Acta Geotechnica

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01017-4 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

The compaction effect on the performance of a compaction-grouted

soil nail in sand
Xinyu Ye1 • Shanyong Wang2 • Sheng Zhang1 • Xiong Xiao3 • Fang Xu1

Received: 2 March 2020 / Accepted: 24 June 2020

Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
In this study, two series of physical modeling experiments, with and without a grouting process, were conducted under
different grouting pressures to study the effect of compaction grouting on the performance of compaction-grouted soil
nails. In addition, a hyperbola-based model was proposed to describe the variation of the pullout forces with and without
grouting. Some of the main conclusions drawn are as follows. First, the compaction effect initially influences the mobilized
pullout force, but not the final stage of pullout; the large difference between the two series of tests in regard to the pullout
force at the initial stage led to the first part of this conclusion. However, the final pullout force results of the tests, both
those with and those without grouting, were similar. Second, once the soil condition changes, the compaction effect on the
performance of a soil nail depends on the grouting pressure rather than the diameter of the grout bulb. Third, the difference
in the soil response (i.e., vertical dilatancy and the vertical and horizontal squeezing effects) derived from the compaction
grouting effect will result in the initial difference in the increased rate of the pullout force between the tests with a grouting
process and those without. Finally, a hyperbola-based model was proposed to describe the variation of the pullout force of
the model tests with and without grouting, through which the pullout force is available of prediction for the given diameter
of grout bulb and pullout displacement.

Keywords Compaction effect  Hyperbolic relationship  Physical model test  Pullout force  Soil nail

1 Introduction couple of decades later, compaction grouting was used to

Compaction grouting has a long history. The impact of
compaction grouting on the surrounding soil can be
explained in terms of soil densification, stress redistribution
and soil displacement, the application of which can largely
enhance soil strength [5, 10] or bearing capacity [6, 43].
Based on the impact, compaction grouting was used to
compensate building settlements in the 1950s [20, 28]. A
& Sheng Zhang
zhang-sheng@csu.edu.cn
1
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University,
Changsha 410075, Hunan, China
2
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for
Geotechnical Science and Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering and Built Environment, University of Newcastle,
University Dr., Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
3
College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen
University, Shenzhen 518060, China
increase density and reduce soil permeability [18, 27] and
prevent liquefaction during earthquakes [13, 19]. Further-
more, the combination of compaction grouting with other
ground improvement techniques, such as piles [4, 14, 21]
and soil nails or anchors [32, 41], is now widely used.
Regarding the compaction effect on soil improvement
(or bearing capacity), the approaches that are frequently
used to evaluate this improvement are the standard pene-
tration test (SPT) [16, 19] and cone penetration test (CPT)
[11, 14, 17, 21] because, in practice, they are the most
economic and simple methods [26]. In addition, the com-
paction effect is also evaluated according to the com-
paction efficiency, which is normally considered in triaxial
conditions [27, 38]. The void ratio is the key factor that to
determine the improvement efficiency. However, these
methods are not completely suitable for the use of piles and
soil nails/anchors combined with compaction grouting.
First, while the CPT or SPT can be effective approaches to
evaluate the improvement in shaft resistance derived from

123

side-compaction grouting, they are inappropriate for the
evaluation of the improvement of tip resistance due to pile-
end grouting. This is because the compaction effect below
a pile tip is unachievable in both the CPT and SPT; thus,
they provide no information on the effect of compaction on
the improvement in performance. Second, the CPT and
SPT are techniques for detecting of vertical soil formation,
so they are not applicable for estimating pullout perfor-
mance with compaction grouting in other directions such as
the Soilex soil nail or anchor [32]. Third, compaction
efficiency is achievable in the triaxial condition, but it is
difficult to determine the compaction effect by measuring
the variation of void ratio in the field.
In the past, studies [8, 21] using both laboratory and
field tests were conducted to quantify the improvement in
bearing capacity of piles due to compaction grouting. More
recently, Thiyyakkandi et al. [25] proposed a new pile, a
type of jetted and grouted precast pile, and conducted
corresponding laboratory tests in a large test chamber filled
with silty sand. The increase in axial loading derived from
the use of each of side grouting and tip grouting were
studied separately. Zhou et al. [44] carried out a group of
field tests of pre-bored grouting-planted piles to investigate
the behavior of the pre-bored grouting-planted pile under
compression and tension. The improvement of bearing
capacity derived from side grouting was quantified by
comparing it with that of the pile without grouting. Wan
et al. [26] carried out field tests to investigate the perfor-
mances of large-diameter cast-in-place bored piles with
both side and tip grouting. The field test results indicated
that, compared with before post-grouting, both the shaft
resistance and base resistance for the piles after post-
grouting were significantly improved. Concerning the
various types of soil nail with compaction grouting, the so-
called grouted bag soil nail [41], Soilex soil nail or anchor
[32] and compaction-grouted soil nail [34, 37], studies
regarding their performance in both field practice and the
laboratory were carried out. However, many studies of
different aspects for the conventional soil nail have been
done recently [2, 3, 15], no study of the specific contri-
bution made by the compaction effect on the improvement
of performance of these soil nails has been found.
In this study, a series of pullout model tests on com-
paction-grouted soil nails (with compaction grouting pro-
cess) were performed first; another series of pullout model
tests on the pulled soil nails from the first series of tests,
which were directly embedded in the soil sample without a
compaction grouting process, were subsequently carried
out for comparison. The responses of the surrounding soil
during the pullout of the soil nails, those with and those
without a compaction grouting process, were monitored
and analyzed, and the pullout forces induced during the
pullout process were also compared. Moreover, a
123
Acta Geotechnica
hyperbola-based model was proposed to describe the
variation of the pullout forces with and without grouting, so
the pullout force can be calculated based on the known
diameter of grout bulb and pullout displacement.
2 Materials, equipment and scheme
2.1 Materials
The soil used in the model tests was silica sand which was
obtained from Stockton Beach, Australia. The mineral
compositions of the sand are listed in Table 1.
According to the Unified Soil Classification System, the
sand is classified as a silty sand (SP). The specific gravity is
2.67, and the maximum and minimum densities are
1.71 Mg/m3 and 1.46 Mg/m3, respectively. The SWCC
(soil–water characteristic curve) and mechanical properties
are given in Ye et al. [35] and Ajalloeian et al. [1]. In
addition, the main grading properties of the sand particles
are described in Table 2.
The cement grout slurry with a water/cement (w/c) ratio
of 0.5, a specific gravity of 3.14 Mg/m3, a density of
1.80 Mg/m3, an initial setting time of 1.5 h and a final
setting time of 4 h was adopted. In the model test, the grout
slurry was cured for 7 days before pullout, so an approxi-
mate compressive strength of 23.73 MPa was obtained
based on the authors’ previous study [29]. The nail rod is a
locally available stainless-steel material, with the elastic
modulus and tensile strength of 196 GPa and 520 MPa,
respectively.
2.2 Apparatus
The setup of the physical model testing system is shown in
Fig. 1. The length, height and width of the soil box are
100 cm, 80 cm and 60 cm, respectively. The center of the
grout bulb is 38 cm, 32 cm and 70 cm from the upper,
bottom and front boundaries. The transducers used in the
model test were an earth pressure sensor (EP), volumetric
water content sensor (VWC) and tensiometer, and their
Table 1 Mineral compositions (Ajalloeian et al. [1])
Mineral Quartz Rock Zircon Ilmenite Rutile
composition fragments
Percentage 98.82% 0.8% 0.21% 0.11% 0.06%
Table 2 Grading properties (Ajalloeian et al. [1])
D60 D50 D30 D10 Cu Cc
0.41 0.4 0.36 0.24 1.71 1.32
Acta Geotechnica

