Ground A h G d Anchors and A h d Anchored d Structures

Presentation to:

WV Expo 2008 – Charleston Civic Center
Jonathan Bennett PE – Chief Engineer Earth Support Division March 20, 2008

GeoStructures GeoStructures’ Earth Support Division focuses on the engineering and construction of ground anchors and anchored structures.

Tieback Walls

Soil Nailing

Underpinning

Micropiles

Tiedowns

Tieback Wall

Soil Nailing

Underpinning

Micropiles

Tiedowns

Jon Bennett - Speaker Bio Chief Engineer – GeoStructures Earth Support Division (formerly TerraTech) BS Civil Engineering (Structures) – West Virginia Institute of Technology MS Civil Engineering (Structures) – West Virginia University MEM Engineering & Technology Management – George Washington University Professional Engineer in WV, VA, MD, and PA Professional background in Structural and Foundation Engineering with CH2M Hill and the Parsons Corporation prior to joining TerraTech in 1993. y g g g 15 years involvement in the design, construction and management of design-build specialty geotechnical construction projects throughout the mid Atlantic region of the United States. g y Chairman of the DFI Tiebacks and Soil Nailing Committee. Heavily involved in industry development efforts for Tieback Walls, Soil Nailing, and Micropiles through DFI, ADSC, and ASCE GEO Institute. Involved in AASHTO specification development for anchored walls and micropiles with T15 Committee. Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

GROUND ANCHORS

• •

A Ground Anchor is a structural element installed in a grout-filled hole in g soil or rock that is used to transmit an applied tensile force into the ground. Ground Anchors can be installed vertically, horizontally, or in inclined positions. A minimum inclination of 10 degrees below horizontal is desirable in d to ll i order t allow f ll grouting of th ground anchor h l full ti f the d h hole. Ground Anchors derive their load capacity from the bond stresses between the grout body and surrounding soil or rock. Hence, the load capacity of a ground anchor is the lesser of tendon strength or grout bond strength strength. Grouted Ground Anchors used to offer lateral support are often referred to as “Tiebacks”. Soil Nails, Micropiles, and Tiedowns are also forms of Ground Anchors.

Components • • • • • Anchorage Tendon Bonded Length Unbonded (Free) Length Corrosion Protection (for Permanent Applications)

Strand Tendon

Bar Tendon

Picture courtesy of Lang Tendons y g

Picture courtesy of Dywidag Systems International ( y y g y (DSI) )

SCOPE • Materials / Corrosion Protection • Tendon Design •G t–G Grout Ground B d G id li d Bond Guidelines • Handling and Installation • Testing and Acceptance g p

TIEBACK WALLS

• • • • • • • •

Definitions Applications pp Components Types and Facing Options Construction Procedures / Sequence Design Background Testing T ti Case History

• •

As the name implies, Tieback Walls use “Tiebacks” or Ground Anchors for p , lateral support. Tieback Wall construction typically is done from the top down. This is a departure from conventional retaining wall construction wherein the retained material i removed, th wall i constructed, and th th retained material t i l is d the ll is t t d d then the t i d t i l is put back behind the wall. Unlike conventional retaining wall construction, tieback wall construction does not substantially disturb the material or structures that the wall is retaining or supporting. Tieback Walls are often used to provide excavation support for the construction of conventional retaining walls. Using a permanent facing for the tieback wall often is more economical than constructing a conventional retaining wall. Because of the unique top-down construction approach, Tieback Walls can often be used where conventional retaining walls cannot be constructed or are not an economically feasible option.

