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

net/publication/320145945

Design of Soil Nail Wall in Barangay Cabatangan, Zamboanga City

Research Proposal · October 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 2,765

8 authors, including:

Adrian Lozada Lea Lacbao

Western Mindanao State University Western Mindanao State University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Glydel Ann Prencillo Paglangan

Western Mindanao State University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Modeling On-street Parking Occupancy for Motorcycles around Central Business District View project

Passengers’ Satisfaction toward Public Transportation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Lozada on 01 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Western Mindanao State University
College of Engineering and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
Normal Road, Baliwasan, Zamboanga City

DESIGN OF SOIL NAIL WALL

IN BARANGAY CABATANGAN,
ZAMBOANGA CITY

LOZADA, ADRIAN L.
GASPAR, RODOLFO P.
LACBAO, LEA DIANE P.
PAGLANGAN, GLYDEL ANN P.
BSCE 5A

ENGR. DANTE JESUS VILLAREAL

INSTRUCTOR
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Slope stabilization is a term which means the natural soil is altered to meet the

engineering purposes with the use of physical, chemical, biological and combined method

of either two or all of them (Budania & Dr. Arora, 2016). It is an important practice so as

to avoid dangers caused by unstable slopes that may lead to losses of infrastructure

constructed near the slopes, losses to the ecosystem, economic and aesthetic losses and loss

of lives. Slope failures could happen on both natural slopes which are formed as a result of

natural geological and geomorphological processes and man-made slopes that are due to

human activity commonly during the process of construction. Such failures could be due

to change in slope geometry, loss of soil or rock mass strength, change in loading

conditions and change in environmental conditions. Change in slope geometry could be

caused by natural disturbances such as erosion of soil or earthquakes which could weaken

certain cohesive soils and results to liquefaction of loose fine granular soil. Loss of soil

mass strength on the other hand, is the effect of rising groundwater table or groundwater

pressure significantly decreasing soil strength. Change in loading condition such as

construction of infrastructures supported on the top of the slope, temporary parking of

vehicles or equipment, ponding of water, entry of water into tension cracks, groundwater

level changes and vibration loads (earthquakes, blasting, or moving equipment) would also

trigger slope failure. Lastly, slope failure could also be because of change in environmental

conditions as a result of global warming, change in patterns of precipitation, wind and

2
flooding. Increasing volume of precipitation has a significant contribution to destabilizing

of slopes (DST Consulting Engineers Inc., 2015).

Several methods of slope stabilization have been developed to counteract the

mentioned possible failures, one of which is soil nail wall as a soil reinforcement retaining

structure, an advance technique of slope stabilization amongst other techniques (Budania

& Dr. Arora, 2016), that is to be covered and to be used in this study. Soil nail wall is used

in slope stabilization and excavation using passive inclusions, usually steel bars mostly

known as soil nail enclosed in grout to provide protection from corrosion and improve load

transfer from ground to grout and to the nails and are mainly well suited to excavation

applications for conditions of which the ground require vertical or near vertical cuts (Babu,

2009). This has been extensively used as an in- situation reinforcement method in many

parts of the world and is considered as one of the most cost-effective reinforcing methods

and proven technique in stabilizing slopes of which when soil nails are introduced into the

ground, the face that has been locally stabilized by sprayed concrete acts as a zone of

reinforced ground (Bruce & Jewell, 1986) (Li, Zhu, Pei, & Wang, 2013).

The insertion and grouting of metallic reinforcement is derived from the system

developed for rock-excavation support known as the “New Austrian Tunneling Method”

(Lazarte, et al., 2015). The first field application of soil nailing where a steep cut was

reinforced by grouting a number of closed space bars in ground was done in Versailles,

France on 1972.

Since then, soil nail wall has been used widely in France and overseas as temporary

retaining structures in excavation because of its many advantages such that it allows in-

3
situation strengthening on existing slope surface with less excavation and backfilling

required resulting to improved economy and minimum impact in the environment.