Compressed
Regulator LVDT
air
Valve

Compressed
air
Valve
Rubber bag S9 PVC board
5
S8
5 Hydraulic jack
38

S7 18
Grout bulb 5 Nail rod
5 S5 S6
80

5 S1 S2 S3 S4
10 10 LVDT Grout
30 20 20
32

Compressed grout slurry

70 Scale
Soil box Unit: cm

20 70
100

Fig. 1 Setup of physical model test

relative locations in relation to the soil nail are also shown
in Fig. 1. In the physical model tests, nine EPs were used in
positions 1–9, while only six VWCs and tensiometers,
totaling 12 transducers, were utilized and placed in S1–2
and S5–8. The transducers above and below the middle of
the grout bulb were used to monitor the soil response due to
soil dilation during the pullout of soil nail. The transducers
in S2–4 were installed vertically to monitor the increase in
horizontal soil pressure (derived from soil densification) in
front of the soil nail during pullout. The transducers in S6
were used to measure the upward response (caused by the
soil dilation and soil squeezing effects) of the soil upon
pullout.
2.3 Test scheme
Two series of model tests were conducted (see Fig. 2): the first
series involved pullout model tests for the compaction-grouted
soil nails with a step of compaction grouting (i.e., with grouting
process); the second series of pullout model tests adopted the
Overburden pressure
Soil sample
Pull
1st Grouting
Membrane Embedded nail rod
Pull
2nd
Embedded soil nail
Grout bulb
Fig. 2 Two comparative soil nails in this study
pulled soil nails of the first series of tests, this time embedding
them directly in the soil sample without the step of compaction
grouting (i.e., without grouting process).
For all the performed tests, the soil sample preparation,
transducers and soil nail installation, overburden pressure
application and pullout were kept the same. Firstly, sand
was mixed to a water content of 3% and then compacted in
layers of 30–50 mm, with the dry density controlled at
1.48 g/cm3. Therefore, the initial degree of saturation for
the soil sample was 10%, and the corresponding suction
was approximately 9 kPa according to the SWCC obtained
in the literature [35]. The transducers and soil nails were
placed during this process. Secondly, a PVC board was
placed on the top, on which an overburden pressure of
100 kPa was applied using a rubber bag with compressed
air (see Fig. 1) to simulate the surcharge load. Since the
pressure of compressed air was regulated and monitored
automatically, the overburden pressure could be kept
constant throughout the testing process. Thirdly, pressur-
ized grout slurry was injected through the embedded nail
rod (see Fig. 3a) for the first series of tests, with the
grouting pressure (GP) of 400–800 kPa. It should be noted
that a calibration for the membrane under different air
pressures was conducted before model tests. The result
showed a pressure loss of 5–6 kPa for a membrane
expansion of 5 L. Therefore, the reduction in grouting
pressure derived from the existence of membrane can be
neglected under the high grouting pressures in the current
study. The soil nails were pulled out using a hydraulic jack
at a rate of 1 mm/min after the cement grout was cured for
7 days in the first series of tests. Finally, the difference for
the second series of tests is, the pulled soil nails were
adopted and embedded in the soil sample directly without
subsequent compaction grouting process (see Fig. 3b). To

123
 Acta Geotechnica

Levelling instrument
Levelling instrument

Embedded nail rod Grout bulb Embedded soil nail

a Soil nail with grou ng b Soil nail without grou ng

Fig. 3 Installation of soil nails

keep the dry density of the two series of tests the same 20 GP=400kPa-with grouting GP=400kPa-without grouting
during soil preparation, accurate measurements of the 18 GP=500kPa-with grouting GP=500kPa-without grouting

Pullout force (kN)

GP=600kPa-with grouting GP=600kPa-without grouting
16
volumes of grout bulbs were obtained using the photo-
14
based 3D photogrammetry technique [31] and then the 12
corresponding volumes of soil were removed when com- 10
pacting the soil surrounding the soil nails in the second 8
series of tests. The pullout process in this second series of 6
tests is the same as that of the first. 4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
3 Test results and discussion Pullout displacement (mm)
a Groung pressure 400-600 kPa
3.1 Pullout force 35 GP=700kPa-with grouting GP=700kPa-without grouting
GP=800kPa-with grouting GP=800kPa-without grouting
30
Pullout force (kN)