Applications • Permanent Earth Retention p y pp • Temporary Excavation Support • Slope Stabilization / Landslide Stabilization or Repair • Repair or Rehabilitation of Existing Retaining Walls • Tieback Bridge Abutments • In-situ Hazardous Material Containment

Components
1. Soldier Piles 2. Lagging 3. Tiebacks (Ground Anchors) 4. Wales or Through-Beam Connections 5. 5 Permanent Facing System (if required)

Components
1. Soldier Piles 2. Lagging 3. Tiebacks (Ground Anchors) 4. Wales or Through-Beam Connections 5. 5 Permanent Facing System (if required)

Types • Temporary Excavation Support p y pp • Permanent Earth Retention w/ CIP or Shotcrete • Permanent Earth retention w/ Segmental Precast Facing

Precast Facing vs. CIP or Shotcrete Facing
Superior Drainage System Free-draining material and unrestricted outlet path for effective flow management. Minimum Schedule Impact Panels can be manufactured prior to or concurrently with pile installation. Rapid, productive installation. Precision Alignment Adjustable connections allow alignment to be adjusted independent of pile alignment. Interlocking panel joints maintain alignment. High Quality Control Plant manufactured. No Hot or cold weather placement concerns. Superior Appearance Plant manufactured. Panel geometry easily accommodates form liners for a variety of finishes.

Other Precast Facing Architectural Finishes

Construction Sequence

Excavation Support Construction Sequence
1. Install soldier piles (by drilling or driving). 2. Excavate in safe lifts not to exceed five feet each and install lagging to 2 feet b l f t below tieback grade. ti b k d 3. Install tiebacks. Allow 72 hour minimum grout cure time prior to testing. 4. Test tiebacks in accordance with PTI – Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors. Lock off tiebacks at specified load. 5. Continue excavation and lagging in accordance with Step 2 above to either 2 feet below tieback grade or construction subgrade, whichever comes first. g g

Excavation Support Construction Sequence

Soldier Pile Installation
• • • Drilled and Set HP Section Driven HP Section Drilled Pipe

Lagging Installation
• • • Install Piles and Excavate in Safe Lifts not to Exceed 5’ in Soil. Install Lagging Boards on Exposed Soil Face. Repeat Excavation Lift and Board Installation as Required.

Tieback Installation
• • • Position Drill and Drill Hole for Ground Anchor. Insert Anchor in Drilled Hole and Tremie Grout. Post Grout as Required to Increase Bond Capacity.

Permanent Wall Construction Sequence (Precast)
1. Install soldier piles (drilling generally used for permanent walls). 2. Excavate in safe lifts not to exceed five feet each and install lagging to 2 feet b l f t below tieback grade. ti b k d 3. Install tiebacks. Allow 72 hour minimum grout cure time prior to testing. 4. Test tiebacks in accordance with PTI – Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors. Lock off tiebacks at specified load. 5. Continue excavation and lagging in accordance with Step 2 above to either 2 feet below tieback grade or construction subgrade, whichever comes first. g g 6. Place filter fabric over timber lagging and install concrete leveling pad. 7. Layout and attach panel connections to soldier piles. 8. Set bottom course of precast facing panels, install drain pipe, and place drainage stone to top of precast course. 9. Install remaining precast facing panels and place drainage stone with each corresponding lift.

Permanent Wall Construction Sequence (Precast)

Design Background
In 1939, Karl Terzaghi published the paper “A Fundamental Fallacy in Earth Pressure Computations” where he y p recognized that the earth pressure distributions for braced or anchored cuts do not correspond to the traditional equivalent fluid pressure (triangular) diagrams derived from Rankine and Coulomb earth pressure theory theory. The later works of Karl Terzaghi and Ralph Peck (1967) form the framework for earth pressure diagrams used in the design of modern braced and anchored cuts These works cuts. along with others since that time and actual field testing consistently point away from the classic triangular earth pressure diagram and toward a rectangular or trapezoidal apparent earth pressure distribution. The most recent and definitive work in the design of Tieback walls with regard to apparent lateral earth pressure is the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular N 4 “G G t h i lE i i Ci l No. “Ground d Anchors and Anchored Structures” (1999) which recommends a trapezoidal earth pressure diagram.

Karl Terzaghi

Ralph Peck

Design Background

Tieback Testing
Ground Anchors are tested to verify load capacity. • Tiebacks / Tiedowns • Soil Nails • Micropiles in Tension • Micropiles in Compression

Ground Anchor Testing
• All “tieback” anchors are tested to verify load capacit erif capacity. • Tiebacks have an unbonded length or free stressing length to transfer the anchor load outside of the retained soil theoretical failure wedge as opposed to Soil Nails being fully bonded along their length. • A sample of soil nails (typically 5%) are tested to verify bond transfer capacity assumptions used in the soil nail wall design. • That is an important distinction when differentiating between tieback testing and soil nail testing. • For this section, we are focusing on testing of “tieback” anchors.

