Conventional shotcrete procedures as described in the specifications (see Appendix E) are

applicable. During shotcreting, construction equipment that causes excessive ground vibrations
should not be operating in the vicinity of the shotcreting operations to reduce shotcrete rebound
(i.e., shotcrete slump). The overlying cold joint must be cleaned prior to placement of the overlying
lift of shotcrete. Acceptable methods for cleaning the shotcrete joint include washing with a
combination of injected water and compressed air, blowing with compressed air, or sand blasting.
Care should be taken to avoid eroding the soil cut face below the cold joint.

The most critical factor in ensuring a good quality shotcrete facing is a nozzleman who is
experienced in applying (i.e., “gunning”) shotcrete. The specifications may require the nozzleman
to complete a pre-qualification test panel prior to beginning production work.

Some basic recommended practices for applying shotcrete facings are provided below:

• the nozzle should be held perpendicular to the exposed excavated surface, except when
shooting around reinforcing bars;
• optimum nozzle distance from the surface being shot against is: 0.6 to 1.5 m (2 to 5 ft) for
wet-mix, 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) for dry-mix;
• placement of shotcrete should start at the bottom;
• voids shall not be allowed to form behind bars, plates, or steel mesh; and
• where sharp edges and accurate lines are required, these should be set out by screen boards,
guide wires and/or depth spacers.

Temporary shotcrete facings typically consist of 100-mm (4-in.) thick WWM-reinforced shotcrete,
placed directly against the soil, as the excavation proceeds in staged lifts. The steel bearing plate is
positioned while the shotcrete is wet. Deviations from perpendicularity are adjusted with tapered
washers below the nut. Once the bottom of the excavation is reached, a permanent wall facing is
built.

8.5 LOAD TESTING

8.5.1 Introduction

Soil nails are load tested in the field to verify that the nail design loads can be carried without
excessive movements and with an adequate factor of safety. Testing is also used to verify the
adequacy of the contractor’s drilling, installation, and grouting operations prior to and during
construction of the soil nail wall. If ground and/or installation procedures change, additional testing
may be required to evaluate the influence on soil nail performance. It is typical practice to complete
testing in each row of nails prior to excavation and installation of the underlying row. This
requirement of completing all testing in the upper row may need to be relaxed, at the direction of
the engineer, for very long walls. If test results indicate faulty construction practice or soil nail
capacities are less than that required, the contractor should be required to alter nail
installation/construction methods. Testing procedures and nail acceptance criteria must be included
in the specifications. Load testing can consist of:

162
Verification or Ultimate Load Tests
Verification or ultimate load tests are conducted to verify the compliance with pullout capacity and
bond strengths used in design and resulting from the contractor’s installation methods. Verification
load tests should be conducted to failure or, as a minimum, to a test load that includes the design
bond strength and pullout factor of safety. The number of verification load tests will vary
depending on the size of the project and the number of major different ground types in which nails
will be installed. As a minimum, two verification tests should be conducted in each soil strata that
is encountered. Verification tests are performed on “sacrificial” test nails, which are not
incorporated into the permanent work.
Proof Tests
Proof tests are conducted during construction on a specified percentage, typically five (5) percent,
of the total production nails installed. Proof tests are intended to verify that the contractor’s
construction procedure has remained constant and that the nails have not been drilled and grouted in
a soil zone not tested by the verification stage testing. Soil nails are proof tested to a load typically
equal to 150 percent of the design load.
Creep Tests
Creep tests are performed as part of ultimate, verification, and proof testing. A creep test consists
of measuring the movement of the soil nail at a constant load over a specified period of time. This
test is performed to ensure that the nail design loads can be safely carried throughout the structure
service life.

8.5.2 Equipment for Testing

A center-hole hydraulic jack and hydraulic pump are used to apply a test load to a nail bar. The axis
of the jack and the axis of the nail must be aligned to ensure uniform loading. Typically, a jacking
frame or reaction block is installed between the shotcrete or excavation face and the jack. The
jacking frame should not react directly against the nail grout column during testing. Once the jack
is centered and aligned, an alignment load should be applied to the jack to secure the equipment and
minimize the slack in the set-up. The alignment load should not be permitted to exceed 10 percent
of the maximum test load. Figure 8.1 shows soil nail testing operations.
Movement of the nail head is measured with at least one, and preferably two, dial gauges mounted
on a tripod or fixed to a rigid support that is independent of the jacking set-up and wall. The use of
two dial gauges provides: (1) an average reading in case the loading is slightly eccentric due to
imperfect alignment of the jack and the nail bar, and (2) a backup if one gauge malfunctions. The
dial gauges should be aligned within 5 degrees of the axis of the nail, and should be zeroed after the
alignment load has been applied. The dial gauges should be capable of measuring to the nearest
0.02 mm (0.001-in.). The dial gauges should be able to accommodate a minimum travel equivalent
to the estimated elastic elongation of the test nail at the maximum test load plus 25 mm (1 in.), or at
least 50 mm (2 in.).
A hydraulic jack is used to apply load to the nail bar while, a pressure gauge is used to measure the
applied load. A center-hole load cell may be added in series with the jack for use during creep tests.
For extended load hold periods, load cells are used as a means to monitor a constant applied load

163
while the hydraulic jack pump is incrementally adjusted. Over extended periods of time, any load
loss in the jack will not be reflected with sufficient accuracy using a pressure gauge. Recent
calibration data for the jack, pressure gauge, and load cell must be obtained from the contractor
prior to testing. Figure 8.2 shows schematically a hydraulic jack typically used in soil nail
applications.
The nail bar shall not be stressed to more than 80 percent of its minimum ultimate tensile strength
for Grade 525 MPa (Grade 75) steel or more than 90 percent of the minimum yield strength for
Grade 420 MPa (Grade 60) steel.

Source Porterfield et al. (1994).

Figure 8.1: Soil Nail Load Testing Setup.

8.5.3 Verification Tests

Verification tests are completed on non-production, “sacrificial” nails prior to construction. In

addition, verification testing may be required during production to verify capacities for different in
situ conditions encountered during construction and/or different installation methods. Although it
would be optimal for verification tests to reach the point of pullout failure, this may not be possible
in some cases. Verification tests provide the following information:

• determination of the ultimate bond strength (if carried to pullout failure);

• verification of the design factor of safety; and
• determination of the soil nail load at which excessive creep occurs.

164
As a minimum, verification test loading must be carried out to a load defined by the pullout factor
of safety times the design allowable pullout capacity. If the factor of safety for pullout is 2.0, then
the test load must verify 200 percent of the allowable pullout capacity. Test loads in excess of this
minimum, and preferably to failure, are recommended as they provide considerably more
information and may lead to more economical drilling installation methods. The test acceptance
criteria require that:

HYDRAULIC OIL LINE TO READOUT CABLE

(TO HYDRAULIC PUMP
AND PRESSURE GAUGE)
LOAD CELL
REFERENCE PLATE

NAIL BAR

DIAL GAUGES
ATTACHED

ON GROUND

OF WALL

BEARING PLATES

HYDRAULIC RAM

REACTION FRAME / PLATE

SHOTCRETE FACING,
BULKHEAD, OR GROUND

Source Porterfield et al. (1994).

Figure 8.2: Hydraulic Jack Used for Soil Nail Load Testing.

• no pullout failure occurs at 200 percent of the design load where pullout failure is defined
as the load at which attempts to further increase the test load increments simply results in
continued pullout movement of the tested nail; and
• the total measured movement (∆L) at the test load of 200 percent of design load must
exceed 80 percent of the theoretical elastic movement of the unbonded length (UL). This
criterion is expressed as ∆L ≥ ∆Lmin, where ∆Lmin is the minimum acceptable movement
defined as:
P UL
∆L min = 0.8 (Equation 8.1)
EA

165
 where:
P = maximum applied test load;
UL = unbonded length (i.e., from the back of reference plate to top of the grouted length);
A = cross-sectional area of the nail bar; and
E = Young’s modulus of steel [typically 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi)].

This criterion ensures that load transfer from the soil nail to the soil occurs only in the bonded
length and not in the unbonded length. Loading sequences and acceptance criteria are contained in
specifications (Appendix E). Figure 8.3 shows a data log sheet that can be used for the load testing
of soil nails. Figure 8.4 presents an example of data reduction of soil nail load testing to calculate
elastic movement.

8.5.4 Proof Test

A proof test is performed on a specified number (typically up to 5 percent) of the total number of
production soil nails installed. This test is a single cycle test in which the load is applied in
increments to a maximum test load, usually 150 percent of the design load capacity. Proof tests are
used to ascertain that the contractor’s construction methods and/or soil conditions have not changed
and that the production soil nails can safely withstand design loads without excessive movement or
long-term creep over the service life.

Production proof test nails have both bonded and (temporary) unbonded lengths. Specifications
(see Appendix E) require that the temporary unbonded length of the test nail must be at least 1 m (3
ft). The maximum bonded length is based on the nail bar grade and size such that the allowable bar
tensile force is not exceeded during testing. The typical minimum bonded length is 3 m (10 ft).
Production proof test nails shorter than 4 m (12 ft) may be tested with less than the minimum 3-m
(10-ft) bond length.

The acceptance criteria require that no pullout failure occurs and that the total movement at the
maximum test load of 150 percent of design load must exceed 80 percent of the theoretical elastic
movement of the unbonded length. Again, the measured movement must be ∆L ≥ ∆Lmin, where
∆Lmin has been defined in Equation 8.1

8.5.5 Creep Test

Creep tests are typically performed as part of a verification or proof test. Creep testing is conducted
at a specified, constant test load, with displacements recorded at specified time intervals. The
deflection-versus-log-time results are plotted on a semi-log graph, and are compared with the
acceptance criteria presented in the construction specification.

Acceptance criteria typically requires that creep movement between the 1- and 10-minute readings,
at maximum test load, must be less than 1 mm (0.04 in.), or that the creep movement between the 6-
and 60-minute readings must be less than 2 mm (0.08 in.) at maximum test load. The creep
criterion is based largely on experience and current practice with ground anchors and has been
established to ensure that nail design loads can be safely carried throughout the structure service
life. Figure 8.5 presents an example of data reduction of soil nail load testing to calculate the creep
movement between the 1- and 10-minute readings.

166
 SOIL NAIL TEST DATA SHEET
Proj,d: _ __ ~""=~
=v.~""-",-~,,~o,--- _______ "--_ _ Noll No. : _ _ _~Rl~-~5'__ _
Sto tlo n: _£""""00
Projed No.: _ _ ~""~''-'''''
llO,- ______ ___ len gth: _ _ _ _ _ _~21~·~ ' _ _ _ _ __
(~IDIm"""'_

Dole: _ _ __ -"2-::.<,2J-"-''IJ''--_ __ _ __ _ __ Sa nded Length: _~1~

5·_ _ Ho i. 0 10 .: 6h
_-''-''~_

n.l d In.p.c l or.~_J'_'31'_"7H"__ _ _ __ _ _ __ Vnbond.d Length: _ _-'.6·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Type Tu l: Veri ficatio n _ _ _ Ultimot.: _ _ _ Proof: X

l oad Wo" ,m,nl (in.) Tendon Tlndon

0 10 . ""'d.
Time I.ood l_d Prlssur. Avg .
0101 0101 In h. /lR f CR 601
Inc r.menl. Incr.mlnt! Guog. Gog, 1 Cag. 2 0101
(X) (Kip,) (psi ) Gog, Comm.nts
10: 00 AI1 - - 200 0000 aooo a ooo AU",""" """
no", a(1.!8
10 00
'002
"
25
"7 " 500
500 a O«)
aOJ'
a OJ<
"""
10 OJ 50 1S8 1000 a.,., a ... a ...
10:05 50 1S8 1000 a ... a_ a_

136 a 165 a l68

10 06
'" 1500 Q J67

10 ()8
'" 136 1500 a"" am am

'a a. 100 J1.5 2000 a2J< om a,,,

10 ,. J1.5 a2<2 Q241
100
"'" auo

If'" lJO <1G 2<00 G ><a 0'" aw ~t1'3'st

a",

__,
'O" JO (. 51 lJO ,,0 2<00 a J« a '" I to 10- mrut, hold
10: 16 (J! lJO 4LO 2<00 a""7 a Jli8 a Jli8 (Iood e l l - 400J
10: 17 12 lJO <1a 2<00 aJ6" aJ'" a J'" 1t o JD-mn...t.
10: 111 (J lJO "G 2<00 . QJ;tl aJn O.J71 <m
,.20 (5 lJO <10 2<00 aon a J72 a J72 _ a J72 - a Jli8

10 ZI f6 lJO <10 2<00 aon a J72 a J72 - a oo< h < a IU h

'.25 110 .1-'>- 'ML ~ G.' " a= G'" ,,,.,..... <~

mollfltrw!t ,
oc< fmcl crit~

Source Porterfield et al. (1994).

Figure 8.3: Typical Data Sheet for Soil Nail Load Testing.

167
 ELA STIC MOVEMENT

Project: 5R1-VAU #10 Soil Hoir No.: RJ-5

Projlct No.: ::R14 ""0 Bonded Llnglh: ,,'

Dot.: 2-2J-'U Unbondld Llngth: 6'

Sor Slu: 118 (CR 60J Bor Oio.: 10 (In.) Cron-sKlion.ot "r~ ' ax (sq.in.)

Test Load
P ( kips)

00r-~~~. ~.:Ifo~:::~.::==ro~==~JJ~~}}IIII::~~~~;::,~:'~ ~ ~,:~~~r-----__-'ro

a' ~------~------_+-------1--------t_------~------~
••

,,-
.-
E~

,,-
•~ E
u 0'6 f-----------f-----------f-----------f----------jf----------j-----------1

a 8~------~------_+-------1--------t_------~------~
... ",.