Once the cement grout had cured for 7 days, the grout
bulbs arising from five different grouting pressures were 25

formed, with diameters 5.6, 6.8, 7.7, 9.6 and 10.5 cm. The 20
soil nails were then pulled out, during which the pullout 15
forces with displacement were recorded. Figure 4 shows
10
the pullout forces for the soil nails with and without a
5
grouting process under different grouting pressures. As
expected, the pullout force of the soil nails with grouting 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
was significantly higher than that of the soil nails without a Pullout displacement (mm)
grouting process, which indicates that the compaction b Groung pressure 700-800 kPa
effect derived from grouting on the pullout force is
remarkable. In addition, the difference in pullout forces of Fig. 4 Pullout force of the two series of tests
the two series of tests increased with grouting pressure and
decreased with pullout displacement. The higher grouting the tests without the grouting process before pullout, the
pressure tends to densify the surrounding soil more greatly, soils are continuously densified by grout bulbs during the
which results in a higher mobilized force at the beginning pullout process and the rate of increase in the pullout force
of the pullout process. Thus, the gap between the pullout is subsequently higher. Therefore, the difference in the
forces of the two series of tests, especially at the initial pullout forces of the two series of tests is minimized with
stage (i.e., a pullout displacement of 50 mm), is significant. pullout displacement. In sum, the compaction effect does
Moreover, as the surrounding soils are hardly further not affect the final pullout force; it only influences the
densified once they reach a certain degree of densification mobilized pullout force at the initial stage.
for a given diameter of grout bulb [34], the increase in the The difference in the pullout force between the two
pullout force for a soil nail with grouting gradually slows series of tests at different pullout displacements is pre-
down. However, because there is no soil densification for sented in Fig. 5. When the grouting pressure is low (i.e.,

123
Acta Geotechnica

14 Displacement=10mm 35 Dis.=2.5mm-reference [30] Dis.=5mm-reference [30]

Difference in pullout force (kN) 12

Displacement=30mm Dis.=10mm-reference [30] Dis.=20mm-reference [30]
Displacement=50mm 30 Dis.=50mm-reference [30] Dis.=2.5mm
Displacement=100mm Dis.=5mm Dis.=10mm
10

Pull-out force (kN)

Displacement=150mm Dis.=20mm Dis.=50mm
25
8 Displacement=200mm
700 kPa
6 20
15%

700 kPa
4 600 kPa
15 500 kPa
2 400 kPa
10
0

-2 5 800 kPa 5%
10%
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
32% 46% 20%
Grouting pressure (kPa) 0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig. 5 Difference in pullout force at different pullout displacements Grout bulb diameter (cm)

Fig. 6 Pullout force at different pullout displacements for different

GP = 400–500 kPa), a visible difference of about 2 kN is
shown at the small pullout displacement. This difference
quickly decreases to less than 0.5 kN with a pullout dis-
placement of more than 30 mm. However, there are large
differences for the tests using grouting pressure of
600–800 kPa. The differences remain high for the pullout
displacement within 50 mm, while they decrease rapidly
with subsequent pullout displacement until they reach
approximately 0. The pullout difference between the two
series of tests indicates that the largest influence of com-
paction grouting on the pullout force is evident within a
pullout displacement of 50 mm. This influence then con-
tinuously decreases because the vertical and horizontal
squeezing effects caused by the pulling the grout bulb are
increasingly important to the pullout force for the same
diameter of grout bulb in the two series of tests.
It is difficult to determine whether the compaction effect
on the pullout force is dependent on the grouting pressure
or the grout bulb diameter, since the grouting pressure and
the diameter of the grout bulb are closely related to each
other in this study. Hence, another series of tests of the
pullout force under different degrees of saturation [35] was
performed for comparison. For this series of tests, the
grouting process was conducted at the same grouting
pressure (700 kPa), but a different diameter of grout bulb
(ranging from 7.5 to 13.6 cm) was generated due to the
difference in the degree of saturation. The pullout forces
for the two series of tests conducted at the same or different
grouting pressures within a pullout displacement of 50 mm
are summarized and compared in Fig. 6. To remove the
influences of the vertical and horizontal squeezing effects
on the pullout force (derived from the pulling of grout
bulb) at a large pullout displacement, only the mobilized
pullout force at the initial stage is adopted in the analysis.
Interestingly, as shown in Fig. 6, the increase in pullout
force with displacement for the tests at different grouting
pressures (red identification) is closely related to the
diameter of the grout bulb (the result in this study), while it
GP and Sr
is independent of the diameter of the grout bulb for the tests
with the same grouting pressure and different degrees of
saturation (blue identification). This phenomenon is more
evident for a smaller pullout displacement, which implies
that the grouting pressure plays a dominant role in the
compaction effect on the pullout force once the soil con-
dition changes.
The compaction effect on the pullout force can also be
further analyzed by the following response of the sur-
rounding soil during pullout.
3.2 Vertical dilatancy and squeezing effect
The soils below and above the grout bulb may be subject to
dilatancy during pullout, which will increase the confining
stress (i.e., vertical soil pressure in the present study) and
subsequently contribute to the enhancement of the pullout
force. Figure 7 shows the variation of the vertical soil
pressure at S1, S5 and S7–9 (see Fig. 1) during the pullout
process for the test with a grouting pressure of 800 kPa. It
is obvious that the vertical soil pressure for the soil nail
tested with grouting (see Fig. 7a) initially experienced an
increase and then gradually decreased with pullout dis-
placement. The closer the distance to the grout bulb, the
larger increase in vertical soil pressure. However, the
vertical soil pressure for the soil nails without a grouting
process (see Fig. 7b) continuously decreased with pullout
displacement, and the closer the distance of the soil to the
grout bulb the larger the decrease in this displacement.
Similar to the model test with the GP of 800 kPa, the
largest increase in vertical soil pressure due to dilatancy
under other grouting pressures (GP = 400, 500, 600,
700 kPa) was also monitored and is summarized in Fig. 8.
The increase in vertical soil pressure is larger for the soils
that experienced a higher grouting pressure and that were
located closer to the grout bulb. There is almost no

