CE 631 Geotechnical Design 2

Supplemental information

ITER
TAPB Excavation Slopes

Design Check

October 2019
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 CHECK REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 1

2. SCOPE OF YOUR REPORT .................................................................................... 1

3. DESIGN CHECK REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 1

4. GROUND MODEL .................................................................................................... 1

5. LOADING .................................................................................................................. 2

6. DESIGN CODES AND DESIGN METHODS ............................................................ 7

7. CHARACTERISTIC SOIL PARAMETERS ............................................................... 8

8. DETERMINATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS ..................................................... 8

9. DETERMINATION OF PULLOUT RESISTANCE .................................................... 8

10. INTERNAL STABILITY CHECKS ............................................................................. 9

11. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 10

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Determination of soil parameters

Appendix B – Bond stress determination
Appendix C - Loading Requirements
Appendix D – Excavation plan
Appendix E – Site investigation reports
Appendix F – Contractor Design Report
Appendix G – SNAP_2 user guide

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

1. INTRODUCTION

The document provides additional briefing information form of independent

appendices, in addition to some general guidance for the preparation of
your report.

1.1 Check requirements

For the design check to be considered satisfactory it would be expected

that there would be a reasonable level of agreement between the
respective designs, often defined as within 10%. In this case, that
agreement would be defined by factors of safety derived as a ratio of the
design value of resistance to the effect of actions. The use of partial
factors, and the requirement that this ratio is >=1 is the Eurocode
approach. An alternative approach without the use of partial factors and
defining a lumped factor of safety is often termed the permissible stress
approach, or traditional method, and may be used as a supplemental
approach.

2. SCOPE OF YOUR REPORT

The scope of the report is to undertake a review and check of the design of
soil nailed slopes forming the excavation for the construction of the TAPB
with respect to the stability of these slopes under the action of heavy
transport traffic. The review can be considered as a Category II check
since independent analyses has been undertaken.

For the design check to be considered satisfactory it would be expected

that there would be a reasonable level of agreement between the
respective designs, often defined as within 10%. In this case, that
agreement would be defined by factors of safety derived as a ratio of the
design value of resistance to the effect of actions. The use of partial
factors, and the requirement that this ratio is >=1 is the Eurocode
approach. An alternative approach without the use of partial factors and
defining a lumped factor of safety is often termed the permissible stress
approach, or traditional method, and may be used as a supplemental
approach.

3. DESIGN CHECK REQUIREMENTS

Refer to coursework brief

4. GROUND MODEL

Due to the variation in level of the underlying limestone strata the depth of
the platform varies over the area of interest. Overlying the competent
limestone is a variable thickness of fractured limestone (occasionally not
recorded) over which has been placed the platform fill.

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Critical sections for analysis have been identified as shown on the sketch
below and you can populate table 1 after your review of the site
investigation information.

Table 1. Critical cross-sections for analysis.

Strata Thickness of strata
Profile 1 Profile 2
North-western area Southern area

Platform fill TBC TBC

Fractured limestone TBC TBC
Limestone TBC TBC

Area
represented by
Profile 1

Area
represented by
Profile 2

Figure 1. Areas for selection of critical sections for analysis. Profiles 1 and
2 should be derived to be representative of area indicated.

Refer to Appendix E for site investigation information

5. LOADING

The loading is provided by the wheel loads from the heavy haulage trailer.
It is understood that the trailer shall distribute the loads from the
transported item evenly over the length of the trailer such that the applied
loading can be represented by a uniform surcharge. This uniform
surcharge can be modified to cater for rocking motion by using a 4/3
increase for the line of wheels nearest to the excavation edge and applying
an increased load intensity over the first wheel group (quarter of the ud
load strip).

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

The trailer loads can also be applied as concentrated distributed loads at

the locations of the wheel sets. Both of these loading arrangements should
be considered.