Tieback Anchor Behavior

Load M Movement

Elastic Material

Load M Movement t

Plastic Material

Both the Post Tensioning Institute and AASHTO have published Ground Anchor Testing Specifications. The testing procedures are virtually identical with the AASHTO version being an adaptation of the PTI guidelines.

Proof / Performance Testing
• Incremental loading and unloading to a ma im m test load of 1 33DL nloading maximum 1.33DL. • The first two or three anchors shall be Performance Tested and a minimum of 2% thereafter. The remaining anchors shall be proof tested. • Performance test utilizes cyclic loading in order to differentiate elastic movement from residual movement at each test increment. • In both types of tests, the maximum test load is held for a short term creep test to ensure the anchor will have acceptable long term creep behavior. behavior • If the PTI Service Load design methodology is used, then a production anchor can be tested without increasing the bar size. If a maximum test l d of greater than 1 33DL i used, the b must b d i load f h 1.33DL is d h bar be designed f d for the maximum test load instead of the design service load.

Proof T t Procedure P f Test P d AL 0.25DL 0.50DL 0.75DL 1.00DL 1.20DL 1.33DL Max Test Load ( 0 minute hold) 33 a es oad (10 u e o d) AL (optional) Adjust to Lock-Off Load

Performance Test Procedure
AL 0.25DL AL 0.25DL 0.50DL AL 0.25DL 0.50DL 0.75DL AL 0.25DL 0.50DL 0.75DL 1.00DL AL 0.25DL 0.50DL 0.75DL 1.00DL 1.20DL AL 0.25DL 0.50DL 0.75DL 1.00DL 1.20DL 1.33DL Max Test Load (10 min hold) AL Adjust to lock-off load

Acceptance Criteria
• Creep · Shall not exceed 0 040 inches at the maximum Test Load during 0.040 the load hold period of 1 to 10 minutes. · If that value is exceeded, then the load hold period shall be extended to 60 minutes and the total creep movement b d d i d h l between 6 and 60 minutes shall not exceed 0.080 inches. • Movement · Residual movement – no absolute criteria · Minimum Apparent Free Tendon Length >= 0.80 (Lu + Lj) · Maximum Apparent Free Tendon Length <= Lu + Lj + 0.5Lb • Lock-Off Load · Within 5% of designated Lock-off load as verified by lift-off.

Proof Testing
• Determines whether the anchor has sufficient load capacity. • That the apparent free tendon length has been satisfactorily pp g y established. • That the creep rate stabilizes within specified limits.

Performance Testing
• Determines whether the anchor has sufficient load capacity. • That the apparent free tendon length has been satisfactorily established. • The magnitude of residual movement at each load increment. • That the creep rate stabilizes within specified limits.

SR 56 Section 021 Cambria County ~ Landslide Stabilization Johnstown, PA

SOIL NAILING

• • • • • • • •

Definitions Applications pp Components Types and Facing Options Construction Procedures / Sequence Design Nail Testing N il T ti Case History

• •

Soil Nailing uses an array of grouted g g y g ground anchors or “Soil Nails” to improve the strength characteristics of a soil mass. This improvement in strength properties causes the soil to be self supporting and stable against lateral movement. Shotcrete i t i ll Sh t t is typically used as a facing in order t contain th retained soil. d f i i d to t i the t i d il Like Tieback Wall construction, Soil Nailing is generally performed from the top down and as such offers many of the advantages that Tieback Wall construction does in addition to others others. Soil nailing does not require the installation of vertical pile elements nor does it require toe embedment. Because of this, it can be more economical than Tieback Walls in situations where it is appropriate. Because of the way in which Soil Nailing is installed, it is more sensitive to site soil conditions than Tieback Walls and may not be appropriate under certain circumstances.