123
 Acta Geotechnica

250 Distance=5cm Distance=5cm bulb according to the authors’ previous study [30].
Distance=10cm Distance=15cm
Therefore, in this study, the difference in soil density
200 Distance=20cm
Vertical soil pressure (kPa)

derived from compaction grouting is the key factor that

influencing dilatancy, which then results in the differences
150
in changes in vertical soil pressure, both at different loca-
100 tions within the same series of tests and between the two
series of tests.
50 Although the dry densities and suctions at S1, S5 and
S7–9 (see Fig. 1) were also monitored by VWC and ten-
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
siometer during pullout, the related observations are not
Pullout displacement (mm) presented in this study as little change was observed.
a Tests with a groung process The vertical soil response, which plays an important role
in the differences in pullout force due to the vertical
140 squeezing and dilation during pullout, was monitored via
Distance=5cm Distance=5cm
120 Distance=10cm Distance=15cm the transducers at S6 (see Fig. 1). Figure 9 shows the
Vertical soil pressure (kPa)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20
Fig. 7 Variation of vertical soil pressure for GP of 800 kPa
dilatancy for the tests with a grouting pressure below
600 kPa. Regardless of the grading characteristics [9] and
the roughness of the soil–nail interface [24, 39], changes in
some other factors, such as suction [12, 22], normal stress
[23] and soil density [40], may influence dilatancy in this
study. Although the suction and normal stress of the soils
near the grout bulb changed markedly during the grouting
process, they then reverted to their level before grouting
due to the shrink of grout curing and water transport by
suction [35]. In addition, a higher density is shown at a
higher grouting pressure and a closer position to the grout
Distance=20cm vertical soil pressure results at S6 for the tests with and
without a grouting pressure of 800 kPa. The vertical soil
pressure increases rapidly with pullout displacement, a rise
which, after reaching the highest values at the pullout
displacement of 50–60 mm, is followed by a decrease. The
reason for the fleeting appearance of the peak vertical soil
pressure is that once the grout bulb is pulled away from the
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 location S6 vertical soil pressure decreases gradually. In
Pullout displacement (mm) addition, the peak vertical pressure of a test conducted with
b Tests without a groung process a grouting process is much higher than that without a
grouting process. The soil between the grout bulb and the
location S6 was densified by compaction grouting during
the test with grouting so that the vertical soil pressure due
to the vertical squeezing and dilation increased faster and
more markedly.
The vertical soil pressure due to the vertical squeezing
and dilation for the tests of other grouting pressures were
also measured. The largest increase in vertical soil pres-
sures of different grouting pressures for the two series of
tests is shown in Fig. 10. The difference in vertical soil
pressure is smaller at a lower grouting pressure as there is
less compaction effect. At higher grouting pressure, the
compaction effect due to grouting is greater, which

60 900
Vertical soil pressure increase

800 With grouting

Vertical soil pressure (kPa)

50 GP=800kPa
GP=700kPa 700 Without grouting
40 GP=600kPa 600
GP=500kPa 500
(kPa)

30 GP=400kPa 400
20 300
200
10
100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical distance (cm) Pullout displacement (mm)

Fig. 8 Increased vertical soil pressure with different GP Fig. 9 Vertical soil pressure at S6 with GP of 800 kPa

123
Acta Geotechnica

800 Similar to the model test with the GP of 800 kPa, the
Vertical Soil pressure change 700 With grouting largest increase in dry density under other grouting pres-
600 Without grouting sures was also monitored and is summarized in Fig. 12.
500 Although the increased dry density for the test with a
(kPa)

400 grouting process was higher than that of the test without a
300
grouting process in the beginning, it increased much more
slowly with grouting pressure and was exceeded by the
200
changed dry density of the test without grouting process
100
when the grouting pressure was 600 kPa. The soils along
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 the grout bulb and the location S6 were densified to some
Grouting pressure (kPa) extent during the grouting process (see Fig. 11) and they
were then further densified due to the squeezing effect.
Fig. 10 Increased vertical soil pressure at S6 with different GP
However, once the dry density increased to a certain level,
it was difficult for it to be further densified, resulting in a
2.0 slower growth despite the continued pullout of soil nail
1.9 (i.e., grout bulb). Hence, the absence of the grouting pro-
Dry density (Mg/m3)

1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
0 20
Fig. 11 Dry density at S6 with GP of 800 kPa
produces bigger gaps between the results of the two series
of tests as grouting pressure increases.
The typical variations of the dry density at S6, with
grouting pressure of 800 kPa, are shown in Fig. 11. The
dry density increases rapidly in the beginning and then
slows down to reach a constant value. Due to the influence
of grouting, the initial and subsequent variation of dry
density for the test with a grouting process is higher than
that without a grouting process all throughout the pullout
process.
0.3
Dry density change (Mg/m3)
cess is the reason that the increased dry density of the soil
in the second series of tests continues to largely increase
with pullout displacement.
With grouting The changes in suction due to the increase in dry density
Without grouting for the test with grouting pressure of 800 kPa are shown in
Fig. 13. Different from the variation of the dry density, the
suction decreases sharply at the beginning of the pullout
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 process, but it then gradually increases with pullout dis-
Pullout displacement (mm) placement to the initial value. The reason for this is that the
suction difference in soils at different locations can be the
power that transports the water in voids to change the
degree of saturation and then arrives at a balance to reach a
uniform suction. Therefore, the suction eventually changes
to the initial level.
For the tests with GP of 400, 500, 600 and 700 kPa, the
suction changes similarly; and the largest suction changes
for different grouting pressures are shown in Fig. 14. As
the suction decreases due to the increase in dry density [7],
it should vary in the same way as dry density. However,
because the tensiometer is not placed at the exact position
of VWC, different variation trends between these two types
of transducers may occur, which result in the suction
change for the test without a grouting process exceeding