Installation of nails is faster and it does not require numerous construction materials as well

as soil nails can be easily adjusted whenever underground structures are encountered, also

due to their flexibility they can withstand large differential settlement. Shotcrete facing

used in this method is not as costly as other structural facing required in another wall

system. The time required in construction is less and construction is at ease. In addition,

only light machinery and equipment is required that answers why it could provide

reasonable right-of-way and clearing limits, and therefore, minimizes impacts within the

transportation corridor (Shong, 2005) (Babu, 2009). Its advantages mostly being a time and

cost-effective technique explains the rapid global success of soil nail wall (SCHLOSSER

& UNTERREINER, 1991).

Soil nail walls are applicable in roadway cuts, road widening under existing bridge

abutments, tunnel portals, repair and reconstruction of existing retaining structures, hybrid

soil nail systems and Shored Mechanically Stabilized Earth (SMSE) walls (Lazarte, et al.,

2015).

Furthermore, (Dey, 2015) stated that soil nail wall is most appropriate on ground

with residual soil and weathered rocks, dense sand and gravel with some cohesive

properties and ground conditions located above the ground water table (GWT), stiff

cohesive soils such as clayey silts and other soils that is not prone to creep deformation.

Soil nails develop their reinforcing action through soil-nail interaction due to

ground deformation resulting to the development of tensile forces in soil nail.

4
Reinforcement is installed horizontally or gently inclined parallel to the tensile strain

direction so that it develops maximum tensile force. The purpose of soil nailing is to

improve the stability of slope by increasing the normal force on shear plane and later

increase the shear resistance along slip plane in friction soil and reduce the driving force

along slip plane both in friction and cohesive soil.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Slope stability has been the common problem leading to increase of number of

studies to stabilize slope. However, there has not yet been any record of slope stability

5
study in Barangay Cabatangan which is a high and landslide prone area in Zamboanga

City, Philippines.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Slope stabilization is required when geotechnical problems are encountered both in

natural and manmade slopes. According to Landslide and Flood Susceptibility Map of

Zamboanga City, Barangay Cabatangan is considered to have a high risk of landslide and

flooding thus leaving the researchers eager to investigate and propose soil nail wall as a

retaining soil reinforcement for the stabilization of the area, hence, the conduct of this

study.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to apply soil nail wall in stabilizing the slope in the

area of our study in order to mitigate possible dangers caused by unstable slopes. Also, the

researchers would like to encourage the use of soil nail wall in stabilizing slopes through

this study.

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

This study mainly focuses on the design of soil nail wall as soil reinforcement

retaining structure and does not include the seismic design, pre-construction and

construction phase. This retaining structure is only applicable for a specific location in

Barangay Cabatangan since the soil properties in that certain location is applicable with the

researcher’s study.

6
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A natural calamity such as landslide frequently occurs on natural slopes as well as

man-made slopes in mountainous region, is triggering human life (Aleotti, 1999) (Shakoor,

2008). Landslide prone areas mitigation is essential for future planning and developments.

Thus, governments and several research institutions have been spending significant

resources to assess the landslide hazards. By using different methods, techniques and

scales, landslide hazard and mapping have been carried out based on investigation (Carrara

& Cardinalli, 1999).

Slope stabilization is required when geotechnical problems are encountered both in

natural and man-made slopes. Slopes that were once stable may also require stabilization

as a result of change in geometry of slope, strength of soil, loading and environmental

conditions (DST Consulting Engineers Inc., 2015). Slope stabilization or erosion control

requires an approach considering the level of effectiveness and acceptability of how slopes

should be treated (Fay, Akin, & Shi, 2012). Slope failure depends on the type of soil, soil

stratification, groundwater and seepage, thus geotechnical engineers need to pay attention

to this in assessing slope stability (N.Mohd-Noor, N.Jamaludin, & N.Mizal-Azzmi, 2011).

