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

net/publication/237152323

Influence of degree of saturation on soil nail pull-out resistance in compacted

completely decomposed granite fill

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · January 2008

DOI: 10.1139/T07-056

CITATIONS READS

39 471

5 authors, including:

Li-Jun Su Jian-Hua Yin

Chinese Academy of Sciences The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
63 PUBLICATIONS   520 CITATIONS    241 PUBLICATIONS   4,624 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Permanent deformation of a subgrade fill of high-speed railway View project

Environmental Geotechnics Volume 3, Issue 4 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Li-Jun Su on 17 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1314

Influence of degree of saturation on soil nail

pull-out resistance in compacted completely
decomposed granite fill
Li-Jun Su, Terence C.F. Chan, Y.K. Shiu, Tony Cheung, and Jian-Hua Yin

Abstract: The nail–soil interface shear strength is a key parameter in the design and stability assessment of soil nailing
systems. A number of factors will influence the nail–soil interface shear strength. Among these factors, the degree of satu-
ration (Sr) of the soil is an important one especially for permanent soil nail structures. To study the influence of Sr on soil
nail pull-out shear resistance, a series of laboratory pull-out tests have been conducted on soil nails in compacted completely
decomposed granite (CDG) fill prepared to different Sr. The tests were conducted using two specially designed pull-out boxes
(with same specifications). In the near-saturated tests, a high Sr (about 98%) was achieved using two special features of the
apparatus: a waterproof front cap and back-water pressure pipes at the bottom of the pull-out box. Test results showed that
the nail–soil shearing plane migrated outwards into the soil when the Sr of the soil increased. Also, peak pull-out
strengths of soil nails were strongly influenced by the Sr of the soil. Among the tested Sr, the highest values of peak
pull-out shear strength were obtained at Sr values between 50% and 75%.
Key words: soil nailing, pull-out shear strength, degree of saturation, completely decomposed granite fill.
Résumé : La résistance au cisaillement de l’interface sol–clous est un paramètre fondamental dans la conception et l’éva-
luation de la stabilité des systèmes de sol clouté. Un certain nombre de facteurs va influencer la résistance au cisaillement
de l’interface sol–clous. Parmi ces facteurs, le degré de saturation (Sr) du sol en est un important particulièrement pour les
structures permanentes de sol clouté. Afin d’étudier l’influence de Sr sur la résistance au cisaillement à l’arrachement des
clous dans le sol, une série d’essais d’arrachement ont été conduits en laboratoire sur des clous dans un remblai de granite
compacté complètement décomposé (« CDG ») préparé à divers Sr. Les essais ont été conduits en utilisant deux boı̂tes
d’arrachement ayant les mêmes spécifications. Dans les essais quasiment saturés, un degré élevé de Sr (environ 98 %) a
été obtenu au moyen de caractéristiques spéciales de l’appareil : un capuchon frontal étanche à l’eau et des tuyaux qui refou-
laient la pression d’eau en partie inférieure de la boı̂te d’arrachement. Les résultats des essais ont montré que le plan
de cisaillement clou–sol a migré à l’extérieur dans le sol lorsque le Sr du sol augmentait. Aussi, les résistances d’arra-
chement de pic des clous étaient fortement influencées par le Sr du sol. Parmi les Sr testés, les valeurs de résistance
de pic à l’arrachement les plus élevées ont été obtenues à des valeurs de Sr entre 50 % et 75 %.
Mots-clés : clou dans le sol, résistance au cisaillement d’arrachement, degré de saturation, remblai de granite complètement
décomposé.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction slopes and new slopes to bring them up to the required

safety standard.
Soil nails are slender inclusions installed in soil to stabi- In the design of a soil nailing system, both internal and
lize the soil mass, such as cut and fill slopes, deep excava- external failure modes need to be considered (Watkins and
tions, and tunnels. Soil nailing originated as an extension of Powell 1992). There are three types of basic internal failure
rock bolting and the New Austrian Tunnelling Method. modes: pull-out failure, tension or shearing failure, and head
Since its origin, it has been used increasingly in many places and facing failure. Each mode of failure should be checked
of the world because of its technical and economical advan- for an adequate margin of safety in the design. The pull-out
tages. In Hong Kong, where the terrains are mostly hilly, resistance of a soil nail (i.e., the shear strength between the
soil nailing has been widely used to reinforce both existing soil nail and the surrounding soil) is a key parameter in cur-
Received 25 January 2006. Accepted 28 March 2007. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on 18 January 2008.
L.-J. Su1 and J.-H. Yin.2 The Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
T.C.F. Chan and Y.K. Shiu. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department, Civil Engineering and
Development Building, 101 Princess Margaret Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
T. Cheung. Maunsell Geotechnical Services Limited, Shatin, Hong Kong.
1Presentaddress: School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, 13 Yanta Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi,
710055, China.
2Corresponding author (e-mail: cejhyin@polyu.edu.hk).

