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

net/publication/283696253

Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Several Types of Soil Nails for Different
Geological Conditions

Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · October 2015

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2015-0267

CITATIONS READS
19 1,028

3 authors, including:

ym Cheng Albert T. Yeung

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
96 PUBLICATIONS 3,649 CITATIONS 93 PUBLICATIONS 2,557 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Albert T. Yeung on 10 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
1

ARTICLE
Laboratory and field evaluation of several types of soil nails for
different geological conditions
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16

Y.M. Cheng, S.K. Au, and Albert T. Yeung

Abstract: For steep slopes with difficult access or slopes in a corrosive environment, there are various problems associated with
the use of conventional steel reinforcement bars as soil nails. For loose-fill slopes or clay slopes, the development of adequate nail
bond strength is another practical issue that should be considered. Carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber–
reinforced polymer (GFRP) in several forms and installation methods have been studied as the alternatives to the classical steel
bar. Extensive laboratory tests on the materials and field tests on different types of soil nails with various methods of installation
have been carried out in Hong Kong, Korea, and Australia. Test results support the use of these materials with an innovative
installation method as soil nails under different geological conditions, and the suitability and performance of these materials
under different conditions are assessed in the present study.

Key words: soil nail, glass fiber, stress transfer, pullout test, numerical modeling.

Résumé : Dans le cas des pentes raides ou des pentes situées dans un environnement corrosif, on est confronté à divers types de
problèmes associés à l’utilisation de barres de renfort conventionnelles en acier, telles que les clous d’ancrage dans le sol. Dans le cas
de pentes constituées de remblai lâche ou d’argile, la nécessité de créer une adhérence d’ancrage suffisante est un autre problème
pratique dont il faut tenir compte. Des polymères renforcés de fibres de carbone (PRFC) et des polymères renforcés de fibres de verre
(PRFV) sous différentes formes ainsi que diverses méthodes d’installation ont été étudiés comme solutions de remplacement aux
For personal use only.

barres de renfort classiques. On a réalisé des essais poussés en laboratoire sur les matériaux et effectué des essais sur le terrain sur
différents types de clous d’ancrage dans le sol, en utilisant diverses méthodes d’installation, à Hong Kong, en Corée et en Australie. Les
résultats de ces essais ont montré que ces matériaux, associés à une méthode d’installation innovante, constituaient de très bons
dispositifs d’ancrage dans différentes conditions géologiques. En outre, l’adaptabilité et les performances de ces mêmes matériaux
dans différentes conditions sont évaluées dans la présente étude. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : clou d’ancrage, fibres de verre, transfert de contraintes, essai d’arrachement, modélisation numérique.

Introduction
Soil nailing was first used in Hong Kong in the 1980s to provide
support for highly weathered zones (GEO 2008). Currently, high-
yield steel bars are commonly used as soil nails to stabilize slopes
in Hong Kong and many other countries. However, there are several
drawbacks for the steel bar nails, which are particularly critical in
Hong Kong and some other Asian countries. Soil nailing in very low
shear strength soil may require a very high soil nail density, which is
not economical. The use of steel soil nails can be difficult or delicate
in a corrosive environment. Extra protection measures (double cor-
rosion system), which add additional cost to the soil nail, are re-
quired to ensure the satisfactory performance of soil nails serving as
permanent structures. The use of sacrificial thicknesses for conven-
tional steel bars is now a general practice in Hong Kong (GEO and
HKIE 2011), and expensive corrosion protection measures similar to
that for the anchor system are also adopted for corrosive ground.
In Hong Kong, large-diameter steel bars (32 to 40 mm) with a
length exceeding 20 m are typically required in steep slopes adja-
cent to buildings or highways. Due to space constraints, it is dif-
ficult to maneuver these heavy steel bars on site. The steel bars are
hence divided into several shorter segments (3–5 m) for easy trans-
portation, and couplers are used to connect the bars to the re-
quired total length. This practice is not common in other countries,
but is quite popular in Hong Kong. The time and cost of soil nail
stabilization are thus extremely high for slopes in Hong Kong
with difficult access. Many engineers also have reservations about
the nail bond stress transfer within loose fill slopes or soft clays. In
particular, it has been found that even though good compaction
has been carried out in loose fill, the compacted dry density of the
fill can decrease with time, possibly due to washout of fines by
groundwater flow. In view of these concerns, expensive and visu-
ally unpleasing concrete grillage is commonly used in loose fill or
clay slopes in Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Japan, and other loca-
tions, and this option further increases the total cost and time for
soil stabilization. Currently, there are many research works on
the use of alternative soil nail materials with different installation
methods in various countries. In particular, for soft ground tun-
neling in clays where there is only limited working space, tunnel
face stability is difficult to maintain and as a result the use of
alternative materials for face support has also become popular.
The desired features of a good soil nail for a site with difficult
access include (i) light weight and high strength, (ii) a good bond

Received 2 June 2015. Accepted 30 September 2015.

Y.M. Cheng. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
S.K. Au. Benaim (China) Ltd., Hong Kong.
A.T. Yeung. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; College of Mining Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology,
Taiyuan, Shanxi 030024, China.
Corresponding author: Y.M. Cheng (email: ceymchen@polyu.edu.hk).
A correction was made to the e-First version of this paper on 12 February 2016 prior to the final issue publication. The current online and print versions are
identical and both contain the correction.

Can. Geotech. J. 53: 1–12 (2016) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2015-0267 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 15 October 2015.
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
2 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

strength that can always be maintained in all soil types, (iii) min- Table 1. Summary of the average strength test results on soil nails.
imum corrosion problems (for permanent nail), (iv) acceptable Bar Ultimate Elastic Ultimate Yield Yield
cost, and (v) ease of construction – handling, joining, and cutting. diameter stress modulus strain stress strain
However, there is not a single material that can fulfill all of the Bar type (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (%) (MPa) (%)
above requirements. To investigate the various advantages and
limitations of different soil nail materials and systems, the au- CFRP bar 12 2355 124 0.01496 — —
thors have carried out several research studies in different types 13 654.2 47.2 0.0163 — —
of soil in Hong Kong, Korea, China, and Australia. GFRP pipe* 37 387 22 0.018 — —
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16

D-shaped GFRP bar† 10 425 30 — 1150 —

Many works have been carried out to investigate and improve
Steel bar 16 688.3 229.6 0.0297 525.9 0.0028
the performance of soil nails. The direct shear test is used for
12 590.5 231.4 0.0277 491.6 0.0023
characterization of the failure mode of the nailed soil mass and
the bond between the reinforcement and grout (Chajes et al. 1996; Note: Tensile test for CFRP and GFRP bars is in accordance with BS 2872:Part10
method 1003:1997 (BSI 1997). Tensile test for steel reinforcement bars is in ac-
Miller and Nanni 1999; De Lorenzis et al. 2001). In general, they
cordance with BS 4449:1997/2005 (BSI 2005).
have found that the controlling factor is the failures at the inter- *GFRP pipe: internal diameter = 37 mm, external diameter = 47 mm, FRP
face between the reinforcement and grout, while the strength and bonded with vinyl resin to manufacture the GFRP pipe.
stiffness of the reinforcement are not usually critical in the tests. †“D”-shaped GFRP bar with a cross-sectional area of 58 mm2.

