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

net/publication/250211868

Soil nails field pullout testing: Evaluation and applications

Article in International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · January 2010

DOI: 10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.01.13-21

CITATIONS READS
15 8,940

2 authors:

G. L. Sivakumar Babu Vikas Pratap Singh

Indian Institute of Science National Institute of Technology (NIT) Uttarakhand
307 PUBLICATIONS 4,714 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 304 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

EFFECT OF COIR FIBERS ON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOIL IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT View project

Suppots View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vikas Pratap Singh on 09 December 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 13

G. L. Sivakumar Babu1* and Vikas Pratap Singh2

Soil nails field pullout testing:

evaluation and applications

Abstract: Field pullout testing of soil nails is identified as the appropriate method for studying the nail-soil interaction
and assessing the performance of soil nail walls. The primary objective of this study is to highlight the importance and practi-
cal applications of field pullout tests in the design and performance assessment of soil nail walls. Bond strength of soil-nail
interface is the essential parameter in the design of soil nail walls. Field pullout tests provide valuable inputs for the selection of
appropriate design bond strength. In this paper, a reliability based methodology for the evaluation and selection of appropriate
field pullout tests is proposed for the determination of the design bond strength. The proposed methodology is illustrated with
reference to the field pullout tests on soil nails conducted at a local site.

Keywords: Soil nailing; Field pullout tests; Evaluation and selection; Design bond strength; Applications.

1. Introduction cal model to incorporate roughness of reinforcement and

Soil nailing is an in-situ earth reinforcement technique
which is being used extensively for supporting excavations
and stabilization of existing slopes. Pullout resistance of
the individual soil nails is of paramount importance for
the design and performance of soil nail structures. Soil nail
pullout resistance is a function of nail-soil interface shear
strength which is likely to be influenced by a number of fac-
tors, such as the normal stress acting on the nail; strength
and dilatancy of in-situ soil and nail-soil interface friction.
Various researchers, including Miligan and Tei (1998),
Junaideen et al. (2004), Chu and Yin (2005a,b) and Pradhan
et al. (2006), investigated the development of nail-soil inter-
face shear strength by means of laboratory pullout tests. Luo
et al. (2000, 2002) reported that soil dilation has significant
effects on soil nail pullout resistance and proposed an ana-
lytical model to predict the pullout resistance of a soil nail
in dilative soils. Su et al. (2008) reported that the installation
process of soil nail induces significant vertical stress changes
in soil around the soil nails, and that the soil nail pullout
shear resistance is independent of the overburden pressure.
Wang and Richwein (2002) developed a simple mechani-
*Corresponding Author
1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka, India., Email: gls@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
2
Science, Bangalore 560 012, Karnataka, India., Email: vikasps@civil.iisc.
ernet.in
soil dilatancy effects in the evaluation of soil-reinforcement
interface friction and demonstrated that the coefficient of
soil-reinforcement interface friction measured by a direct
shear test is much smaller from that measured by a pullout
test. NCHRP (2008) conducted a field pullout testing pro-
gram and reported that the maximum load was 1.5 times
the maximum calculated nail load following FHWA (2003)
guidelines.
Importance of soil-reinforcement interaction in the
analysis, design and performance assessment of soil nailed
structures is evident from the fact that it has drawn enor-
mous attention of the researchers across the globe. GEO
(2007) recommends that the field pullout tests should be car-
ried out to verify design assumptions on the soil/grout bond
strength of soil nails and recommends that the number of
test nails should be two or 2% of the total number of work-
ing nails, whichever is greater. Porterfield et al. (1994) and
FHWA (2003) recommend that field pullout testing of soil
nails should be conducted: (a) to verify the compliance with
pullout capacity and bond strength used in design and result-
ing from the contractor’s installation methods (such type of
pullout tests are termed as verification or ultimate load tests
with test loads generally desirable upto 2 times the allowable
pullout capacity), and (b) to verify that the nail design loads
can be carried without excessive movements and with an
adequate safety factor (generally equal to 1.5) for the service
life of the structure (such type of pullout tests are termed as
proof tests usually recommended to be performed on 5% of
the production nails).