Can. Geotech. J. 44: 1314–1328 (2007) doi:10.1139/T07-056 # 2007 NRC Canada

Su et al.
rent design methods, which include the French method
(Schlosser 1982), the German method (Stocker et al. 1979),
the Bridle method (Bridle 1989), the Davis method (Shen et
al. 1981), and the Juran method (Juran et al. 1988). In the
design of a soil nailing system in Hong Kong, the pull-out
resistance is usually assumed to be the same as the shear
strength of the soil, and pull-out tests are carried out in the
field during the construction stage to verify the interface
shear strength used in design. The shear strength between a
soil nail and the surrounding soil is influenced by a number
of factors, such as the normal stress on the interface, degree
of saturation of the soil, soil properties, and soil nail surface
roughness. It is not a straightforward task to estimate the
soil nail pull-out resistance for a particular type of soil and
under a particular soil nail installation procedure. In addi-
tion, verification pull-out tests on soil nails can hardly be
conducted under the worst conditions in the field (i.e., satu-
rated conditions). As such, the measured pull-out resistance
may not be a safe parameter for design use. It is also com-
mon to find that the measured values are scattered because
of variance in test conditions as reported by Schlosser and
Guilloux (1981), Cartier and Gigan (1983), Heymann et al.
(1992), and Heymann (1993).
Among the factors influencing the soil nail pull-out resist-
ance, the degree of saturation of the soil is an important one,
especially for permanent soil nailed structures. This is because
the degree of saturation of the soil mass will change with the
variation of ground water and weather conditions, and the
pull-out resistance may drop to a low level during intense
rainfalls. However, there have been few studies on the effect
of degree of saturation of soil on soil nail pull-out resistance.
In the past decade, many laboratory pull-out tests had
been carried out aiming at the fundamental interaction
mechanism and shear strength between a soil nail and the
surrounding soil. In Clouterre, a French National Research
Project, (FHWA 1991), the influence of depth and degree
of saturation on the pull-out shear resistance of soil rein-
forcement was investigated using pull-out tests. The maxi-
mum pull-out force was found to reduce by more than half
when the moisture content of the soil was increased from
the optimum water content to the saturation moisture con-
tent. Pull-out tests were conducted by Milligan et al. (1997)
and Milligan and Tei (1998) on Leighton Buzzard sand us-
ing pull-out boxes with dimension of 0.6 m
0.6 m
0.6 m
and 254 mm
153 mm
150 mm, respectively. The appa-
rent friction coefficient was found to be dependent on the
strength of the soil, stiffness and roughness of the nail, rate
of dilation of the soil, etc. Franzén Gunilla (1998) carried
out a series of laboratory pull-out tests on jacked and driven
nails to investigate the influence of relative density, overbur-
den pressure, method of installation, and surface roughness
on the soil nail pull-out resistance. The pull-out resistance
was found to generally increase with the increase in over-
burden pressure. Pull-out tests carried out by Hong et al.
(2003) using a sandbox, showed that the apparent friction
coefficient was dependent on the overburden pressure and
nail surface roughness. In Hong Kong, a number of labora-
tory pull-out tests had been performed in the completely de-
composed granite (CDG) soil. At the University of Hong
Kong, laboratory pull-out tests were carried out by Lee et
al. (2001), Junaideen et al. (2004), and Pradhan (2003) using
1315
a 2.0 m
1.6 m
1.4 m pull-out box on both steel bars and
cement grouted nails. Pradhan noted from laboratory pull-
out tests that with cement grouted nails in loose CDG fill,
only the nail–soil interface adhesion was reduced by a high
degree of saturation, but the interface friction angle remained
unchanged. At the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Chu
(2003) and Chu and Yin (2004, 2005, 2006) carried out a
series of laboratory pull-out tests on soil nails to study the
shear strength of the interface between cement grouted soil
nails and CDG fill. In these studies, the influence of over-
burden pressure, degree of saturation of soil, and soil nail
surface roughness on soil nail pull-out shear resistance
were studied. The soil nail pull-out resistance was observed
to decrease with an increase in degree of saturation of soil.
It should be noted that in the previous pull-out tests, the
overburden pressures were applied to the soil after the soil
nails had been installed. These tests were unable to simu-
late most site conditions where overburden pressures al-
ready exist prior to installation of soil nails.
The reported investigations on the influence of degree of
saturation of soil on the pull-out resistance of a soil nail are
limited. As reported in Pradhan (2003) and Chu and Yin
(2005), it was difficult to achieve a high degree of saturation
due to leakage problems. Furthermore, the previous tests
were only conducted in soil with moisture contents ranging
between the optimum water content and the saturation mois-
ture content. Tests were rarely performed in soil with mois-
ture contents lower than the optimum water content. To
systematically study the effect of degree of saturation of soil
on the soil nail pull-out resistance, a series of soil nail pull-