Applications • Permanent Earth Retention p y pp • Temporary Excavation Support • Slope Stabilization • Repair or Rehabilitation of Existing Retaining Walls

Components p
1. Shotcrete Facing System 2. Soil Nails 3. Permanent Facing System (if required)

Types • Temporary Excavation Support p y pp • Permanent Earth Retention w/ CIP or Shotcrete • Permanent Earth retention w/ Segmental Precast Facing

Design Considerations
Because Soil Nailing is primarily a form of ground improvement, it is generally looked at in terms of soil-structure interaction as opposed to being designed strictly as a force resisting structure. Th f Therefore, the d i of a soil nailing system i approached as a slope or soil h design f il ili is h d l il mass stability problem. There are a number of methodologies used for the analysis and design of Soil Nailing systems. - Two part wedge limit equilibrium analysis – The Krantz Method - University of California Davis limit equilibrium model – The Davis Method - Modified Davis Method -L Log-spiral surface i l di b di stiffness – Th Ki i l f including bending tiff The Kinematical M th d ti l Method - Methods outlined in FHWA Research Projects – Slope Stability / Soil-Structure Interaction SOFTWARE - GoldNAIL by Golder Associates (Circular Slip Circles) - SNAIL by Caltrans (Bi-Linear Wedge Analysis) - General Slope Stability Programs modified to consider the effects of Soil Nails Similar results are obtained from all of these methods for normal design conditions that are vertical walls without slope surcharge. Some of the software on the market (i.e. GoldNAIL) tends to be quite conservative in terms of nail lengths and nail bond stresses required.

Design Guidelines and Specifications
The FHWA took the lead in the 1990’s in developing design guidelines for Soil Nail Walls through a number of Demonstration Projects. In 1996, FHWA produced the Manual for Design and Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls with Golder Associates based on Demonstration Project 103. This document introduced the program GoldNAIL for the design of soil nail walls. GoldNAIL remains one of two dominant computer programs for soil nail wall design. In 2003, FHWA superseded the previous manual with Geotechnical Engineering Circular 7 – Soil Nail Walls. This document was developed by GeoSyntec Consultants and included CalTrans SNAIL in the software lineup. There is considerable debate in the industry regarding the nail testing procedures included i GEC 7 and requests h di th il t ti d i l d d in GEC-7 d t have b been made t d to change those requirements. It is recommended to use the testing rpocedures included in the 1996 manual. Later in 2008, it is expected that the Deep Foundations Institute will publish its Guide Specification for Temporary and Permanent Soil Nail Walls that will include provisions for using hollow bar (self drilling) soil nails. This specification was developed by the DFI Tiebacks and Soil Nailing Committee with input from consultants and design-builders throughout the United States. It is more of an industry consensus document than the previous specifications included in the FHWA publications.

Soil Nail Testing
• In soil nail str ct re design we are more concerned with bond transfer structure design, e ith values along the nail than the overall pullout capacity. • Tiebacks have an unbonded length or free stressing length to transfer the anchor load outside of the retained soil theoretical failure wedge as opposed to Soil Nails being fully bonded along their length. • All “tieback” anchors are tested to verify load capacity. However, due to tieback the relatively large number and low capacity of soil nails on a typical job, a sample of soil nails (typically 5%) are tested to verify bond transfer capacity assumptions used in the soil nail wall design. • Because we are not testing all of the nails, we use a higher test load (1.5DL vs. 1.33DL) to offset the reduction in number of tests. • S with soil nailing, we are talking about b d value verification So, i h il ili lki b bond l ifi i testing and sampled proof testing to a higher test load.

BW Parkway / MD 197 Ramp B Southbound ~ Earth Retention System Laurel, MD

UNDERPINNING

Underpinning is the addition of support to an existing foundation A foundation foundation. may require underpinning in order to transfer building loads to a lower elevation and permit adjacent excavation or to increase load carrying capacity. Normally, underpinning involves both vertical and lateral support. This process typically requires h d excavation of vertical shafts ( it ) b l i hand ti f ti l h ft (pits) below th existing f ti the i ti footings. The pits are then filled with concrete thus creating new foundation elements for the building or structure.