, ...
1.2 '--______-"-______---'-______---'________L-______-"-______-' .... .... .

Wh,r' :
0,' . P xUL., 2 ? A • orlo of ',ndon (sq.ln.)

,, ..
A . " Ulo: unbol'ldfd 'e nglh (It.)
(aIJX41X6Xl2) /'1e(1fl. mo .elTO<mt at I7ICIX ,. o f tut lood (Kip.)
- 0.103 41 /Ills - a J72;" > 0. 103 n. 29 ,000 1<.1
( a 7"fX21000) 1hetwbre rest NaI PalSlu lJastic em.""

Source Porterfield et al. (1994).

Figure 8.4: Example of Data Reduction from Soil Nail Load Testing.

168
 Source Porterfield et al. (1994).
Figure 8.5: Example of Data Reduction from Soil Nail Creep Testing.

169
8.6 LONG-TERM MONITORING

8.6.1 Introduction

Although several thousand soil nail structures have been constructed worldwide, only a limited
number have been instrumented to provide performance data to support design procedures and
ensure adequate performance. This section includes details necessary to plan and implement both
limited and comprehensive monitoring programs for soil nail structures.

Performance monitoring should be considered too be included for any critical or unusual soil nail
wall installation. Examples of critical or unusual installation are walls higher than 10-m (30-ft),
walls constructed for road widening projects under existing bridges, and walls with high external
surcharge loading. In addition, it is recommended that performance monitoring should be
considered when a permanent soil nail wall is constructed for the first time in any State.

Performance monitoring instrumentation for such walls should include inclinometers, top-of- wall
survey points, load cells, and strain gauges. Inclinometers and survey points are used to measure
wall movements during and after construction. Load cells are installed on selected production nails
at the wall face to measure the magnitude of nail head forces. By installing strain gauges in
individual nails, the development and distribution of the nail forces may be measured to provide
information to improve future designs. Monitoring for a period of at least 2 years after construction
is recommended to examine service deformation and stress development in the nails and wall facing
as a function of load, time, and environmental changes such as winter freeze-thaw cycles.

8.6.2 Parameters to be Monitored

The most significant measurement of overall performance of the soil nail wall system is the amount
of deformation of the wall or slope during and after construction. Inclinometers along the face and
at various distances away from the face provide the most comprehensive data on ground
deformations.

The following list provides important elements to be considered during the development of a
systematic approach to planning soil nail wall performance monitoring programs using geotechnical
instrumentation:
• vertical and horizontal movements of the wall face;
• local movements or deterioration of the facing elements;
• drainage of the ground;
• performance of any structure supported by the reinforced ground, such as roadways, bridge
abutments or footings, and slopes above the wall;
• loads in the nails, with special attention to the magnitude and location of the maximum
load;
• load distribution in the nails due to surcharge loads;
• load change in the nails as a function of time;
• nail loads at the wall face;

170
 • temperature (may cause real changes in other parameters and also affect instrument
readings); and
• rainfall (often a cause of real changes in other parameters).

8.6.3 Soil Nail Wall Performance Monitoring Plan

Monitoring during wall construction should be performed to obtain data on the overall wall
performance. As a minimum, a performance-monitoring plan should typically include requirements
for the following features:

• face horizontal movements using surface markers on the facing and surveying methods, and
inclinometer casings installed a short distance [typically 1 m (3 ft)] behind the facing;
• vertical and horizontal movements of the top of wall facing and the ground surface behind
the shotcrete facing, using optical surveying methods;
• ground cracks and other signs of disturbance in the ground surface behind the top of wall,
through daily visual inspection during construction and, if necessary, installation of crack
gauges astride the cracks;
• local movements and or deterioration of the facing using visual inspections and instruments
such as crack gauges; and
• drainage behavior of the structure, especially if groundwater is observed during
construction; drainage can be monitored visually by observing outflow points or through
standpipe piezometers installed behind the facing.
Alternatively, a soil nail wall performance-monitoring plan can be more comprehensive and
continued over a longer time period for one or more of the following purposes:

• confirming design stress levels and monitoring safety during construction;

• allowing construction procedures to be modified for safety or economy;
• controlling construction rates; and
• enhancing knowledge of the behavior of soil nail structures to provide a base reference for
future designs and possibly improving design procedures and/or reducing costs.

A more comprehensive monitoring plan might include the following:

• strain gauge monitoring along the length of the nail to determine the magnitude and
location of the maximum nail load. Ideally, strain gauges are attached to the nail bar in
pairs, and are mounted top to bottom at a 1.5-m (4.5-ft) spacing, diametrically opposed to
address bending effects. The end of the bar should be inscribed so that the final orientation
of the strain gauge can be verified;
• load cells to measure loads at the head of the nail; high quality nail load data near the head
of the nail can generally be obtained by load cells rather than by strain gauges attached to
the nail; and
• inclinometers to measure horizontal movements of the structure. Inclinometers behind the
wall facing should be installed from the ground surface at various horizontal distances up to

171
 one time the wall height. A typical instrumentation layout for a comprehensive monitoring
plan is shown in Figure 8.6.

SURVEY POINT 1.5 m (4.5 ft)

(TYP)

LOAD CELL
(TYP)
SOIL NAIL (TYP)

1.0 m (3.0 ft) 1.5 m (4.5 ft)

(TYP) (TYP)

1.0 m (3.0 ft)

(TYP)

FACING
STRAIN GAUGE (TYP)

5.0 m 1.0 m INCLINOMETER

(15 ft)
MINIMUM (3.0 ft)

Source Byrne et al. (1998).

Figure 8.6: Typical Instrumentation.

A well-defined, systematic plan should be developed for all monitoring programs, whether limited
or comprehensive. The first step is to define the purpose of the measurements. Every instrument on
a project should be selected and installed to assist in answering a specific question. If there is no
specific question, there should be no instrumentation.

More detailed discussions of appropriate instrumentation schemes and equipment requirements are
contained in Chapter 8 of Christopher et al. (1990) and Byrne et al. (1988).

8.6.4 Soil Nail Wall Performance Monitoring Instruments

Soil nail wall performance monitoring instruments should be selected based on the parameters to be
measured, the instrument’s reliability and simplicity, and the instrument’s compatibility with the
readout devices specified for the project. A brief discussion of the various types of monitoring
instruments typically employed for assessing soil nail wall performance is provided below.

Inclinometers
Inclinometers, preferably installed about 1 m (3 ft) behind the soil nail wall face, provide the most
comprehensive data on wall deformations. Inclinometers are a well-established technology and are
commercially available from several manufacturers.

Survey Points
Wall face deformation can be measured directly by optical surveying methods or indirectly with
electronic distance measuring (EDM) equipment. Also, ground movements behind the soil nail wall

172
can be assessed by monitoring an array or pattern of ground surface points established behind the
wall face and extending for a horizontal distance at least equal to the wall height (e.g. see Figure
8.6). In addition, reflector prisms attached to selected nails allow for electronic deformation
measurements of discreet points on the soil nail wall face. The survey system is typically capable
of measuring horizontal and vertical displacements to accuracy of 3 mm (0.12 in.) or better.

Strain Gauges
Soil nails instrumented with strain gauges allow assessment of the soil nail load distribution as the
excavation progresses and after the completion of the soil nail wall installation. Conventional strain
gauges will measure loads carried by both the grout and nail and will thereby depend to some extent
on the in-place deformational characteristics of the grout and the interaction between the grout and
drillhole wall, both of which are difficult to evaluate.

This approach could eliminate data interpretation problems associated with grout/nail interaction. It
has been suggested that some type of mechanical assembly could be installed at each gauge location
to break the grout column and ensure that all load is transferred to the nail bar at this point. Because
the grout has some tensile strength, it will carry a portion of the total load. Thus, while strain
measurements in the grout and nail are readily achievable, conversion of these measurements into
nail loads is difficult to achieve with accuracy.

Load Cells at the Nail Head

Load cells installed at the soil nail head are used to provide reliable information on the actual loads
that are developed at the facing.

173
 CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES
AASHTO (1986). “Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of
Sampling and Testing, Part I, Specifications, 14th ed.,” American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO (1988). “Manual on Subsurface Investigations,” American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO (1992). “Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of

Sampling and Testing, Part II, Tests.” 15th edition, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO (1994). “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” 1st edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO (1996). “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,” 16th edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

ACI (1994). “Guide For The Evaluation of Shotcrete,” Publication No. ACI 506.4R-94.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.

ACI (1995a). “Guide to Shotcrete,” Publication No. ACI 506R-90, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

ACI (1995b). “Specification for Materials, Proportioning, and Application of Shotcrete,”

Publication No. ACI 506.2-95, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.

ACI (1998). “Code requirements for nuclear safety-related concrete structures (ACI 349-97) and
commentary,” Publication No. ACI 349R-97, ACI Committee 349, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, p. 129.

Arman, A., Samtani, N., Castelli, R., and Munfakh, G. (1997). “Subsurface Investigations
Participants Manual.” Report FHWA-HI-97-021, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.

ASTM (2002). “Annual Book of ASTM Standards,” American Society for Testing and
Materials, Pennsylvania.

Banerjee, S., Finney, A., Wentworth, T., and Bahiradhan, M. (1988). “Evaluation of Design
Methodologies for Soil-Nailed Walls,” Vol. 1: “General,” Vol. 2: “Distribution of Axial Forces
in Soil Nails Based on Interpretation of Measured Strains; Evaluation of Design Methodologies
for Soil “Nailed Walls,” Vol. 3: “An Evaluation of Soil Nailing Analysis Packages.”
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

174
Bang, S. (1991). “Contribution to Summary of Design Methods Comparison for Nailed
Retaining Walls,” Demonstration Project 82, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989). “Engineering rock mass classifications,” Wiley, New York.

Blondeau, F., Christiansen, M., Guilloux, A., and Schlosser, F. (1984). “TALREN: Méthode de
Calcul des Ouvrages en Terre Renforcée,” In Proceedings of the International Conference of In
Situ Soil and Rock Reinforcement, Paris, France, pp. 219-224.

Briaud, J.-L. (1989). “The Pressuremeter Test for Highway Application,” Report FHWA-IP-89-
008, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Briaud, J.-L. (1992). “The Cone Penetrometer Test,” Report FHWA-SA-91-043, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Briaud, J.-L. and Lim, Y. (1997). “Soil-Nailed Wall under Piled Bridge Abutment: Simulation
and Guidelines,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 123, No. 11, pp. 1043-1050.

Briaud, J.-L., and J. Miran (1992). “The Flat Dilatometer Test,” Report FHWA-SA-91-044,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Brown, E.T. (Ed.), (1981). “Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring, ISRM Suggested
Methods,” Pergamon, Oxford, UK.

Bruce, D.A. and R.A. Jewell (1987). “Soil Nailing: Application and Practice – 2 Parts,” Ground
Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan., pp. 21-28.

Byrne, R.J., Cotton, D., Porterfield, J., Wolschlag, C., and Ueblacker, G. (1998). “Manual for
Design and Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls,” Report FHWA-SA-96-69R, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

CALTRANS (1991). “A User’s Manual for the SNAIL Program, Version 2.02 – Updated PC
Version,” California Department of Transportation, Division of New Technology, Material and
Research, Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Sacramento, California.

Caquot, A.I., and Kerisel, J. (1948). “Tables for the calculation of passive pressure, active
pressure and bearing capacity of foundations.” Libraire du Bureau des Longitudes, de L’ecole
Polytechnique, Gauthier-villars, Paris, France, 120p.

Casagrande, A. (1931). Discussion on “A New Theory of Frost Heaving,” by Benkelman and

Olmstead, Proceedings Highway Research Board 11, Part 1, pp. 168-172.

175
Chandler, R.J. (1988). “The In-Situ Measurement of the Undrained Shear Strength of Clays
Using the Field Vane.” Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils: Field and Laboratory Studies,
ASTM Publication No. STP 1014, pp. 13-44.

Chassie, R.G. (1994). “FHWA Ground Nailing Demonstration Project, Guideline Manual and
Workshop,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Cheney, R.S. (1988). “Permanent Ground Anchors,” Report FHWA-DP-68-1R, Federal

Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Christopher, B.R., Gill, S.A., Juran, I., and Mitchell, J.K., (1990). “Reinforced Soil Structures,
Volume 1, Design and Construction Guidelines,” Report No. FHWA-RD-89/043, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., November.

CLOUTERRE (1993). “Recommandations CLOUTERRE 1991 - Soil Nailing Recommendations

1991,” English Translation, Presses de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France.

Deere, D.U. and Deere, D.W. (1988). “The rock quality designation (RQD) index in practice,” In
Rock classification systems for engineering purposes, (ed. L. Kirkaldie), ASTM Special
Publication 984, 91-101. American Society of Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Deere, D.U., Hendron, A.J., Patton, F.D. and Cording, E.J. (1967). “Design of surface and near
surface construction in rock,” In Failure and breakage of rock, Proc. 8th U.S. Symposium Rock
Mechanics, (ed. C. Fairhurst), New York, Society of Mining Engineers, American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, pp. 237-302.

Ebeling, R.M. and Morrison, E.E., Jr. (1992). “The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining
Structures,” Technical Report ITL-92-11, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Elias, V. (1995). “Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized

Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes.” Publication No. FHWA-SA-96-072, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Elias, V. (1995). “Durability/Corrosion of Soil Reinforced Structures,” Report FHWA RD

89-186, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Elias, V. (2000). “Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized

Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes,” Federal Highway Administration, Publication FHWA-
NHI-00-044, Washington, D.C.