out tests have been carried out in recompacted CDG fill pre-
pared to different degrees of saturation ranging from rela-
tively dry (lower than the optimum water content) to nearly
saturated conditions. Two identical pull-out boxes were spe-
cially designed and assembled at the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University. The boxes are waterproof and allow application
of back pressure to speed up the saturation process of the
testing soil. Soil samples taken after the test revealed that a
high degree of saturation (about 98%) was achieved. Each
pull-out box was fully instrumented with earth pressure cells,
load cell, linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT),
tensiometers, and pore-water pressure transducers.
Test apparatus and procedure
Apparatus for the pull-out tests
The designed pull-out box, 1000 mm in length, 600 mm in
width, and 830 mm in height, is shown in Fig. 1. A sheet of
rubber was fixed onto the bottom face of the top cover of the
box to form a rubber diaphragm for applying vertical pres-
sure to the soil surface. A wooden board was placed between
the top soil surface and the rubber diaphragm to achieve
even deformation of the soil across the pull-out box. The
size of the soil sample was 1000 mm
600 mm
800 mm,
leaving the topmost 30 mm of the box empty for accommo-
dating the rubber diaphragm and the wooden board.
Two identical pull-out boxes with the above features were
manufactured using 8 mm thick steel plates and strengthened
with hollow square steel sections. The stiffness of the boxes
was so high that deformations during the tests were negli-
gible. Two valves were connected to two holes on the top
# 2007 NRC Canada
1316
Fig. 1. Pull-out box and instrumentation (after Yin and Su 2006). LVDT, linear variable displacement transducers; CDG, completely
decomposed granite; PPT, pore-water pressure transducer.
cover of the box. One of the valves was connected to the
pressure line for applying vertical overburden pressure; the
other one was for releasing the air remaining in the rubber
diaphragm to ensure accurate measurements of the soil de-
formation during testing. An extension chamber of 250 mm
long by 180 mm in internal diameter was attached to the
end of the box, covering the end of the soil nail as shown in
Fig. 1. This chamber housed the extension of the nail. With
the extension, no cavity would be left behind the nail tip, and
the test length under the soil–grout shear would remain con-
stant during the course of pulling out. For tests under sub-
merged conditions, a waterproof front cap was used to cover
the soil nail head, which was in turn connected to the jack
with an O-ringed tie rod through the waterproof front cap.
This waterproof cap allowed application of back pressure to
saturate the soil in the box.
Ten holes, each of 8 mm diameter, were formed in the front
and side plates of the box. They provided access for wires of
pressure cells and tensiometers (or pore-water pressure trans-
ducers). The holes were sealed using watertight bolts (Fig. 2)
when the tests were carried out under submerged conditions.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
On each side plate, there were other access holes for applying
back pressure and air release from the soil.
An electric drilling machine was used for forming the
holes of the test soil nails. This machine was fixed firmly
both on the floor and against the box. A modified soil sam-
ple extruder was employed for grouting the drillhole. Grout
was pumped in by a piston fixed on the extruder when the
grout container was driven up by the electric motor of the
extruder. Soil nails were pulled out using a load reaction
frame and a hydraulic jack (Yin and Su 2006).
Instrumentation and measurement
The instrumentation and measurement of the pull-out tests
are described as follows:
(1) A pressure dial gauge with a maximum capacity of
350 kPa fixed on the top cover of the box was used to
measure the applied vertical pressure. An automatic
volume change apparatus, which is normally used for
measuring volume change in the triaxial tests, was used
to measure the volume change of the soil (Fig. 3).
# 2007 NRC Canada
Su et al.
Fig. 2. Tensiometer (soil moisture probe) used in the test.
Fig. 3. Setup for saturating the soil (after Yin and Su 2006).
(2) Six strain-gauge-based earth pressure cells (TML Model
KDA-PA/KD-A) with a maximum capacity of 1 MPa
were embedded in the soil to measure and monitor earth
pressures. Locations of the earth pressure cells are
shown in Fig. 1.
(3) Two miniature tensiometers (see Fig. 2) (soil moisture
probe 2100F with an operating range of pressures
from –100 to 100 kPa) were used to measure soil suc-
tion. For the tests in partially saturated soil, tensiometers
1317
(2100 F) with dial gauges were used, whereas for the
submerged tests, tensiometers with electronic transducers
were employed. The tensiometers were installed at about
25 mm from the two sides of the soil nail.
(4) A miniature pore-water pressure transducer (PPT) —
Druck PDCR-81 — with a maximum capacity of 1.5 MPa
was employed to measure the pore-water pressures of
the soil in the submerged tests. The transducer was in-
stalled at about 25 mm from the side of the soil nail.
# 2007 NRC Canada
1318 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 4. Results of the compaction test. Total earth pressure versus time during drilling and grouting.
dmax , maximum dry density; wopt,
optimal water content.