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2010) 4: (13-21) J. Ross Publishing, Inc. © 2010
DOI 10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.01.13-21
14 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Thus, it is evident that field pullout testing is an impor-
tant method of studying nail-soil interaction and is signifi-
cant in the design and performance assessment of soil nail
walls. Hence, an appraisal of the field pullout tests with
respect to the existing analytical and laboratory studies is
found desirable. An explicit methodology for the appraisal
of field pullout tests is not available in the literature. In this
study, a reliability based methodology for the evaluation and
selection of appropriate field pullout tests is proposed. The
proposed methodology is illustrated using three field pullout
tests conducted at a local site wherein a prototype temporary
soil nail wall was constructed to facilitate a 10 m deep verti-
cal excavation. Results of the field pullout tests are evaluated
using the proposed methodology, and further used for the
determination of design bond strength and other parameters
relevant to soil nailing design and analysis.
2. Field pullout tests on soil nails
Site specific field pullout tests conducted on soil nails may be
classified under the following two categories:
a. Test nails with same configurations (i.e. having same
diameter, length, inclination, installation method,
external loading and testing method) at various
locations embedded at same depth z below ground
surface. This is the general case when limited field
pullout tests are desirable due the economic or other
constraints.
b. Test nails with different configurations having one
or more variable factors (such as, different depths
of embedment or different nail lengths). This case
is desirable to ascertain the most appropriate repre-
sentative bond strength at the design stage, quality
control at each construction stage and long term
performance evaluation of the soil nail wall.
For n number of site specific field pullout tests con-
ducted on soil nails, n values of peak pullout force PFT can be
obtained regardless of whether tests are conducted on same
or different configurations. Knowing peak pullout force PFT
from the field test, the bond stress or ultimate bond strength
qu mobilized at the soil-nail interface can be calculated from
the frequently used equation (for example, Chai and Hayashi
2005) given below.
PFT
(qu)FT = (1)
DL
where D and L are the diameter and length of test nail respec-
tively.
Following Wang and Richwein (2002), Junaideen (2004)
and Pradhan et al. (2006), theoretically expected value of
bond resistance or ultimate bond strength (qu)Th can be deter-
mined using following Eq. 2 given below.
(2)
where = effective overburden pressure acting on test nail (=
qs + γz), kO = lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest (=1–
sinϕ), f = ratio (tan δ/tan ϕ) ranging from 0.9-1.0 (assumed
equal to 0.95), δ = soil-nail interface friction angle and Δσν
is the additional normal stress due to the restrained dilation
which can be determined using Eq. 3.
(3)
where ν = Poisson’s ratio of soil (assumed equal to 0.33), ψ
= dilatancy angle of soil (≈ϕ – 30°) as suggested by Vermeer
(1990).
Thus, Eqs. (1) and (2) provide two measures of the ulti-
mate bond strength or pullout resistance of a soil nail at a
given depth z, which can be used in combination for the reli-
ability based evaluation and acceptability of the field pullout
test results.
As mentioned earlier, to estimate the effectiveness of
the bond strength developed between the soil nails and
the in-situ soil, field pullout tests were conducted on three
specifically installed nails at a soil nail wall project site in
Bangalore, India. The soil nail wall was constructed to sup-
port temporarily a 10 m deep vertical cut, which facilitated
the construction of two basement floors for a commercial
establishment. Excerpts from the soil investigation report
revealed the presence of fine grained soil at the construction
site. Presence of the ground water table or seepage of water
from any other source was not reported within the zone of
interest. According to the soil nail wall design document,
mean values for the in-situ soil cohesion c, angle of internal
friction and unit weight γ were adopted as 5 kN/m2, 32° and
17 kN/m3 respectively. A surcharge load qs of 5 kN/m2 was
assumed to act on the top of the wall. The adopted design
constituted a system of driven soil nails of 6 m length and 25
mm diameter spaced in a grid pattern of 0.5 m × 0.5 m. Soil
nail wall face was protected by means of a 50 mm grid size
welded wire mesh and shotcrete of thickness of 75 mm.
All the three test nails were circular, high yield strength
deformed bars of 25 mm diameter and 6 m length installed
at different locations at a depth of 9.5 m below the ground
surface. The design ultimate structural capacity of the test
nails was 200 kN. Installation of the test nails was carried out
in the same way as the actual nails used in the construction
of the soil nail wall. The nails were driven into the ground
horizontally using a hydraulic hammer. Pullout testing of
nails was carried out according to the procedure reported by
Porterfield et al. (1994) and FHWA (2003).