Elias, V. and Christopher, B.R. (1997). “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced
Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines,” Federal Highway Administration, Publication
FHWA-SA- 96-071, Washington, D.C., 371 pp.

176
Elias, V. and Juran, I. (1991). “Soil Nailing for Stabilization of Highway Slopes and
Excavations,” Publication FHWA-RD-89-198, Federal Highway Administration, Washington
D.C.

Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R. (2001). “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines,” Federal Highway Administration,
Publication FHWA-NHI-00-043, Washington, D.C., 394 pp.

Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., Lukas, R. (2001). “Ground Improvement Technical Summaries,”
Federal Highway Administration, Demonstration Project 116, Publication FHWA-SA-98-086R,
Washington, D.C.

Felio, G.Y., Vucetic, M., Hudson, M., Barar, O., and Chapman, R. (1990). “Performance of Soil
Nailed Walls during the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake,” In Proceedings, 43rd
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Quebec, pp. 165-173.

Felio, G.Y.; et al. (1990). “Performance of soil nailed walls during the October 17, 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake,” Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Oct. 10-12, 1990, Quebec, Canada, pp.
165-173.

FHWA (1993a). “FHWA International Scanning Tour for Geotechnology, September–October

1992, Soil Nailing Summary Report,” Publication FHWA-PL-93-020, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

FHWA (1993b). “French National Research Project Clouterre, 1991-Recomandations Clouterre

1991,” (English Translation) Soil Nailing Recommendations, Publication FHWA-SA-93-026,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Gässler, G. and Gudehus, G., (1981). “Soil Nailing-Some Aspects of a New Technique,” In
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 3., Session 12, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 665–670.

Golder (1993). “GOLDNAIL Soil Nailing Design Program,” Golder Associates, Seattle,
Washington.

Hoek E. and Brown E.T. (1980). “Underground Excavations in Rock,” Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London, England.

Hoek, E. (1983). “Strength of jointed rock masses,” 23rd. Rankine Lecture, Géotechnique, Vol.
33, No. 3, pp. 187-223.

Hoek, E. (1994). “Strength of rock and rock masses,” ISRM News Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.
4-16.

177
Hynes, M.E. and Franklin, A.G. (1984). “Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method.”
Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-13, U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, 34 p.

IBC (2000). “International Building Code,” International Code Council, Inc., Building Officials
and Code Administrators International, Inc., Country Club Hills, IL; International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, California; and Southern Building Code Congress International,
Inc., Birmingham, Alabama.

Jamiolkowski, M.; Ladd, C.C.; Germaine, J.T, and Lancellotta, R. (1985). “New Developments
in Field and Laboratory Testing of Soils,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, August 12-16, Vol. 1, pp. 57-153.

Juran, I. and Elias, V. (1991). “Ground Anchors and Soil Nails in Retaining Structures,” in
Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition, (Ed.: Fang), pp. 868-905.

Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Farrag, K., and Elias, V. (1990). “Kinematical limit analysis for design
of nailed structures,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 54-72.

Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Matasović, N., Hadj-Hamou, T., and Sabatini, P.J. (1997). “Design
Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways, Volume I, Design Principles,”
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3, Report FHWA-SA-97-076, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Kingsbury, D.W., Sandford, T.C., and Humphrey, D.N. (2002). “Soil Nail Forces Caused by
Frost,” In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board, Annual Meeting, Washington,
D.C.

Kramer, S.L. (1996). “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,” Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.

Kulhaway, F.H., and Mayne, F. (1990). “Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

Lam, I.P. and Martin, G.R. (1986). “Seismic Design of Highway Bridge Foundations - Vol. II,
Design Procedures and Guidelines.” Report FHWA-RD-86-102, Federal Highway
Administration, McLean, Virginia.

Lang, T.A., (1972). “Rock Reinforcement,” Bulletin of the Association of Engineering

Geologists, Vol. IX, No. 3, pp 215-239.

Long, J.H., Chow, E., Cording, E.T., and Sieczkowski, W.J. (1990). “Stability Analysis for Soil
Nailed Walls,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers,
pp. 676-691.

178
Mesri, G. (1988). “A Reevaluation of Su(mob)=0.22σp’ using Laboratory Shear Tests.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 162-164.

Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). “Penetration Tests and Bearing Capacity of Cohesionless Soils,” Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 82,
No. SM1, pp 1-19.

Mitchell, J.K. (1993). “Fundamentals of Soil Behavior,” Second Edition, Wiley, New York.

Mononobe, N. (1929). “Earthquake-Proof Construction of Masonry Dams.” In Proceedings of

the World Engineering Conference, Vol. 9.

NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program) (1997). “Guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings,” Publication FEMA-273, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction
Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Newmark, N. (1965). “Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments,” Geotéchnique, Vol.

15, No. 2, pp. 139-160.

Nicholson, P.J. (1986). “In Situ Earth Reinforcement at Cumberland Gap, U.S. 25E,” In
American Society of Civil Engineers and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Joint
Conference, April, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 21 pp.

Okabe, S. (1926). “General Theory of Earth Pressure.” Journal of Japan Society of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1.

Oral, T. and Sheahan, T.C. (1998). “The Use of Soil Nails in Soft Clays,” Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 83, Design and Construction of Earth Retaining Systems (Finno et al., eds.),
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 26–40.

Peck, R., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1974). “Foundation Engineering,” Wiley.

Peck, R.B. (1969). “Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground, State of Art Report.” In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 225-290.

Plumelle, C. Schlosser, F., Oclage, P., and Knochenmus, G. (1990). “French National Research
Project on Soil Nailing: CLOUTERRE,” Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, American
Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 660-675.

Pockoski, M. and Duncan, J.M. (2000). “Comparison of Computer Programs for Analysis of
Reinforced Slopes,” Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research, Via Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia.

179
Porterfield, J. A., Cotton, D.M., and Byrne, R.J. (1994). “Soil Nailing Field Inspectors Manual,
Project Demonstration 103,” Publication No. FHWA-SA-93-068, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

PTI (1996). “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors,” 3rd ed. Post-Tensioning
Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.

Rabcewicz, L.V. (1964a). “The New Austrian Tunneling Method,” Part 1, Water Power,
London, Vol. 16, November, pp 453-457.

Rabcewicz, L.V. (1964b). “The New Austrian Tunneling Method,” Part 2, Water Power,
London, Vol. 16, December, pp 511-515.

Rabcewicz, L.V. (1965). “The New Austrian Tunneling Method,” Part 3, Water Power, London,
Vol. 17, January, pp 19-24.

Rabejac, S. and Toudic, P. (1974). “Construction d’un mur de soutènement entre Versailles-
Chantiers et Versailles-Matelots,” Trans.: Construction of a retaining wall between Versailles-
Chantiers and Versailles-Matelots, Revue générale des chemins de fer, Vol. 93, pp. 232-237.

Sabatini, P.J. et al. (1999). “Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems,” Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 4, Publication FHWA-IF-99-015, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.

Sabatini, P.J. et al. (2002). “Soil and Rock Properties,” Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5,
Publication FHWA No.: TBD, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.

Sabatini, P.J., Elias, V., Schmertmann, G.R., Bonaparte, R. (1997). “Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 2, Earth Retaining Systems.” Publication FHWA-SA-96-038, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Schlosser, F. (1982). “Behavior and Design of Soil Nailing,” in Proceedings of the Symposium
of Recent Developments in Ground Improvement Techniques, Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 319-413.

Schlosser, F. (1983). “Analogies et différences dans le comportement et le calcul des ouvrages

de soutènement en Terre Armée et par clouage des sols,” (Trad.: Similarities and differences in
the behavior and design of retaining structures of reinforced earth and soil nailing). Annales de
L’Institut Technique de Batiment et des Travaux Publics, No. 418, Series: Sols et Fondations,
Paris, France.

Schlosser, F., and Unterreiner, P. (1991). “Soil Nailing in France: Research and Practice,” In
Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board, Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

180
Schmertmann, J.H. (1975). “Measurement of In-Situ Strength,” In Proceedings of the
Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp
55-138.

Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V. (1970). “Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads,”
State of the Art Papers presented at 1970 Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground
and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Seible, F. (1996). “Structural Response Assessment of Soil Nail Wall Facings,” Report No.
SSRP-96/01, Division of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego.

Sheahan, T.C., T. Oral, and C.L. Ho (2002). “A Simplified Trial Wedge Method for Soil Nailed
Wall Analysis,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Vol. 128, No.:TBD.

Shen, C.K., Bang, S., Romstad, J.M., Kulchin, L., and Denatale, J.S. (1981b). “Field
measurements of an earth support system,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 107, No. GT-12.

Shen, C.K., Herrmann, L.R., Romstand, K.M., Bang, S., Kim, Y.S., and Denatale, J.S. (1981a).
“In situ Earth Reinforcement Lateral Support System,” Report No. 81-03, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California, Davis, California.

Shields, D.R., Schnabel, H., Weatherby, A.M. (1978). “Load transfer in pressure injected
anchors,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 104, GT 9, September, pp.
1183-1196.

Skempton, A.W. (1957). Discussion of “Planning and Design of New Hong Kong Airport,”
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 7, June, pp. 305-307.

Stocker, M.F., Korber, G.W., Gässler, G., and Gudehus, G. (1979). “Soil Nailing,” in
International Conference on Soil Reinforcement I, Paris, France, Vol. 2, pp. 469–474.

Tatsuoka,F., Koseki, J., and Tateyama, M. (1997). “Performance of reinforced soil structures
during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake,” Special Lecture, in Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement (IS Kyushu ‘96), Balkema, Vol. 2, pp.
973-1008.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R., and Mesri, G. (1996). “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,” 3rd Ed.,
J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Thompson, S.R. and I.R. Miller (1990). “Design, Construction and Performance of a Soil Nailed
Wall in Seattle, Washington,” Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures (P.C.
Lambe and L.A. Hansen, Eds.), Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 629-643.

181
Tufenkjian, M.R. (2002). “Performance of Soil Nailed Retaining Structures During the 2001
Nisqually, Earthquake,” Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, July 21-25, Boston.

Tufenkjian, M.R. and Vucetic, M. (2000). “Dynamic failure mechanism of soil-nailed excavation
models in centrifuge,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 227-235.

U.S. Department of the Navy (1982). “Foundations and Earth Structures,” NAVFAC DM-7.2,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

Vucetic, M., Iskandar, V.E., Doroudian, M., and Luccioni, L. (1996). “Dynamic Failure of Soil-
Nailed Excavation in Centrifuge,” Earth Reinforcement, Balkema, pp. 829-834.

Vucetic, M., Tufenkjian, M., and Doroudian, M. (1993). “Dynamic Centrifuge Testing of Soil-
Nailed Excavations,” ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2 pp. 172-187.

Weatherby, D.E. (1982). “Tiebacks,” Report No. FHWA-RD-82-047, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington D.C.

Williamson, D.A. (1984). “Unified Rock Classification System,” Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists, Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 345-354.

Wire Reinforcement Institute (2001). “Manual of Standard Practice-Structural Welded Wire

Reinforcement,” 6th Edition, Hartford, Connecticut.

Wright, S.G., and Duncan, J.M. (1992). “Limit Equilibrium Stability for Soil-Reinforced
Slopes,” Transportation Research Record 1330, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 40–46.

Wroth, C.P. and Houlsby, G.T. (1985). “Soil Mechanics – Property Characterization and
Analysis Procedures,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, August 12-16, Vol. 1, pp. 1-55.

Zarrabi-Kashani, K. (1979). “Sliding of gravity retaining wall during earthquakes considering

vertical accelerations and changing inclination of failure surface,” S.M. Thesis, Dept. Civil
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

182
 APPENDIX A

REINFORCEMENT CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE A.1
THREADED BAR PROPERTIES [ASTM A615, GRADES 420 and 525 MPa (60 and 75 ksi)]

Nominal Bar Cross-Sectional Nominal Unit Max. Diameter ASTM

Yield Strength Max. Axial Load
Designation Area Weight w/Threads Grade
English mm in.2 mm2 lbs/ft kg/m in. mm English ksi MPa kips kN
60 60 414 26.4 118
#6 19 0.44 284 1.50 2.24 0.86 21.8
75 75 517 33.0 147
60 60 414 36.0 160
#7 22 0.60 387 2.04 3.04 0.99 25.1
75 75 517 45.0 200
60 60 414 47.4 211
#8 25 0.79 510 2.67 3.98 1.12 28.4
75 75 517 59.3 264
60 60 414 60.0 267
#9 29 1.00 645 3.40 5.06 1.26 32.0
75 75 517 75.0 334
60 60 414 76.2 339
#10 32 1.27 819 4.30 6.41 1.43 36.3
75 75 517 95.3 424
60 60 414 93.6 417
#11 36 1.56 1,006 5.31 7.91 1.61 40.9
75 75 517 117.0 520
60 60 414 135.0 601
#14 43 2.25 1,452 7.65 11.39 1.86 47.2
75 75 517 168.8 751

Source: Byrne et al. (1998).