Table 1. Properties of the completely decomposed Test procedures

granite (CDG) fill and cement grout. General procedures for preparing soil samples, applying
vertical pressure, drilling, grouting, and pull-out are listed
Properties as follows:
Completely decomposed granite fill
Specific gravity, Gs 2.645 (1) The CDG soil for the test was obtained from a construc-
Maximum dry density,
dmax(Mg/m3) 1.668 tion site. The in situ soil was broken up and remoulded
Optimum moisture content (%) 19 thoroughly. It was then compacted, in layers, in the pull-
Plastic limit, wp (%) 27.3 out box (using a rammer of about 12 kg) to a dry density
Liquid limit, wl (%) 35.5 of 95% of the maximum dry density (1.668 Mg/m3) of
Gravel (%) 9.33 the soil determined by Proctor test. For each series of
Sand (%) 62.51 tests with soil at a given degree of saturation, a calcu-
Silt (%) 24.97 lated amount of water was added to achieve the desired
Clay (%) 3.19 degree of saturation during soil compaction. Six earth
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu (%) 38.3 pressure cells were carefully embedded in the soil at
Coefficient of curvature, Cz (%) 1.6 three different levels, namely, 40 mm below the drill
Cement grout hole, 40 mm above the drillhole, and 200 mm below the
Density,
d (Mg/m3) 1.886 soil surface.
Uniaxial compressive strength, c (MPa) 32.09 (2) Overburden pressure was applied to the testing soil by
Tangent Young’s modulus, E50 (GPa) 12.59 water pressure through the rubber diaphragm under the
Poisson’s ratio,  0.21 top cover. During the application of overburden pressure,
the change in volume (in-flow and out-flow) of the water
in the fluid chamber between the rubber diaphragm and
the top cover was measured. As the water was incom-
pressible and the stiffness of the box was large enough
(5) Four strain gauges were glued to the steel bar of the soil to prevent significant deformations, the change in vo-
nail to obtain the strains and in turn the tensile stress dis- lume of the water in the fluid chamber could be taken
tribution along the soil nail. as the volume change of the soil.
(6) Two LVDTs were installed at the nail head to measure (3) Approximately 24 h was needed for the soil to reach an
the pull-out displacement. equilibrium state under the applied overburden pressure.
(7) A load cell located between the hydraulic jack and the A 100 mm diameter hole was then drilled in the soil and
seating plate of the pull-out reaction frame was used to a 40 mm ribbed steel rebar with 4 strain gauges was
measure the pull-out force placed in the hole. The rebar was placed concentrically
in the hole with its head fixed to the front side of the
Figure 1 shows the layout of the devices used in the present pull-out box. Finally, the hole was grouted up with ce-
study. Data collection was undertaken by a CR10X datalog- ment grout having a water–cement ratio of 0.42.
ger which was connected to a computer. The transducers (4) After curing for about 5 d, the cement grout gained a
were all calibrated before use and recalibrated regularly in cube strength of about 30 MPa, and the soil nail was
the course of the testing programme. pulled out by a hydraulic jack.
# 2007 NRC Canada
Su et al.
Table 2. Shear strength parameters of the completely decomposed granite (CDG) fill.
Degree of
Type of test saturation, Sr (%)
Unsaturated Consolidated drained (CD) 38
75
Saturated Consolidated drained (CD) 98
Fig. 5. Total earth pressure response during drilling and grouting for a submerged test under overburden pressure (OP) of 200 kPa.
Apparatus and procedure for measuring soil
suction
Before installing a 2100F soil moisture probe in the soil
to measure the soil suction for partially saturated soil, the
probe was saturated with de-aerated water, and the air re-
maining in the vacuum dial gauge was sucked out under a
negative pressure created by a Global Detections System
pressure controller. Four 6 mm holes with the same diameter
as the porous ceramic tip of the probe were drilled through
the existing 8 mm diameter holes in both the side plates of
the pull-out box, extending to a location about 25 mm away
from the soil nail surface. The plastic body tube of the probe
was then fixed on the side of the box, and the porous ce-
ramic tip was installed at the end of the hole (Fig. 2). The
hole was finally filled up with soil and sealed by a water-
proof bolt (Fig. 2). After about 24 h, the soil moisture probe
and the surrounding soil reached equilibrium, and the soil
suction was read from the vacuum dial gauge.
Apparatus and procedure for saturating the
soil
The waterproof front cap was a modified version of a con-
ventional triaxial cell, 170 mm in diameter and 400 mm in
length. It was cut out from a Perspex cylinder and was
restrained by a steel plate and a steel ring using tie rods
(Fig. 3). An O-ringed steel rod through the top plate of the
cap was used to connect the nail head with a coupler and
1319
Shear strength
Cohesion Friction angle
c (apparent) or c’ ’ or ’0 (8) Sample condition
c = 36.6 kPa ’ ¼ 35:9 Recompacted
c = 26.8 kPa ’ ¼ 33:8 Recompacted
c’ = 3.70 kPa ’0 ¼ 34:9 Recompacted
the bolt for pull-out. The rod was slightly adjustable to keep
the soil nail in line with the applied test load. Several holes
were formed on the top plate of the waterproof cap for filling
water and providing access for the wires of the strain gauges.
An additional square plate, with four elongated holes at the
base of the waterproof cap, allows slight vertical adjustment
of the waterproof cap when fixed to the pull-out box.
For tests under submerged conditions, the soil was satura-
ted before pull-out of the soil nail. The CDG soil initially at a
degree of saturation of about 80% to 84% was compacted to
95% of the maximum dry density at the optimum water con-
tent in the pull-out box. About 2 d after grouting, when the
cement grout had gained some strength, the steel plate that
was used to cover the nail head during grouting was replaced
by the waterproof cap. The soil annulus around the tail of the
grouted nail, within the extension chamber, was carefully re-
moved. The box was first sealed for de-aerating with two
plastic pipes connecting to the upper side plates of the box
with a vacuum pump. The vacuum pump was switched on
for about 1 h and then the valve on the pipe connected to the
vacuum pump was closed. Under the vacuum, water flowed
into the box from the bottom and rose upwards. This water
inflow process lasted for about 10 h. When there was no fur-
ther change in the pore pressure, the valve connected to the
vacuum pump was switched on to repeat the de-aerating
process. This procedure was repeated several times until
water was seen continuously flowing out without air bubbles.
The whole process of de-aerating and soaking the sample
with water lasted for more than 24 h. After the soil in the
# 2007 NRC Canada
1320 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 6. (a) Effective earth pressure responses with time and (b) pore-water pressure responses with time during soil saturation for a sub-
merged test with overburden pressure (OP) of 200 kPa.