(a)
(b)
Figure 1. (a) Field pullout test apparatus assembly; (b) Pullout test in
progress (closer view).
For each of the test nail, pullout test was conducted using
a 250 kN capacity double acting, center-hole jack (mounted
on a reaction frame and maintained in position by means of
4 tie rods and a plate) bearing against concrete padding at the
nail head. Reaction frame of the jack was placed around the
test nail in such a manner that the test nail is in the center of
its base. The displacement at nail head was measured using
a dial gauge. All three tests were conducted to the ultimate
state at which shear strength of in-situ soil along soil-nail
interface was fully mobilized. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show
photographs of the pullout apparatus assembly and field
pullout test in progress respectively. Variation of pullout
force versus nail head displacement obtained for all the three
Soil nails field pullout testing 15
Figure 2. Pullout force versus nail head displacement plots.
pullout tests are shown in Figure 2. Wong et al. (1997) and
Murthy et al. (2002) reported that small relative displace-
ment is required for the full mobilization of pullout capacity
of soil nails. In the present case, the relative displacement
required for the full mobilization of bond stress was observed
as 10 mm (Figure 2) which is about 0.16% of the nail length.
3. Methodology for the evaluation
and selection of soil nail field
pullout tests
For soil nails, the ultimate source of resistance against pull-
out is in-situ soil. Phoon and Kulhawy (1999) and Duncan
(2000) demonstrated uncertainties and ranges of variability
involved in the determination of various soil parameters.
Consequently, it is desirable to consider the influence of in-
situ variability of soil parameters on the pullout resistance of
soil nails.
Two new terms, namely field pullout test efficiency fac-
tor ηp and field pullout test reliability factor βp, are proposed
in order to quantify the limits of the acceptable pullout test
results. The field pullout test efficiency factor ηp given by Eq.
(4) is defined as the ratio of the bond resistance obtained
from field pullout test to its theoretically estimated value.
(4)
On the other hand, field pullout test reliability factor βp,
is defined as the minimum acceptable value of Hasofer-Lind
reliability index considering the variability of in-situ soil
16 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

parameters. To determine βp, Hasofer-Lind reliability index

(Hasofer and Lind 1974) can be obtained using Eq. (5) using
the performance function given by Eq. (6).

(5)

1
(6)

where xi is a vector representing the set of random variables,

μiN is the vector of equivalent normal mean values, R is the
correlation matrix, σiN is the equivalent normal standard
deviation, and F is the failure domain. As illustrated by Low
(2005), Excel’s Solver program may be used for the reliability
analysis.
From the observations reported in literature, including
Wang and Richwein (2002) and NCHRP (2008), field pull-
out test results with minimum value of efficiency factor ηp as Figure 3. Influence of adopted COV on reliability factor βp
1.50 can be considered as acceptable for the construction of
temporary as well as permanent soil nail walls. On the other
hand, reliability factor βp should not be less than 3.0 in case (mean value 20%), 2-10% (mean value 6%) and 3-7% (mean
of permanent soil nail walls and 2.50 in case of temporary soil value 5%) respectively. Therefore, influence of the adopted
nail walls. Thus, out of n site specific field pullout tests, only values of COVs of random variables c, ϕ and γ is studied by
those test results which are in accordance with the accept- varying COV of one parameter at a time and keeping COVs
able values for ηp and βp may be selected for the estimation of of the other two parameters constant at the mean value of
ultimate design bond resistance qud. their corresponding range. For the purpose of understand-
CEN (2000) recommends that if the design bond strength ing, field pullout test T2 is considered for carrying out reli-
is determined based on the mean values of one or more field ability analysis using Eqs. (5) and (6). COVs of the random
pullout test results, it should be divided by suitable factor ζ variables (c, ϕ and γ) are normalized using Eq. (8) to facilitate
depending upon the number of field pullout tests consid- graphical representation of the different ranges on the same
ered for the determination of mean value of ultimate bond axis (abscissa).
strength. For one field pullout test ζ is equal to 1.5, for two
(8)
pullout tests ζ is equal to 1.35 and for more than two pull-
out tests ζ is equal to 1.30. Thus, the design ultimate bond
strength qud can be determined using Eq. (7) given below. where xcov is the COV for influencing variable x (where x
= c or ϕ or γ), xmax and xmin are the upper and lower lim-
(7) its respectively of corresponding variable COV range. For
example, COV range 2-10% for internal friction angle ϕ can
where i represent the individual field pullout test out of be normalized as:
the total j number of tests selected for the determination of
design ultimate bond strength. (9)