With grouting 16
0.3
Without grouting With grouting
14
0.2 Without grouting

12
Suction (kPa)

0.2
10
0.1
8
0.1
6
0.0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Grouting pressure (kPa) Pullout displacement (mm)

Fig. 12 Increased dry density at S6 with different GP Fig. 13 Suction at S6 with GP of 800 kPa

123
 Acta Geotechnica

3.5 1,000 Distance=30cm-with grouting

900 Distance=30cm-without grouting

Horizontal soil pressure

With grouting
3.0 Distance=50cm-with grouting
Suction change / (kPa)
800
Without grouting Distance=50cm-without grouting

change (kPa)
2.5 700 Distance=70cm-with grouting
600 Distance=70cm-without grouting
2.0 500
400
1.5
300
1.0 200
100
0.5
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0.0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Grouting pressure (kPa)
Grouting pressure (kPa)
Fig. 16 Increased horizontal soil pressure at S2–4 with different GP
Fig. 14 Decreased suction at S6 with different GP
level, the squeezing effect barely increased, which is the
that of the test with a grouting process at a lower grouting reason why the horizontal soil pressure for the test without
pressure (i.e., GP = 500 kPa) unlike the variation of dry a grouting process finally caught up with that of the test
density. with a grouting process. Moreover, as the locations of S3
In summary, the difference in vertical dilatancy and and S4 are relatively further away from the grout bulb, the
squeezing effect derived from the presence or absence of horizontal soil pressures measured there during the tests
the compaction effect (i.e., compaction grouting process) is with grouting did not reach the highest levels in the course
one of the reasons that caused the difference in the pullout of a pullout displacement of 200 mm. In addition, as dis-
force between the two series of tests, as discussed earlier. cussed, the horizontal squeezing effect was propagated
faster in the test series with grouting, so the measured
3.3 Horizontal squeezing effect horizontal soil pressure at S3 and S4 in this series was
higher than that in the test series without a grouting
The grout bulb squeezes the surrounding soil horizontally process.
during pullout, and in response the densified soil generates The increased horizontal soil pressures at S2–4 for the
a reaction force to the grout bulb to form the pullout force. tests of different grouting pressures are presented in
The horizontal soil pressure results of the tests at a grouting Fig. 16. The increased horizontal soil pressures (with a
pressure of 800 kPa at S2–4, which are 30, 50 and 70 cm pullout displacement of 200 mm) for the two series of tests
distance from the center of grout bulb (see Fig. 1), at S2 were almost the same regardless of the presence or
respectively, are shown in Fig. 15. The horizontal soil absence of the grouting process and different grouting
pressure for the test with a grouting process increased pressures. In addition, as a larger grout bulb (i.e., grouting
faster than that without a grouting process because the pressure) produced a more remarkable squeezing effect and
surrounding soil of the grout bulb was densified by grout- the related horizontal pressure propagates further away, so
ing, and so the horizontal squeezing effect due to the the gap between the increased horizontal soil pressure for
pullout of the grout bulb was quicker and larger propagated the two series of tests at S2 and S4 became larger with
to S2. Until the horizontal soil pressure reached a certain increasing grouting pressure.

1000 1.80
Horizontal soil pressure (kPa)

Distance=30cm-with grouting
900 Distance=30cm-without grouting
Distance=50cm-with grouting 1.75
Dry density (Mg/m3)

800 Distance=50cm-without grouting

700 Distance=70cm-with grouting 1.70
Distance=70cm-without grouting
600
500 1.65
400 With grouting
1.60
300 Without grouting
200 1.55
100
0 1.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Pullout displacement (mm) Pullout displacement (mm)

Fig. 15 Horizontal soil pressure at S2–4 with GP of 800 kPa Fig. 17 Dry density at S2 with GP of 800 kPa

123
Acta Geotechnica

Figure 17 shows a typical increase in the dry density at 16

S2 (with grouting pressure of 800 kPa), which resulted With grouting
14
from the horizontal squeezing effect of the grout bulb. The Without grouting

Suction (kPa)
dry density for the test with a grouting process increased 12

faster than that of the test without grouting because the 10

surrounding soil of the grout bulb was densified by grout-
ing, so the squeezing effect due to the pullout of the grout 8

bulb could be more quickly propagated to S2 without any 6

accumulation of the dry density at the beginning. However,
4
once the dry density reaches a certain value, it can only be 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
further densified with difficulty, which is the reason why Pullout displacement (mm)
the dry density for the test without a grouting process
gradually approached that of the test with grouting. Fig. 19 Suction at S2 with GP of 800 kPa
The increased dry densities at S2 at different grouting
pressures for the two series of tests are shown in Fig. 18. 3.5
When the grouting pressure is low, the dry densities for With grouting
3.0
tests both with and without a grouting process are far below

Scution change (kPa)

Without grouting
the highest values within the pullout displacement range, so 2.5
they continuously increase with pullout displacement.
2.0
Therefore, the difference in the increased dry density for
the two series of tests at the low grouting pressure is rel- 1.5
atively large. With increasing grouting pressure, the dry
1.0
density reaches a certain value at high grouting pressure,
but there is then little further densification during pullout 0.5
for the test with grouting. However, the dry density con-
0.0
tinues to increase with pullout displacement for the test 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
without a grouting process. Hence, a smaller gap in Grouting pressure (kPa)
increased dry density between the two series of tests at
Fig. 20 Decreased suction at S2 with different GP
large grouting pressure is shown.
The variation of the suction at S2 for the test with a
The suction changes at S2 for the two series of tests at
grouting pressure of 800 kPa is shown in Fig. 19. The
different grouting pressures are shown in Fig. 20. The
difference in suction between the two series of tests is less
decreased suction is small at a low grouting pressure and
than that of the dry density at the initial stage. This may be
increases at higher levels. However, the difference in
attributed to any change in degree of saturation due to the
suction changes between the two series of tests is quite
increase in dry density being minimized by the trans-
small. One reason for this result is that a large change in the
portation of water in the surrounding soil, which means that
degree of saturation results in a relatively small change in
the soil does not allow a larger suction decrease for the test
suction according to the SWCC of the soil sample in the
with grouting during pullout at low rate.
present study [35], and another reason has been discussed
in relation to Fig. 19.
0.3
Dry density change (Mg/m3)