Soil nailing is being used to stabilize excavated vertical cuts and slopes. In order to

analyze in-situ earth reinforcement, understanding soil nail wall properties is important. In

which, the type of soil, nails, facing element and their interactions significantly affect the

structure’s performance (Babu, 2009). Analyzing soil nail behavior, the design of soil nail

wall will be optimized with respect to its important parameter such as the spacing, length,

diameter, inclination and geometric arrangements. Understanding this, soil nailing

7
significantly increases the level of stability of slope and restrict the tension cracks of the

slopes (Zhang, Cao, & Wang, 2014). Soil nailing is the technique used in stabilizing slopes

and excavations with the use of passive inclusions, the steel bars or termed as soil nail. The

effect of soil nail is to increase normal force on shear plane, thus increasing the shear

resistance along slip plane in friction soil. Also, soil nail wall reduces the driving force

along slip plane both in friction and cohesive soil. In soil nail wall, reinforcements are

horizontally installed or gently inclined parallel to tensile strain direction so maximum

tensile force is achieved (Dey, 2015).

Elements of soil nail wall includes tendons, which is equivalent to steel bars and is

a ground reinforcing element behind soil nail wall. Tendons can be classified as solid or

hollow bars. Solid bars are placed in stable drill holes and grouted in place, while hollow

bars are fitted with a sacrificial drill bit and are used to drill the hole and remain as

permanent as soil nail. Grout is also an element of soil nail wall. It is made of Portland

cement and water. Functions of grout is to shift shear stresses between ground and tendons,

another function is to shift tensile stresses from tendons to surrounding stable soil and lastly

to provide protection to tendons against corrosion. Corrosion protection, another element

of soil nail wall is required for soils with higher corrosion potential. Fusion-bonded, epoxy

coating, galvanization or sacrificial steel can provide corrosion protection of soil nail

tendon to provide a greater and required level of corrosion protection for soil with higher

corrosion potential since grout alone is the lowest level of corrosion protection. Facing is

another element of soil nail wall, also called as shotcrete with its initial and final

component. Exposed soil at excavation lift is applied with initial facing before or after nail

installation to provide temporary stability and protection. The final facing is constructed

8
over the initial facing to provide continuity of structure and may also portray aesthetic

finish. Shotcrete reinforcement of the initial facing includes welded-wire mess installed

using appropriate lap splices, horizontal bars and vertical bars to add bending resistance in

horizontal and vertical directions respectively. Final facing consists of reinforced concrete,

reinforced shotcrete and precast concrete panels. Other components which connects soil

nail to the facing are nuts, washers, bearing plates and headed-studs. Bearing plate with

attached headed studs become embedded within the final facing. Drainage system is the

last component of soil nail wall. It is installed behind the wall to collect groundwater or

infiltrated surface water that is found behind the facing and direct the collected

groundwater away from the wall (Lazarte, et al., 2015).

Soil nailing advantages fall into 3 main categories-the construction, performance

and cost. In terms of construction, soil nail wall need smaller right of way compared to

other slope reinforcing methods. Also, soil nail walls cause less impact on the environment

and are less disturbing to traffic compared to other walls which require larger equipment.

In addition to that, soil nail may be cost effective at areas with remote access because of

the smaller equipment. Moreover, soil nail wall installations are fast and nail inclination

adjustments are easy when obstructions are encountered. In terms of performance, soil nail

walls are fairly flexible and can afford differential movements and deflections of soil nail

walls are within acceptable limits when construction of roadway projects is correctly

controlled. Also, during seismic events, soil nail wall has performed well. In terms of cost,

soil nail walls are more economical than conventional concrete gravity walls taller than

approximately 12 to 15 feet tall. However, limitations in soil nailing also exist. Firstly, in

projects where the criteria are for strict wall movement, limiting deflection measures is

9
required, which will surely add the cost of soil nailing. Secondly, utilities behind the wall

exist, it will affect and create certain restrictions to the location and soil nails length most

especially in the upper row. Thirdly, soil nail walls are not compatible to where large

amount of groundwater seep into the excavation (Lazarte, et al., 2015).

Favorable and unfavorable conditions for soil nailing are specified. Some favorable

ground conditions for soil nailing are following: First, the excavated soil can stand without

any support in 4 to 6 ft high vertical or approximately vertical cut for one or two days.