De Lorenzis et al. (2001) have reported that the bond strength is

not influenced by the bonded length or by the width of the fibre- Fig. 1. Location of the earth pressure sensors at 100 mm above the
reinforced polymer (FRP) composite sheet. Jeffries (2004) has car- centre of the holes (800 mm above bottom), with four LVDTs at the
ried out further research and found the bond strength to be corners and one LVDT at the centre. [Colour online.]
dependent on the surface preparation of the reinforcement.
Benmokrane et al. (1996, 2000) have carried out some pilot works
for the bond strengths of FRP and CFRP bars as rebars and grouted
anchors. There are also research works about the time-dependent
behavior of GFRP nails by Li et al. (2013) and Zhang et al. (2015).
Cheng and Wei (2007) and Cheng et al. (2009) have carried out
large-scale pilot studies (laboratory and field tests) on the use of
GFRP pipe with the Tube à Manchette grouting method as a soil
nail material in Hong Kong and Korea. Another large-scale study
For personal use only.

involving conventional steel bar, GFRP rod, CFRP rod, and GFRP
pipe has been carried out in Hong Kong, while the use of fracture
grouting combined with the use of a GFRP rod has been applied in
the Brisbane Airport Link project in Australia (Cheng et al. 2013).
A large quantity of field and laboratory tests on different soil nail
materials and the performance of the soil nails under different
installation methods are summarized and discussed in the pres-
ent paper.
Currently, proprietary GFRP soil nails are available in the mar-
ket (Aslan 2011 and others), and the KGC slope in Hong Kong is
stabilized by GFRP soil nails using the conventional grouting
method. There are however only limited trial studies on the use of
CFRP as a soil nail. Based on laboratory tests only, Toufigh et al.
(2014) have suggested that CFRP can be a suitable soil nail mate-
rial. The preliminary tests by Cheung and Lo (2005) on CFRP soil
nails have indicated that the material is brittle and care should be
exercised in the actual application. Unwin (2001) has commented
that the properties of the CFRP nail may be affected by the potas-
sium ion in the soil, but it appears that the engineering life of a
CFRP nail can be as long as 120 years for normal conditions. So far,
there are only limited real applications of CFRP soil nails. In gen-
eral, these FRP-based soil nails are installed using the conven-
tional method, and it is possible to extend and improve the use of
an FRP-based soil nail using refined methods, which form part of
the aims of the present research work.
The objectives of this paper are to investigate (i) the properties
of different soil nail materials, (ii) the problems in installation and
testing, and (iii) the effect of different nail installation–grouting
methods and bond stress distribution along the nail during the
pullout process through a vast amount of laboratory and field
tests. The soil nails adopted in this study are made of different
materials and configurations, which include steel reinforcement
bars, GFRP bars and pipes, and CFRP bars. The soil nails in the
present project can be classified into two major groups: (i) soil
nails grouted without applied pressure and function simply as a
classical soil nail and (ii) soil nails grouted with pressure (rela-
tively high to very high pressure) with an additional function in
ground improvement besides enhancement of the nail bond
stress. For soil nails grouted under pressure, the field tests are
further divided into two groups: (i) permeable loose granular fill
and (ii) impermeable soft clayey soil. Such division is necessary
because of the great difference in the permeability of soil and the
grouting–soil improvement mechanism. In loose granular fill,
permeation grout will be dominant while fracture grout will be
dominant for soft clayey soil. The field evaluations include the
constructability and pullout characteristics of different soil nail
materials. The performances of these materials based on laboratory–
field tests and numerical simulations can help develop a better
understanding of the performance of these modern soil nail
materials.
Laboratory tests
Basic laboratory pullout tests carried out in Australia, Hong
Kong, and Korea are introduced and discussed in this section. In
Hong Kong, the use of expansive grout was considered, which is
absent in the laboratory tests in Australia and Korea. A steel bar, a
GFRP bar and pipe, and a CFRP bar were tested in the present
study. Group A and C nails are GFRP nails with normal grout and
expansive grout while group B and D nails are CFRP nails with
normal grout and expansive grout. Group E nails are conventional
steel bar nails with normal grout. The test results are discussed in
the sections titled “Laboratory tests on GFRP soil nail in Hong
Kong” and “Laboratory tests on CFRP nails in Hong Kong”.
General results from tensile tests
A series of laboratory tensile and pullout tests were carried out for
the conventional steel bar, CFRP bar, GFRP bar, and GFRP pipe, and
the results of the laboratory tests are shown in Table 1. For material
tests, tensile tests of the vinyl ester GFRP pipe were performed ac-
cording to ASTM (2010) standard D638. For the tensile test of the steel
bar, it was tested according to Hong Kong standard CS2:2012 (SCCT
2012). It should be mentioned that the GFRP pipe was made of con-