3.1 Appropriate consideration of in-situ soil
variability
In the proposed methodology, reliability factor βp is the key
parameter for the evaluation and selection of the field pullout
tests. Reliability factor βp is significantly influenced by the
adopted values of coefficients of variation (COVs) for the
random variables. Phoon and Kulhawy (1999) and Duncan
(2000) reported ranges of COV of in-situ soil cohesion c,
angle of internal friction ϕ and unit weight γ as 10-30%
where ϕ varies from 2 to 10. Eq. (9) yields ϕcov = –1 when
COV of ϕ is equal to 2%, ϕcov = +1 when COV of ϕ is equal to
10% and ϕcov = 0 when COV of ϕ is at mean value of its range
i.e. 6%. Similarly, COVs of c and can be interpreted using Eq.
8. Plots of reliability factor βp versus normalized coefficients
of variation of influencing parameters (i.e. random variables
c, ϕ and γ) are shown in Figure 3. From Figure 3, it is evi-
dent that the increase in COV of internal friction angle from
2-10% leads to a drastic reduction in reliability factor βp. On
 Soil nails field pullout testing 17

Table 1. Influence of correlation among soil parameters on Table 2. Evaluation of the field pullout test results
the pullout test evaluation Ultimate Ultimate
Peak
Correlation coefficient, ρ bond bond Efficiency Reliability
Test pullout
Case Reliability factor, βp strength strength factor, factor,
c–ϕ c–γ ϕ–γ no. force
(qu)Th (qu)Th ηp βp
U 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.04 PFT (kN)
(kPa) (kPa)
A -0.25 0.25 0.25 2.89 T1 58.0 84.0 123.0 1.46 2.31
B -0.50 0.25 0.25 2.91 T2 65.0 84.0 137.0 1.64 2.89
C -0.25 0.50 0.25 2.89 T3 48.0 84.0 101.8 1.21 1.25
D -0.25 0.25 0.50 2.75

