ground 0 0
Chloride ion (ppm) -1 -1
Total Mark -12 -10

Table A.3: Soil Aggressivity Assessment based on EN 14490:2010
Site A B
Soil composition 0 0
Resistivity (ohm-cm) 5 5
Moisture content 2 0
pH 3 2
Total Mark 10 7
Table A.4 classifies the sites based on Geoguide 7 and EN 14490:2010.

Classification Method Site A (CDG) Site B (CDV)
Geoguide 7 Highly Aggressive Highly Aggressive
EN 14490:2010 Class II Class III
(Corrosive) (Average corrosive)


Information Paper On Long-Term Durability of Soil Nail (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Information Paper On Long-Term Durability of Soil Nail (2012)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Paper On Long-Term Durability of Soil Nail (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Paper

Long-Term Durability of Soil Nail

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 1 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

1.2 The following paragraphs will:

a) classification of soil aggressivity; and

2.2 Classification of soil aggressivity

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 2 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

(Source: Geoguide 7 Table 4.2)

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 3 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

(Source: Geoguide 7 Table 4.1)

2.2.2 Soil resistivity

A number of methods have been available to measure soil resistivity. BS 1377-3:1990

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 4 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

2.3 Choice of corrosion protection measure

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 5 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

Table 3: Recommended Corrosion Protection Measures in Geoguide 7

(Source: Geoguide 7 Table 5.1)

2.3.3 Grout Protection

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 6 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 7 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

3. Comparison with Overseas Studies and Practices

3.2 Loss of Thickness of Bare Steel in Soils

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 8 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

(Source: Eurocode 3 Part 5 Table 4.1 as modified by UK National Annex)

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 9 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

Photo 1: Pitting Corrosion of 3mm Depth

3.3 Guidance in the US

3.3.1 Classification of soil aggressivity

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 10 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

3.3.2 Choice of corrosion protection measure

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 11 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

3.4 Guidance in Nordic countries

3.4.2 Classification of soil aggressivity

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 12 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

(Source: NGG (2004) Table 7.6)

Table 7: Classification of Site in NGG (2004)

(Source: NGG (2004) Table 7.8)

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 13 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

(Source: NGG (2004) Table 7.7)

3.3.2 Choice of corrosion protection measure

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 14 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

3.5 Guidance in the Europe

3.5.2 Classification of soil aggressivity

3.5.2.2 Differences between Geoguide 7 and EN 14490:2010

Although similar parameters have been chosen in classifying soil aggressivity in

b) In the parameter of soil type, Geoguide 7 includes detailed indices including

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 15 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

e) For pH value, a higher alkaline soil of pH greater than 10 will be classified as

3.5.3 Choice of corrosion protection measure

3.5.3.1 EN 14490:2010 gives the following six corrosion protection measures:

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 16 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 17 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

(Source: EN 14490:2010 Table B.1)

(Source: EN 14490:2010 Table B.4)

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 18 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc

c) Geoguide 7 lists out comprehensively the parameters to be considered in

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 19 of 24 File code : SoilNail.doc