A-1
 TABLE A.2
WELDED WIRE MESH DIMENSIONS
METRIC AND ENGLISH UNITS

Wire Cross-Sectional
Mesh Designation (1), (2) Weight per Unit Area
Area per Unit Length(3)

Metric English Metric English Metric English

(mm x mm –mm2 x mm2) (in. x in.-in2/100 x in.2 /100) (mm2/m) (in.2/ft) (kg/m2) (lbs/ft2)

102x102 - MW9xMW9 4x4 - W1.4xW1.4 88.9 0.042 1.51 3.1

102x102 - MW13xMW13 4x4 - W2.0xW2.0 127.0 0.060 2.15 4.4

102x102 - MW19xMW19 4x4 - W2.9xW2.9 184.2 0.087 3.03 6.2

102x102 - MW26xMW26 4x4 - W4.0xW4.0 254.0 0.120 4.30 8.8

152x152 - MW9xMW9 6x6 - W1.4xW1.4 59.3 0.028 1.03 2.1

152x152 - MW13xMW13 6x6 - W2.0xW2.0 84.7 0.040 1.46 3.0

152x152 - MW19xMW19 6x6 - W2.9xW2.9 122.8 0.058 2.05 4.2

152x152 - MW26xMW26 6x6 - W4.0xW4.0 169.4 0.080 2.83 5.8

Source: WRI (2001).
Notes:
(1) The first two numbers indicate the mesh opening size, whereas the second pair of numbers
following the prefixes indicates the wire cross-sectional area.
(2) Prefix M indicates metric units. Prefix W indicates plain wire. If wires are pre-deformed, the prefix D is
used instead of W.
(3) This value is obtained by dividing the wire cross-sectional area by the mesh opening size.

A-2
 TABLE A.3
REINFORCING BAR DIMENSIONS (ENGLISH AND METRIC)

Bar Designation Nominal Diameter Nominal Area

English Metric in. mm in.2 mm2
3 10 0.375 9.6 0.11 71
4 13 0.500 12.7 0.20 129
5 16 0.625 15.9 0.31 199
6 19 0.750 19.1 0.44 284
7 22 0.875 22.2 0.60 387
8 25 1.000 25.4 0.79 510
9 29 1.128 28.7 1.00 645
10 32 1.270 32.3 1.27 819
11 36 1.410 35.8 1.56 1,006
14 43 1.693 43.0 2.25 1,452
18 57 2.257 57.3 4.00 2,581
Source: Byrne et al. (1998).

A-3
 TABLE A.4: SELF-DRILLING HOLLOW CORE BAR PROPERTIES
(MAI BAR TYPE)

Nominal Outer Cross-Sectional

Yield Load Ultimate Load Weight
Bar Diameter Area
Description
mm in. mm2 in.2 kN kips kN kips kg/m lbs/ft

R25N 25 1 303 0.47 151 34 200 45 2.61 1.75

R32N 32 1¼ 432 0.67 231 52 280 63 3.61 2.42
R32S 32 1¼ 503 0.78 280 63 360 81 4.21 2.82
R38N 38 1½ 748 1.16 401 90 498 112 5.97 4
R51L 51 2 903 1.4 449 101 498 112 7.47 5
R51N 51 2 1052 1.63 632 142 801 180 8.06 5.4
Source: http://www.dywidag-systems.com

TABLE A.5: PROPERTIES OF SELF-DRILLING HOLLOW CORE BAR PROPERTIES

(CTS/TITAN BAR TYPE)

Effective Outer Cross-Sectional

Yield Load Ultimate Load Weight
Bar Diameter Area
Description
mm in. mm2 in.2 kN kips kN kips kg/m lbs/ft

30/16 26 1.00 382 0.59 180 40.5 220 49.5 3.01 2.02
32/20 28 1⅛ 445 0.69 210 47.2 260 58.0 3.42 2.30
30/11 26.2 1 1/16 446 0.69 280 63.0 338 76.0 3.50 2.35
40/20 36 1.42 644 1.00 430 96.7 510 114.7 5.35 3.60
40/16 36 1.42 879 1.36 528 118.7 660 148.4 6.90 4.64
52/26 48.8 1.94 1337 2.08 730 160.8 929 209.0 10.62 7.14
Source: http:/www.contech.com

A-4
 TABLE A.6
HEADED-STUD DIMENSIONS
Nominal Length Head Diameter Shaft Diameter Head Thickness Head Area/ Head Thickness/
Headed- Shaft Area (Head Diameter-
Stud Size Ls DH DS tH
Shaft Diameter)
mm in. mm in. mm in. in. mm in.
1
/4 x 41/8 105 4.125 12.7 0.5 6.4 0.25 4.7 0.19 4.0 0.75

3
/8 x 41/8 105 4.125 19.1 0.75 9.7 0.38 7.1 0.28 4.0 0.75

3
/8 x 61/8 156 6.125 19.1 0.75 9.7 0.38 7.1 0.28 4.0 0.75

1
/2 x 41/8 105 4.125 25.4 1 12.7 0.5 7.9 0.31 4.0 0.62

1
/2 x 55/16 135 5.3125 25.4 1 12.7 0.5 7.9 0.31 4.0 0.62

1
/2 x 61/8 156 6.125 25.4 1 12.7 0.5 7.9 0.31 4.0 0.62

5
/8 x 69/16 162 7.875 31.8 1.3 15.9 0.625 7.9 0.31 4.0 0.50

3
/4 x 311/16 89 15.5 31.8 1.3 19.1 0.750 9.5 0.38 2.8 0.75

3
/4 x 43/16 106 4.1875 31.8 1.25 19.1 0.75 9.5 0.38 2.8 0.75

3
/4 x 53/16 132 5.1875 31.8 1.25 19.1 0.75 9.5 0.38 2.8 0.75

3
/4 x 63/16 157 6.1875 31.8 1.25 19.1 0.75 9.5 0.38 2.8 0.75

7
/8 x 43/16 102 4 34.9 1.4 22.2 0.875 9.5 0.38 2.5 0.75

7
/8 x 53/16 127 5 34.9 1.4 22.2 0.875 9.5 0.38 2.5 0.75

7
/8 x 63/16 152 6 34.9 1.4 22.2 0.875 9.5 0.38 2.5 0.75

Source: Byrne et al. (1998).

Nominal length indicated is before welding.
• For DS ≤ 1/2”, LS is approximately 1/8” shorter after welding.
• For DS > 5/8”, LS is approximately 3/16” shorter after welding.

DSH

tSH

LS
DSC

A-5
 APPENDIX B

CHARTS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN

A series of design charts were developed as a design aid to provide preliminary nail length and
maximum design tensile forces. The charts were developed using the computer program SNAIL
(see Section 5 and Appendix F). These charts are only strictly applicable for the conditions they
were developed for. The charts should only be used to obtain preliminary design values and should
not be used in lieu of comprehensive analyses.

The charts were developed for a range of face batter, α; backslope, β; effective friction angle, φ’;
and normalized bond strength, µ. The normalized bond strength is defined as:

q u D DH
µ =
FS b γ S H S V

where: qU is the ultimate bond strength (presented in Chapters 3 and 5); DDH is the drillhole effective
diameter; FSP is the factor of safety against pullout (see Table 5.3), γ is the total unit weight of the
soil behind the wall; and SH and SV are the nail horizontal and vertical spacing, respectively. Table
B.1 presents the geometric and material conditions used for the development of the design charts.

Two types of charts were created. The first type of chart (Figures B.1a through B.6a) provides the
necessary normalized nail length, L/H, required to achieve a global safety factor of FSG=1.35,
where L is the necessary nail length and H is the wall height. L/H varies as a function of the
normalized pullout resistance. The values L/H were obtained for the most critical failure surface for
the selected geometry and material properties. A total of six charts were created, one for each
combination of α and β values shown in Table B.1. For intermediate values of α and β values, it is
acceptable to interpolate between charts.

TABLE B.1
VARIABLE PARAMETERS

Parameter Units Values

Face Batter degrees 0, 10
Backslope degrees 0, 10, 20, 30
Effective Friction Angle degrees 27, 31, 35, 39
KPa 52, 104, 172, 276, 689
Ultimate Bond Strength
psi 8,15,25,40,100

The second type of charts (Figures B.1b through B.6b) provides the normalized maximum design
nail force, tmax-s, as a function of µ. The value tmax-s is defined as:

B-1
 Tmax −s
t max −s =
SH SV

where Tmax-s is the maximum design nail force. Values of tmax-s were obtained from analyses with
SNAIL by setting the factor of safety for global stability FSG = 1.0. As discussed in Chapter 5, FSG
is set at 1.0 when determining the nail maximum design force to allow a rational utilization of the
steel strength that is consistent with the soil strength mobilization. After Tmax-s is determined and a
steel tensile strength is selected, the necessary cross sectional area of the nail can be calculated.

Other design parameters listed in Table B.2 remained constant throughout the development of the
design charts. Subsequently, these parameters were varied (see ranges in Table B.2) to investigate
the influence of the specific parameters on the nail length and maximum design nail force calculated
using the design charts. Nail inclination was kept constant at 15 degrees. The results indicate that
the normalized length and maximum forces in the nail also depend on the global factor of safety,
drillhole diameter, and the soil cohesion. The effect of the wall height was not significant, and
thereby is not longer considered.

TABLE B.2
ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS
Fixed Value
Included Studied Range of
Parameter Units used for Design
in µ? Values
Chart

Pullout Factor of Safety, FSP - 1.0 0.5 - 1.0

Nail Horizontal Spacing, SH m (ft) 1.5 (5) 1.2 - 1.8 (4 - 6)

Included
Nail Vertical Spacing, SV m (ft) 1.5 (5) 1.2 - 1.8 (4 - 6)

Total Unit Weight, γ kN/m3 (pcf) 18.9 (120) 17.3 - 20.5 (110 - 130)

Global Factor of Safety, FSG - 1.35 1.35 - 2.0

Drillhole Diameter, DDH mm (in.) 100 (4) 100 - 300 (4 – 12)

Not Included
Cohesion, c kPa (psf) 5 (100) 5 – 24 (100 – 500)

Wall Height, H m (ft) 12 (40) 6.0 – 24 (20 – 80)

If the conditions of the problem being analyzed differ from those for which the charts were
developed, the values L/H and tmax-s obtained from the charts must be corrected. Two sets of
correction factors have been developed. One set of correction factors, C1L, C2L, and C3L, were
developed to correct the value L/H for drillhole diameter, soil cohesion, and global factor of safety,
respectively. Values of C1L are shown graphically as a function of the drillhole diameter, DDH in
B-2
Figure B.7. Values of C2L and C3L are expressed as mathematical formulas also included in Figure
B.7.

The second set of correction factors, C1F and C2F, were developed to correct tmax-s for drillhole
diameter and soil cohesion. No correction for global safety factor is necessary for tmax-s. Values of
C1F are shown graphically as a function of the drillhole diameter, DDH, in Figure B.7. Values of C2F
are expressed as a mathematical formula included in Figure B.7.

B-3
 Face Batter Backslope
α=0 β=0 µ = (qaDDH)/(γ SH SV)
L
qa = qu/FSP

γ, c, φ c* = c / γH
H SV
c* = 0.02 t max-s = Normalized Maximum Design Force in Nails
FS=1.35 = Tmax-s/γ H SH SV

DDH= 100 mm
For other FS, c*, and DDH,
see Figure B7

1.5
Friction Angle
(degrees)
31
35
1 39
27
L/H

0.5

(a)
00
0.4
Normalized Design Nail Force, tmax-s

0.3

0.2

0.1

(b) Nail forces for FSG = 1.0

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
q aD DH
Normalized Bond Strength, µ =
γ SH SV

Figure B.1: Batter 0O - Backslope 0O

B-4
 Backslope
Face Batter β = 10O
α=0 µ = (qaDDH)/(γ SH SV)
L
qa = qu/FSP

γ, c, φ c* = c / γH
H SV
c* = 0.02 t max-s = Normalized Maximum Design Force in Nails
FS=1.35 = Tmax-s/γ H SH SV
DDH= 100 mm For other FS, c*, and DDH,
see Figure B7

1.5
Friction Angle
(degrees)
27
31
1 35
39
L/H

0.5

(a)
00
0.4
Normalized Max. Design Force, tmax-s

0.3

0.2

0.1

NOTE:
(b) Nail forces are for FSG = 1.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
q aD DH
Normalized Bond Strength, µ =
γ S H SV

Figure B.2: Batter 0O - Backslope 10O

B-5
 Backslope
Face Batter β=0
α = 10O µ = (qaDDH)/(γ SH SV)
L
qa = qu/FSP

γ, c, φ c* = c / γH
H SV
c* = 0.02 t max-s = Normalized Maximum Design Force in Nails
FS=1.35 = Tmax-s/γ H SH SV

DDH= 100 mm For other FS, c*, and DDH,

see Figure B7

1.5
Friction Angle
(degrees)
27
31
1 35
39
L/H

0.5

(a)
00
0.4
Normalized Max. Design Force, tmax-s

0.3

0.2

0.1

NOTE:
(b) Nail forces are for FSG = 1.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
q aD DH
Normalized Bond Strength, µ =
γ S H SV

Figure B.3: Batter 10O - Backslope 0O

B-6
 Backslope
Face Batter β = 10O
α = 10O µ = (qaDDH)/(γ SH SV)
L
qa = qu/FSP

γ, c, φ c* = c / γH
H SV
c* = 0.02 t max-s = Normalized Maximum Design Force in Nails
FS=1.35 = Tmax-s/γ H SH SV

DDH= 100 mm For other FS, c*, and DDH,

see Figure B7

1.5
Friction Angle
(degrees)
27
31
1 35
39
L/H

0.5

(a)
Normalized Max. Design Nail Force, tmax-s

00
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
NOTE:
Nail forces are for FSG = 1.0
(b)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
q aD DH
Normalized Bond Strength, µ =
γ SH S V

Figure B.4: Batter 10O - Backslope 10O

B-7
 Backslope
Face Batter β = 30O
α=0 µ = (qaDDH)/(γ SH SV)
L
qa = qu/FSP

γ, c, φ c* = c / γH
H SV
c* = 0.02 t max-s = Normalized Maximum Design Force in Nails
FS=1.35 = Tmax-s/γ H SH SV
DDH= 100 mm
For other FS, c*, and DDH,
see Figure B7