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Cheng et al.
Fig. 2. Location of strain gauges along the soil nails (all dimensions in millimetres).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
tinuous GFRP mat and continuous fiber by a pultrusion process as
described by Cheng et al. (2009). Furthermore, for the FRP soil nail, it
was found from the laboratory tests that there is not an obvious yield
stress and yield strain, as observed for the steel soil nail.
During tensile testing of the CFRP and GFRP nails, it was found
that slippage occurs between the relatively smooth CFRP–GFRP
surface and the hydraulic jack when the classical gripping method is
used. This problem has been reported by Cheng et al. (2009), who
stated that slippage will occur before the ultimate yield stress–
strain is reached, and the ultimate yield stress–strain will not be
obtained. To overcome this problem in the laboratory and field,
the FRP specimens were bonded to steel pipes using epoxy. The
hydraulic jack then applied loading on the steel pipe instead of
adding the load to the FRP rods directly. As the steel pipes are
For personal use only.
stronger than the FRP nail and thus would not fail during the test,
the ultimate yield stress–strain of the FRP material could then be
obtained. Through such an arrangement, the ultimate load on the
CFRP–GFRP nail was determined.
Laboratory pullout test on steel bar in Hong Kong
A test box (2 m long, 2 m wide, and 1.6 m huigh) completely
filled with decomposed granite (CGD) as shown in Fig. 1 was used
for the pullout test. According to the Proctor test, in accordance
with BSI (1990) standard BS, the maximum dry density of the soil
varied from 1801 to 1867 kg/m3. The optimum moisture content
varied between 12% to 15%. Vertical pressure was applied to the
box to simulate the in situ vertical overburden stress. Different
vertical pressure was applied by two hydraulic jacks mounted on
a top rigid plate placed on top of the fill in the test box. As CDG has
a relatively high permeability (in the order of 3×10−6–5×10−6 m/s),
the loading was applied for only 0.5 h, which was sufficient for the
soil to stabilize. The pullout machine was inclined at an angle of
15° (same as the inclination of the soil nail) during the pullout
tests. The embedded length of the soil nail was 1650 mm, and the
length that the soil nail protruded outside the test box was
450 mm. Five linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs)
and seven pressure sensors were installed at the front plate, as
shown in Fig. 1. Readings were taken at 15 s interval. The pullout
rate was maintained at 0.5 mm/min. Locations of the strain gauges
along the soil nails are shown in Fig. 2. The steel nails were
grouted under gravity with cement grout with a water to cement
ratio of 0.47.
Laboratory tests on GFRP soil nail in Hong Kong
The two most important factors controlling the design of the
GFRP pipe soil nail are the tensile strength of the GFRP and bond
strength between the nail and soil. Lazarte et al. (2003) stated that
the pullout capacity of any nail is a function of the ultimate bond
strength, drilled hole diameter, and effective pullout length. The
pullout capacity (Rp) is mobilized when the ultimate bond strength is
achieved and is expressed as eq. (1)
(1) Rp ⫽ Tmax ⫽ Q uLp
3
Fig. 3. Laboratory pull-out test for bond strength of FRP pipe.
where Tmax is the maximum tension in the nail, Lp is the effective
pullout length beyond the failure surface, and the unit pullout
capacity, Q u, is written as in eq. (2)
(2) Q u ⫽ ␲quDDH
where qu is the ultimate bond strength and DDH is the effective
diameter of the drilled hole.
For the material tests, tensile tests for the vinyl ester GFRP pipe
were performed according to ASTM (2010) D638. Vinyl ester–bonded
GFRP pipe was found to fail in a brittle mode. Beyond an axial
strain of 1.8%, the GFRP pipe failed suddenly with a very small
increase of the strain. The stress–strain characteristics of the GFRP
pipe are, however, dependent on the resin used to embed the glass
fibers. The failure mode of urethane-bonded GFRP pipe (more
expensive), which has higher tensile strength, is much more duc-
tile than that of the vinyl ester–bonded GFRP pipe from the labo-
ratory tests in Korea, but it is not considered in the present study
due to the high cost (unlikely to be adopted for normal engineer-
ing application).
For the laboratory pullout tests of the pressure-grouted residual
soil (Seoul granite) in Korea, shown in Fig. 3, the length of the
sample adopted was 250 mm while the centre grout hole was
90 mm in diameter. The injection pressure was maintained at
around 10 bars (1 bar = 100 kPa) during grouting. Different confin-
ing pressures were applied to the samples to model the effect of
different overburden stress.
Some of the nondestructive laboratory pullout tests in Hong
Kong are presented in Fig. 4. Comparing Figs. 4a and 4b, it is
noticed that the use of expansive grout has greatly improved the
ultimate bond strength as well as the elastic range with minimal
plastic deformation during the pullout test. The gradients of the
pullout force against pullout displacement, however, appear to be
not strongly related to the use of expansive grout (see Figs. 4a, 4b,
and 4c), and this relation is probably mainly controlled by the
Published by NRC Research Press
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
4 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016
Fig. 4. Results of laboratory pull-out tests on FRP nail. Pullout force–displacement curve for 25 mm GFRP nail using (a) ordinary cement grout
and (b) expansive grout. (c) Pullout force–displacement relations of CFRP and GFRP nails (virgin pull). [Colour online.]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
For personal use only.
elastic property of the surrounding soil. On the other hand, this
gradient appears to be strongly influenced by the use of expansive
grout if the CFRP nail is used. This is possibly due to the fact that
the CFRP bar is much smaller in size, and the percentage effect of
grout expansion on the compaction of the surrounding soil will
be more appealing if the initial volume under consideration is
smaller in size. This new finding is interesting and should be
considered in the analysis of FRP nailed structures.
Laboratory tests on CFRP nails in Hong Kong
In this group of tests, nails A and B are CFRP bars while nails C
and D are steel bars. The surface of nail B specimens was rough-
ened to increase the bond stress. For material testing, the CFRP
was also tested in accordance with ASTM (2010) D638. The CFRP
bar in test had a diameter of 12 mm with a sand-coated surface,
and each bar was cut into 2000 mm lengths. Two types of grout
mix were used in the test: ordinary cement grout with a water to
cement ratio of 0.45 and expansive cement grout with a water to
cement ratio of 0.4 (on nail C as shown in Figs. 5 and 6). The
pullout tests were carried out in typical Hong Kong sandy soil
(CDG) using a destructive pullout test and nondestructive pullout
test. In the destructive pullout test, the soil nail was allowed to
move for 25 mm to determine the maximum pullout forces. The
nondestructive tests were divided into three stages according to
the typical soil nail testing procedure in Hong Kong. The first cycle
was one-third of the estimated maximum pullout force and the
test load was held for 1 h. The second cycle was two-thirds of the
maximum pullout force and the load was also maintained for 1 h.
Finally, the designed maximum pullout force was applied and the
load was held for another 1 h before it was released. Results of the
laboratory pullout comparisons are shown in Figs. 5 to 7.
Results for the destructive pullout tests for soil nails A and C are
given in Fig. 5. From observation, it is clear that there was no
slippage between the CFRP rod and the cement grout. Failure was
observed at the connection between the anchorage tube and the
weakened CFRP connection. As such, a connection was used only
for the laboratory test and would not be used for actual site im-
plementation; the pullout strength of the CFRP rod can be much
greater than the test results of 40 to 50 kN (nail C) as obtained in
the laboratory test. The bond strength between the CFRP rod and
cement grout was strong and the failure mode was the same as the
steel soil nail where failure was initiated at the interface between
the soil and cement grout. There are, however, differences in the
development of skin friction between the two groups of nails,
which will be discussed in a later section.
For the nondestructive testing of nails as shown in Fig. 6, it is
noticed that soil nail D, which was subjected to the cycled pullout
test in a saturated situation, gives lower strength as compared
with nail E in an unsaturated condition. The stiffnesses of nail D
(saturated) and nail E (unsaturated) are however basically the
same, which indicate that saturation alone has only a limited
effect on the stiffness of the soil nail system. Nail D exhibited
higher pullout strength as compared with nail E, and this is pos-
sibly due to the fact that unsaturated soil exhibits higher apparent
soil parameters. This result also indicates that the stabilization
effect of a soil nail will decrease with soil saturation, which is a
phenomenon seldom addressed in other research.
To examine the axial load distribution, the corresponding data
are taken and summarized in Fig. 7. For both steel and CFRP nails,
the axial stress is mobilized from the nail head. However, the load
distribution along the first 20% length varies significantly among
different nails: stress keeps at a “nearly” constant value for nails C
and E, while stress drops rapidly for CFRP nails. This special phe-
nomenon is possibly due to the high elastic modulus for the steel
soil nail. It is also noticed from Fig. 5 that the pullout force expe-
rienced by nail A (steel) is greater than nail C (CFRP) under the
same pullout displacement, which is due to the higher elastic
modulus of steel compared with CFRP as shown in Table 1. It is
interesting to note that even though the elastic modulus of steel is
about twice that for CFRP, the results between the steel nail and
CFRP nail do not differ twofold in Fig. 5. The elongation actually
depends on the combined modulus of the nail and effective
grouted zone, and the smaller CFRP nail has a higher percentage
Published by NRC Research Press
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Cheng et al. 5