Fig. 7. Relationship between average pull-out shear stress and pull-out displacement for tests at degree of saturation (Sr) of 98%. OP, over-
burden pressure.

# 2007 NRC Canada

Su et al.
Fig. 8. Relationship between average pore pressures with pull-out displacement for tests at degree of saturation (Sr) of 98%. OP, overburden
pressure.
Fig. 9. Relationship between average pull-out shear stress and pull-out displacement for tests in soil at different values of degree of satura-
tion (Sr) with overburden pressure at 40 kPa.
box was filled up with water, a back pressure of about 55 kPa
was applied in stages and maintained for about 2 d until no
more water intake into the soil was observed and a high de-
gree of saturation of soil was attained. The setup for applying
back pressure is shown in Fig. 3.
Properties of the soil and cement grout
Completely decomposed granite fill
The CDG soil used in the tests was taken from a highway
construction site at Tai Wai, Hong Kong. The CDG soil
consists of 9.33% gravel, 62.51% sand, 24.97% silt, and
3.19% clay and is classified as yellowish brown, very silty
sand. The plastic and liquid limits of the soil are 27.3% and
1321
35.5%, respectively. The maximum dry density of the re-
moulded CDG obtained from a standard Proctor test is
1.668 Mg/m3 (a void ratio of 0.586) with an optimum mois-
ture content of 19%. Figure 4 shows the results of the com-
paction test. The specific gravity of the soil is 2.645. The
basic parameters of the soil are summarized in Table 1.
Conventional and double cell consolidated drained triaxial
tests were carried out on saturated and unsaturated recom-
pacted soil samples, respectively. The shear strength param-
eters obtained from these tests are summarized in Table 2.
Cement grout
The cement grout used in the tests was mixed at a water
cement ratio of 0.42. The density of cement grout was found
# 2007 NRC Canada
1322
Fig. 10. Relationship between average pull-out shear stress and pull-out displacement for tests in soil at different values of degree of sa-
turation (Sr) with overburden pressure at 120 kPa.
Fig. 11. Relationship between average pull-out shear stress and pull-out displacement for tests in soil at different values of degree of sa-
turation (Sr) with overburden pressure at 200 kPa.
to be 1.886 Mg/m3. The average 5 d uniaxial compressive
strength c of the cement grount samples was 32.09 MPa.
The secant Young’s modulus E50 and the corresponding
Poisson’s ratio vn were 12.59 GPa and 0.21, respectively.
The properties of the cement grout are summarized in Ta-
ble 1.
Laboratory pull-out test results and analysis
A number of pull-out tests were carried out with soil at
different degrees of saturation under a range of overburden
pressures. The degrees of saturation of soil used in the tests
included 38%, 50%, 75%, and 98%. The overburden pres-
sures ranged from 40 to 300 kPa. In this paper, discussion
will be concentrated on the influence of degree of saturation
of soil on the pull-out resistance of the test soil nails. The
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
measured average soil suction (matric suction) was 87 kPa
for soil at a degree of saturation of 38%, whereas it was
68 and 6 kPa for soil at degrees of saturation of 50% and
75%, respectively. In the submerged tests, the CDG fill in
the pull-out box was saturated to a high degree of saturation
of approximately 98% by application of a back pressure.
Earth pressure and pore pressure during saturation of the
soil
Figure 5 shows the variation of total earth pressures dur-
ing drilling and grouting in a submerged test under an ap-
plied overburden pressure of 200 kPa. From the figure it
can be seen that before drilling the pressures in the soil, as
measured by the pressure cells, generally agreed with the
applied overburden pressure of 200 kPa (the slight differ-
ence is due to the self-weight of soil above the earth pres-
# 2007 NRC Canada
Su et al.
Fig. 12. Relationship between average pull-out shear stress and pull-out displacement for tests in soil at different values of degree of sa-
turation (Sr) with overburden pressure at 300 kPa.
sure cell). The pressure cell readings substantially decreased
once the drilling bit had passed them. Upon injection of
grout, the earth pressures were observed to increase slightly.
After grouting, the earth pressures started to decrease and
eventually became equal to those before grouting.
Figure 6a shows the effective earth pressure responses
with time, and Fig. 6b shows the pore-water pressure re-
sponses with time during the de-aerating process, water in-
filtration, and application of back pressure for the same test.
In Fig. 6a, the effective earth pressure is defined as the total
earth pressure measured by earth pressure cells minus the
average pore-water pressure (from about –26 to 55 kPa)
measured by the pore-water pressure transducer and tensi-
ometers. During the de-aerating process, the development of
negative pore-water pressure was noted in the box as shown