With grouting
0.2 Without grouting 4 Hyperbolic pullout model
0.2
The pullout models based on hyperbolic stress–strain
relationship were always proposed to describe the load-
0.1
deformation behavior of soil nails such as conventional soil
nail [42] and GFRP (glass fiber-reinforced polymer) soil
0.1
nail [45]. In this study, the hyperbolic equation is adopted
to present the relationship between the pullout stress (rx)
0.0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 and displacement (x) of the model tests with and without
Grouting pressure (kPa) grouting.
Fig. 18 Increased dry density at S2 with different GP

123
 Acta Geotechnica

PðxÞ ¼ A0 rðxÞ þ f1 þ f2 ð2Þ

Fig. 21 Schematic view of pullout mechanism of soil nail
It is known that the pullout force consists of three
components, the friction in the surfaces of grout bulb (f1)
and nail rod (f2), the reaction stress (rx) derived from the
squeezing soil (see Fig. 21). Among them, the rx plays the
dominant role in the pullout force [33, 36]. As discussed,
the soil cannot be further densified by the grout bulb once a
certain density is reached. The reason is the soil pressure is
hardly be further increased during the pullout process.
Therefore, an assumption that the reaction stress (or pullout
stress) for a given soil under the same boundary conditions
approaches a same constant value (rult) is made. In addi-
tion, the pullout forces (Fig. 4) and the horizontal soil
pressures (see Fig. 15) for the tests with and without
grouting are ultimately the same, the reaction stress (rx) for
both series of tests should be approximately the same.
On the other hand, the initial modulus of deformation
(E0) for the tests without grouting is the same while it is
different for the tests with grouting as the soil surrounding
the grout bulb was densified by grouting. Based on the
above discussion, a hyperbolic model in terms of pullout
stress (rx) and pullout displacement (x) is proposed and
shown in Fig. 22, with the relationship can be expressed by
Eq. (1).
x
rðxÞ ¼ 1 x
ð1Þ
E0 þ rult
where rx = pullout stress; x = pullout displacement; E0-
= initial modulus of deformation, which is related to soil
type, dry density, overburden pressure, etc.; rult = ultimate
asymptotic value of pullout stress, which is related to the
bearing capacity of surrounding soil.
The pullout force with displacement then can be cal-
culated by Eq. (2) as follows:
where P(x) = pullout force; A0 = the cross-section area of
grout bulb; f1 = the friction on the grout bulb; f2= the
friction on the nail rod.
Equation (2) is further expressed as Eq. (3):

x
PðxÞ ¼ p R2  r 2 1 x
þ P0 ðA1 l1 þ A2 l2 Þ ð3Þ
E0 þ rult
where R = the diameter of grout bulb; r = the diameter of
the nail rod; P0 = the pressure exerting on the surface of
grout bulb and nail rod; A1 = the surface area of grout bulb;
A2 = the surface area of nail rod; l1= the friction coeffi-
cient between the membrane and surrounding soil; l2= the
friction coefficient between the nail rod and surrounding
soil.
The parameters of R, r, A1 and A2 are easily obtained
and calculated in this study, the friction coefficients
including l1 and l2 are available in the previous study [34].
Although the grouting pressure and soil dilation may result
in a small difference between P0 and overburden pressure,
the value of overburden pressure in the current study was
adopted to replace the P0 for the simplification in calcu-
lation. In this case, the change in pullout due to the sim-
plification was then corrected by the initial modulus of
deformation (E0) and pullout stress (rult) in fitting. The E0
and rult is obtained using the fitting approach based on the
experimental data of pullout force versus pullout
displacement.
For the tests without grouting, the pullout forces with
displacement were fitted based on Eq. (3) and the experi-
mental data, and the E0 and rult of 48 Mpa and 4.1 Mpa
were subsequently obtained. Figure 23 shows the com-
parison of the calculated and the experimental pullout
forces. It was found that Eq. (3) can well describe the
variation of pullout force with displacement under different
diameters of grout bulb, with an adjusted R2 of 0.99.
40 Test-GP=400 kPa Test-GP=500 kPa
Test-GP=600 kPa Test-GP=700 kPa
35 Test-GP=800 kPa Calculation-GP=400 kPa
Calculation-GP=500 kPa Calculation-GP=600 kPa
30
Pullout force (kN)

Calculation-GP=700 kPa Calculation-GP=800 kPa

25

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200
Pull out displacement (mm)

Fig. 22 Hyperbolic relationship of pullout stress and pullout Fig. 23 Comparison of calculated and experimental pullout forces
displacement without grouting