Second, when soil nail is installed in a relatively permeable formation, are to be found

above the ground water table and thus prevent corrosion. However, if soil nail wall is

constructed under the groundwater table, it is still possible as long as nails are installed in

fine-grained soils that exhibit low permeability and produce little seepage. The given

condition is feasible for some cases but is not cost effective. It should be noted that design

engineer must take into consideration of long-term evolution of pore pressures and effects

on the internal and global wall stability. The potential of developing large wall deflections

must also be evaluated. Soil nail wall reflections are larger in saturated, fine-grained soil

with lower permeability when compared to granular soil deflections. Stable drilling

procedures must be used by contractor to prevent the ground from deteriorating. Third, it

is favorable when ground conditions allow drill holes to remain stable without using casing

tendons until the tendons are placed and grout the drill hole. With this condition, soil

nailing has proven economically attractive and technically feasible. Soil nail wall

applications are well-suited for the following conditions: First, dense to very dense granular

soils with apparent cohesion, that will play a significant role when assessing the soil nail

suitability in walls. Second, weathered rock with adverse weakness planes, or weathered

10
rock suitable for installing soil nail as long as weakness planes occur in favourable

conditions. Approximately uniform degree of rock weathering is also desirable throughout

so that only one drilling and method of installation is required and thus minimize the cost.

Third, stiff to hard fined-grained soils. The potential for excessive creep-like, long-term

and lateral displacements of soil nail wall is low in fined-grained soil with plasticity index

less than 15. Fourth, the engineered fill where soil nail can be installed. The fill is a mixture

of this well-graded granular material, an approximately 90 mixture and fined-grained soil

with liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI) values less than 40 and 20 respectively and

if they are place with acceptable compaction methods. In addition, young embankment fill

is critical for suitability and stability. Fifth, residual soils, or soil created from in place

weathering of parent rock is acceptable material for soil nailing. Lastly, the glacial till is

often suitable for the application of soil nail because they are often dense, well-graded

granular materials and have relatively small fines content. Some critical conditions for soil

nailing are first, non-engineered fill. Soil nails can be installed successfully in existing non-

engineered fill if this material has characteristics similar to engineered fills. Embankment

placed on non-engineered fills or that were compacted without adequacy or unacceptable

compaction levels may cause a problem due to the increase potential of nail capacity

irregularity and excessive deformations. Second, residual soil with unsuitable conditions.

Residual soil that may contain mica and shale cause to lower the strength and stiffness of

soil and materials (Lazarte, et al., 2015).

There are number of unfavorable soil conditions for soil nailing. As a result, walls

are generally unsuitable and more difficult a and expensive to design. First unfavorable

condition is dry, poorly graded cohesion less soil. In poorly grade soils, when the cohesion

11
is not available, vertical and nearly vertical cuts are difficult to achieve. Second, granular

soils with high groundwater. Drainage is required to stabilize mass of soil when the

groundwater occur behind the proposed soil nail wall. Also, groundwater in large amounts

can cause drill holes to collapse easily, particularly in loose granular soil; requiring

temporary casing and increasing cost of installation. Significant difficulties for shotcrete

application is experienced when excessive groundwater seep out to the excavation face.

Third, soils with cobbles and boulders is unfavourable in soil nailing. Large proportions of

cobbles and boulders in soil cause high difficulties for drilling and lead to significant

construction cost and delays. Fourth, soft to very soft fined-grained soils are unfavourable

because it tends to be highly plastic and develop low bond resistance and creep. As a result

of low bond resistance, long nail lengths are required to provide adequate pullout resistance

and stability. Fifth is collapsible soils. This soil appears to be firm but experience sudden

volume change after being saturated. This change may also occur in absence of added

loads. Internal structure collapse of soil cause problems during excavation and can

deteriorate long-term bond resistance at grout-soil interface. Sixth, organic soil such as

organic silt, organic clay and peat exhibit very low shear resistance, which develops low

bond resistance and also lead to uneconomical nail lengths to counteract the detrimental

impact on wall stability and further result to unfeasible design of soil nail wall. In addition,

organic soils tend to be more corrosive than inorganic soils. Seventh, highly corrosive soil

or highly corrosive groundwater is detrimental for soil nail wall permanent applications.

