Permanent Soil Nail Wall Utilizing Chemical Grout Stabilization

Keith LaRue, P.E., M.ASCE1

1
Moretrench, 100 Stickle Avenue, Rockaway, NJ 07866; PH (973) 400-3629; FAX
(973) 586-7265; email klarue@mtac.com

ABSTRACT

A permanent soil nail wall was constructed to support an existing bridge

abutment of an active major interstate. During the construction of the wall, poorly
graded sand with trace silt (SP) was encountered directly beneath the abutment
footing. The soil did not posses sufficient “face stability” to permit soil nail wall
construction to proceed as originally designed. Further investigations determined this
soil condition to be present the full depth of the proposed excavation support system
thus requiring an alternate solution to be implemented. Due to restrictions associated
with future roadway construction, sodium silicate based chemical grouting of the
excavation face along the full height of support was selected to temporarily stabilize
the poorly graded sands and permit the originally designed soil nail wall to be
constructed. This paper discusses the conceptual design and construction procedures
utilized to carry out the grouting program and soil nail wall construction.

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to improve traffic flow between two major thoroughfares, New

Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) is in the process of constructing two
new ramps at the Garden State Parkway (GSP) Interchange 142 with I-78. As part of
the ramp construction between the northbound GSP and westbound I-78, road
widening of the GSP directly adjacent and beneath the east abutment of the
eastbound I-78 was required (Figure 1). To achieve this requirement, the project’s
engineering consultant designed a 450.6 m2 (4,850 ft2) permanent soil nail wall
system with a cast in-place concrete facade to retain a 4.88 m (16 ft) deep vertical
cut. The support system allowed the sequential removal of the existing slope present
in front of the existing bridge abutment and permitted the necessary widening
required for future ramp construction. Prior to the actual construction of the soil nail
wall structure, an interim measure of lateral stabilization of the existing abutment
was required. This interim measure consisted of permanent double corrosion
protected strand anchors being installed, tested, and pre-stressed against the existing
abutment providing both the initial stabilization of the existing roadway abutment as
well as becoming an integrated part of the final support system.
 Figure 1. Pre-construction photo of east abutment condition where soil nail
system was to be installed

TIEBACK DESIGN AND INSTALLATION

Preliminary stabilization of the existing abutment required the installation

and testing of 24 permanent strand tiebacks each with a design capacity of 258 kN
(58 kips). The anchors were initially designed to be installed at a 15 degree
inclination through 178 mm (7 in.) diameter coreholes in the concrete abutment at
elevation +26.67 m (+87.5 ft) (Figure 2). However, due to conflicts with the drilling
equipment and the existing skewed bridge girders the tieback system was redesigned
to be installed at a 10 degree inclination at elevation +25.76 m (+84.5 ft). The
horizontal spacing was also changed to permit the drill rig boom to be extended
between the girders as required for installation. The tiebacks were installed in less
than 3.05 m (10 ft) of headroom using rotary-percussive duplex drill methods from a
6.10 m (20 ft) wide earthen berm constructed in front of the abutment. Due to the
variable fill conditions encountered during the drilling process, the tiebacks were
single-stage post-grouted prior to testing to ensure the capacities would be achieved,
thus preventing any potential delays to the operation. All anchors were performance
tested to 133% of the design load and locked off against the abutment.

Figure 2. Original and final design concept for tieback installation

INITIAL SOIL NAIL CONSTRUCTION

During initial excavation for construction of the soil nail wall system, a
poorly graded sand with trace silt (SP) was encountered. This material provided
insufficient standup time to permit soil nail wall construction resulting in excessive
caving as noted immediately upon excavation (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Poorly graded sand condition encountered during initial excavation for
soil nail wall construction

Further investigations determined this unstable condition to be present for the

full depth of the proposed soil nail excavation support, requiring an alternate solution
to be investigated. Numerous alternatives were evaluated including the use of
different underpinning/earth support methods, however, all were quickly eliminated
given the existing conditions and restraints imposed by future lower roadway
construction. Accordingly, the project team focused on methods of ground
improvement which would provide sufficient face stability to permit soil nail wall
construction.