Fig. 5. Destructive pullout test for CFRP nail A and five steel type C nails at different vertical pressures (from 1 to 5). Grout pressures for the
five groups of tests are given in the figure. [Colour online.]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
For personal use only.

Fig. 6. Nondestructive pullout test for CFRP nail A, steel nails D and E. [Colour online.]

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
6 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

Fig. 7. Axial force distributions along soil nail at vertical stress 50 kPa in laboratory: (a) CFRP nail A; (b) steel nail C; (c) CFRP nail B; (d) steel
nail E. (Data points represent locations of the strain gauges.) [Colour online.]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
For personal use only.

effective zone, which is possibly due to the expansion action of Table 2. Elastic and permanent elongation of soil nails C (CFRP) and
the grout. The peak pullout force of nail C can reach over 50 kN, B (steel).
which is about 25% more than that for nail A (Fig. 5), which is also Steel bar CFRP rod
possibly due to the expansive action of the grout compacting the
surrounding soil, so that a larger mass is required to be pulled out Pullout Elastic Permanent Elastic Permanent
at failure. The importance of expansive action of the grout com- force elongation elongation elongation elongation
pared with the contractive action of normal grout is clearly illus- (kN) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
trated in the present results. 15 0.315 0.305 2.78 0.48
If elastic and plastic elongation is considered, it is found that 30 2.125 1.475 6.1 1.285
the CFRP nail actually gives less permanent elongation even though 45 6.945 5.425 11.025 3.835
the elastic elongation is greater than the steel nail, as indicated in Note: Overburden pressure = 30 kPa.
Table 2. In this respect, the CFRP nail appears to have performed
better than the steel nail (from the results in Table 2 and Fig. 5) Table 3. Basic soil properties in field (shear strength parameters are
even though the displacement with the CFRP nail was slightly measured by triaxial tests).
greater than the steel nail. Effective
shear strength
Field tests in Hong Kong parameters
After the laboratory tests, a series of field pullout tests were
carried out in Hong Kong, Korea, and Australia in sandy soil and Bulk Water Liquid Plastic
clay using different types of nails (steel, CFRP, GFRP) and grouting density, content, limit, limit,
methods. The objective of the field pullout and soil strength tests Soil type ␳ (kg/m3) wn (%) LL (%) PL (%) c (kPa) ␾ (°)
was to verify design assumptions about the bond strength at the Colluvium 1750 19 64 30 3.4 35.3
interface between the ground and cement grout and the improve- CDG 1810 27 41 25 6.2 36.1
ment in the soil properties, so that a better and more economical Note: c, cohesive strength; ␾ , friction angle.
design of soil nails could be obtained. Soil nails for field pullout
tests require partial grout to form the bonded length. The average value of the standard penetration test (SPT) for
A field pullout test programme was carried out at four existing colluvium is approximately 10, while for completely decomposed
slopes in Hong Kong, which are approximately 65 m in length and granite, the value varies between 8 and 65. Two types of cement
36 m in height. The cut slope is dipping towards the northeast: and two kinds of FRP rod were tested separately in this test pro-
two lower faces are inclined at approximately 55° to the horizontal; gramme. Details of the cement mixes are summarized in Table 4
two upper faces are inclined at approximately 45° to the horizontal. while the basic properties of the FRP nails are summarized in
Site investigation results reveal that the slope is composed of com- Table 5. The field test results of the soil nails are summarized in
pletely decomposed granite (CDG) and localized colluvial deposits at Table 6. The strain gauges were installed at 0.2, 0.6, 1.0, 1.4, 1.8, and
the slope crest, and their properties are tabulated in Table 3. 2.6 m from the lower end of each nail as shown in Fig. 8. It should

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Cheng et al. 7

Table 4. Basic parameters for cement grout.