Eighth, weathered rock with unfavourable weakness planes such as joints, shears, fractures,

faults, beddings may affect the drill hole stability and make grouting difficult. Instability

of blocks due to discontinuities rapidly deteriorate mass of ground retained the wall behind

12
excavation due to factors such as uplift, lateral hydrostatic pressure and seepage.

Stabilizing this condition is uneconomical. Ninth, the karst formations, where grouting in

karstic formations is not appropriate due to potential for excessive grout loss. Tenth, glacial

till with significant reconsolidation pressures have stress relief that may cause instability

of excavation face during construction. Excavation face need to be stabilized by vertical

drill bars introduction. Eleventh, is the expansive soils. Even if expansive soils are stiff, it

may induce localized pressure on the facing and tend to deteriorate bond resistance. Despite

difficulties that come along with unfavourable soil conditions, soil nail wall can still be

constructible in these situations as long as stricter long-term requirements of performance

monitoring is conducted (Lazarte, et al., 2015).

13
 CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

The major objective of this study is to design soil nail wall as a reinforced soil

retaining structure and measurement of slope stabilization along the newly constructed side

road in Barangay Cabatangan, Zamboanga City. The convenience of utilizing reinforced

soil retaining structure depends upon the physical features of an area, the condition of

soil/rocks and its properties which may affect the stability before the soil structure is

installed. The methodological approach in this study is divided into four (4): site

investigation, data gathering, laboratory testing and data analysis and design.

•Barangay Cabatangan, Zamboanga City

SITE
INVESTIGATION

•Physical features and subsurface condition of the area

•Representative soil sample for testing
DATA GATHERING •Soil nails

•Soil parameters and properties

LABORATORY
TESTING OF SOIL

•Load Definition
•Soil-Nail Configuration and Material Selection
•Selection of Resistance Factors
•Overall Stability
DATA ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN •Strength Limit States
•Service Limit States
•Geometric Features of Soil Nail Wall

Figure 2. Methodology of the Study

14
3.1 SITE INVESTIGATION

Understanding the geotechnical conditions at the area is of utmost importance.

These conditions define the suitability of soil nailing and its influence to the design. Site

investigation should consist of gathering any existing data relating to the subsurface

condition like historic land use and relevant geologic information including landslide maps

and exposure to seismic hazard. The investigation will also provide information regarding

the surface drainage patterns and surface geologic features like existing cuts or excavations

which may provide information on subsurface conditions, existing vegetation

characteristics, existing substructures which may have an impact on the subsurface

exploration, and the available right-of-way. The site investigation is not only needed in the

covered area but also to the neighboring areas which may affect the stability before the soil

structure is installed. The investigation should be oriented not only in obtaining all data

required which is used for the design and stabilization but also to the conditions which

prevail throughout when the structure is installed.

Barangay Cabatangan is located in the northwest region of Zamboanga City at

6°56’37.2” latitude and 122°03’29.3” longitude. It is about 6.64 kilometers away from the

city proper and having a population of thirteen thousand three hundred eighty (13,380).

The study site was chosen based on the landslide and flood susceptibility map of

Zamboanga City and with evident presence of steep to very steep sloping gradient

characterized by the hilly sections of the barangay based in actual visitation.

15
Figure 3. Satellite Image of location of site in Barangay Cabatangan

Figure 4. Landslide and Flood Susceptibility Map of Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del
Sur, Western Mindanao, Philippines

16
3.2 DATA GATHERING

The design of soil nail wall requires data on the following: Physical features and

subsurface condition of the area, representative soil sample for testing and soil nails. The

physical features and subsurface condition of the area is relatively essential in design soil

nail walls. It includes the elevation and the steepness of the area. In order to obtain these

data, profile levelling method is to be used as surveying method in determining the

elevation and steepness of the mountain section. Representative soil sample for laboratory

testing should be taken in a random pattern that is uniform across the area. The size of soil

samples is dependent to the requirement of laboratory test to be conducted. The soil nails

generally have a nominal tensile strength of 60 ksi (Grade 60) or 75 ksi (Grade 75). The

selection for these should conform to ASTM A615.