1.5
Friction Angle
(degrees)
39

1
L/H

0.5

(a)
00
0.4
Normalized Max. Design Force, tmax-s

0.3

0.2

0.1
NOTE:
Nail forces are for FSG = 1.0
(b)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
q aD DH
Normalized Bond Strength, µ =
γ SH S V

Figure B.5: Batter 0O - Backslope 30O

B-8
 Backslope
Face Batter β = 30O
α = 10O µ = (qaDDH)/(γ SH SV)
L
qa = qu/FSP

γ, c, φ c* = c / γH
H SV
c* = 0.02
t max-s = Normalized Maximum Design Force in Nails
FS=1.35
= Tmax-s/γ H SH SV
DDH= 100 mm
For other FS, c*, and DDH,
see Figure B7

1.5
Friction Angle
(degrees)
39

1
L/H

0.5

(a)
00
0.4
Normalized Max. Design Force, tmax-s

0.3

0.2

0.1
NOTE:
Nail forces are for FSG = 1.0
(b)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
q aD DH
Normalized Bond Strength, µ =
γ SH SV

Figure B.6: Batter 10O - Backslope 30O

B-9
Corrections of Soil Length
L L
(corrected ) = C1L × C2L × C3L × (from charts for D DH = 100 mm, c * = 0.02 , FSG = 1.35)
H H

where:

C1L = Correction for Drillhole Diameter see chart (a) below

C2L = Correction for Soil Cohesion see formula (b) below
C3L = Correction for Global Factor of Safety see formula (c) below

Corrections of Normalized Maximum In-Service Nail Force

t max - s (corrected ) = C1F × C2F × t max -s (from charts for D DH = 100 mm, c * = 0.02)

C1F= Correction for Drillhole Diameter see chart (a)

C2F= Correction for Soil Cohesion see formula (b)

(a) Correction for Drillhole Diameter

1 2
Correction for Length, C1L

Correction for Force, C1F

0.9 C1F 1.8

0.8 1.6

0.7 1.4

0.6 1.2
C1L

0.5 1
100 150 200 250 300
Drillhole Diameter, DDH (mm)

Figure B.7: Correction Factors

B-10
 APPENDIX C CORROSION PROTECTION
C.1 INTRODUCTION

Protecting the nail bar and other metallic components of a soil nail against the detrimental effects of
corrosion is necessary to assure adequate long-term durability of the soil nail wall. The level of
corrosion protection that soil nails require depends largely on the nature of the project; specifically,
the expected life, the perceived importance of the structure, and consequences of failure. In general,
corrosion protection of soil nails is required for all permanent soil nail walls. Corrosion protection
of soil nails can be achieved by physical and chemical protection measures or a combination of
both. The selection of the type of corrosion protection depends on the design life of the structure
(i.e., temporary or permanent), agressivity of the ground environment, the consequences of failure
of the soil nail wall system, and the additional cost of providing a higher level of protection. In this
appendix, basic information on corrosion is presented along with a description of corrosion
protection systems used in soiling applications and the criteria used to evaluate the necessary level
of corrosion protection for a soil nail system.

C.2 BASIC CONCEPTS OF CORROSION

C.2.1 General

Corrosion is the process in which a metal deteriorates, changes its physical properties, and
ultimately dissolves due to chemical or electrochemical reactions with its surrounding environment.
Most refined metals revert naturally and irreversibly from a less stable state to their native, more
stable state, if conditions promoting corrosion are present and prevail over factors inhibiting
corrosion.

The basic mechanism of metallic corrosion consists of the movement of ions in an electric circuit:
from a metal surface (anode), through a nonmetallic conductor in solution (electrolyte), and onto
another surface (cathode) due to a voltage difference, differences in oxygen concentrations, or
differences in other environmental conditions. With time, the anode is consumed by the loss of
metal into the electrolyte. In grouted soil nails, flow of ions can occur between bare reinforcing
steel and a nearby metal object or between points on the metal surface not covered by grout.
Numerous factors affect the rate of corrosion, including the characteristics of the metallic surface
(e.g., steel, zinc), the type of electrolyte (e.g., water, industrial fluids), the presence and
concentration of substances in the electrolyte (e.g., salts as carbonates, chlorides), the nature of the
anode/electrolyte interface and other environmental factors.

C.2.2 Corrosion Mechanisms

The main corrosion mechanisms that may affect ungrouted soil nails are general corrosion. For
grouted nails, the main corrosion mechanism is pitting or localized corrosion. Other mechanisms
such as stress corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement and fatigue corrosion are usually not significant
for soil nail applications. This section provides a general overview of general and localized

C-1
corrosion. Detailed information on the effects of various corrosion mechanisms on steel is provided
in Weatherby (1982).

General Corrosion:
General corrosion occurs as a thin layer of rust uniformly distributed on the surface of steel bars.
This type of corrosion can develop when unprotected steel is exposed to the environment during
shipping and improper on-site storage. Under certain conditions, the thin rust layer becomes a
protective film against further corrosion, a mechanism referred to as passivation. Metal loss is
typically not significant with general corrosion, as long as the exposure time is limited and
detrimental conditions promoting corrosion (see below) are absent. It is good practice to inspect
nail bars for any surface corrosion and to remove thin layers of rust by wiping before the bars are
installed in the drillholes. Lightly rusted bars may be inserted into the drillhole without rust
removal in temporary applications.

Pitting or Localized Corrosion:

Localized corrosion develops as pitting or crevices and is confined to specific locations along the
steel bar. In very corrosive or aggressive ground conditions, grouted bars will pit after only a few
weeks of exposure. In general, localized corrosion is triggered by the removal of the protective
passivation coating. Pitting and crevices promote non-homogenous concentrations of ions, an
increase in electrochemical potential and further localized corrosion. The localized corrosion can
be severe when aggressive ions, such as chlorides and/or sulfates are present. As the pit propagates
deeper, the bar cross-section is reduced and this may eventually lead to a brittle, sudden failure.
Pits or cracks on the surface of the steel bar are adequate reason for rejection of the bar.

C.2.3 Conditions Promoting Corrosion

The conditions promoting corrosion include:

• low resistivity of ground;
• high concentration of chlorides or sulfides in ground or groundwater;
• too low or too high hydrogen potential (pH) of ground or groundwater;
• high saturation conditions; and
• stray currents.

The factors above collectively define ground corrosion potential (or aggressivity of the ground).
Examples of aggressive soils and factors that may increase corrosion potential include:

• Acidic Soils: These soils include soils with a high level of soluble iron and are
characterized with low hydrogen potential (i.e., pH < 5).
• Sodic Soils: These are alkaline soils (i.e., pH < 9) with components favoring corrosion and
are common in arid environments. Low precipitation and intense evaporation cause
soluble salts (e.g., sodium, chloride, and sulfates) to be transported from the bedrock to
shallow layers.

C-2
 • Calcareous Soils: These are alkaline soils (7 < pH < 9) with large concentrations of
sodium, calcium, calcium-magnesium carbonates and sulfates. Examples of these soils
include those derived from calcite, dolomite, and gypsum.
• Organic Soils: These soils have unusually high water content (e.g., peats, mucks, and
cinders) and may contain humic acid.
• Materials of Industrial Origin: These industrial waste “soils” can have pH values that vary
significantly and extend along the whole pH scale. Examples of industrial waste soils are
slag, fly ash, fills with construction debris, mine tailings, and acid mine waste.
• Electrical Currents: Corrosion may be induced in nail bars (or other metallic parts) when
stray electrical currents are applied repeatedly. Stray currents can derive from power
sources, such as electric rail systems, electrical transmission systems, and welding
operations, and is particularly damaging in a marine environment. However, when the
sources are located more than about 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft) from the nail bars, the
potential of stray current corrosion is minimal (Elias, 2000).
• Other Environmental Factors: The corrosion potential of granular soils tends to increase
slightly when they are in the 60 to 80 percent of the degree of saturation range. In regions
where deicing salts are used, the top 2.5 m (7.5 ft) of soil behind a soil nail wall should be
assumed to contain a higher concentration of chlorides.

C.2.4 Evaluation of Soil Corrosion Potential

Tests listed in Table C.1 (equivalent to Table 3.9) are used to classify the corrosion potential of the
ground.

Table C.1: Criteria for Assessing Ground Corrosion Potential.

Mild to no Corrosion AASHTO
Strong Corrosion ASTM
Test Units Potential/Non- Test
Potential/Aggressive Standard
Aggressive Method
pH – < 4.5, >10 5.5 < pH < 10 G51 T 289-91
Resistivity ohm-cm <2,000 Greater than 5,000 G57 T 288-91
(1)
Sulfates ppm >200 Less than 200 D516 T 290-91
Chlorides ppm >100 Less than 100 D512 T 291-91
Stray current – Present – – –
Note: (1) ppm = parts per million.

In general, the ground is classified with a strong corrosion potential or aggressive if any one of the
conditions listed in the first column of Table C.1 exceeds the limits listed in the third column of the
table during the service life of the soil nail wall. In addition, buried structures immediately adjacent
to the project having suffered from corrosion or direct chemical attack might be an indication of
strong corrosion potential. If all the conditions listed in the first column of Table C.1 satisfy the
conditions listed in the fourth column of Table C.1, the ground is classified with no (or occasionally
mild) corrosion potential. Tests from a nearby site can be used to evaluate the corrosion potential of
the site if the designer can establish that the ground conditions are similar. Otherwise, if tests are

C-3
not performed, then the ground should be assumed to be aggressive. Classification of ground
aggressivity should consider the possibility of changes during the service life of the soil nail wall,
which may cause the ground to become aggressive (e.g., near mining operations, chemical plants, or
chemical storage areas). Only experienced personnel must perform tests on soil resistivity, soil
chemistry, and presence of stray currents.

C.3 CORROSION PROTECTION SYSTEMS

C.3.1 Introduction

Corrosion protection can be provided by physical and chemical protection, or a combination

thereof. Physical protection involves placing a continuous barrier between the nail bar, other
metallic parts, and the corrosion sources. Chemical protection consists of the use of a sacrificial
material or a dialectric material, which will preclude the flow of electric current. Some of the
corrosion protection systems currently in use utilize a combination of these mechanisms. In
addition, when stray currents are of concern, electrical isolation of the nail assemblies should be
used. The most common systems used to provide corrosion protection for soil nails are described
below.

C.3.2 Methods for Corrosion Protection for Soil Nails

C.3.2.1 Grout Protection

This method of corrosion protection involves fully covering the bar with neat cement grout. After
the bar is centered in the drillhole, neat grout is injected and fills up the annular space around the
steel bar. Grout encapsulation provides both physical and chemical corrosion protection. When a
minimum grout cover is in place, components such as carbonates and chlorides in the soil, and
oxygen and humidity in the air are prevented or delayed in reaching the bar due to passivation.
Additionally, the grout must have low permeability to ensure the effectiveness of the encapsulation.
The grout provides an alkaline environment that reduces the corrosion potential. A minimum grout
cover of 25 mm (1 in.) between the bar and the soil should be specified.

C.3.2.2 Epoxy Coating and Grout

Corrosion protection with epoxy (Figure C.1) consists of coating the nail bar with a fusion-bonded
epoxy that is applied by the manufacturer prior to shipment to the construction site. Cement grout
is placed around all epoxy-coated nail bars. The minimum required thickness of epoxy coatings is
0.4 mm [16 thousandths of an inch (mils)]. The epoxy coating provides physical and chemical
protection, as epoxy is a dielectric material. In transporting and handling bars, the epoxy coating
may be damaged before nail installation. Therefore, it is not uncommon to spray epoxy coating in
the field on chipped or nicked surfaces. Applicable standards for epoxy coating are found in ASTM
A-775.

C.3.2.3 Galvanized Coating and Grout

A common method of providing corrosion protection is galvanization, which consists of applying a

zinc coating on the steel surface. The process is performed by hot-dipping bars and other metallic

C-4
pieces with zinc. The protection provided by galvanized coating is both physical and chemical, as
this process forms a protective layer of zinc oxide. Cement grout is placed around all galvanized
nail bars.

C.3.2.4 Encapsulation (Double Corrosion Protection)

For maximum corrosion protection, a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or high-density polyethylene

(HDPE), minimum 1-mm (0.04-in.) thick corrugated sheathing may be installed around the grouted
nail bar (Figure C.2), similar to what is done for ground anchors in permanent applications (whether
the ground is aggressive or not). This practice is common in soil nail applications used for
permanent soil nail walls built in an aggressive or unknown environment. The sheathing is
corrugated to transfer the effect of anchorage to the surrounding grout. Grout must completely fill
the annular spaces inside and outside the sheathing. The minimum grout cover between the
sheathing and the nail bar is 10 mm (0.4 in.). This distance allows the injected grout to flow
without difficulty and provides sufficient physical protection. Outside the sheathing, the minimum
grout cover between the sheathing and the drillhole wall must be 20 mm (0.8 in.).

PERMANENT FACING

TEMPORARY FACING

GEOCOMPOSITE STRIP DRAIN

BEARING PLATE

HEADED-STUD EPOXY-COATED BAR [MINIMUM THICKNESS

(TYP.)
OF EPOXY COATING: 0.4 mm (16 mil)]
NUT AND
BEVELED WASHER

CENTRALIZER

50 mm (2 in.) 25 mm (1 in.)
MINIMUM COVER MINIMUM COVER

150 mm (6 in.)
MINIMUM
NAIL GROUT
2.5 m
(8 ft)
MAXIM
UM 0.5 m
(1.5
MAXIM ft)
UM

Modified from Byrne et al. (1998).