Water Superplasticizer Combex 100 Bleeding Compressive
Cement ratio (150 ml per 50 kg (454 g per 50 kg (at 180 min) Expansion strength (at
type (%) cement) (mL) cement) (g) (mL) (%) 7th day) (MPa)
Ordinary 42 0 0 0 0 37.5
Expansive 39 15.38 46.56 6.2 4.94 34.5
Note: Long-term strengths of ordinary and expansive grout are similar.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16

Table 5. Summary of tensile test results for FRP nails. it has been found in the present study. For this case, it is
Maximum Stress at Young’s believed that the pullout load was not uniformly distributed
Diameter load max. load modulus during stressing, and there was an eccentricity in the setup of
Nail type (mm) (kN) (MPa) (GPa) the equipment that generated a shear force during stressing.

Fiberglass/1 9.36 46.2 671 34.7 The axial force distributions along some of the soil nails (with a
Fiberglass/2 9.36 41.9 609 38.1 constant 2.6 m grouted length) in field pullout tests are shown in
Carbon fiber/1 10.67 97.1 1068 98.7 Fig. 10. The soil nail forces remained constant initially, as there
Carbon fiber/2 10.57 96.2 1096 101.5 was no grout for the initial portion of the soil nails. It should be
noted that the grout in this test programme was applied by simple
gravity flow without the use of any pressure. It is interesting to
Table 6. Detailed descriptions of soil nails for field tests in Hong
note that the X1 and X2 nails with a smaller inclination of 20° have
Kong.
the highest pullout strength while X3 and X4 with a higher incli-
Total Adjusted Inclination Type Max. nation of 30° have the lowest pullout strength. Nail X8 with an
length grout to horizontal of soil load inclination of 30° also has a high pullout strength, which is pos-
No. (m) length (m) (°) nail Cement (kN) sibly due to the use of expansive grout in the installation.
X1 10 2.6 20 Steel Ordinary 276
X2 10 2.6 20 Steel Ordinary 200
Field tests in Korea and Australia
X3 10 2.6 30 Steel Ordinary 134 Field pullout tests were also conducted on silty sandy soils in
X4 6 2.6 30 Steel Ordinary 110 Korea and Hong Kong using GFRP pipes and two-stage grouting.
X6 6 2.0 30 GFRP Ordinary 277 Specifically, conventional gravity grouting was used in stage one,
For personal use only.

X7 6 2.0 30 GFRP Ordinary
X8 6 2.6 30 Steel Expansive
X10 6 2.0 30 CFRP Ordinary
X11 6 2.6 30 CFRP Ordinary
be noted that some strain gauges were not working properly dur-
ing the measurement as shown in Table 6, which is possibly due to
the relatively poor workmanship in attachment of the strain gauges
and the disturbance effect of grouting. In fact, this problem is com-
monly encountered in many field pullout tests in Hong Kong.
The multi-stage pullout test was carried out in accordance with
the typical procedures as shown in Fig. 9. Five percent of the
maximum proposed test load (Ta) was originally applied to the nail.
Then, the soil nails were loaded in three equal stages to the max-
imum test load. In each stage, the load was maintained constant
for 60 min. The outward displacement near the nail head and the
strain gauge readings were recorded at 5 min intervals. The max-
imum testing loads for the soil nails are tabulated in Table 6.
Another group of field tests on GFRP pipe nails was carried out by
Cheng et al. (2009), who discuss the advantages and limitations of
these GFRP pipe nails. Summing up the experience gained in
Hong Kong, the use of CFRP for soil nails is not considered to be a
good solution because
1. The cost is high compared with steel and GFRP nails.
2. For CFRP nails, as the bar diameter is small and the surface is
relatively smooth, it is not easy to maintain good bonding
between cement grout and the CFRP. Furthermore, to achieve
the same tensile load as a steel nail, up to four CFRP bars may
have to be used. It was also found that different CFRP bars have
taken up various portions of the nail load during the pullout
testing. It can be concluded that it is not easy to ensure a
uniform distribution of loading among these four CFRP nails
during pullout testing or under working conditions.
3. The shear strength of the CFRP bar is low, and there was shat-
tering of the bar with the fibers separating from each other in
one of the unsuccessful pullout tests. It appears that the shear
failure of the CFRP nails has not been reported previously, but
231 and pressure grouting in stage two. The system in Korea utilized
161 GFRP pipes of 37 mm internal diameter and 5 mm thick fabricated
139 by a pultrusion process. As discussed by Cheng et al. (2009), it was
173 found that there is an average increase of 18 kPa to the cohesive
strength of the soil, which is a major improvement to the soil
properties. Besides that, Cheng et al. (2009) also noted that there
was a major increase in the elastic modulus “E” and one-dimensional
deformation modulus – constrained modulus of the grouted soil
mass. These findings indicate that the use of Tube à Manchette
grouting results in a major improvement in the soil properties
and nail bond strength.
Fracture grouting combined with the use of GFRP soil nails
(Geonail system) for maintaining the tunneling face stability was
first proposed and adopted by the authors in the Airport Link
tunnel project in Brisbane, Australia (Cheng et al. 2013). Using this
innovative fracture-grouted GFRP soil nail, the tunnel was con-
structed through soft clay while maintaining the train passage
above the clay embankment with controlled settlement during
construction. This project received two technical awards for sat-
isfactory performance under such difficult conditions: the Flem-
ing Award in 2011 and the Ground Engineering Award in
Technical Excellence in Australia in 2012.
For the GFRP bar nails in Australia (Cheng et al. 2013), the bar
had nominal dimensions of 12.7 mm × 6.4 mm and a special “D”
shape (instead of being circular as used in Hong Kong) to enhance
the bond strength. The basic properties of the GFRP nails were
density = 1.7⬃1.9 g/cm3; glass content = 50%⬃80% in weight; com-
pressive strength = 300 MPa; tensile strength = 300⬃550 MPa. The
nails were cast in concrete and tested according to the 440.3R-04
guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (ACI 2004) for bond
strength of FRP reinforcement in concrete.
Besides various laboratory tests, six GFRP test nails were also
installed and tested on site in either firm or soft soils. The pullout
resistances of the four pullout tests with fracture grouting in soft
clay (average pullout resistance of the Geonails was 85 kN/m) were
found to be higher than the design requirement. On the other
hand, the pullout resistance of the Geonail without fracture
grouting was 12% less than that of the design pullout resistance of