Wheel contact loads have been assessed as following the loading

information presented in Appendix C. Two cases are identified,

(i) transporter travelling in straight line (standard loading pattern)

(ii) transporter turning (turning loading pattern)

The ITER loading assessment has considered the maximum transport

loading of experienced by the heavy haul road and the western area of the
excavation (A73 slab). These transport loads are the same with the and
are presented below.

Heavy Haul Road

Each pair of wheels is spaced at 1.45m c/c and applies the following total
load for each load case

Standard loading pattern: Heavy Haul Road A73 slab

Outer wheel subject to rocking loads = 84.1 kN = 71.7 kN
Internal wheels = 63.1 kN = 53.8 kN

Turning loading pattern

Outer wheel subject to turning loads = 94.7 kN = 80.7 kN
Internal wheels = 63.1 kN = 53.8 kN

Based on the above loading the following loads were used in the analysis
presented here.

Concentrated distributed loading at wheel locations.

The wheel loads are applied as concentrated distributed loads over

discrete 1.13m strips cantered on each wheel pair as follows:

Table 2. Wheel loads as concentrated partial udl’s

Load location Concentrated wheel load as ud load (kN/m)
Wheel set Standard Turning
Heavy Haul Road
First wheel set (p1) 74.4 83.80
Other wheel sets (p2) 55.8 55.8
A73 slab
First wheel set (p1) 63.5 71.41
Other wheel sets (p2) 47.61 47.61

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Distributed surcharge load.

The trailer loading can also be represented by a surcharge loading over

the 5.33m width of the trailer (NB: trailer width appears to vary between 6.4
and 5.33m the smaller value is taken as most conservative). To account
for the rocking load an increased surcharge load is applied over the first
quarter of the loaded area.

Table 3. Wheel loads applied as surcharge pressure.

Load location ud load (kPa)
Wheel set Standard Turning
Heavy Haul Road
First wheel set (q1) 63.2 71.2
Other wheel sets (q2) 47.4 47.4
A73 slab
First wheel set (q1) 53.9 60.6
Other wheel sets (q2) 40.45 40.45

If the rocking load is spread over the loaded area a uniform surcharge load
of approximately 50 kPa should be used.

For all loading cases the load is applied at a specified distance from the
crest of the slope. The sensitivity of the slopes to this offset distance can
be investigated, however the distance recommended by the Contractor of
X = 4.5m (refer to figure below) is to be used in the check analysis.

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Summary of loading cases

Loading Condition A – Heavy Haul Road

p1
p2 p2 p2
Standard
p1 = 74.4 kN/m
p2 = 55.8 kN/m

Turning x
p1 = 83.8 kN/m 1.13
p2 = 55.8 kN/m

Loading Condition B – Heavy Haul Road

q1
Standard q2
q1 = 63.2 kPa
q2 = 47.4 kPa

Turning
q1 = 71.2 kPa
q2 = 47.4 kPa
x 3B/4
B/4

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Loading Condition A – A73 slab

p1
p2 p2 p2
Standard
p1 = 63.5 kN/m
p2 = 47.6 kN/m

Turning x
p1 = 71.4 kN/m 1.13
p2 = 47.6 kN/m

Loading Condition B – A73 slab

q1
Standard q2
q1 = 53.9 kPa
q2 = 40.45 kPa

Turning
q1 = 60.6 kPa
q2 = 40.45 kPa
x 3B/4
B/4

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

6. DESIGN CODES AND DESIGN METHODS

Two approaches can be adopted to check the design of the soil nailed
slope. The first approach is a permissible stress method (traditional
approach) where an overall global factor of safety is derived. The
selection of a permissible global safety factor should consider the
consequences of a failure, and as such typical values normally associated
with temporary works are not considered appropriate. A minimum value of
1.5 is recommended.