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING OF SOIL

The design of soil nailed retaining structure requires some properties which are

determined by laboratory testing. The scope of laboratory testing to be performed depends

upon the existing characteristics of the area. For less complexity, laboratory testing of index

parameters may meet the need if adequate investigation is performed. For challenging

subsurface condition, an extensive laboratory testing must be considered. The laboratory

tests used in soil nailing to classify soil and determine index properties are the following:

Table 1. Procedures and Laboratory Test for Soils – Classification

Test Name AASHTO Standard

Visual Identification of Soils NA

17
 Classification of Soils According to USCS M145

Particle-Size Analysis T88

Soil Fraction Passing No. 200 Sieve T11

Table 2. Procedures and Laboratory Test for Soils – Index Parameters

Test Name AASHTO Standard

Moisture Content T265

Atterberg Limits for Fines Fraction T89, T90

According to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), index parameters test

should be performed for all soil nailing projects for the classification of soil. These tests

should include Atterberg limits and grain size distribution. Sieve analysis help attain the

grain-size distribution, fines contents, and estimate the hydraulic conductivity of soil.

Atterberg limits can be utilize to determine the shear strength, compressibility parameters

of fine-grained soils and evaluate the potential for creep deformation of fine-grained soils

that would be supported by a soil nail wall. Other testing, including specific gravity

(AASHTO T100) which might be required in some cases to support the estimation of other

parameters and proctor compaction test (AASHTO T180) which determines the moisture

content at which a given soil type will become most dense and achieve its maximum

dry density.

18
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

The design of soil nail walls includes the following steps: load definition, soil-nail

configurations and material selection, selection of resistance factors, overall stability

analyses, strength limit states, service limits states and geometric features of soil nail wall.

Soil Nail
Selection of
Configuration &
Load Definition Resistance
Material
Factors
Selection

Service Limit Strength Limit Overall Stability

States States Analyses

Geometric
Features of Soil
Nail Wall

Figure 5. Flowchart of Data Analysis and Design

3.4.1 LOAD DEFINITION

Structural design requires considering the simultaneous occurrence of various

load types in load combinations. The load combinations to be considered for soil nail

design in highway projects in an LRFD framework generally include:

• Service Limit State I

• Strength Limit State I
• Extreme-Event Limit State I (involving earthquake loads)

19
The load combinations listed include permanent, transient, and extreme-event loads.

Permanent loads for earth-retaining structures may include:

• Dead loads from structural components/nonstructural attachments (DC)

• Dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities (DW), when supporting a bridge
abutment or the roadway
• Horizontal earth pressure load (EH)
• Earth surcharge load (ES)
• Vertical pressures caused by the dead load from earth fill (EV)

Table 3. Load Factors and Load Combinations Based on AASHTO (2014)

Table 4. Load Factors, γp, for Permanent Loads

20
3.4.2 SOIL-NAIL CONFIGURATIONS AND MATERIAL SELECTION

Establish preliminary wall cross sections, including number of nails, vertical and

horizontal nail spacing and nail inclination and length. The horizontal nail spacing, S H is

often the same as the vertical nail spacing, S V. Nail spacing in both directions generally

ranges from 4 to 6 ft. and occasionally up to 6.5 ft., and is routinely selected at 5 ft. The

spacing can be checked such that SH × SV is less than approximately 36 to 42 ft2. Soil nails

are installed at 10 to 20 degrees from the horizontal, and most commonly at 15 degrees.

Soil nail length can be estimated to be approximately 0.7H, where H is the wall height. Soil

nails are installed on the excavation face in “square” or, more commonly, “staggered” (also

referred to as triangular or offset) patterns. Evaluate corrosion protection requirements and

establish the corrosion protection features that meet the selected level of corrosion

protection. Select a soil nail type and its mechanical properties before starting the

verification of strength limit states.