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
8 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016
Fig. 8. Strain gauge locations on soil nails (some strain gauges were not functioning properly for X5 and X9).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of load–deformation cycles of pull-out
test. A, sectional area of the nail; fy, yield strength; TDL1 and TDL2, test
loads for cycles 1 and 2, respectively; Tult, ultimate test load.
the grouted Geonail. The result clearly demonstrates the impor-
tance of fracture grouting in the Geonail system. There are dual
For personal use only.
effects of the Geonail system, which are improvement to the soil
properties and stabilization of the tunnel face by the nail and
grout finger. Compared with the field installation method in
Hong Kong where only the effect of stabilization can be achieved,
the use of high-pressure fracture grouting at increased cost may
require fewer nails for stabilization. A direct comparison of the
costs and benefits cannot be carried out at present because there
are other factors contributing to the overall cost of construction.
Nevertheless, it is expected that the overall cost of construction
will be similar for the two systems, even though the Geonail in
Australia will be more expensive than a traditional nail using
simple grouting method if only a single nail is considered. The use
of fracture grouting however has the advantage that in very loose–
soft material, it is possible to eliminate the use of concrete gril-
lages as the soil properties are improved. For the Tube à Manchette
grouting method as used in Korea and the fracture grouting
method as used in Australia, the former grouting method is more
suitable for sandy soil while the latter method will be better for
clayey soil. The simple grouting method as used in Hong Kong is
more suitable for stable sandy soil. The suitability of the grouting
method depends more on the permeability and strength of the
soil, and based on this consideration, engineers can choose a suit-
able grouting method and type of GFRP nail for soil stabilization.
The actual measured bond resistances of 73 and 55 kN/m in firm
clay and soft clay, respectively, are higher than predicted, despite
the fact that the improved soil strengths are generally slightly less
than those predicted. The greater improvement in nail bond re-
sistance is attributed to the contribution of the grout network.
Nail pullout test results indicate that most of the nails satisfy the
acceptance criteria under the designed ultimate load condition.
From the results using Tube à Manchette grouting in the GFRP
pipe nail in Korea as given by Cheng et al. (2009) and the present
results using fracture grouting in Australia, it is clear that the use
of pressure in grouting can improve the soil properties, which in
turn can reduce the number of nails to be used for soil stabiliza-
tion.
Back-analysis in numerical modeling and analysis
of nail load distribution
Besides the laboratory and field tests, vast amounts of numeri-
cal modeling for the pullout tests were also carried out, and only
limited results will be discussed in this section. The method of
numerical modeling for some of the selected nails from the pres-
ent study is basically similar to that by Cheng et al. (2009) and Wei
and Cheng (2010) using the program FLAC3D, and the details of
the numerical modeling will not be repeated here. The slope and
soil were modeled by brick elements according to the field geom-
etry, and a typical example is shown in Fig. 11. As the soil nail is
small in actual size, a domain width of 1 m as shown in Fig. 11 was
sufficient to model the side effect (as adopted by Smith and Su
1997, Cheng et al. 2009, and others). The actual nail spacing is
usually around 1.5 m, which is much greater than the nail size by
more than 10 times; nail–nail interaction is hence usually not
required to be considered. The input parameters include the nail
material properties (GFRP–CFRP), grout material properties (which
are described in Table 7), as well as the soil parameters for indi-
vidual nail location. It should be noted that the grout properties
were only assigned to the grouted portion. The grout stiffness and
grout cohesive strength are the properties that relate to the shear
interaction between the grout and the soil. Therefore, for the
ungrouted portion, only air exists instead of grout between the
bar and the soil. The grout stiffness and grout cohesive strength in
these portions were therefore set to a negligible value.
For the modeling of the pullout tests, a uniaxial velocity was
applied to the nail head. By increasing the time steps (cycles), the
pullout rate of the nail increased steadily at a magnitude of
1×10−6 m per step. With the development of nail head displace-
ment, axial force in the nail increased and bond stress was trans-
ferred to the surrounding soil. Results obtained at the intermediate
loading stages were recorded and compared with those from field
pullout tests. As many comparative results are available, only lim-
ited results for the steel bar, CFRP, and GFRP nails are shown in
Figs. 12 and 13 for illustration. From these two figures, it can be
observed that if reasonable material parameters are used, the
results from numerical simulation can match reasonably well
with the experimental outputs. It should be noted that a perfect
match between the numerical and experimental result is rare in
reality, due to variations in site conditions, limitations of the
input parameters, simplifications of the modelling with only lim-
ited regions of constant parameters, and other factors. It is how-
ever noted that there were some minor fluctuations of measured
results near to the end of the nail. Such minor fluctuations are
possibly due to (i) measurement error, in particular, the strain
level is usually small near the end of the nail and the percentage
of measurement error is usually great and (ii) adhesion problems
of the strain gauges; some unsuccessful tests not shown in this
paper were also due to this adhesion problem of the strain gauges.
Furthermore, when an axial force is applied at the nail head, all
movements should be in the same direction, hence the nail load
cannot increase within a short region near the end of nail. This
type of measurement error can be determined by common-sense
engineering.
From numerical modeling and field testing, the skin friction at
the grout–soil interface is determined from
Published by NRC Research Press
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Cheng et al.
Fig. 10. Axial force and friction along soil nails from field test (with identical grout length of 2.6 m); X11 is CFRP, others are steel. [Colour online.]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
Fig. 11. Three-dimensional finite element mesh for X6. [Colour online.]
For personal use only.
Fi ⫺ Fi⫹1
(3) ␶s ⫽
l⌬x
where F is the axial force within the nail, ⌬x is a small distance
along the nail, and l is the circumference of the grouted zone. It
can be observed that the maximum skin friction occurs at a small
distance after the start of the grouted zone, which is shown in
Figs. 14 to 16. When a load is applied to the nail bar, a small
distance is needed for the mobilization of the skin friction. The
results are in agreement with the previous findings by Hyett et al.
(1996).
Examining the skin friction development within the steel,
GFRP, and CFRP nails, an interesting phenomenon is found as
follows. For steel nails, there is a rapid increase of the skin friction
with distance within the grouted zone. After the peak skin fric-
tion, the skin friction decreases rapidly with distance for the steel
nail. On the other hand, for CFRP and GFRP nails where the
Young’s modulus of the material is lower than steel, this phenom-
enon appears only when the axial load is small (46.47 kN in
Fig. 14). For higher nail axial loads, the peak skin friction appears
to be maintained for some distance before the skin friction drops
for CFRP and GFRP nails. The clear drop in skin friction after the
peak stress for the steel nail as shown in Fig. 15 is not obvious for
the CFRP and GFRP nails. This phenomenon, which is not men-
tioned in previous studies, should be induced by the lower stiff-
ness and greater displacement of GFRP–CFRP so that the skin
friction can be fully mobilized over some distance after the peak.
The present analysis has also demonstrated the applicability of
9
using a numerical method to carry out the initial assessment and
design of FRP nails.
Although the basic stress distribution from field tests can
match that from numerical analysis, there are also noticeable
differences between the two results. Such discrepancies are actu-
ally normal due to various reasons: nonhomogenity of the soil
medium, accuracy of the input parameter values, the constitutive
model of the soil, and the contacts and removal of the grout finger
in field in the computer modelling. Nevertheless, based on the
numerical analysis on pullout stress analysis, reasonable input
parameters can be defined so that a satisfactory and complicated
three-dimensional finite element analysis of a tunnel project can
be carried out satisfactorily (Cheng et al. 2013). The numerical
pullout analysis can be used to confirm the suitability of the soil
parameters – constitutive model, which are required for compli-
cated projects, while the field pullout test can be used to confirm
the nail capacity and quality of the nail installation.
Discussion
In the past, a conventional steel bar has been a good solution to
stabilize sandy soil. There are however also many cases where
there is difficulty in access and transportation, or the soil is too
soft and impermeable to grouting so that the use of the soil nail
alternative is required. The purpose of the presented study was to
investigate the applicability and performance of different types of
soil nails in different geological materials. The geological materi-
als included loose granular soil as well as clayey soil, and it is
proposed that further work be carried out for fractured rock. To
achieve the aims of the present work, both laboratory and field
tests on steel and FRP soil nails were carried out together with the
corresponding in situ soil improvement determination. A vast
amount of laboratory and field tests for FRP and steel nails were
carried out in Hong Kong, Korea, and Australia, and only a small
amount of important data can be given in the present paper.
Based on the vast amount of laboratory and field test results, some
results can be drawn as follows:
1. Generally, the GFRP and CFRP nails exhibit similar behaviors
as ordinary steel bars, except for brittleness beyond the peak
load observed in the present study. The strength of FRP nails is
less than the steel nails, but the modulus is significantly less.
While flexible nails may be beneficial for the mobilization of
the shear strength for soil stabilization in some cases, the
acceptability of soil movement must also be considered. With
regards to the control of soil movement, the authors suggest
that a slightly higher factor of safety may need to be applied to
FRP nails as compared with a conventional steel soil nail.
2. From the present work, it is clear that the use of expansive
grout can help to increase the bond stress and elastic range,
Published by NRC Research Press
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
10 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016