soil. Coefficients of variation of in-situ soil cohesion c, angle

the other hand, influence of increasing COV for cohesion c
and unit weight of the in-situ soil has insignificant influence
on the reliability factor βp. Thus, it is desirable that an appro-
priate value of COV of ϕ should be adopted while evaluating
field pullout tests using the proposed methodology.
Another important aspect that is likely to influence the
value of reliability factor βp is the consideration of correlation
among random variables i.e. in-situ soil parameters c, ϕ and
γ. Influence of correlation among soil parameters (c, ϕ and γ)
on the value of reliability factor βp is studied within the range
of correlation coefficients among soil parameters reported
in literature (Chowdhary and Xu 1992; Sivakumar Babu and
Singh 2009). Four possible combinations of negative correla-
tion between cohesion c and internal friction angle ϕ (i.e.
c – ϕ) varying from –0.25 to –0.50 and positive correlation
between shear strength parameters (c and ϕ) and unit weight
γ (i.e. c – γ and ϕ – γ) varying from +0.25 to +0.50 are con-
sidered for the study. Table 1 presents the influence of cor-
relation among in-situ soil parameters on the evaluation of
field pullout t tests. From Table 1, it is evident that reliability
factor βp is maximum for the uncorrelated case, implying
that consideration of correlation among soil parameters is
desirable in the evaluation of the field pullout tests results.
However, it is to be noted that the correlation ϕ – γ emerges
out to be the most significant. Thus, it is desirable that a
positive correlation coefficient ϕ – γ should be appropriately
adopted in ϕ – γ the range +0.25 to +0.50, however, for other
correlations i.e. c – ϕ and c – γ, a least value of correlation
coefficients –0.25 and +0.25 respectively may be considered
sufficient for the evaluation of field pullout tests using pro-
posed methodology.
In the present study, for the determination of reliability
factor βp, in-situ soil cohesion c, angle of internal friction
ϕ and unit weight of soil are considered as log-normally
distributed correlated random variables with mean value 5
kPa, 32° and 17 kN/m3 respectively. A negative correlation
coefficient of –0.25 is considered between cohesion c and
internal friction angle ϕ of in-situ soil whereas, a positive
correlation coefficient of +0.25 is considered between shear
strength parameters (i.e. c and ϕ) and unit weight γ of in-situ
of internal friction ϕ and unit weight γ are adopted as 20%,
6% and 5% respectively. Following section illustrates the
proposed methodology for the estimation of design ultimate
bond strength.
4. Estimation of design ultimate bond
strength, qud
To illustrate the methodology proposed in the previous sec-
tion, three pullout test results shown in Figure 2 are used. For
the purpose of identification; first, second and the third field
pullout tests are designated as T1, T2 and T3 respectively. It is
to be noted that all the three pullout tests T1, T2 and T3 were
conducted on the soil nails with same configuration. Table
2 summarizes the evaluation of the field pullout test results.
Eq. (1) is used for the determination of the ultimate bond
strength values from the field tests i.e. (qu)FT. Theoretical esti-
mate of ultimate bond strength (qu) Th is made using Eq. (2).
Table 2 clearly shows that only field pullout test T2 has
values of efficiency factor ηp and reliability factor βp more
than the minimum desirable. Hence, only one (test T2) out of
the three field pullout tests qualifies for the determination of
design ultimate bond strength. Based on the proposed meth-
odology, only one test T2 with peak pullout force PFT equal to
65 kN can be selected for design bond strength determina-
tion. Thus, using i = j = 1, ζ = 1.50, D = 25 mm, L = 6 m in
Eq. (7), the design ultimate bond strength qud is obtained as
92 kN/m2.
From the above illustration, it is found that even for
the field pullout tests conducted on the nails with same
configuration, a need for judicious evaluation and selection
of acceptable field pullout tests is evident. In case of field
pullout tests conducted on soil nails with different con-
figurations, the proposed methodology would be extremely
beneficial. At the design stage of a soil nail wall, the design
ultimate bond strength qud evaluated using Eq. (7) can be
used to determine the minimum nail length required for a
given set of other parameters. In the analysis, it could be used
to determine to evaluate the most prominent internal failure
18 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