3.4.3 SELECTION OF RESISTANCE FACTORS

Select resistance factors for LRFD verification and in accordance with the

formulations are consistent with the minimum required frequency of verification and proof

testing. The following are the given resistance factors:

21
Table 5. Resistance Factors for Soil Nail Wall Design

3.4.4 OVERALL STABILITY

The ASD based slope stability program will calculate the safety factors for overall

stability (FSOS) which includes the internal stability, global stability, basal heave (if

applicable) and sliding stability (if applicable). The maximum loads of all nails which are

limited in the program by tensile, pullout or facing resistances, the maximum among all

nails (TMAX) will be selected for LRFD verifications.

22
3.4.5 STRENGTH LIMIT STATES

This includes the verification of pullout resistance, sliding stability (if applicable),

nail tensile resistance, facing bending/flexural resistance, facing punching shear resistance,

facing headed stud resistance and other facing consideration. For each of these, the nominal

resistance is calculated and the capacity-to-demand ratio (CDR) is used to evaluate the

resistance which should not exceed than one (1).

Pullout Resistance:

Equation 1. Nominal Unit Pullout Resistance

rPO = π qu DDH

where: qu = bond strength of the nail-grout-soil interface (force/unit area)

DDH = diameter of the drill hole

Equation 2. Nominal Pullout Resistance

RPO = rPO LP

where: LP = length pullout length

Equation 3. Capacity-to-Demand Ratio of Pull Resistance

𝛟𝐩𝐨 𝐑𝐩𝐨
CDR = ≥ 1.0
𝛄 𝐓𝐦𝐚𝐱

where: γ = γEV = 1.35

TMAX = maximum nominal tensile force

Nail Tensile Stress:

Equation 4. Nominal Tensile Resistance of the Tendon

RT = At fy

where: At = cross-sectional area of tendon

fy = nominal yield resistance of tendon (force per area)

23
Equation 5. Capacity-to-Demand Ratio of Tensile Resistance of the Tendon

𝛟𝐓 𝐑𝐓
CDR = 𝛄 𝐓𝐦𝐚𝐱 ≥ 1.0

where: ϕT = resistance factor for tensile resistance of the tendon

RT = nominal tensile resistance of the tendon

γ = load factor selected for verification

TMAX = the nominal tensile resistance of the tendon

Facing Bending/Flexural Resistance:

Equations 6. Reinforcement is the same in the vertical & horizontal directions

RFF [kips] = 3.8 x CF x fy[ksi] x F

F = (avn + avm) [in2/ft] x hi [ft]

𝐀𝐯𝐧
avn = avm + 𝐒𝐇

𝐚𝐯𝐧 + 𝐚𝐯𝐦
ρTOT (%) = [ 𝒉𝒊 ] x 100
𝟏𝟐 ( )
𝟐

where: RFF = nominal bending/flexural resistance

CF = facing factor

fy = nominal yield resistance

avn = cross-sectional area per unit width of reinforcement in the vertical

direction at head

avm = cross-sectional area per unit width of reinforcement in the vertical

direction at midspan

AVN = cross-sectional area of additional rebar over the nail head

in the vertical direction

SH = horizontal nail spacing

24
 ρTOT = total reinforcement ratio

hi = facing thickness

Equation 7. Capacity-to-Demand Ratio of Facing Flexure

𝛟𝐅𝐅 𝐑𝐅𝐅
CDR = ≥ 1.0
𝛄 𝐓𝐨

Facing Punching Shear Resistance:

Equation 8. Capacity-to-Demand Ratio for Punching Shear Resistance

𝛟𝐅𝐏 𝐑𝐅𝐏
CDR = ≥ 1.0
𝛄 𝐓𝐨

where: ϕFP = resistance factor for punching shear in the facing

γ = load factor selected for verification

TO = maximum tensile force at soil nail head

Equation 9. Nominal Punching Shear Resistance at Facing

RFP = CP VF

where: Cp = dimensionless factor that accounts for the contribution of the soil

support under the nail head to the shear resistance

VF = concrete punching shear basic resistance acting at facing section

Equation 10. The Punching Shear Resistance

VF [kips] = 0.58 √𝒇′𝒄[𝒑𝒔𝒊] 𝝅 𝑫′ 𝒄 [𝒇𝒕]𝒉𝒄[𝒇𝒕]

where: Dꞌc = effective equivalent diameter of the conical slip surface

D’c = LBP + hi

hc = hi, effective depth of the conical surface

LBP = bearing plate size

hi = thickness of initial facing

25
Facing Headed Stud Resistance:

Equation 11. Headed Stud Resistance at Facing

RFH = NH AS fy-hs

where: NH = number of headed studs in the connection (usually 4)