in Fig. 6b. When water flowed into the box under the vac-
uum, the pore-water pressure increased slowly with time.
Further decrease of pore-water pressure was observed when
the de-aerating process was repeated. Finally, the pore-water
pressure became about zero when the box was full of water.
The overburden pressure remained unchanged during the de-
aerating process. Therefore, the effective earth pressure var-
ied in opposition to the variation of the pore-water pressure,
as shown in Fig. 6a.
When a back pressure was being applied, the same amount
of vertical overburden pressure was also applied to ensure
that the effective earth pressure in the soil remained constant.
From Fig. 5, it can be observed that the pore-water pressure
increased in steps up to an average value of about 55 kPa,
and that the effective earth pressure increased slightly at the
end of this procedure. Measurement after completion of the
pull-out test revealed that the degree of saturation of soil in-
creased from about 84% (before saturation) to 95%.
Pull-out behaviour for saturated tests
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the average pull-
out shear stress and pull-out displacement of the tests under
submerged conditions. The average degree of saturation of
1323
soil was 98% and the applied overburden pressures were
40, 120, 200, and 300 kPa. As shown in the pull-out shear
stress-displacement curves, the average pull-out shear stress
initially increased rapidly with pull-out displacement to
about 90% of the peak shear strength, then it continued to
increase at a slower rate until it reached the peak shear
strength. The displacements at the peak shear strength were
less than 10 mm. After the peak shear strength, the pull-out
shear stress was observed to decrease gradually. A displace-
ment of only 100 mm was achieved because of the difficul-
ties in keeping the alignment of the pull-out force in line
with the soil nail and preventing water from leaking through
the waterproof cap. Time constraint was another reason; the
pull-out displacement rate had to be very slow (less than
0.5 mm/min). The problem can be seen in the test with over-
burden pressure of 120 kPa where the pull-out rate was not
slow enough (about 0.8 mm/min) and as a result the average
post-peak pull-out stress dropped unreasonably fast as
shown in Fig. 7.
Figure 8 shows the relationship between pore-water pres-
sure and pull-out displacement during pull-out under sub-
merged conditions. A small decrease in pore-water pressure
was observed in two of the tests.
Effect of degree of saturation of soil on pull-out
behaviour and resistance
Figures 9–12 show the relationship between average pull-
out shear stress and pull-out displacement for tests at differ-
ent degrees of saturation (Sr) and under overburden pres-
sures of 40, 120, 200, and 300 kPa, respectively. In Fig. 9,
the result for the test in soil at a 50% degree of saturation is
not included because that test is believed to have failed due
to a grouting problem. From the curves shown in Figs. 9–12,
it is observed that the post-peak pull-out shear stresses gen-
erally decrease faster with a higher degree of saturation of
the soil. This is probably related to the migration of shearing
plane from the nail–soil interface outwards into the soil
when the soil gets wetter. Figure 13 shows the nail surfaces
# 2007 NRC Canada
1324
Fig. 13. Nail surfaces after pull-out for soils at degree of saturation at (a) 38%, (b) 50%, (c) 75%, and (d) 98%.
after pull-out for tests in soil at different degrees of satura-
tion. It can be clearly seen that failure occurred mainly on
the nail–soil interface for tests in soil at a 38% degree of
saturation. This indicates that the nail–soil interface shear
strength was smaller than that of the soil surrounding the
nail, probably because of the strong soil suction within the
soil around the nail. As the degree of saturation of soil in-
creased from 50% to 98%, a noticeable increase in thickness
of soil adhered to the nail surface could be observed. This
suggests that there was a migration of shearing plane from
the nail–soil interface outwards into the soil as the moisture
content of soil increased, probably as a result of the decrease
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
in soil matric suction with the increase in the moisture con-
tent of the soil. For failure inside the soil, the pull-out stress-
displacement behaviour was similar to the stress–strain be-
haviour for dense soil in direct shear or triaxial tests for
which strain softening was observed. For failure on the
nail–soil interface, small and slow reduction of pull-out
shear stress was observed after the peak pull-out shear re-
sistance.
From Figs. 9–12, it can be observed that for all the applied
overburden pressures, the peak pull-out shear strengths for
tests with soil at Sr = 50% and Sr = 75% were greater than
those for saturated tests and tests with soil at Sr = 38%. For
# 2007 NRC Canada
Su et al. 1325