Initial considerations were given to the use of a system of vertical grouted

reinforcing elements along the alignment which the contractor had utilized
successfully on previous projects (Figure 4). However, this scheme was not deemed
feasible due to structural concerns associated with the numerous 152 mm (6 in.)
diameter core holes required to be made through the existing footing to permit the
installation of these elements. Considerations were also given to positioning the
reinforcing elements in front of the footing, however, due to issues associated with
installation tolerances the elements could not be guaranteed to not impede concrete
facade construction and future roadway construction.
Figure 4. In-place vertical grouted reinforcing elements installed successfully on
previously completed project

In the end, stabilization using sodium silicate based chemical grouting of the
excavation face along the full height of support was the selected method of
treatment. Grouting offered numerous advantages including the ability to excavate
the grouted soil layer on the original alignment using conventional excavation
methods and the ability to adjust the treatment procedures for varying ground
conditions including performing multiples injections, if required. Grouting also
provided the added benefits of serving as both temporary underpinning of the
existing structure and as an additional movement reduction measure.

CHEMICAL GROUTING PROGRAM

A sodium silicate based grouting program using a two (2) row system of tube-
a-manchette (TAM) grout pipes and needles were positioned on three (3) foot center
to center spacing along the alignment to chemically stabilize a theoretical three (3)
foot wide soil block (Figure 5). The preliminary concept was to install the TAM
pipes at 5 degree batter just in front of the abutment footing. However, this geometry
would result in much of the assumed grout influence zone at top of the wall being
installed on the outside face of the excavation. Due to concerns with the possibility
of “pulling” the grout body out from under the footing during excavation of the upper
portion of the wall, small 25 mm (1 in.) diameter grout needles were utilized to grout
the upper 2.13 m (7 ft) of grout wall construction. This would ensure that a better
concentration of the grout injected would be present in the upper portion of the cut.

Figure 5. Preliminary and final chemical grout design concepts

 TAM pipes were installed in 2.44 m (8 ft) of headroom utilizing wet rotary
external flush method with a lost point. Once the design depth was reached, the lost
point was ejected from the bottom of the casing and a bentonite-cement grout was
injected via tremie the full length of the hole. The 25 mm (1 in.) diameter TAM
pipes with sleeve ports on 381 mm (15 in.) center to center spacing were installed in
sections due to the limited headroom conditions. It should be specifically noted that
during TAM installation a change in silt content was noted in the wash water in
certain areas which could have impacted the groutability of the soil. Accordingly,
water tests were performed at pre-selected TAM pipes by positioning the slide
packer at each individual port and injecting water using a small portable piston pump
type setup. Both pressure and rate of injection were recorded at each port and used
to estimate the soil porosity and grout injectibility along the alignment. This
information was later utilized to determine the required grout viscosity and gel times
as well as injections pressures for grouting at each TAM pipe.

Grout needles consisting of 25 mm (1 in.) diameter flush-coupled drill rods

with a lost point system were installed through 38 mm (1 ½ in.) diameter cored holes
in the footings prior to grouting of the TAMs. Due to the limited headroom and the
minimal depth of injection required, the grout needles were installed using a hand-
held conventional post driver. Once driven, a casing extractor was positioned on the
hole and the grout header hooked up to needle for subsequent injection (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Grout needles through abutment footing with header system attached

Grout injection was carried out utilizing a continuous mixing, plural

component chemical grout plant equipped with progressive cavity Moyno pumps for
grout delivery. The containerized system was designed and built by the contractor
and permitted multiple injections to be carried out simultaneously. The initial
proposed starting grout mix was a 50% sodium silicate, 45% water, and 5% organic
reactant by volume. However, this was quickly adjusted to a 40% sodium silicate,
55% water, and 5% organic reactant by volume to reduce the mix viscosity and
permit better penetration into the areas with higher silt contents. TAM grouting was
performed using packer grouting at both primary and secondary grout ports. A
higher percentage of the targeted grout volume was directed to primary ports with
secondary ports used for “tightening” between primary injections. To increase the
visibility of occasional grout escapes, the contractors opted to dye the chemical
grout. Upon discovery of grout escapes, the contractor would then adjust the
percentage of sodium silicate, water, and organic reactant utilized to limit further
grout losses. Grouting pressures varied from 68.9 kPa (10 psi) to as high as 413.7
kPa (60 psi) at deeper grouting depths. Continuous monitoring of the structure was
carried out with a laser level with no visible signs of movement detected.