The second approach is to follow the partial factor approach of Eurocode

7. Appropriate partial factors for loads, materials and resistances are given
in the table below.

Table 4. Partial factors for EC7 approach

Parameter Design approach 1

Combination 1 Combination 2
(DA1-1) (DA1-2)**
Definition
Actions (A) Multiply action by partial factor below
Permanent 1.35 1.0
unfavourable
Permanent favourable 1.0 1.0
Variable unfavourable 1.5 1.3
Variable favourable 0.0 0.0
Materials (M) Divide characteristic strength by partial factor below
Tan φ 1.0 1.25
c’ 1.0 1.25
Su 1.0 1.4
UCS 1.0 1.4
Bulk density 1.0 1.0
Resistances (R)* Divide by partial factor below
Overall stability 1 1
Bearing capacity 1 1
Sliding 1 1
Bond Stress, qs 18 1.8**
* generally the most critical case
** as per recommendations for Clouterre

The Eurocode approach results in the determination of overall safety factor

based on the ratio of the design resistance to the effect of the actions.
Provided the ratio (resistance/effect of actions) >=1.0 stability is satisfied.
Due to the sensitivity of the structure with regard to consequence of failure
thus a minimum value of greater than 1.0 could be considered.

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

7. CHARACTERISTIC SOIL PARAMETERS

Based on the supplied ground investigation (Appendix A and E), you

should derived characteristic parameters and populate the table below

Table 5. Summary of characteristic soil parameters

Characteristic soil Platform fill Fractured Competent
parameter Limestone* Limestone*

Unit weight (kN/m3) TBC - -

Cohesion, c’ (kPa) TBC TBC TBC
Friction angle φ() TBC TBC TBC

8. DETERMINATION OF DESIGN PARAMETERS

The UK national annex of Eurocode 7 (BS EN 1997-1:2004) will require

that the design be verified for each of the two combinations in Design
Approach 1 (DA 1-1 and DA1-2) separately.

Table 6. Design soil parameters for use in EC7

DA1-1 (A1+M1+R1) DA1-2 (A2+M2+R1)

Strata Friction Apparent Friction Apparent

angle, cohesion c’ angle, cohesion c’
(deg) (kPa) (deg) (kPa)

Platform fill

Fractured Limestone

Competent Limestone

9. DETERMINATION OF PULLOUT RESISTANCE

Pull out test data is not available to evaluate the site-specific pull-out
resistance or the proposed anchors. Consequently, for the purposes of
this analysis the unit bond stress of the anchors should be derived from
published literature and correlations as presented in Appendix B and
summarised in Table 7 below.

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Table 7. Bond stress values for analysis

Characteristic unit bond stress (kPa)
Method Platform fill Fractured Competent
Limestone* Limestone

Clouterre (1991)

FHWA (2015)
(used in analysis)

Calculation
(BS8006)**
** bond stress is dependent on depth and partial factor of 1.0 should be applied to
determine characteristic value

10. INTERNAL STABILITY CHECKS

The internal stability of the nailed slope is to be checked using SNAP_2

(Soil Nail Analysis Program) developed by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). SNAP_2 evaluates maximum nail loading along
the length of each nail based on applying the Coulomb active earth load
uniformly at the back of the wall facing.

The soil nails and slope geometry is based on the Contractor design is
summarised in the following Table 9. It should be noted that your check
analysis should use independently derived soil parameters, bond stress
and ground profiles discussed earlier.

Table 9. Summary of Contractor slope design parameters

Parameter Heavy haul road A73 slab
(North of TABP) (West of TABP)
Profile 1 Profile 1
Slope angle 1H / 3V 1H / 3V
Steel nail grade 500/550 500/550
Number of nail beds 3 3
Horizontal nail spacing 1.5 m 1.5 m
Vertical nail spacing 2.0 m 2.0 m
Nail diameter 25 mm 25 mm
Borehole diameter 80 mm 80 mm
Nail inclination to horiz. 15 15
Depth to top nail 1.0 m 1.0 m
Distance to load from 4.5 m 5.0 m
slope crest

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Nail lengths Top 12 m 8.5 m

Middle 10 m 8.5 m
Bottom 7m 6.5 m

The results of the SNAP_2 analysis of the Contractor design is

summarised. NOTE that only Design Approach 1-2 of EC7 need to be
considered since this is always the most critical combination of partial
factors for this type of problem. But it would be useful for you to
demonstrate that in a single analysis.