Fig. 14. Relationship between peak pull-out shear resistance and degrees of saturation with overburden pressure at (a) 40 kPa, (b) 120 kPa,
(c) 200 kPa, and (d) 300 kPa.

# 2007 NRC Canada

1326 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007

Fig. 15. Changes of average total earth pressure at different stages of testing in tests with soil at a degree of saturation of (a) 38% (b) 75%,
and (c) 98%.

# 2007 NRC Canada

Su et al.
soil at Sr = 75%, the moisture content is close to the opti-
mum moisture content. The peak pull-out shear strength in
tests at degree of saturation of 75% was about two times
that in the saturated tests. The pull-out displacement at peak
pull-out shear strength increased with a decrease in the de-
gree of saturation of the soil. The displacement in tests at Sr
= 75% was about two times as much as that in the saturated
tests. These results resembled the results presented in the
Clouterre project (FHWA 1991), which showed that the
maximum pull-out force was increased by two times when
the moisture content was decreased from saturation to the
optimum water content, and the displacement corresponding
to this maximum force was increased by three times. The
decrease of pull-out resistance with the degree of saturation
from the optimum moisture content to the saturated condi-
tion was also observed by Chu and Yin (2005) and by Prad-
han (2003). Pradhan (2003) attributed this decrease to the
decrease of soil cohesion.
Figure 14 shows the relationship between the peak pull-
out shear resistance and degree of saturation with soil under
different vertical pressures of 40, 120, 200, and 300 kPa. It
can be seen that the peak pull-out shear strength initially in-
creased and then decreased with an increase in the degree of
saturation of the soil. It is believed that if the soil is suffi-
ciently dry (e.g., Sr = 38% as shown in the present study),
water is more readily absorbed by the soil due to a higher
matric suction value (about 85 kPa as measured in the
present study). This may cause more contraction of the ce-
ment grout, thus reducing the bond strength between the
nail surface and the surrounding soil. Therefore, the peak
pull-out shear strength was lower than those in tests with
other degrees of saturation (50% and 75%). In the tests with
soil at Sr = 38%, a further decrease of total earth pressure
was observed immediately after grouting, and the earth pres-
sure did not recover when the cement grout had hardened,
which appears to indicate the contraction of the cement
grout. Figure 15a shows the variations of average earth pres-
sure at different stages of testing in tests with soil at Sr =
38%. It can be observed that the average earth pressures be-
fore pull-out was lower than that before grouting. The above
is one of the probable reasons behind the phenomenon. The
actual reasons need to be determined by further tests. In this
respect, tests conducted using a pressure grouting method to
improve the contact between the nail surface and the sur-
rounding soil may be useful. As for the submerged tests,
the decrease of apparent soil cohesion could be one of the
reasons for the decrease of pull-out resistance (Pradhan
2003). The decrease of dilatancy of the soil could be another
reason. In Fig. 14, it is observed that the increase in earth
pressure at peak pull-out resistance for tests at full saturation
was much smaller than that for tests at other degrees of sat-
uration.
As for the pull-out shear stresses at the end of the tests, it
can be observed from Figs. 9–12 that they were not directly
related to the degree of saturation (except the submerged
tests). The peak pull-out shear stress was generated by the
initial bond strength of the nail–soil interface and the con-
strained dilatancy of the soil. The bond strength and con-
strained dilatancy of the soil were both related to the contact
condition of the nail–soil interface. As mentioned in the pre-
vious paragraph, the contact condition of the nail–soil inter-
1327
face was related to the degree of saturation of the soil.
Therefore, the peak pull-out shear stress was related to the
degree of saturation of the soil. But, for the shear stress at
the end of the test, the initial bond of the nail–soil interface
was broken and the constrained dilatancy of the soil was
eliminated. As a result, the pull-out shear stress at the end of
the test was not directly related to the degree of saturation.
The peak pull-out shear strength for tests at Sr = 75% was
about two times that for saturated tests. For some of the
tests in soil Sr = 50%, the observed pull-out shear resistances
were even higher (Fig. 14). This indicates that the effect of
the degree of saturation on soil nail pull-out resistance is
significant and should be carefully addressed in the design
of a soil nailing system.
Summary and conclusions
A series of laboratory soil nail pull-out tests under differ-
ent degrees of saturation was carried out. The applied over-
burden pressures were 40, 120, 200, and 300 kPa and the
degrees of saturation were 38%, 50%, 75%, and 98%. The
test apparatus, procedure, and instrumentation have been
briefly introduced, and the test results have been presented
and discussed. The new apparatus has the following special
features:
(1) The use of an extension chamber to keep the test length
and stress condition of the soil nail constant during the
pull-out; and
(2) the use of a waterproof cap to allow application of back
pressure for soil saturation in the pull-out box.
The following are the major findings from the test results:
(1) The migration of shearing plane from the interface be-
tween the nail surface and the surrounding soil to further
into the soil was observed with the increase in degree of
saturation of the soil.
(2) The displacements at peak pull-out shear strength for
saturated tests were smaller than those for partially sa-
turated tests. The differences in pull-out shear stress–
displacement characteristics of the soil nails in the tests
are strongly associated with the difference in degree of
saturation of the testing soils.
(3) The highest values of peak pull-out shear strength were
obtained at degrees of saturation values between 50%
and 75%. It should be emphasized that only a limited
number of tests were carried out and only four different
degrees of saturation were tested. It is therefore prema-
ture to draw any solid conclusion on the precise correla-