123
Acta Geotechnica
45 Test-GP=400 kPa Test-GP=500 kPa
Test-GP=600 kPa Test-GP=700 kPa
40
Test-GP=800 kPa Calculation-GP=400 kPa
35 Calculation-GP=500 kPa Calculation-GP=600 kPa
Pullout force (kN)
30
Calculation-GP=700 kPa Calculation-GP=800 kPa
25
20
15
10
5 pressure rather than the diameter of the grout bulb.
0
0 50 100 150
Pull out displacement (mm)
Fig. 24 Comparison of calculated and experimental pullout forces
with grouting
Therefore, the pullout force of soil nails with different
diameters of grout bulb and pullout displacement can be
accurately predicted based on the hyperbolic model.
Moreover, the relationship of the pullout force and
pullout displacement for the model tests with grouting was
also fitted using Eq. (3). It should be noted that the rult for
all the tests with grouting is the same to the aforementioned
value (i.e., 4.1 Mpa), and the E0 is different among the test
with different grouting pressures due to the densification
during grouting process. Substituting the rult of 4.1 Mpa
into Eq. (3), different E0s for the tests with grouting
pressure ranging from 400 to 800 kPa were then obtained
based on the experimental pullout data, with the E0s of 78,
91, 125, 133 and 142 Mpa, respectively. The calculated and
experimental pullout forces with displacement are com-
pared in Fig. 24. The adjusted R2 reaches 0.98, indicating
Eq. (3) can well fit the experimental data for the given E0s.
5 Conclusion
To study the compaction effect on the performance of a
compaction-grouted soil nail, comparative physical model
tests were conducted on the soil nails with and without
grouting process under different grouting pressures. In
addition, a hyperbola-based model was proposed to
describe the relationship between the pullout forces and
pullout displacement. The following conclusions are
drawn:
(1) The influence of compaction grouting on the pullout
force is remarkable, with the influence strengthening
at a higher grouting pressure. In addition, a signif-
icant difference in the pullout force (due to a
compaction effect) of the tests with and without
compaction grouting is shown within a relatively
small pullout displacement (e.g., 50 mm), while this
difference gradually decreases at larger pullout
displacements. The final pullout forces of the two
series of tests approach the same level since they
have grout bulbs with the same diameter.
(2) The compaction effect is determined by both the
grouting pressure and the diameter of the grout bulb
as they are closely related to each other under the
same soil conditions. However, once the soil condi-
tions change, this influence depends on the grouting
200
(3) The difference in soil response, including vertical
dilatancy and vertical and horizontal squeezing,
derived from the presence or absence of the
compaction effect, is the main reason for the
different rates of increase in the pullout force with
pullout displacement at the initial stage. However,
regardless of the compaction effect, the gap of the
increased soil pressures (or dry densities) of the two
series of tests with and without a compaction effect
become minimal once a certain pullout displacement
is reached, which is the reason why the pullout force
for the test without compaction grouting finally
catches up with that of the test with a grouting
process.
(4) Regardless of the compaction effect, the proposed
hyperbola-based model can well describe the rela-
tionship between the pullout force and pullout
displacement of different diameters of grout bulb
(i.e., different grouting pressures). Therefore, the
pullout force is available of prediction with knowing
of the diameter of grout bulb and pullout displace-
ment. In addition, the compaction effect influences
the initial modulus of deformation (E0) of the
surrounding soil in the hyperbolic model, so the
increase rates of pullout force at the initial stage for
the tests with and without grouting are different, so
are the tests conducted under different grouting
pressures.
Acknowledgements The work described in this paper is partially
supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
51722812), the Joint Funds of the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (No. U1834206), and the HuXiang Top Talents
Gathering Program-Innovation Team (2019RS1008), ARC Future
Fellowship Grant (FT140100019), for which the authors are very
grateful.
References
1. Ajalloeian R, Yu HS, Allman MA (1996) Physical and
mechanical properties of stockton beach sand [online]. In: Jaksa
MB, Kaggwa WS, Cameron DA (eds) 7th Australia New Zealand
conference on geomechanics: geomechanics in a changing world:
123