Figure C.1: Grouted Epoxy-Coated Nail (Class I Protection).

In some systems, the inner annular space is grouted in the shop and the whole assembly transported
to the project site. The sheathing must be sufficiently strong to resist transportation, handling, and
installation. Additionally, sheathing must be non-reactive with concrete, chemically stable, ultra-
violet-light resistant, and impermeable. The minimum sheathing wall thickness is typically 0.875 to
1 mm (35 to 40 mils). Certain sheathing techniques may be proprietary.

C-5
 C.3.3 Nail-Head Corrosion Protection

The use of materials made of galvanized steel and a minimum cover of 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete or
permanent shotcrete provide corrosion protection of bearing plates, washers, and nuts. Epoxy
coating can be applied on bearing plates and nuts.

PERMANENT FACING

TEMPORARY FACING

GEOCOMPOSITE STRIP DRAIN

BEARING PLATE UNCOATED NAIL BAR

HEADED STUD
(TYP) INNER GROUT
NUT AND PVC SHEATHING
BEVELED WASHER
OUTER GROUT
CENTRALIZER

END CAP ASSEMBLY

50 mm (2 in.) ~
MINIMUM COVER 20 mm (0.8 in.)
MINIMUM COVER

150 mm (6 in.)
MINIMUM
2.5 m
(8 ft)
MAXIM
UM 0.5 m
(1.5
MAXIM ft)
BAR UM

10 mm (0.4 in.) INNER GROUT

MINIMUM COVER
PVC SHEATHING
FACING REINFORCEMENT
NOT SHOWN OUTER GROUT

Modified from Byrne et al. (1998).

Figure C.2: Sheathing-Encapsulation on Grouted Nail (Class I Protection).

C.3.4 Protection Against Stray Currents

When stray currents are present, protection is provided by electrical isolation. The method consists
of interrupting the current passage between the electric source and the nail bar. The isolation can
occur along the path or at the nail. PVC sheathings can be used for corrosion protection to provide
isolation. When the sheathing is not present, the bearing plate and the nail head should be isolated
from steel in the facing and all other nails. Effectiveness of electrical isolation must be field tested
and verified by personnel qualified for this task after nail installation and before grouting.

C.4 CORROSION PROTECTION LEVELS

Two levels, or classes, of corrosion protection are commonly specified in U.S. practice:

• Class I Protection (two mechanisms for maximum protection), and

C-6
 • Class II Protection (one mechanism for intermediate protection).

Table C.2 presents the protection levels and the protection systems commonly used in soil nail
applications.
Table C.2: Corrosion Protection Requirements.
Level of
Class
Corrosion Protection Elements Structure Service Life
Protection
Protection
Grout and epoxy-coated bar, or
I Maximum Grout and PVC sheathing • Permanent
encapsulation
• Temporary
• Permanent with:
o no aggressive soil;
II Intermediate Grout and bare bar
o no serious failure consequences; and
o with high costs for increased corrosion
protection level

Figures C.1 and C.2 present examples of Class I protection. In the U.S. practice of drilling and
grouting nail bars, a Class II protection level is automatically provided, even if the ground has no
corrosion potential. The use of grout in conjunction with PVC sheathing is known as Double
Corrosion Protection and is used in aggressive or unknown conditions.

When using corrosion protection levels Class I or Class II as defined here, it is not necessary to
incorporate a sacrificial thickness into the design. Sacrificial thickness is never used as the sole
protection method in permanent applications. In temporary applications, unprotected, bare bars can
be driven, as long as the soil corrosion potential is mild or insignificant. A preliminary and safe (for
most conditions) estimate of the required sacrificial total thickness in unprotected bars is 2 mm
(0.08 in).

C.5 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CORROSION PROTECTION LEVELS

Existing guidelines developed for soil and rock ground anchors (see PTI, 1996) are used herein as a
means to select the correct level of corrosion protection for soil nails. Although the detrimental
effects of corrosion may be less in passive nail bars as compared to post-tensioned ground anchors,
the use of the PTI guidelines in soil nail walls is helpful because the protection methods in both
applications are similar. However, some elements of corrosion protection present in ground anchor
applications (i.e., in trumpets and unbonded lengths) are not used in soil nail walls.

The PTI guidelines for ground anchors indicate that the selection of the level of corrosion protection
is dictated by the following factors.

Service Life: Service life is based on the permanency of the structure (i.e., temporary or
permanent). A service life of 18 months or less qualifies the structure as temporary. If the service
life of the temporary structure is likely to be extended due to construction delays, an evaluation

C-7
should be made to determine if additional corrosion protection, particularly in corrosive ground
conditions, is necessary.
Ground Corrosion Potential: Nails in environments with high corrosion potential require the
highest class of corrosion protection listed for each service life. Class II corrosion protection for
temporary soil nail walls and Class I corrosion protection for permanent soil nail walls.
Failure Consequences: Serious consequences include loss of life, collapse of the wall, damage to
nearby utilities and structures, structural repairs, and impact to traffic. These risks are expected in
urban areas, walls alongside heavily traveled highways, and areas with problematic soil conditions
where slope movements have been experienced. The PTI guidelines specify a Class I protection
when the potential failure consequences are serious, regardless of soil corrosion potential.
Cost for Higher Corrosion Protection: The cost of providing a Class I protection level is higher
than for a Class II because a larger drillhole diameter is necessary to install the sheathing and the
cost of materials associated with the sheathing and/or epoxy-coated bars required for providing
Class I protection is greater. The owner of the project should consider whether the increased costs
of providing the higher level of corrosion protection are justifiable.
Figure C.3 presents a decision tree that can be used to select a level of corrosion protection
consistent with project-specific constraints.
Selection of
Corrosion
Protection

SERVICE LIFE

TEMPORARY PERMANENT
AGGRESSIVITY AGGRESSIVITY

NOT KNOWN OR NOT KNOWN OR

NON-AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE NON-AGGRESSIVE
AGGRESSIVE

NONE FAILURE
CLASS II CLASS I CONSEQUENCES
(not applicable
in soil nails)

SERIOUS NOT SERIOUS

COST FOR
CLASS I INCREASING
CORROSION
PROTECTION

SMALL SIGNIFICANT

CLASS I CLASS II

Modified from PTI (1996).

Figure C.3: Criteria for Selection of Corrosion Protection.

C-8
 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 1 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

APPENDIX D

DESIGN EXAMPLE

SOIL NAIL WALL SUPPORTED EXCAVATION

INTRODUCTION

The soil profile behind the wall and the project requirements are similar to those of Design
Example 1 presented in GEC No. 4 Ground Anchors (Sabatini et al., 1999). The similitude of
project conditions will be helpful in comparing soil nail and ground anchor technologies.

INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

A 10-m (33-ft) high soil nail wall is to be constructed as part of a roadway project. The road where
the wall is to be constructed has a low to medium volume of traffic and thereby can be considered to
be non-critical. Because the wall will be a permanent structure, aesthetic requirements call for a
CIP concrete permanent facing. A 7.3-m (24-ft) road will be constructed 3 m (9.8 ft) behind the
wall. The wall is to be constructed in medium dense silty sand with clay seams, as shown in Figure
D.1. Underground utilities will be installed in the future. Although the final location of the utilities
is not known, the utilities are expected to be installed in the area of influence of the nails, as
indicated in Figure D.1. Additionally, some light structures will be built in the future approximately
10 m (33 ft) behind the wall. There is no source of corrosion potential at the site. The site is in a
seismic zone and the horizontal seismic coefficient to consider in the analyses was estimated to be
0.17 from a seismic study.

SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

General

Geotechnical borings drilled in front of, alongside, and behind the proposed wall alignment indicate
that the subsurface stratigraphy is relatively uniform. The profile shown in Figure D.1 is considered
to be representative of the soil stratigraphy along the alignment of the wall.

D-1
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Zone with
future
Proposed Nail utilities Corrected and
SPT N Normalized SPT N
Soil Wall Future Road Value, N1
Value
(blows/300 mm) (blows/300 mm)

Medium Dense Silty Sand with Clay Seams (SM)

γ = 18 kN/m3
'
φ = 33 degrees

Dense Fine to Coarse Silty Sand (SW)

γ = 20 kN/m3
'
φ = 39 degrees

Very Dense Fine to Coarse Silty Sand (SM)

Figure D.1: Subsurface Stratigraphy and Design Cross-Section.

D-2
 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

The design of the proposed wall shown in Figure D.1 will proceed according to the step-by-step
methodology described in Chapter 6.

Predesign considerations

Some of the Predesign considerations the design Engineer must consider (i.e., topography, site
access, ROW, utilities, adjacent structures, aesthetic requirements, and deformation, stability, and
durability performance criteria) have been provided above.

STEP 1: Initial Soil Nail Wall Considerations (Section 6.2)

A. Wall Layout

1. Wall height (H), wall length (Le), and face batter (α) are as follows:

a. H = 10 m (33 ft);
b. Wall Length, Le >> H; and
c. Face batter, α = 0.

B. Soil Nail Vertical and Horizontal Spacing, SH and SV

1. Select SV = 1.5 m (5 ft), which is typical;

2. Select SH = Sv = 1.5 m (5 ft). SH × Sv = 2.25 m2 (25 ft2)≤ 4 m2 (40 ft2); and
3. Values of vertical spacing near the top and toe of the wall, SV0 = SVN = 0.5 m (1.6 ft),
as shown in Figure D.2.

C. Soil Nail Pattern on Wall Face

1. Select a rectangular pattern, as the ground conditions are not so poor so as to justify a
staggered pattern, in which a more uniform distribution of soil nail forces behind the
wall is created.

D. Soil Nail Inclination, i

1. Select i = 15 degrees for all nails except the top row; and
2. Select i = 20 degrees for top row of nails to avoid planned utilities.

D-3
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 4 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

E. Soil Nail Length Distribution

1. Two nail length patterns are considered: one with uniform nail length and one with
non-uniform nail length (Figure D.2);

L1 = length of upper nail row

ri = Li/L1 = length ratio for nail "i"

SV0 = 0.5 m Nail

1
i = 20o
SV = 1.5 m
2
i = 15o

H = 10 m 4
r1,2, 3 = 1

5 r4, 5 = 0.7
SM
6

7
SVN = 0.5 m r6,7 = 0.5
SW

Figure D.2: Non-Uniform Nail Length Pattern.

2. The uniform pattern was selected to evaluate a widely used soil nail configuration
that can be directly designed using design charts, is less prone to avoid cause poor
performance in relation to sliding stability, and is easier to construct; and

3. The non-uniform pattern was selected with the objective of installing shorter nails in
the last rows so that they would not penetrate in the lower, dense stratum, and
thereby avoiding potential difficult drilling in this layer. To compensate for the
lower nails in the lower portion of the wall, longer nails were selected for the upper

D-4
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 5 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

portions. This configuration would ideally be more desirable from the viewpoint of
construction and post-construction deformation, as smaller wall lateral deflections
are expected. The major limitation of this configuration is that it is more prone
to sliding stability, which must be thoroughly verified.

4. It can be noticed that the candidate nail distributions selected in this example meet
the criteria established in Section 6.2 E, as they:

• A uniform length pattern is possible and is the first option;

• In the non-uniform distribution:
o longer nails are used in upper nail rows than in the lower ones to reduce
wall deformations while maintaining the same global factor of safety;
o no short nails are used in the top rows of the wall; and
o excessively short nails in lower portion of wall are avoided. Shorter nails
at the bottom should be not smaller than 0.5 H.
o Non-uniform nail length patterns may be used if soil layers with very
dissimilar conditions are encountered.

F. Soil Nail Materials

1. Select threaded solid bars;
2. Select a yield tensile strength, fy = 520 MPa = 0.52 kN/mm2 (Grade 75); and

G. Soil Properties
1. Soil Stratigraphy
a. Figure D.1 provides the soil stratigraphy. In addition, a profile of the soil
penetration resistance, which is represented by corrected and normalized SPT N1
values, is also shown in Figure D.1;

2. Soil Unit Weight

a. Figure D.1 provides soil unit weights. If this information is not available, the
unit weight can be estimated from the SPT N-values provided in Figure D.1
following recommendations included in Section 3.6.3.

3. Soil Shear Strength Parameters

a. Figure D.1 provides selected values of selected soil shear strength parameters. If
this information were not available, estimate the soil ultimate shear strength
parameters following procedures described in Section 3.6.4.

D-5
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 6 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

b. The shear strength of the silty sand behind the wall is mainly frictional, and the
internal friction angle can be derived from correlations with the soil penetration
resistance (e.g., Table 3.5);

c. For the temporary unsupported open face only, a nominal apparent cohesion of
2.5 kPa (50 psf) is assumed.

4. Bond Strength
The selection of the ultimate bond strength is deferred until the drilling technique is
discussed in item H, part 4.

5. Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. These observations and
supplementary review of groundwater data in the general project area indicate that
groundwater levels at the site occur below elevations 93 m (305 ft).