Table 7. Properties of cable elements for modeling.

Reinforcement type
Element Parameter Steel Carbon fiber Glass fiber
Cable Element area (m )2 1.2567×10−3 2.01062×10−4 1.9635×10−3
Young’s modulus (GPa) 205 100 36.4
Cable tensile strength (MPa) 460 1096 671
Grout Grout stiffness per unit length (GPa) 14.2 8.4 17.1
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16

Fig. 12. Comparison of field test and simulation results (X3 and X4 are steel nails and X11 is CFRP). EXP, experimental results. [Colour online.]
For personal use only.

Fig. 13. Comparison of field test and simulation results for X6 (GFRP nail). [Colour online.]

and this is particularly useful for loose sandy soil. Also, the use
of Tube à Manchette for sandy soil in Hong Kong and fracture
grouting for clayey soil in Australia has been demonstrated to
provide great benefit in overall stabilization, and the combined
use of pressure grouting and FRP can provide an alternative soil
nail installation method that can overcome the limitations of
the classical steel nail installation method.
3. It is found from the present study that the development of the
nail axial load and skin friction is different between steel and
FRP nails, and it appears that this result has not been reported
in previous works. Through field tests and actual applications
in Hong Kong, Australia, and Korea, it seems that this factor
alone is not critical with respect to the practical application of
FRP nails.
4. Contrary to support for the use of CFRP as soil nail material
based on laboratory tests by Toufigh et al. (2014), using a CFRP
nail (which is usually small in diameter size and has to be used
in group form) is not encouraged for normal applications.
Besides the fact that the material is expensive, there are sev-
eral technical field issues that have been noted from the pres-
ent study. The authors adopted four CFRP bars in the trial tests
to achieve the required nail strength that is comparable to the
steel nail used in Hong Kong, as each CFRP bar available in the
market is small in diameter. Based on field testing, it has been
found that it is difficult to maintain even load-sharing among
different CFRP bars if there is more than one CFRP bar for each
nail, and it is not easy to transfer the load from the bearing
plate to the CFRP nails due to the surface condition and the
size of the CFRP nails. The shear failure of one CFRP bar in one
of the pullout tests also warns that eccentricity in load-sharing
among different CFRP bars can be very critical and must be
avoided.
5. The use of numerical modeling by FLAC3D or similar software
can provide good modelling of the field pullout tests, and this has
also been reported in previous works. The load–displacement
relation, axial load, and friction distribution from numerical