tion between the degree of saturation of the soil and the
pull-out resistance of soil nails. Further research in this
area is needed.
Acknowledgements
The improvement, setup, and use of the two new soil
nail pull-out boxes for soil nail pull-out resistance studies
have received valuable comments from Mr. W.K. Pun,
Dr. Raymond W.M. Cheung, Dr. S.L. Chiu, Miss Carrie
Leung, Mr. Charles K.L. Tang, and Mr. Danny Fu. All of
these comments are gratefully acknowledged. The authors
thank Mr. L.M. Chu and Ms. W.H. Zhou for assistance in
# 2007 NRC Canada
1328
the setup of the two new boxes and participation in some
of the soil nail pull-out tests. Financial support from the
Civil Engineering and Development Department and a
Research Grants Council grant from the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region Government are gratefully acknowl-
edged. The authors would like to express thanks to the
Director of Civil Engineering and Development and the
Head of the Geotechnical Engineering Office for the per-
mission to publish this paper.
References
Bridle, R.J. 1989. Soil nailing – analysis and design. Ground Engineer-
ing, 22(6): 52–56. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(90)95173-X
Cartier, G., and Gigan, J.P. 1983. Experiments and observations on
soil nailed structures. In Proceeding of the 8th European Confer-
ence of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 23–26
May 1983, Helsinki, Finland. Edited by H.G. Rathmayer and
K.H.O. Saari. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Vol. 2. pp. 473–476.
Chu, L.M. 2003. Study on the interface shear strength of soil nail-
ing in completely decomposed granite (CDG) soil. M.Phil. the-
sis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Chu, L.M., and Yin, J.H. 2004. Testing study on the interface be-
tween soil and soil nail. In Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Engineering, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers-Geotechnical
Division Committee and Hong Kong Geotechnical Society, 14
May 2004, Hong Kong. pp. 243–253.
Chu, L.M., and Yin, J.H. 2005. Laboratory pull-out testing study of
soil nails in a completely decomposed granite soil. ASTM Geo-
technical Testing Journal, 28: 1–15.
Chu, L.-M., and Yin, J.H. 2006. 2006. Study on soil-cement grout
interface shear strength of soil nailing by direct shear box test-
ing method. GeoMechanics and GeoEngineering, 1: 259–273.
doi:10.1080/17486020601091742.
FHWA. 1991. Recommendations Clouterre 1991 (English Transla-
tion). Report on the French National Research Project Clouterre,
FHWA-SA-93–026, Federal Highway Administration, Washing-
ton, DC.
Franzén Gunilla. 1998. Soil nailing – A laboratory and field study
of pull-out capacity. Doctoral thesis, Department of Geotechnical
Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,
Sweden.
Heymann, G. 1993. Soil nailing systems as lateral support for sur-
face excavations. Masters thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Uni-
versity of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Heymann, G., Rhode, A.W., Schwartz, K., and Friedlaender, E.
1992. Soil nail pull-out resistance in residual soils. In Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice,
Kyushu, Japan. Vol. 1. pp. 487–492.
View publication stats
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 44, 2007
Hong, Y.S., Wu, C.S., and Yang, S.H. 2003. Pull-out resistance of
single and double nails in a model sandbox. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 40(5): 1039–1047. doi:10.1139/t03-048.
Junaideen, S.M., Tham, L.G., Law, K.T., Lee, C.F., and Yue, Z.Q.
2004. Laboratory study of soil nail interaction in loose, comple-
tely decomposed granite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2):
274–286. doi:10.1139/t03-094.
Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Khalid, F., and Elias, V. 1988. Kinematical
limit analysis approach for the design of nailed soil retaining struc-
tures. In International Geotechnical Symposium on Theory and
Practice of Earth Reinforcement, Fukuoka Kyushu, Japan, 5–7 Oc-
tober 1998. Edited by T. Yamanouchi, N. Miura, and H. Ochiai.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 301–306.
Lee, C.F., Law, K.T., Tham, L.G., Yue, Z.Q., and Junaideen, S.M.
2001. Design of a large soil box for studying soil-nail interac-
tion in loose fill. In Soft Soil Engineering: Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering, Hong
Kong, 6–8 December 2001. Edited by C.F. Lee, C.K. Lau,
C.W.W. Ng, A.K.L. Kwong, P.L.R. Pang, J.H. Yin, and Z.Q.
Yue. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 413–418.
Milligan, G.W.E., and Tei, K. 1998. The pull-out resistance of
model soil nails. Journal of Soils and Foundations, 38: 179–190.
Milligan, G.W.E., Chang, K.T., and Morris, J.D. 1997. Pull-out re-
sistance of soil nails in sand and clay. In Proceeding of the 3rd
International Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems,
London, UK, 3–5 June 1997. Edited by M.C.R. Davies and F.
Scholsser, Thomas Telford, New York. pp. 414–422.
Pradhan, B. 2003. Study of pull-out behaviour of soil nails in com-
pletely decomposed granite fill. M.Phil. thesis, the University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Schlosser, F. 1982. Behaviour and design of soil nailing. In Pro-
ceeding on Recent Developments in Ground Improvement Tech-
niques, Bangkok, Thailand, 29–30 December 1982. Edited by
A.S. Balasubramaniam, S. Chandra, D.T. Bergado, J.S. Younger,
and F. Prinzl. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
pp. 399–413.
Schlosser, F., and Guilloux, A. 1981. Le frottement dans les sols.
Revue Francaise de Géotechnique, No. 16. pp. 65–77.
Shen, C.K., Bang, S., and Hermann, L.R. 1981. Ground movement
analysis of earth support system. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, 107: 1609–1624.
Stocker, M.F., Korber, G.W., Gassler, G., and Gudehus, G. 1979.
Soil nailing. In International Conference on Soil Reinforcement,
École nationale des ponts et chaussées (ENPC) Press, Paris, Vol.
2, March, pp. 469–474.
Watkins, A.T., and Powell, G.E. 1992. Soil nailing to existing
slopes as landslip preventive works. Hong Kong Engineer,
March: 20–27.
Yin, J.H., and Su, L.J. 2006. An innovative laboratory box for test-
ing nail pull-out resistance in soil. ASTM Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 29: 1–11.
# 2007 NRC Canada