conference proceedings, Institution of Engineers, Australia,
Barton, ACT, pp 60–65
2. Chen C, Zhang G, Zornberg JG, Morsy A, Zhu S, Zhao H (2018)
Interface behavior of tensioned bars embedded in cement–soil
mixtures. Constr Build Mater 186:840–853
3. Chen C, Zhang G, Zornberg JG, Zheng X (2019) Element nail
pullout tests for prediction of soil nail pullout resistance in
expansive clays. Geotech Test J 42(5):1274–1297
4. Dai G, Gong W, Zhao X, Zhou X (2010) Static testing of pile-
based post-grouting piles of the suramadu bridge. Geotech Test J
34(1):34–49
5. El-Kelesh A, Mossaad M, Basha I (2001) Model of compaction
grouting. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(11):955–964
6. El-Kelesh AM, Matsui T, Tokida K (2012) Field investigation
into effectiveness of compaction grouting. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 138(4):451–460
7. Gao Y, Sun DA, Zhu ZC, Xu YF (2019) Hydromechanical
behavior of unsaturated soil with different initial densities over a
wide suction range. Acta Geotech 14(2):417–428
8. Gouvenot D, Gabaix JC (1975) A new foundation technique
using piles sealed by cement grout under high pressure. In:
Offshore technology conference, Texas, USA, pp 645–656
9. Harehdasht SA, Hussien MN, Karray M, Roubtsova V, Chekired
M (2019) Influence of particle size and gradation on shear
strength–dilation relation of granular materials. Can Geotech J
56:208–227
10. Haris J, Cleveland M (2012) Utilization of compaction grouting
in cohesive soils to stabilize and re-level distressed tanks and
bins. In: Grouting and deep mixing, pp 718–727
11. Ho CE (2003) Base grouted bored pile on weak granite. In:
Grouting and ground treatment, pp 716–727
12. Hossain MA, Yin JH (2015) Dilatancy and strength of an
unsaturated soil-cement interface in direct shear tests. Int J
Geomech 15(5):04014081
13. Ivanetich KF, Gularte F, Dees B (2000) Compaction grout: a case
history of seismic retrofit. In: Advances in grouting and ground
modification, pp 83–93
14. Li HJ, Liu SY, Tong LY, Xu XC (2018) Investigating the reso-
nance compaction effect on laterally loaded piles in layered soil.
Eng Geol 246:1–11
15. Lin P, Liu J (2019) Evaluation and calibration of ultimate bond
strength models for soil nails using maximum likelihood
method. Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-
00883-x
16. Lin SS, Lin T, Chang LT (2000) A case study for drilled shafts
base mud treatment. In: New technological and design develop-
ments in deep foundations, pp 46–58
17. Littlechild BD, Plumbridge GD, Free MW (1998) Shaft grouted
piles in sand and clay in Bangkok. In: Proceedings of the 7th
international conference and exhibition on piling and deep
foundations, DFI, Vienna, pp 171–178
18. Liu Y, He LQ, Jiang YJ, Sun MM, Chen EJ, Lee FH (2019)
Effect of in situ water content variation on the spatial variation of
strength of deep cement-mixed clay. Géotechnique
69(5):391–405
19. Miller EA, Roycroft GA (2004) Compaction grouting test pro-
gram for liquefaction control. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
130(4):355–361
20. Moseley MP, Kirsch K (2004) Ground improvement, 2nd edn.
SPON Press, London
21. Mullins G, Winters D, Dapp S (2006) Predicting end bearing
capacity of post-grouted drilled shaft in cohesionless soils.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(4):478–487
22. Ng CWW, Zhou RZB (2005) Effects of soil suction on dilatancy
of an unsaturated soil. In: Proceedings of 16th international
123
Acta Geotechnica
conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering,
Osaka, vol 2, pp 559–562
23. Schlosser F (1982) Behaviour and design of soil nailing. In:
Proceedings on recent developments in ground improvement
techniques, Bangkok, pp 399–413
24. Su LJ, Chan TCF, Yin JH, Shiu YK, Chiu SL (2008) Influence of
overburden pressure on soil nail pull-out resistance in a com-
pacted fill. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(9):1339–1347
25. Thiyyakkandi S, McVay M, Bloomquist D, Lai P (2013) Mea-
sured and Predicted response of a new jetted and grouted precast
pile with membranes in cohesionless soils. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 139(8):1334–1345
26. Wan ZH, Dai GL, Gong WM (2018) Field study on post-grouting
effects of cast-in-place bored piles in extra-thick fine sand layers.
Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0741-7
27. Wang SY, Chan DH, Lam KC, Au SA (2013) A new laboratory
apparatus for studying dynamic compaction grouting into gran-
ular soils. Soils Found 53(3):462–468
28. Wang D, Xing X, Qu H, Zhang L (2015) Simulated radial
expansion and heave caused by compaction grouting in nonco-
hesive soils. Int J Geomech 15(4):04014069
29. Wang Q, Wang S, Sloan SW, Sheng D, Pakzad R (2016)
Experimental investigation of pressure grouting in sand. Soils
Found 56:161–173
30. Wang Q, Ye XY, Wang SY, Sloan SW, Sheng DC (2017)
Experimental investigation of compaction-grouted soil nails. Can
Geotech J 54(12):1728–1738
31. Wang Q, Ye XY, Wang SY, Sloan SW, Sheng DC (2018) Use
of photo-based 3D photogrammetry in analysing the results of
laboratory pressure grouting tests. Acta Geotech
13(5):1129–1140
32. Westerberg EM, Wetterling S (2000) The soilex pile system. In:
25th annual members’ conference and eighth international con-
ference and exposition (DFI), Deep Foundation Institute, New
York
33. Ye XY, Wang SY, Wang Q, Sloan SW, Sheng DC (2017)
Numerical and experimental studies of the mechanical behaviour
for compaction-grouted soil nails in sandy soil. Comput Geotech
90:202–214
34. Ye XY, Wang SY, Wang Q, Sloan SW, Sheng DC (2019) Per-
formance of a compaction-grouted soil nail in laboratory tests.
Acta Geotech 14(4):1049–1063
35. Ye XY, Wang SY, Wang Q, Sloan SW, Sheng DC (2019) The
influence of the degree of saturation on compaction-grouted soil
nails in sand. Acta Geotech 14(4):1101–1111
36. Ye XY, Wang SY, Xiao X, Sloan SW, Sheng DC (2019)
Numerical study for compaction-grouted soil nails with multiple
grout bulbs. Int Geomech 19(2):04018193
37. Ye XY, Wang SY, Li Q, Zhang S, Sheng DC (2020) Negative
effect of installation on performance of a compaction-grouted soil
nail in poorly graded Stockton beach sand. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 146(8):04020061
38. Yeung AT, So STC, Au SKA, Lee TK (2011) Laboratory study of
feasibility of compaction grouting of soil. Geomech Geoeng Int J
6(1):1–8
39. Yin JH, Zhou WH (2009) Influence of grouting pressure and
overburden stress on the interface resistance of a soil nail.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(9):1198–1208
40. Yin JH, Su LJ, Cheung RWM, Shiu YK, Tang C (2008) The
influence of grouting pressure on the pullout resistance of soil
nails in compacted completely decomposed granite fill.
Geotechnique 59(2):103–113
41. Zhang XH, Wu X, Yu JL, He M, Gong XN (2014) New slurry
pressure type soil-nailing technology and its working mechanism.
Chin J Geotech Eng 36(S2):227–232
Acta Geotechnica

42. Zhang CC, Zhu HH, Shi B, Yin JH (2014) Evaluations of load 45. Zhu HH, Yin JH, Yeung AT, Jin W (2011) Field pullout testing
deformation behaviour of soil nail using hyperbolic pull-out and performance evaluation of GFRP soil nails. J Geotech
model. Geomech. Eng. 6(3):277–292 Geoenviron Eng 137(7):633–664
43. Zhang G, Chen C, Zornberg JG, Morsy AM, Mao FS (2020)
Interface creep behavior of grouted anchors in clayey soils: effect Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
of soil moisture condition. Acta Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1007/ jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
s11440-019-00907-6
44. Zhou JJ, Gong XN, Wang KH, Zhang RH, Yan JJ (2017) Testing
and modeling the behavior of pre-bored grouting plated piles
under compression and tension. Acta Geotech 12:1061–1075

123