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Cheng et al.
Fig. 14. Skin friction development for X6 (GFRP nail). [Colour online.]
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
Fig. 15. Skin friction development for X10 (CFRP nail). [Colour online.]
For personal use only.
Fig. 16. Skin friction development for T6 (steel nail). [Colour online.]
modelling are similar to those obtained from the testing if suit-
able parameters are used for the analysis. As numerical modeling
is significantly less expensive than field test, the use of numerical
modeling of FRP nails in routine design may be sufficient for
normal situations, while trial tests on site can be limited to a few
as a control to confirm the suitability of the design parameters.
6. Although there are some previous long-term monitoring stud-
ies of FRP nails, there are not enough databases for general soil
conditions. The long-term behavior of FRP soil nails under
stress should be studied, which is part of the works that the
authors are currently carrying out. On one hand, creep may
lower the capacity of FRP nails. On the other, the soil arching
effect may disappear when there is enough time for the sys-
tem to stabilize so that the actual vertical stress acting on the
11
soil nail becomes the effective overburden stress with an in-
crease in the nail capacity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the laboratory and field tests have demonstrated
the applicability of using FRP as a competitive alternative to steel
soil nail for sites with difficult access. FRP is much lighter than
steel and is easier to manipulate on sites with limited working
space and difficult access, which is particularly important in
many congested cities in Asia, and less labor is required for FRP
nail installation as compared with steel nail installation. Further-
more, the use of expansive grout or pressure–fracture grouting,
which can give higher bond stress, has been demonstrated to be
useful for normal GFRP–steel soil nails in loose sand. The authors
recommend the use of GFRP nails combined with pressure grout-
ing as a competitive alternative to the classical steel nail for nor-
mal applications. In contrast, CFRP nails, which have very high
tensile strength but low shear strength, have demonstrated some
practical problems in both installation and pullout testing. In
view of the high cost of CFRP and the difficulty of constructing a
good nail head for load transfer, CFRP is not recommended to be
used as for soil nails in normal applications.
Acknowledgement
This study is supported by the project “Evaluation of different
types of soil nails for slopes with poor access and mechanism”
(account YBBY) funded by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
References
ACI. 2004. Guide test methods for fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) for reinforc-
ing or strengthening concrete structures. ACI standard 440.3R-04. American
Concrete Institute.
Aslan. 2011. Aslan 100 papers and reports. Available at http://aslanfrp.com/Aslan100/
aslan100_papersr.html.
ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM stan-
dard D638-10. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Consho-
hocken, Pa. doi:10.1520/D0638-10.
Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B., and Chaallal, O. 1996. Bond strength and load
distribution of composite FRP rebars in concrete. ACI Materials Journal,
93(3): 246–253.
Benmokrane, B., Zhang, B., and Chennouf, A.C. 2000. Tensile properties and
pullout behaviour of AFRP and CFRP rods for grouted anchor applications.
Construction and Building Materials, 14: 157–170. doi:10.1016/S0950-0618(00)
00017-9.
BSI. 1990. Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes — Part 4:
Compaction-related tests. British standard BS 1377-4. British Standards Insti-
tution (BSI), London.
BSI. 1997. Methods of testing plastics. Glass reinforced plastics. Determination of
tensile properties, Part 10 method 1003:1997. British standard BS 2872. British
Standards Institution (BSI), London.
BSI. 2005. Steel for the reinforcement of concrete — Weldable reinforcing
steel — Bar, coil and decoiled product. British standard BS 4449:1997/2005.
British Standards Institution (BSI), London.
Chajes, M.J., Finch, W.W., Jr., Januszka, T.F., and Thomson, T.A., Jr. 1996. Bond
and force transfer of composite-material plates bonded to concrete. ACI
Structural Journal, 93(2): pp. 208–217.
Cheng, Y.M., and Wei, W.B. 2007. Application of innovative GFRP pipe soil nail
system in Hong Kong. Key Engineering Materials, 353–358: 3006–3009. doi:
10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.353-358.3006.
Cheng, Y.M., Choi, Y.K., Yeung, T., Tham, L.G., Au, S.K., Wei, W.B., and Chen, J.
2009. New soil nail material-pilot study of grouted GFRP pipe nails in Korea
and Hong Kong. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 21(3): 93–102.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:3(93).
Cheng, Y.M., Au, S.K., Pearson, A.M., and Li, N. 2013. An innovative geonail
system for soft ground stabilization. Soils and Foundations, 53(2): 282–298.
doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2013.02.009.
Cheung, W.M., and Lo, D.O.K. 2005. Use of carbon fibre reinforced polymer
reinforcement in soil nailing works. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Sem-
inar. The Geotechnical Division, The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers,
Hong Kong. pp. 175–184.
De Lorenzis, L., Miller, B., and Nanni, A. 2001. Bond of FRP laminates to concrete.
ACI Materials Journal, 98(3): 256–264.
GEO. 2008. Guide to soil nail design and construction. GEO, HK SAR Govern-
ment, Hong Kong.
GEO and HKIE. 2011. Design of soil nails for upgrading loose fill slopes. Geotech-
nical Engineering Office and Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong
Kong.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
12
Hyett, A.J., Moosavi, M., and Bawden, W.F. 1996. Load distribution along fully
grouted bolts, with emphasis on cable bolt reinforcement. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical methods in Geomechanics, 20: 517–
544. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199607)20:7<517::AID-NAG833>3.0.CO;2-L.
Jeffries, J.M. 2004. Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer laminates to con-
crete subjected to varied surface preparation. M.Sc. thesis, University of
Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Mo.
Lazarte, C.A., Elias, V., Espinoza, R.D., and Sabatini, P.J. 2003. Soil nail walls.
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7, Pub. No. FHWA-IF-03-017. FHWA,
Washington, D.C.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by UNIV LIBRARY OF HONG KONG UNIV OF on 02/14/16
Li, G.W., Ni, C., Pei, H.F., Ge, W.M., and Ng, C.W.W. 2013. Stress relaxation of
grouted entirely large diameter B-GFRP soil nail. China Ocean Engineering,
27(4): 495–508. doi:10.1007/s13344-013-0042-8.
Miller, B., and Nanni, A. 1999. Bond between CFRP sheets and concrete. In Pro-
ceedings, ASCE 5th Materials Congress, Cincinnati, Ohio, 10–12 May 1999.
Edited by L.C. Bank. pp. 240–247.
Smith, I.M., and Su, N. 1997. Three-dimensional FE analysis of a nailed soil wall
curved in plan. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
For personal use only.
View publication stats
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 53, 2016
in Geomechanics, 21(9): 583–597. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199709)21:9
<583::AID-NAG831>3.0.CO;2-K.
SCCT. 2012. Steel reinforcing bars for the reinforcement of concrete. Construc-
tion standard CS2:2012. Standing Committee on Concrete Technology
(SCCT), Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Toufigh, V., Desai, C.S., Saadatmanesh, H., Toufigh, V., Ahmari, S., and Kabiri, E.
2014. Constitutive modeling and testing of interface between backfill soil and
fiber-reinforced polymer. International Journal of Geomechanics, 14(3): 1–8.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000298.
Unwin, H. 2001. Carbon fibre soil nailing for railway embankments. In Proceed-
ings of the International Conference Railway Engineering, London, UK.
pp. 697–706.
Wei, W.B., and Cheng, Y.M. 2010. Soil nailed slope by strength reduction and
limit equilibrium methods. Computers and Geotechnics, 37: 602–618. doi:10.
1016/j.compgeo.2010.03.008.
Zhang, C.C., Zhu, H.H., Xu, Q., Shi, B., and Mei, G.X. 2015. Time-dependent
pullout behavior of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) soil nail in sand.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52(6): 670–681. doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0381.
Published by NRC Research Press