Grouting started at the northern end of the abutment and proceeded in a

southerly direction. Grouting of the needles was performed prior to TAM grouting
to minimize installation issues that could arise by attempting to drive needles into
grouted ground. Multiple header connections were run simultaneously. The
grouting was monitored via pressure gauges and magnetic flowmeters and recorded
with a data acquisition system. Gel tests were performed periodically to determine
set times and permit adjustments as required. A test section of the grout wall was
exposed during the initial grouting operation which confirmed the effectiveness of
the grout program to provide the necessary stand up time to permit soil nail
construction. Unconfined compressive strength testing of grouted sand samples were
performed in general accordance with ASTM D4219. Results yielded unconfined
compressive strengths of between 861.8 kPa (125 psi) and 1378.0 kPa (200 psi).

Grouting during the first cycle of injections yielded a total of approximately

85,172 liters (22,500 gallons) of chemical grout injection representing approximately
90% of the anticipated grout yield anticipated at the start of grout program.
Subsequent re-injections were then performed at TAM locations in areas where
lower grout takes were documented to ensure sufficient coverage had been achieved.

SOIL NAIL WALL CONSTRUCTION

After completion of the grouting program, the soil nail wall construction
resumed and was installed to full depth. The effectiveness of the chemical grouting
was confirmed during excavation with significant increases in the excavation face
stability noted at all soil nail levels (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Excavation first and second tier of soil nails after chemical grouting
 The wall was excavated in 1.22 m (4 ft) vertical lifts with a 101 mm (4 in.)
temporary shotcrete facing placed prior to nail installation. Due to the permanent
nature of the wall, geocomposite drainage board was installed on 1.22 m (4 ft) center
spacing the full depth of the wall and integrated into a toe drainage structure at base
of the wall to prevent hydrostatic buildup. Nails consisting of #32M (#10) epoxy
coated thread bars, over-sized for additional corrosion protection, were installed to a
depth of 12.2 m (40 ft) using rotary-percussive duplex drilling methods (Figure 8).
Both proof and verification nail tests were performed to confirm the required bond
capacity was achieved. The upper two rows of nails were pre-tensioned with a
calibrated torque wrench to 17.8 kN (4 kips) to limit movement during construction.
Careful attention to wall verticality during construction was made to ensure that the
wall did not encroach into future roadway construction (Figure 9). It should be
specifically noted that the chemical grouted soil assisted in this endeavor and
permitted a very uniform shotcrete facing to be constructed.

Figure 8. Typical soil nail detail

Figure 9. Completed wall construction with reinforced concrete facing installed

INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING

Due to the sensitive nature of construction in the vicinity of active roadways,

instrumentation and monitoring of the wall construction was performed through out
the construction process. Optical survey measurements were performed to monitor
both vertical and lateral movement of both the abutment and soil nail wall. In
addition, a system of biaxial tiltmeters was established at three points along the wall
alignment and at two distinct elevations. Designated soil nails were instrumented
with spot weldable strain gauges installed at third points along the bar length to
monitor loads induced in the nails during and after wall construction. Two strain
gauges were positioned on either side of the bar at each location in the event that a
bending condition was present. Instrumentation stations were established at two
points along the wall which could be lowered as the excavation proceeded and
permit time critical readings to be performed.

Optical survey points on the abutment and temporary shotcrete facing

indicated that vertical movements of less than 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) and lateral
movements of less than 1.5 mm (1/16 in.) had occurred. The strain gauge field data
indicated an interpreted maximum tension load in the soil nails of 31.1 kN (7 kips)
along the upper portion of the nail. The nail loads recorded were relatively low with
respect to the maximum nail service load of 151 kN (34 kips) and are believed to be
a function of the long nail lengths, dense nail pattern, and the effectiveness of the
chemical grouting to reduce the impacts of lateral stress relief. Further evidence of
this was seen in the tiltmeter data which indicated less than one degree of outward
rotation.

CONCLUSION

Unanticipated poorly graded sand provided insufficient face stability for soil
nail construction which the contractor was able to overcome through the use of
sodium silicate based chemical grouting. Chemical grouting using TAM grouting
methods provided flexibility in construction by permitting changes in mix design to
suit actual ground conditions encountered as well as permitting construction in
limited access conditions. The effectiveness could be assessed both during and after
grouting prior to soil nail wall construction with supplementary grout injections
performed as required. Additional benefits of grouting prior to soil nail wall
construction included temporary underpinning of the abutment as well as assistance
in maintaining verticality and permitting longer stretches of shotcrete runs during
soil nail construction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project was successful in large part due to the group efforts of the project
team including representatives from the NJDOT, the soil nail wall designer Gannett
Fleming, and the general contractor Union Paving. It was with input and ideas from
all parties that appropriate solutions to the problems encountered were implemented
in a timely manner.