mode i.e. soil-nail pullout failure mode of the soil nail walls.
Some of these aspects and other applications of field pullout
tests on soil nails are discussed in the following sections.
5. Other applications of field pullout
tests
The three pullout tests (Figure 2) that are reported in this
study can be classified as “ultimate tests” (Porterfield et al.
1994), conducted with the primary objective of determin-
ing the ultimate bond capacity between in-situ soil and nails
and to verify that the soil nail length provided is sufficient
to provide design bond strength. As discussed previously,
the design ultimate bond strength qud obtained based on the
three pullout test is 92 kPa for which minimum required
length of soil nail is 5.60 m (discussed in the following sub-
section) which is less than the nail length actually provided
(i.e. 6 m). Thus, based on the pullout test results it is verified
that length of soil nail provided in actual constructed wall is
sufficient to develop design bond strength.
In addition to the above, field pullout tests provide
implicit information about various important parameters
that are beneficial in studying behaviour of soil-nail interac-
tion analytically and using rigorous computational tools such
as finite element methods. For example, Murthy et al. (2002)
demonstrated the use of the field pullout result in the back
calculation of in-situ soil parameters using numerical simu-
lations and studied the stability and deformation behaviour
of the two prototype soil nail walls. In the following subsec-
tions, some of the practical applications of the field pullout
tests are illustrated with reference to the three field pullout
tests shown in Figure 2.
5.1 Determination of minimum design nail
length Lmin
The design ultimate bond strength qud can be used to deter-
mine the minimum length of soil nail required for a given
set of geometric and loading conditions. Minimum required
length of the soil nail can be determined on the basis of fol-
lowing two criteria: (a) top nail (i.e. the first nail) should be
such that it crosses the failure surface, and (b) length of the
top nail must yield minimum factor of safety equal to 2.0
against nail pullout failure. Thus, considering these two cri-
teria, Eq. (10) can be used to calculate the minimum design
length of soil nail Lmin.
(10)
(10a)
where (Tmax)1 the maximum axial force developed in the
first nail, H is the vertical height of the soil nail wall, qud is
the design ultimate bond strength, Sv1 is the vertical depth
of embedment of the first nail below ground surface, Sh is
horizontal spacing of nails, α is the inclination of failure
plane with respect to horizontal equal to 45 + (ϕ/2) in degrees
(FHWA 2003), is the inclination of soil nail with respect to
horizontal, D is the diameter of the reinforcement bar i.e. nail
(in case of grouted nails equal to drill hole diameter DDH).
For the soil nail wall in consideration, H = 10 m, qs =
5 kN/m2, Sv1 = Sh = 0.5 m, D = 25 mm, θ = 0 deg., qud = 92
kN/m2 and ϕ = 32°. Substituting these values in Eq. (10), the
minimum required design length of soil nail Lmin is equal to
5.60 m. The length of soil nails actually provided is 6 m which
is more than the minimum desired design length of soil nails
(Lmin = 5.60 m).
5.2 Evaluation of pullout failure mode of
soil nails
The design ultimate bond strength qud determined earlier can
be used for the analysis of pullout failure of soil nails. Pullout
failure of soil nails is one of the most prominent internal
failure mode of the soil nail walls which takes place along the
soil-grout or soil-nail interface. Insufficient intrinsic bond
strength and / or insufficient nail length are the most promi-
nent causes of soil nail pullout failure. The minimum recom-
mended value of factor of safety against nail pullout failure is
2.0 (FHWA 2003). For any particular nail embedded at depth
z below the ground surface, factor of safety against pullout
failure FSP is determined as the ratio of its pullout capacity
Rp to the maximum axial force Tmax developed in the nail at
that level i.e.
(11)
In accordance with FHWA (2003), the maximum axial
force developed in a soil nail embedded at depth z below the
ground surface and its pullout capacity can be determined
using Eqs. (12) and (13).
(12)
(13)
where Sv is vertical spacing of soil nails and LP is the effective
bond length. Assuming a linear failure plane inclined at angle
α with respect to horizontal, the effective bond length LP can
be determined using Eq. (14).
(14)
 Soil nails field pullout testing 19