MICROPILES

• • • • • • • • • • •

Definition History & Development Materials Installation Equipment Structural Configurations Typical Capacity Ranges Applications Design d Construction S D i and C t ti Specifications ifi ti Design Comparison Testing Q&A

• •

• •

• •

A Micropile is generally defined in the industry as a reinforced small p g y y diameter (less than or equal to 12”) drilled and grouted replacement pile. A “replacement” pile refers to a foundation pile where soil or rock is removed during the installation process as opposed to a displacement pile that di l th t displaces soil as it i i t ll d il is installed. Micropiles can be installed at angles and are able to resist both axial and lateral loads. Micropiles develop their axial capacity primarily through the bond between grout and soil or rock in the bonded zone of the pile. Because of this, micropiles provide both tension and compression resistance thus making them useful in a variety of applications. They are installed using much of the same drilling and grouting equipment that is used for tiebacks and soil nailing. Because of specialized installation methods, micropiles can be used in soil and rock conditions where the use of conventional deep foundation systems are not a reasonable alternative (such as in Karst topography or lowheadroom conditions).

History & Development

Which came first? The Wheel or the Pile?

History & Development
• • • • • • • • • 1950’s – Post WWII Europe – Dr. Fernando Lizzi – Root Piles Rapid Emergence in US following FHWA Research 1997 FHWA Micropile State of Practice Document Mi il St t f P ti D t 2000 FHWA Micropile Guidelines 2003 DFI Guide Specification 2005 NHI / FHWA Micropile Reference Manual 2006 IBC Micropile Section Adoption 2007 FHWA LRFD Design Specification Adoption Currently estimated to be $300M US market

Materials • Pipe Casing (typically mill secondary oilfield casing) g • Solid or Hollow Reinforcing Bars • Neat Cement Grout

+

=

Equipment
Use essentially the same or similar equipment used for installation of drilled and grouted ground anchors.

Typical Capacity Ranges • Over 500 Tons in rock ( g ) • 20 to 200 Tons in soil (settlement more significant) • In rock, structural capacity often governs • Most micropile lengths are less than 100 feet • Buckling is typically not an issue • Cost range from $50 to $200 / LF

Applications • Foundation Piles pp g • Foundation Support through Sinkholes or Difficult Soils • Foundation Underpinning • Slope Stabilization • Earth Retention (A-Frame & Reticulated Structures)

Design and Construction Specifications • 1997 FHWA Micropile Guidelines p p • 2003 DFI Micropile Guide Specification • 2005 FHWA / NHI Micropile Reference Manual • 2006 International Building Code • 2007 AASHTO LRFD Design Specification • Forthcoming AASHTO Construction Specification
GeoStructures can provide a recommended specification for Micropile g Design and Construction.

Design Comparison
• FHWA Design Criteria
– Compression: – Tension: Pa = 0.40fc’Ag + 0.47FyAb Pa = 0.55FyAb

• DFI / IBC Design Criteria
– Compression: – Tension: Pa = 0.33fc’Ag + 0.40FyAb Pa = 0.60FyAb

• Imposed Limitations
– FHWA Compression: – DFI Compression: – IBC Compression: – IBC Compression: Fy = 87 ksi max (strain compatibility Fy = 87 ksi max (strain compatibility Fy = 80 ksi max 0.40FyAb >= 0.40Pa ) )

Testing
• • • • Generally based on ASTM D1143 Quick Test The older FHWA specifications prescribed testing to 2.5 X Service Design Load Newer publications recommend 2.0 X DL. Terratech recommends 2.0 DL in most cases. Tension t ti is generally considered t b conservative T i testing i ll id d to be ti compared to compression testing because it neglects any end bearing and is often more economical for checking capacity. However tension test results will not give representative movement results for compression case. Compression testing requires anchors to hold down testing apparatus adding to cost but gives representative results for compression loading. Some proposed testing procedures incorporate anchor testing procedures (cycles) but AASHTO is leaning toward testing just like other foundation piles.

Testing
• 1000k Maximum Test Load, Berryville, VA (0.5” total movement)

General Q & A

THANK YOU
for Your Time and Attention

Contact GeoStructures for design-build geotechnical construction solutions.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful