Anchored Walls and Nailed Walls in Brazil VFinal

www.geotecnia.unb.
br/gpfees
Summer Term 2015

Hochschule Munchen
Fakultat Bauingenieurwesen
Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls

and
Soil Nailing in Brazil
www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees
2/60
LAYOUT
 Details and Analysis of Anchored Walls
 Details and Analysis of Soil Nailing
 Examples of Executive Projects

3/60
ANCHORED “CURTAIN” WALLS

(Tie Back Walls)
4/60
Introduction
Details:
• Earth retaining structures with active anchors
• A.J. Costa Nunes pioneer work in 1957
• 20 – 30 cm thick concrete wall face tied back
• Ascending or descending construction methods
• Niche excavation
• ACTIVE anchor
4
5/60
Excavation Procedure
6/60
7/60
Molding Joints
8/60
9/60
10/60
11/60
12/60
Stability Analysis
Verification of failure modes:
• Toe bearing capacity

(NSPT < 10)
• Bottom failure
• Wedge or generalized failure:
limit equilibrium analyses
• Excessive deformations
• Anchor stability and punching
• Structural failure
• Construction failures (e.g.
during excavation)
13/60
14/60
15/60
Stability Analysis Methodologies

Wedge Method:
• Kranz (1953) is the pioneer
• One or two wedges
• Ranke and Ostermeyer (1968) German Method
• Nunes and Velloso (1963) Brazilian Method
• Hoek and Bray (1981)
16/60
Kranz (1953) Method:
•FS in relation to each anchor
•FS= max allowable / actual anchor load
Clayton et al (2001)
17/60
Hoek and Bray (1981)

Method:
•Simple geometries
•Homogeneous soils
•FS by vertical and horizontal
equilibrium
18/60
19/60
Pre-design Charts:
• Safety Factor = 1.5
• Surcharge q = 20 kPa
• Unit Weight = 18 kN/m3
• Preliminary analyses
20/60
Nunes and Velloso (1963) Method:
•FS for an existing Culmann wedge
But modified to have
•FS in relation to cohesion vector
Cohesion
Instable  StableForc es
TECNOSOLO (1964)
Original Report 3310
20
21/60
22/60
22 Example
23/60
Stability Analysis Methodologies

Complex Cases:
• Numerical or analytical tool
• Limit equilibrium approach
• Non homogeneous soils
• Complex load and geometries
24/60
Bishop (1955)
Geoslope Slopew
25/60
Anchor Spacing:
•Counterbalance Instability x Stability
Forces
•Anchor force to yield general FS > 1.5
•Length > “critical” plane
Micropiles
•Whenever there is low capacity soils at
wall base
26/60
Surcharge
27/60
Stresses and Deformation Analysis
Tools:
• User friendly numerical FEM
programs
• Distinctive models
• Laboratory parameters
• Pre and post processors
28/60
Example:
•Águas Claras Site – Fed.
District, Brazil
•Porous clay over soft soil
•Close to train rail
•15 m height and 4
anchor layers
•Staged analyses
•Laboratory parameters
•Mohr Coulomb model
29/60
SOIL NAILING
30/60
Introduction
Basics of Design:
• Reinforcement of soil with thin elements: nails
• Pre-bored sub horizontal hole, with grout
• Originated from shotcrete flexible support in tunnels
• Active zone is formed around excavation
• Started in Brazil in 1970 and France 1972 (sol cloué)
• PASSIVE anchors = “nails”
31/60
Experience and Construction Method

Experience:
• High and successful experience in Brazil
• Use for man made, residual and saprolitic slopes in Hong Kong
• Not suitable for very loose sands or soft clays
Construction:
• Similar as tieback walls: top – down excavation stages (1-2 m)
• Vertical or inclined slopes – depends on geology
• Installation of nails, mesh, drains and shotcrete
32/60
Installation of Nails:
• After driving or drilling
• Short nails (3 m) by hand hammers
• Corrosion protection aspects
• Driving is not adequate with boulders
• Common drilling with 50-100mm ´s
• 20-32 mm steel bars
• > 100 kPa lateral friction
• Pneumatic drill rigs are used
• Light drill rigs are desired
33/60
Construction Details
Nail Head:
• With or without steel plate and wrenches
• Small torque of 5 kN is incorporated as residual load
• Inclinations of 10-20 degrees
• Embeddement in a cast-in-place concrete niche
• Grounting with or without (gravity head) pressures
Geocompany (2009)
34/60
Souza et al. (2005)

35/60
Slope Facing:
• Shotcrete is applied through dry or wet mix
• Thickness of 50-150 mm
• One or two steel meshes
• Steel reinforced shotcrete (SFRS) is also used:
fibers 30-50 mm lingth, 0.5 mm dia.
dosage 35-60 kg/m3
good for slope irregularities
• Vegetation combined with nails
35
36/60
Details:
• Wall
37/60
Details:
• Nail
38/60
Details:
• Injection
39/60
Details:
• Frontal Spacing
40/60
Comparisons
With Tieback Walls:
• Generally do not use prestressed active anchors
• Uses passive low prestressed nails (5-10 kN)
• Load transference by friction along entire length
• Very low loads on shotcrete facing compared to tieback walls
• Inclined or vertical facings
• Length of nails 60-120% of height (shorter than walls)
40
41/60
With Reinforced Walls:

• Top-down versus upwards construction sequence
• Distinct displacement patterns (0.1 - 0.3 % of height)
42/60
Advantages
Economy:
• Cost effective technique, as low as 50% of a tieback wall
Rate of Construction:
• Fast rate specially with SFRS shotcrete
Deformation:
• 0.1 – 0.3% of height at top of wall for well designed structures
Flexibility:
• Deformation can be controlled with combined use of anchors
Reliability:
• Already proved in residual and saprolitic soils in Brazil
• Increases stability in unsupported slopes with weak surfaces
42
43/60
Limitations
Displacements:
• May render unacceptable deformations close to structures
Construction:
• Needs temporary stability of excavated face
Geology:
• Risky solution for weak materials or very height walls
Durability :
• Corrosion protection of nail is fundamental
Testing and post-execution intervention:

• Generally not possible with nails.
• Post execution corrective injection is still not widely used
43
44/60
Analysis of Nailed Structures
Theoretical Methods:
• Several approaches and simplifications
• Active and passive zones
• Global Limit Eq. (slice) analysis with nail effects
• Circular, bilinear, linear surfaces
• Tension only or with bending effects in nails
• Constant or variable soil-nail interface friction
• Winkler type analysis for nail or force vectors
• Single or multiple surfaces – FS optimization
45/60
46/60
47/60
Effect of Injection Phases

48/60
Modified after
Souza et al. (2005)
49/60
Computer Programs
Benchmark Tests:
• Comparative comparisons are made
• Talren is the most widely used
• Prosper is a research tool
• Clouage and Nixesc are french softwares
• Rstabl adopts Bishop and Janbu´s method
49
50/60
Results:
• Influence of bending is
rather small
• Janbu´s method tends to
yield lower SF´s
• Few differences between
methodologies
51/60
Nailing Software (Czech Republic):
• Good experience and successful results in Brasília porous clay

• Nice research and design tool
• User friendly
52/60
53/60
Geometry of structure Structure load Bending moment Shear force

Length of structure = 3.20m Max. M = 4.32kNm/m Max. Q = 11.14kN/m
-6.87
0.50
3.43 -6.87 6.87
1.00
-3.43 -6.81 6.87

1.00
Cut1 4.32 -10.71 11.14

0.70
21.08
0 4.00 0 25.00 -5.00 0 5.00 -25.00 0 25.00

[m] [kPa] [kNm/m] [kN/m]
54/60
Examples
Icaraí Beach, Niteroi-RJ:

• 25mm  bars in 90 mm holes – 150 mm shotcrete, inclined 75° –
1.5 m spacings (H:V) and two steel meshes
54
55/60
Railway, São Paulo-SP:

• 25mm  bars in 75 mm holes – 50 mm shotcrete, inclined 75° –
2.5m x 2.0m (H:V)
55
56/60
Ortigão et al. (1993)

57/60
Executive Design Project
Cindacta Project – Friburgo-RJ

58/60
Tie Back Wall
Active Anchor
Passive Anchor
Soil Nailing

59/60
Tie Back Wall
Soil Nailing

60/60
REFERENCES
• Ortigão & Sayão (2004). Handbook of Slope Stabilisation,

Springer, New York, 478 p.
• Hunt, R. E. (1986). Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and

Practices, McGraw Hill, New York, 729 p.
• Personal pictures.
• Internet pages.
• Executive Design projects from ACRosa Engenharia de

Consultoria Ltda., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Anchored Walls and Nailed Walls in Brazil VFinal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anchored Walls and Nailed Walls in Brazil VFinal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.geotecnia.unb.

Summer Term 2015

Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls

 Details and Analysis of Anchored Walls

 Details and Analysis of Soil Nailing

 Examples of Executive Projects

ANCHORED “CURTAIN” WALLS

Verification of failure modes:

• Toe bearing capacity

Stability Analysis Methodologies

Hoek and Bray (1981)

Stability Analysis Methodologies

Stresses and Deformation Analysis

Experience and Construction Method

Souza et al. (2005)

With Reinforced Walls:

Testing and post-execution intervention:

Analysis of Nailed Structures

Effect of Injection Phases

Nailing Software (Czech Republic):

• Good experience and successful results in Brasília porous clay

Geometry of structure Structure load Bending moment Shear force

-3.43 -6.81 6.87

Cut1 4.32 -10.71 11.14

0 4.00 0 25.00 -5.00 0 5.00 -25.00 0 25.00

Icaraí Beach, Niteroi-RJ:

Railway, São Paulo-SP:

Ortigão et al. (1993)

Executive Design Project

Cindacta Project – Friburgo-RJ

Cindacta Project – Friburgo-RJ

Tie Back Wall

Cindacta Project – Friburgo-RJ

• Ortigão & Sayão (2004). Handbook of Slope Stabilisation,

• Hunt, R. E. (1986). Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and

• Executive Design projects from ACRosa Engenharia de

You might also like