AS = cross-sectional area of the headed stud shaft

fy-hs = tensile yield strength of headed stud

Equation 12. Capacity-to-Demand Ratio for a Headed Stud

𝛟𝐅𝐇 𝐑𝐅𝐇
CDR = ≥ 1.0
𝛄 𝐓𝐨

where: ϕFH = resistance factor for headed stud tensile resistance

RFH = nominal tensile resistance of headed studs in final facings

Equation 13. Effective Cross-Sectional Area of the Bolts

ᴨ 𝟎.𝟗𝟕𝟒𝟑
AE = 𝟒 [𝑫𝒆 − ( )]2
𝒏𝒕

where: DE = effective diameter of the bolt core

nt = number of threads per unit length

3.4.6 SERVICE LIMITS STATES

This includes the evaluation of wall lateral and vertical displacements and lateral

squeeze (if applicable). A soil nail wall should be designed to limit movements of the wall

within tolerable ranges. In order to estimate maximum lateral and vertical displacements

of the ground behind the wall, approximate method is used.

26
REFERENCES
Aleotti, C. P. (1999). Landslide hazard evaluation and zoning mapping in mountainous
terrain. Bull Eng Geol, 21-44.

Babu, S. (2009). CASE STUDIES IN SOIL NAILING. Geotide, 1-4.

Bruce, & Jewell. (1986). Soil Nailing: Application and Practice. USA: Department of
Engineering Science, University of Oxford.

Budania, R., & Dr. Arora, R. (2016). Soil Nailing for Slope Stabilization. An Overview.
International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, 3877 - 3882.

Carrara, G. F., & Cardinalli, M. (1999). Landslide Hazard Evaluation: A Review of Current
Techniques and their application in a multi-case study. Geomorphology, 181-216.

Dey, A. (2015). Issues and Aspects of Soil Nailing. Challenges and Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Engineering Research and Practices, 1-22.

DST Consulting Engineers Inc. (2015). Environmentally Friendly Slope Stabilization

Using a Soil Nail and Root System in Canada. In D. C. Inc., Chemical,
Electrokinetic, Thermal, and Bioengineering Methods (pp. 629-654). Canada:
Thunder Bay ON.

Fay, L., Akin, M., & Shi, X. (2012). Cost-Effective and Sustainable Road Slope
Stabilization and Erosion Control. National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, 1-83.

Lazarte, C. A., Robinson, H., Gómez, J. E., Baxter, A., Cadden, A., & Berg, R. (2015).
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CIRCULAR NO. 7 SOIL NAIL WALLS -
REFERENCE MANUAL. Washington, DC: National Highway Institute, U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

Li, C., Zhu, H., Pei, H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Mathematical Problems in Engineering. Slope
Stability Analysis Based on Measured Strains along Soil Nails Using FBG Sensing
Technology, 1 - 4.

N.Mohd-Noor, N.Jamaludin, & N.Mizal-Azzmi. (2011). Geotechnical Approaches for

Slope Stabilization in Residential Area. Procedia Engineering, 474-482.

SCHLOSSER, F., & UNTERREINER, P. (1991). Soil Nailing in France: Research and
Practice. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 72 - 79.

Shakoor, N. A. (2008). Application of Logistic Regression Model for Slope Instability

Prediction in Cuyahoga River Watershed, Ohio, USA. Georisk, 16-27.

27
Shong, L. (2005). Soil Nailing for Slope Strengthening. Geotechnical Engineering, 1-9.

Zhang, G., Cao, J., & Wang, L. (2014). Failure behavior and Mechanism of Slopes
Reinforced using Soil Nail Wall under various loading conditions. Soils and
Foundations, 1175-1187.

28
 APPENDIX

A. SITE INVESTIGATION

29

View publication stats