Table 3. Summary of pullout failure mode analysis

Depth of Factor of safety
Nail Reliability index
embedment against pullout
no. βPull
z (m) failure FSP
1 0.50 5.11 2.84
5 2.50 3.65 7.69
10 5.00 3.37 14.0
15 7.50 3.28 17.06
19 9.50 3.23 18.25

Reliability analysis for the soil nail pullout failure can be

performed using Eq. (5) and the performance function given
by Eq. (15).

(15)

Table 3 presents a summary of pullout failure mode
analysis for nails at different depths in the soil nail wall con-
sidered in the present study. It is evident from Table 3 that
soil nail wall is internally safe against nail pullout failure at
each nail level. An interesting observation from the pullout
failure analysis is that the soil nails approach higher reliabil-
ity against pullout failure with the increase in the depth of
embedment (Table 3).
It can be noted that the above performance function is a
safety margin rather than a ratio by which the factor of safety
is defined.
5.3 Determination of pullout friction
coefficient f*
Wang and Richwien (2002) reported that the coefficient of
pullout friction f* can be obtained from the field pullout
results using Eq. (16).
(16)
where σm is the mean normal stress acting on the interface of
reinforcement (= qs + γz). Considering the field pullout test
T2, for PFT = 65 kN, D = 25 mm, z = 9.5 m, L = 6 m and = 166
kN/m2, the coefficient of pullout friction f* = 1.31.
5.4 Determination of nail-soil interface
parameters
Field pullout test results can be used for the determination
of the nail-soil interface parameters. In general, the nail–soil
interface parameters are related to the installation method of
the soil nails instead of directly determining from the actual
soil parameters. Following Misra et al. (2007), nail-soil shear
Figure 4. Determination of nail-soil interface shear modulus K
interface is assumed to behave as an ideal elasto-plastic mate-
rial. As shown by the dotted line in the Figure 4, force-dis-
placement response of the field pullout tests can be idealized
to represent an elasto-plastic behavior of nail-soil shear inter-
face. This idealized force-displacement response can be used
for the determination of shear modulus of nail-soil interface
K, yield strength of the nail-soil interface qo and the interface
displacement at yield uo (= qo/K). Assuming elasto-plastic
behavior for nail-soil interface, these parameters can be used
in the finite element analyses and developing analytical mod-
els for soil-nail interaction. Figure 4 show that from the field
pullout test T2, interface parameters can be obtained as: K =
3.31 MPa, qo = 10.25 kN/m and uo = 3.10 mm. Knowing the
Poisson’s ratio of the soil, elasticity modulus of the soil in the
vicinity of the nail Es can be determined as 2K(1+ υ). For an
assumed value of υ = 0.33, Es = 8.80 MPa.
Another important parameter that can be derived from
the results of field pullout tests is the interface shear stiffness
ki. Within the elastic limit of nail-soil pullout behavior, the
interface shear stiffness ki for the stiff nails can be determined
as the ratio of yield interface shear stress τo to the yield inter-
face nail displacement at uo (Milligan and Tei 1998). From
the field pullout test T2 (Figure 5), the interface shear stiffness
ki = 42 kN/m2 mm.
A summary of various parameters determined using the
three pullout tests is presented in Table 4. From the above
discussion, it is evident that field pullout tests provide reli-
able and significant amount of information desirable for the
analysis, design and evaluation of the long term performance
of the soil nail structures.
20 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Table 4. Summary of parameters determined using field
pullout test
Parameter Value
Design ultimate bond strength qud (kN/m ) 2
92.0
Minimum required soil nail length Lmin (m) 5.60
Pullout friction coefficient f* 1.31
Nail-soil interface shear modulus K (MPa) 3.31
Yield strength of the nail-soil interface qo (kN/m) 10.25
Yield interface displacement at yield uo (mm) 3.10
Elastic modulus of surrounding soil Es (MPa) 8.80
Nail-soil interface shear stiffness ki (kN/m2.mm) 42.0
Figure 5. Determination of nail-soil interface shear stiffness ki
6. Concluding remarks
In this study, a reliability based methodology is proposed
for the evaluation of field pullout tests results. The proposed
methodology is expected to be beneficial in the appraisal of
field pullout test results based on the existing analytical and
laboratory studies on the pullout behavior of soil nails. Three
field pullout tests were conducted and their results were used
to illustrate the procedure and the practical application of
the proposed methodology. Several applications of the field
pullout tests, such as, determination of design ultimate bond
strength, determination of nail-soil interface properties and
analysis of pullout failure mode of soil nail wall are demon-
strated. Depending upon the importance of the project and/
or geotechnically variable nature of the construction site,
field pullout testing program should be encouraged in the
practice of soil nailing technique. Field pullout testing pro-
grams would not only enable the appropriate selection of the
design bond capacity, but also assure the long term reliability
of the performance of the soil nail walls.
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper is a part of the research
project Guidelines for Soil Nailing Technique in Highway
Engineering (R-86) financed by the Ministry of Shipping,
Road Transport and Highways, India. The authors express
thanks to the Ministry for funding and providing necessary
support for the project.
References
CEN. (2000). “Soil nailing—working draft 9.” CEN
Technical Committee 288 http://www.personal.dundee.
ac.uk/~amcjones/cen/wd9/contents.htm. (9th Aug.).
Chai, X. J. and Hayashi, S. (2005). “Effect of constrained
dilatancy on pullout resistance of nails in sandy clay.”
Groun. Improv., 9(3), 127–135.
Chowdhury, R. N. and Xu, D. W. (1992). “Reliability index
for slope stability assessment – two methods compared.”
Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 37(2), 99–108.
Chu, L.-M. and Yin, J.- H. (2005). “Comparison of interface
shear strength of soil nails measured by both direct shear
box tests and pullout tests.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
131(9), 1097–1107.
Chu, L.-M. and Yin, J.-H. (2005). “A laboratory device to
test the pullout behavior of soil nails.” Geotech. Test. J.,
28(5), 1–15.
Duncan, J. M. (2000). “Factors of safety and reliability in
geotechnical engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
126(4), 307–316.
FHWA. (2003). “Geotechnical engineering circular No.
7 — soil nail walls.” Report FHWA0-IF-03-017, U.
S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington D. C.
Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO). (2007). “Good
practice in design of steel soil nails for soil cut slopes.”
GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (Revision B), Civil
Engineering and Development Dept., The Government
of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong
Kong.
Hasofer, A. M. and Lind, N. C. (1974). “Exact and invariant
second moment code format.” J. Eng. Mechan., 100(1),
111–121.
Junaideen, S .M., Tham, L. G., Law, K. T., Lee, C. F. and Yue,
Z. Q. (2004). “Laboratory study of soil-nail interaction
 Soil nails field pullout testing 21