6. Summary
For the conditions shown in Figure D.1, the following values are adopted:
Upper Silty Sand deposit
φ’ = 33 degrees
c’ = assumed conservatively as 0 for long-term conditions
c’ = 2.5 kPa (50 psf) (temporary apparent cohesion)
γ = 18 kN/m3 (115 pcf)

Lower Silty Sand deposit

φ’ = 39 degrees
c’ = 0
γ = 20 kN/m3 (125 pcf)

H. Other Initial Considerations

1. Corrosion Potential
a. Soil testing indicates that the ground at the site has a resistivity greater than 5,000
ohm-cm and a pH between 6.2 and 6.8. Analyses also indicate that sulfides,
sulfites, chlorides, and other substances known to promote corrosion are either
absent or occur in insignificantly low concentrations. Additionally, stray currents
are not present near the project site. As none of the conditions that promote

D-6
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 7 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

corrosion (listed in Table 3.9 or Table C.1) is present, the ground is considered
non-aggressive.

b. Although the assessment of corrosion protection requirements can be deferred to

after stability analysis, it is advantageous to perform this assessment first to
minimize design iterations. For example, had the ground resulted aggressive,
PVC sheathing [i.e., Class Corrosion Protection I (see Table C.2)] would have
been necessary in this permanent soil nail wall. To accommodate the sheathing, a
relatively large drillhole may be required. As a larger drillhole increases the nail
pullout capacity, it is important to identify early in the design process the need to
deploy sheathing.

c. Now the necessary level of corrosion protection is determined based following the
flow chart of Figure C.3 (reproduced in Figure D.3).

SERVICE LIFE

TEMPORARY PERMANENT
AGGRESSIVITY AGGRESSIVITY

NOT KNOWN OR NOT KNOWN OR

NON-AGGRESSIVE NON-AGGRESSIVE
AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE

CLASS II CLASS I FAILURE

NONE CONSEQUENCES
PROTECTION PROTECTION

SERIOUS NOT SERIOUS

COST FOR
CLASS I INCREASING
CORROSION
PROTECTION PROTECTION
LEVEL

SMALL SIGNIFICANT

CLASS I CLASS II

PROTECTION PROTECTION

Figure D.3: Flow Chart for Level of Corrosion Protection.

D-7
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 8 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

• Service Life: Permanent structure;

• Soil Aggressivity: As indicated earlier, the ground conditions are considered

to be non-aggressive;

• Failure Consequences: Because the proposed roadway adjacent to the soil

nail wall has low to medium traffic volume, the consequences of a potential
failure of the soil nail wall are considered to be moderate to small; and

• Cost for Increasing Corrosion Protection Level: It is assumed that the cost of
providing an increased level of corrosion protection is significant.

d. The flow chart in Figure D.3 indicates that the required level of corrosion
protection is Class II; and

e. Table C.2 indicates that this level of corrosion protection can be achieved with
grout. The minimum grout cover is 25 mm (1 in.).

2. Drilling Methods
It is anticipated that either auger (first option) or driven casing methods will be used
for the ground conditions at the site.

3. Drillhole Diameter
a. The drillhole diameter is estimated as the minimum compatible with the
predominant soil conditions, drilling and nail installation method, and corrosion
protection requirements. A preliminary drillhole diameter of DDH = 150 mm
(6 in.) is selected.

b. Verify the available cover for the selected drillhole diameter. It is assumed
conservatively that a threaded nail bar size No. 32 (#10) will be used. This bar
size has a maximum diameter of the threads of 36 mm (1.43 in.), as indicated in
Table A.1. Provided that adequately spaced centralizers are installed, the
available cover is (150 - 36)/2 = 57 mm (2¼ in.), which is greater than the
minimum recommended cover of 25 mm (1 in.).

4. Bond Strength
Ultimate bond strengths were estimated from Table 3.10 based on soil conditions and
construction methods. For cohesionless soils, and either auger or driven casing, it is
assumed that the ultimate bond strengths are:

Upper Silty Sand: qU = 100 kPa (14.5 psi)

D-8
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 9 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Lower Silty Sand: qU = 150 kPa (21.8 psi)

5. Safety Factors
The safety factors adopted for the project conditions are adopted from Table 5.3 and
are presented in Table D.1 below.

Table D.1: Minimum Safety Factors.

Minimum Factor of Safety
Resisting Component Symbol
Static Loads Seismic Loads
Global Stability (long-term condition) FSG 1.5 1.1
Global Stability (1st Excavation Lift) FSG 1.2 NA
Bearing Capacity(1) FSH 3.0 2.3
(1)
Sliding Stability FSSL 1.5 1.1

Pullout Resistance FSP 2.0 1.5

Nail Bar Tensile Strength FST 1.8 1.35
Facing Flexure FSFF 1.5 1.1
Facing Punching Shear Failure FSFP 1.5 1.1
Headed-Stud Tensile Failure (A307 Bolt) FSHT 2.0 1.5
Note: (1) Not considered in example.

6. Loads
a. The combination of loads for the project conditions is adopted from AASHTO
(1996) recommendations. Loads due to wind, ice, rib shortening, shrinkage, and
temperature are not present. Only two load groups are considered: basic loads
and seismic loads. However, some of the loads usually considered in these load
groups, including buoyancy, centrifugal force, and live impact load, are absent.
As lateral earth pressures (E) is implicitly considered in conventional soil nail
walls, the resulting load scenarios are as follows:
Load Group I = [D + L]
Load Group VII = [D + EQ]

Where:
D is the dead load;
L is the live load; and

D-9
 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 10 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

EQ is the seismic load.

b. In addition, a separate case of temporary load during excavation, with only

permanent loads D, is considered.

c. The following loads considerations are made:

• D: The dead load includes the weight of the soil, the road behind the wall,
and the CIP concrete facing.
• L: AASHTO (1996) recommends that an equivalent soil surcharge of 0.6 m
(2 ft) acting within a distance equal to half the wall height behind the wall be
added to account for (traffic) live load in the future road on top of the wall.
This additional load is considered in the global stability analysis.
• EQ: An equivalent horizontal pseudo-static load with a horizontal seismic
coefficient, kh is considered for seismic loads in the global analysis.

• Note that the effect of the lateral earth pressures (E) must be considered
explicitly in sliding stability analysis.

STEP 2: Preliminary Design Using Preliminary Charts (Section 6.3)

A. A preliminary design of the nail length and bar diameter can be performed using the
series of simplified charts included in Appendix B. These charts are useful to obtain, in
a simple way, initial estimates of the bar length and diameter without going through a
full design. Although it is not necessary to use these charts in conjunction with a full
design, this design example will present both approaches to illustrate the methodologies.

B. The nail length for the uniform nail length pattern can directly read from the charts in
Appendix B. However, the nail length for the non-uniform pattern will be estimated
considering that the total nail length for non-uniform patterns is approximately 10 to 15
percent larger than that for uniform nail length patterns under similar conditions;

C. Note that in using the simplified charts, a number of simplifications must be made as
follows. (i) the soil conditions must be considered to be uniform for the entire depth of
the wall and corresponding to the upper silty sand deposit; (ii) the nail inclination is
considered to be uniform as i = 15 degrees (i.e., the steeper top nail row cannot be
modeled); (iii) the live load cannot be considered explicitly, and must be considered as
an equivalent additional soil overburden.

D-10
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 11 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

D. Uncorrected Uniform Nail Length

1. For the conditions defined previously, and with pullout factor of safety, FSPP, from
Table D.1, the allowable bond strength, qa, is calculated as follows:
qa = qU/ FSP = 100/2 = 50 kPa (7.3 psi)

2. The normalized pullout resistance, µ, to be entered in the charts is:

µ = (qa DDH)/(γ SH SV) = 50 × 0.15 / (18 × 1.5 × 1.5) = 0.185

3. The normalized cohesion, c*, is:

c* = c/γH = 2.5/ (18 × 10) = 0.014

4. For α = β = 0, and φ’ = 33°, the reference normalized soil length, L/H, is obtained
from Figure B.1 (reproduced in this appendix as Figure D.4) as L/H = 0.71.

5. The charts were obtained for the following geometric and material conditions:
• drillhole diameter: DDH = 100 mm (4 in.)
• normalized cohesion: c* = 0.02
• factor of Safety: FSG = 1.35 (for temporary soil nail walls)

6. The following corrections to L/H are necessary (Figure D.5):

Drillhole diameter: C1L = 0.83 (read from Figure B-7 for DDH=150 mm);
Soil Cohesion: C2L = -4.0 × c* + 1.09 = -4.0 × 0.014 + 1.09 = 1.03 ≥ 0.85; and
Safety Factor: C3L = 0.52 × FSG + 0.30 = 0.52 × 1.5 + 0.30 = 1.08 ≥ 0.85.

7. The adjusted normalized nail length is adjusted as:

L/H = C1L × C2L × C3L × L/H = 0.83 × 1.03 × 1.08 × 0.71 = 0.92 × 0.71 = 0.66

8. To account for the added surcharge from live load, increase wall height by 0.6 m
(2 ft); thereby, H = 10.6 m (34.8 ft).

9. The soil nail results:

L = 0.66 × 10.6 = 7.0 m (23 ft)

10. Considering that seven rows of nails are needed, the total nail length for the uniform-
length pattern, LTOT U, is:
LTOT U = 7 L = 7 × 7 = 49.0 m (161 ft)

D-11
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 12 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

1.5
Friction Angle
(degrees)
27
31
1 35
39
L/H = 0.71
L/H

0.5

(a)
0
0.4
Normalized Design Nail Force, t MAX-S

0.3

tMAX-S = 0.195
0.2

0.1

Nail forces for FSG = 1.0

(b) µ = 0.185
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
q aD DH
Normalized Bond Strength, µ =
γ SH SV

Figure D.4: Normalized L/H and Tensile Force for α = β = 0, φ’ = 33°.

D-12
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 13 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

1 2

0.9 1.8
Correction, C1L

Correction, C1F
C1L=0.83
0.8 1.6

C1F=1.47

0.7 1.4

0.6 1.2
C1L
C1F
0.5 1
100 150 200 250 300

Drillhole Diameter, DDH (mm)

Figure D.5: Drillhole Diameter Correction.

B. Non-Uniform Nail Length Pattern

1. The nail length for the non uniform pattern, LTOT NU, is estimated to be 10 percent
larger than the total length of the uniform pattern (Section 6.2), LTOT NU = 1.1 LTOT U

2. Using the normalized lengths ri = Li/L1 from Figure D.3, the total nail length of the
non-uniform pattern is calculated as:
LTOT NU = ∑ ri L1 = L1 (3 × 1+ 2 × 0.7 + 2 × 0.5) = 5.4 L1
Where: Li = length of nail i, L1 = length of the upper nail 1, and
L1 =1.1 × 49 / 5.4 = 10.0 m (32.7 ft),
L2 = L3 = 10.0 m (32.7 ft),
L4 = L5= 0.7 × 10.0 m = 7.0 m (23 ft), and
L6 = L7 = 0.5 × 10.0 m = 5.0 m (16.4 ft).

C. Nail Maximum Tensile Force

1. Read normalized maximum design nail force, tmax-s, from charts in Appendix B
(reproduced as Figure D.4).

D-13
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 14 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

tmax-so = 0.195

2. Apply corrections:
Drillhole diameter: C1F = 1.47 (from Figure D.5)
Soil Cohesion: C2F = -4.0 × c* + 1.09 = -4.0 × 0.014 + 1.09 = 1.03 ≥ 0.85.

3. The corrected normalized maximum nail force is:

tmax-s = C1F × C2F × tmax-s = 1.47 × 1.03 × 0.195 = 0.30

4. The maximum design nail force is:

Tmax-s = γ × H × SH × SV × tmax-s = 18 × 10.6 × 1.52 × 0.30 = 128 kN (28 kips)

D. The nail tensile capacity, RT, is calculated as:

RT = FST × Tmax-s = 1.8 × 128 = 230 kN (51 kips)

E. The necessary nail bar cross-sectional area, AT can be calculated as:

Tmax- s × FST RT
At = =
fY fY

128 [kN] × 1.8

At = 2
= 443 mm 2 (0.69 in.2 )
0.52 [kN/mm ]
F. From Table A.1, a threaded bar of 25 mm diameter (#8) with a cross-sectional area of
510 mm2 (0.79 in.2) is selected.

G. A summary of parameters obtained from the simplified charts is presented below.

1. Uniform length pattern
L = 7.0 m (23.0 ft)
2. Non-uniform length pattern
L1 = L2 = L3 = 10.0 m (32.7 ft)
L2 = L5 = 7.0 m (23.0 ft)
L6 = L7 = 5.0 m (16.4 ft)
3. Maximum design nail force
Tmax-s = 128 kN (28 kips). This value is considered tentatively the same for the
uniform and non-uniform patterns.

D-14
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 15 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

4. Necessary steel area:

At = 443 mm2 (0.69 in.2)
5. Actual steel area:
At = 510 mm2 (0.79 in.2)

STEP 3: FINAL DESIGN (Section 6.4)

A. External Failure Modes

1. Evaluation of Global Stability.

a. The global stability is evaluated with the computer program SNAIL. The
following geometric and load conditions considered in this example are included
in Table D.2.

Table D.2: Load Cases.

Load Nail-Length Number Excavation Depth Failure
Loads Figure
Case Pattern of Nails H, in m (ft) Surface
1 No nails D 0 First Lift 0.7 (2.3) Through toe D.6
2 Uniform DL + L 7 Full: 10 (33) Through toe D.7
3 Non-uniform D 4 Midheight 5.5 (18) Through toe D.8
4 Non-uniform DL + L 7 Full: 10 (33) Through toe D.9
5 Non-uniform D + EQ 7 Full: 10 (33) Through toe D.10

b. The soil shear strength parameters and bond strengths were entered. The same
soil-strength parameters were considered for both static and seismic loads. The
potential for liquefaction is considered negligible.

c. The nail lengths and maximum design nail forces are the iteratively calculated
with SNAIL for the FSG included in Table D.1.

d. To ensure that pullout failure controls over tensile or punching shear failure,
artificially large values of nail diameter and facing capacity are entered in
SNAIL.