Summary of SNAP_2 analysis results.

Factor of safety / utilisation
Location and Traditional method EC7 DA1_2
loading condition
Standard Turning Standard Turning
Heavy Haul Road
A (discrete wheel load)
B (uniform loading)
A73 slab
A (discrete wheel load)
B (uniform loading)

11. CONCLUSIONS

This section would summarise your findings and make any

recommendations.

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Appendix A – Determination of soil parameters

Ground model and soil parameters

Based on site investigations performed at the ITER site the ground model can be
idealised to a platform constructed from compacted cohesionless material which
generally overlies fractured limestone or competent limestone. The Jacobs
Geotechnical Interpretative Report states that all the fill material can be described
as medium dense, dense or very dense.

The results of SPT tests carried out in the fill indicate that the density is
independent of depth as would be expected where a fill has been placed in layers
and compacted with similar plant. The percentage of fill material tested that
returned an SPT ‘N’ value greater than 30, the limit between medium dense and
dense is 75%, and the percentage which returned an ‘N’ value of greater than 50,
the limit between dense and very dense is 45%.

Figure A1 reproduces the STP N values corrected for overburden as presented in

the GIR. From these data corrected N values of 10 and 25 are considered to
represent the ‘worst credible’ and ‘moderately conservative’ values respectively.
Using the well-known relationship between corrected N values and soil friction
angle (Peck et al., 1974) the corresponding values of 30 and 35 degrees are
derived for the fill material. Table A.1 below summarises the geotechnical
parameters used in the analyses presented herein.

Table A.1: Summary of geotechnical design parameters for platform fill

Platform fill Apparent Friction angle ()
cohesion,
c’ (kPa)
Worst credible 0 30
Moderately conservative 0 35
(characteristic)

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Figure A1 – corrected ‘N’ values for platform material (from Jacob’s GIR)

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Appendix B – Evaluation of Bond Stress

Clouterre (1991) presents a series of design charts that can be used to
estimate the ultimate unit skin friction of nails for different construction
techniques and soil types. These charts correlate ultimate unit skin friction
of nails against the limiting pressure. Figure B.1a, B.1b and B.1c below,
present charts for sand, weathered rock and gravel respectively.

-a- -b-

-c-
Figure B.1(a) bond stress (qs) versus pressremeter limit pressure (PL) for sand, (b)
weathered rock and (c) gravel, after Clouterre 1991.

Based on the above figures the values of unit bond stress can be derived.

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

The ultimate bond stress can also be derived from the results of
pressuremeter tests using the following correlation (FHWA, 2003)

(ult) = 14 PL(6-PL) where PL has units of MPa and (ult) has units of kPa.

Table B.2 Bond stress for cohesionless material from FHWA correlation
Platform Fill Fractured Limestone
PL Bond stress (ult) PL Bond stress (ult)
(MPa) (kPa) (MPa) (kPa)
2.49 (min) 122 2.2 117
3.6 (char) 121 2.8 126
4.78* (max) 70 3.56 121
*single result

The application of the FHWA relationship used to derive the value of bond
stress for the fractured limestone in Table B.2 assumes that this material
can be treated as a gravel. This may yield overly conservative values of
bond stress.

In addition to the guidelines present in Table B.2, rock bond strength can
be estimated as 10% of the UCS strength or rock up to UCS = 4MPa but
not more than 300-400 kPa .

The FHWA manual also provides tables of typical ranges of bond stress as
reproduced below in Table B.3.

CE631 Coursework
ITER
TAPB Excavation slope – Design Check

Table B.3 Bond stress from FHWA (tables 4.4 - 4.5)

CE631 Coursework