in loose completely decomposed granite.” Can. Geotech.

J., 41, 224–286.
Low, B. K. (2005). “Reliability-based design applied to retain-
ing walls.” Geotechnique, 55(1), 63–75.
Luo, S. Q., Tan, S. A. and Yong, K. Y. (2000). “Pullout resis-
tance mechanism of a soil nailed reinforcement in dila-
tive soils.” Soils Found., 40(1), 47–56.
Luo, S. Q., Tan, S. A., Cheang, W. and Yong, K. Y. (2002).
“Elastoplastic analysis of pull-out resistance of soil nails
in dilatant soils.” Groun. Improv., 6(4), 153–161.
Milligan, G. W. E. and Tei, K. (1998). “The pullout resistance
of model soil nails.” Soils Found., 38(2), 179–190.
Misra, A., Roberts, L. A., Oberoi, R. and Chen, C.-H. (2007).
“Uncertainty analysis of micropile pullout based upon
load test results.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(8),
1017–1025.
Murthy, B. R. S., Sivakumar Babu, G. L. and Srinivas, A.
(2002). “Analysis of prototype soil nailed retaining wall.”
Groun. Improv., 6(3), 129–136.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. NCHRP.
(2008). “Seismic analysis and design of retaining walls,
buried structures, slopes and embankments – recom-
mended specifications, commentaries and example
problems.” Draft Final Report Vol. 2 Project 12-70,
Washington D. C.
Phoon, K. K. and Kulhawy, F. H. (1999). “Characterization
of geotechnical variability.” Can. Geotech. J., 36(4),
612–624.
Porterfield, J. A., Cotton, D.M., and Byrne, R.J. (1994). “Soil
nailing field inspectors manual, Project Demonstration
103,” Publication No. FHWA-SA-93-068, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Pradhan, B., Tham, L. G., Yue, Z. Q., Junaideen, S. M. and
Lee, C. F. (2006). “Soil–nail pullout interaction in loose
fill materials.” Int. J. Geomech., 6(4), 238 – 247.
Sivakumar Babu, G. L. and Singh, V.P. (2009). Reliability
analysis of soil nail walls. Georisk: Assessment and
Management of Risk for Engg. Syst. and Geohaz., 3(1),
44-54.
Su, L.-J., Chan, T. C. F., Yin, J. - H. Shiu, Y. K. and Chiu,
S. L. (2008). “Influence of overburden pressure on soil
nail pullout resistance in a compacted fill.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 134(9), 1339–1347.
Vermeer, P. A. (1990). ‘‘The orientation of shear bands in
biaxial tests.’’ Geotechnique, 40(2), 223–236.
Wang, Z. and Richwien, W. (2002). “A study of soil-rein-
forcement interface friction.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 128(1), 92–94.
Wong, I. H., Low, B. K., Pang, P. Y. and Raju, G. V. R. (1997).
“Field performance of nailed soil wall in residual soil.” J.
Perform. Construc. Facili., 11(3), 105–112.
View publication stats