2. Results
a. Factors of Safety: The results of the SNAIL analyses are presented in Figures D.6
through D.10, and summarized in Table D.3. The figures show the critical failure

D-15
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 16 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

surfaces that correspond to the critical factor of safety. SNAIL also reports nine
other failure surfaces in output files.

Figure D.6: Load Case 1: First Excavation Lift – No Nails – No Live Loads.

Figure D.7: Load Case 2: Uniform Length Pattern and Static Loads.

D-16
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 17 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Figure D.8: Load Case 3: Excavation Depth of H = 5.5 m.

Figure D.9: Load Case 4: Non-Uniform Length Pattern and Static Loads.

D-17
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 18 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Figure D.10: Load Case 5: Non-Uniform Length Pattern and Seismic Loads.

The computed factors of safety for each of these cases are summarized below.
Table D.3: Summary of Results.
Minimum
Case Description Calculated FSG
Acceptable FSG
1 No nails 1.23 1.2
2 Uniform Pattern – Static 1.51 1.5
3 Half Excavation – Static 3.09 1.35
4 Non-uniform Pattern – Static 1.50 1.5
5 Non-uniform Pattern – Seismic 1.13 1.1

Global Stability

All calculated FSG met the minimum criteria for global stability.

Case 1 illustrates the beneficial effect of the cohesion on the stability of the first
lift. Case 2 shows adequate stability margin. This case proved to be the most
critical for the maximum design nail forces, Tmax-s, for the temporary facing.

D-18
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 19 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Case 3 illustrates that the FSG may be significantly larger than at shallow and
intermediate excavation depths after nails are in place. The nail length and nail
forces were determined based on Case 4 because this case is the one that can be
least represented with the simplified charts. The nail length determined for Case
4 was also verified for seismic loads (Case 4). Results from this case show that
the calculated FSG is greater than the minimum recommended safety factor for kh
= 0.17. SNAIL also provides the yield acceleration (critical horizontal seismic
coefficient) kh = 0.24, for which FSG = 1.

Bearing Capacity
Taking advantage of SNAIL’s capabilities, the case of a failure surface passing
below the wall toe (not shown) was also analyzed to consider the potential of a
deep-seated failure. These analyses gave a much higher FSG than the minimum
recommended factors of safety.

Sliding Stability
Due to space limitation a sliding stability is not performed in this example. A
discussion on the ground conditions is warranted. Based on similarities in
ground conditions and project characteristics, it can considered that the dense
silty sand at the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently competent so that a
sliding stability failure is not likely for the uniform nail distribution. However,
these favorable conditions may not hold true for the non-uniform nail
distribution. Therefore, it is recommended that sliding stability must be given
full consideration in any design of soil nail wall and design engineers must
consider very cautiously non uniform nail distributions.

b. Nail Length

For a FSG = 1.5, the necessary nail lengths are:

• Uniform Nail Length (Cases 1 - 3)
L = 7.0 m (23.0 ft)
LTOTAL U = 50.4 m (165.4 ft)

• Non Uniform Nail Length (Cases 4-5)

L1 = L2 = L3 = 10.0 m (32.7 ft)
L4 = L5 = 7.0 m (23.0 ft)
L6 = L7 = 5.0 m (16.4 ft)
LTOTAL NU = 55.4 m (177.3 ft)

D-19
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 20 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

The total lengths for the non-uniform and uniform length patterns vary
approximately 7 percent from each other (i.e., confirming previous
understanding). The difference between the SNAIL-base nail lengths and those
calculated with the design charts is within 10 percent. This comparison indicates
that the design charts can provide reasonably close agreements with nail lengths
computed with software.

c. Maximum Design Nail Forces

The maximum design nail forces are calculated for the most critical failure
surface following the procedure described in Section 6.4. The procedure consists
of correcting the maximum nail forces Tmax calculated for a global FSG > 1 by
multiplying this term by the ratio of average nail forces Tavg-s/Tavg. Tavg-s is the
average nail force calculated for FsG = 1.0, and Tavg and is the average nail force
calculated for FSG > 1. As such, this maximum design nail force takes into
account the soil strength full mobilization.

The calculation of the maximum design nail forces corresponding to the most
critical failure surfaces was carried out for Cases 2 and 4, as indicated in Table
D.4.

Although the average force per nail is quite similar in the two nail patterns, the
difference in maximum nail forces between Cases 2 and 4 is significant. This
departure can be explained by the dissimilar nail-force distribution with depth in
both cases. In Case 2 with uniform lengths, the nail length beyond the critical
failure surface increases significantly near the bottom of excavation (Figure D.7)
and the nail forces near the bottom are large. As a result of these large nail
lengths behind the failure surfaces, the manner in which the maximum design
nail forces are mobilized are significantly different from nail to nail. On the
other hand, in Case 4 with non-uniform length, the nail lengths beyond the
critical failure surface (Figure D.9) are comparable in all nails; therefore, the
mobilization of nail forces with depth is more consistent from nail to nail than for
Case 2.

The maximum design nail force was calculated with SNAIL as Tmax-s = 138 kN
(30 kip) for Case 2. This value is approximately 8 percent larger than the value
estimated using the design charts for a uniform length pattern. This favorable
comparison again indicates that the design charts provide a valuable tool to
obtain reasonably good estimates of Tmax-s to size the nail bar.

D-20
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 21 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Table D.4: Maximum Design Nail Forces.

Nail Force in kN (kip)
Nail # Symbol Case 2: Case 4:
Uniform Pattern Non-Uniform Pattern
(Static)
1 T1 0.4 (0.1) 87.1 (19.6)
2 T2 20.9 (4.7) 100.5 (22.6)
3 T3 48.8 (10.7) 115.9 (26.1)
4 T4 76.7 (17.2) 71.7 (16.1)
5 T5 104.6 (23.5) 102.9 (23.1)
6 T6 171.8 (38.6) 63.4 (14.3)
7 T7 240.5 (54.1) 135.0 (30.3)
Maximum Nail Force Tmax
(FSG = 1.5)
240.5 (54.1) 135.0 (30.3)
Average Nail Force Tave
(FSG = 1.5)
94.8 (21.3) 96.6 (21.7)
Average Nail Force Tave(1) 54.2 (12.2) 65.2 (14.7)
(FSG = 1)(1)

Average (FSG = 1) ÷ Tave− s

0.57 0.67
Average (FSG = 1.5) Tave

Maximum Design Nail Tave− s

Tmax-s = Tmax × 138 (31) 91 (21)
Force (FSG = 1) Tave

Note: (1) Computed by SNAIL.

B. Seismic Considerations (Section 6.4 - Item B)

1. Define seismic loads
Already given.

2. Horizontal seismic coefficient, kh

Given.

3. Seismic global stability analysis

Results of global safety factors are included in Table D.3.

4. Sliding Stability
Sliding stability analysis is not performed in this example.

C. Internal Failure Modes (Section 6.4 - Item C)

1. Nail Pullout Resistance
Intrinsically accounted for in SNAIL.

D-21
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 22 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

2. Nail Tensile Resistance

With: Tmax-s = 138 kN (31 kip) (uniform pattern)
Tmax-s = 91 kN (21 kip) (non uniform pattern)
fY = 550 Mpa (75 ksi),
calculate the necessary nail bar sectional area, AT, as:
Tmax- s × FST
At =
fy

138 [kN] × 1.8

At = 2
= 478 mm 2 (0.74 in.2 ) for Case 2
0.52 [kN/mm ]
91[kN] × 1.8
At = 2
= 315 mm 2 (0.48 in.2 ) for Case 4
0.52 [kN/mm ]
The necessary nail bar area computed from the SNAIL analysis for Case 2 is close to
the value estimated using the design charts.

3. Select Bar Size

Threaded bars with a cross-sectional area of 510 mm2 (0.79 in.2) and 25 mm (# 8) in
diameter are selected.

D. Facing Design

1. Design nail head tensile force To, is estimated as:

To = Tmax −s [0.6 + 0.2 (S v − 1)] = [0.6 + 0.2 (1.5 − 1)] Tmax −s = 0.7 Tmax −s

To = 0.7 × 138 = 97 kN (21 kip) for Case 2

To = 0.7 × 91 = 64 kN (14 kip) for Case 4
where SV is the nail vertical spacing.

The safety factors correspond to the potential failure modes of the nail-facing
connection including the flexural and punching shear failures. Because a two-phase
facing construction is used in this project, flexural and shear-punching failure modes
must be evaluated separately for the temporary and the permanent facing.
Additionally, for the final facing, a tensile failure of the headed studs is considered.

Using the largest calculated force at the wall facing (i.e., To = 0.7 × 138 = 97 kN, for
uniform nail pattern) along with the minimum factors of safety listed in Table D.1,
the minimum capacity requirements are obtained:

D-22
 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 23 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Static Loads Seismic Loads

Facing Capacity Symbol Capacity
FS Capacity (kN) FS
(kN)
Flexure RFF 1.5 146 1.1 107
Punching Shear RFP 1.5 146 1.1 107
Headed Stud Tensile RFS 2.0 194 1.5 146

These necessary facing capacities will be compared against the existing facing
capacities. The existing facing capacities are established once the facing design,
which is presented in the following section, is adopted.

2. Facing Thickness
The facing system features are shown in Figure D.11 and summarized in Table D.5.

d = 100 mm
SH = 1.5 m (Permanent
150 mm Facing)
A

2 2
a = 123 mm /m a = 295 mm /m
m m

Waler Bar Bearing Plate

(No. 13) (225 x 225 x 25 mm)

SV =1.5 m 2
a = 295 mm /m
m

150 mm

2
a
m
= 123 mm /m Welded Wire Mesh
(152x152 -
MW19xMW19 ea. way)

Steel Bar Mesh A

(No. 13, 300 mm
O.C., ea. way) d = h/2 = 50 mm
Section A-A

Flexural Capacities are the same in the

Vertical and Horizontal directions

Figure D.11: Reinforcement in Facing.

D-23
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 24 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

3. Facing Materials
See Table D.5.

Table D.5: Facing Main Features.

Element Description Temporary Facing Permanent Facing
Thickness (h) 100 mm (4 in.) 200 mm (8 in.)
General Facing Type Shotcrete CIP Concrete
Comp. Strength, f’c 21 MPa (3,000 psi) 28 MPa (4,000 psi)
Type WWM Steel Bars Mesh
Reinforcement Grade 420 (Grade 60) 420 (Grade 60)
152 × 152 MW 19 × MW 19 No. 13 @ 300 mm (each way)
Denomination
(6 × 6 - W2.9 × W2.9) [No. 4 @ 12 in. (each way)]
Other Reinf. Type Waler Bars 2 × 13 mm (2 × #8) –
Type 4 Headed-Studs 1/2 × 41/8 –
Steel 250 MPa (Grade 420) –
Bearing Plate
Length; LP = 225 mm (9 in.) –
Dimensions
Thickness: tP = 25 mm (1 in.) –
– Nominal Length: Ls = 105 mm (4 in.)
– Head Diameter: DH = 25.4 mm (1 in.)
Headed Studs Dimensions – Shaft Diameter: DS = 12.7 mm (1/2 in.)
– Head Thickness: tH = 7.9 mm (0.3 in.)
– Spacing: SSH = 150 mm (6 in.)

4. Flexural Resistance, RFF, Verification (Section 6.4 - Item D.4)

Temporary Facing

a. Limiting Reinforcement Ratios

The reinforcement ratio is defined as:
a 
ρ =  s 
d 
where: aS is the total reinforcement cross-sectional area, d is the distance from
the farthest concrete fiber in compression to the centroid of the reinforcement
(assumed to be concentrated in the middle of the shotcrete section), Assume d =
h/2. For the temporary facing d = 100/2 = 50 mm (2 in.) and for permanent
facing d = 200/2 = 100 mm (4 in.).
The minimum and maximum recommended reinforcement ratios are:

D-24
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 25 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

f c' [psi] 3,000

ρ min [%] = 0.24 = 0.24 = 0.18 %
f y [ksi] 75

f c' [psi]  
ρ max [%] = 0.05  90  = 0.05 3,000  90  = 1.1 %
f y [ksi]  90 + f y [ksi] 
 75  90 + 75 

Considering the width of the analysis section, b = 1 m (3.3 ft), the ratio of
reinforcement is area per unit length is
aS = ρ d × width
aS MIN = 0.0018 × 50 [mm] x 1.0 [m] = 90 mm2/m (0.043 in.2/ft)
aS MAX = 0.0110 × 50 [mm] x 1.0 [m] = 550 mm2/m (0.26 in.2/ft)

b. Select Reinforcement
Use a mesh 152 × 152 – MW19 × MW19 (6 × 6 - W2.9 × W2.9 mesh in English
units). With Table A.2 the total reinforcement area per unit length at midspan is:
asm = 123 mm2/m = 1.23 × 10-4 m2/m (0.058 in.2/ft)

At the nail, also place two No. 13 (# 4) vertical and horizontal waler bars. In
both directions, the total nominal area is (using Table A.3):
AS = 2 × 129 = 258 mm2 (0.4 in.2).

The additional reinforcement over the nail head could have also accomplished by
overlapping a rectangular piece of WWM [with enough development length, (see
AASHTO, 1996 or ACI, 2000)] in this location.

c. The total reinforcement area per unit length around the nails is:
As
a sn = a sm + =
SM

123 ×1.5 + 258

a sn = = 295 mm 2 /m = 2.95 × 10-4 m2/m (0.14 in.2/ft),
1.5
In addition, the ratio of the existing reinforcement areas around the nail and
midspan is 258/123 = 2.1, which guarantees that the ratio of flexural capacities
around the nail and midspan is less than the recommended limiting ratio of 2.5.
Because the placed reinforcement is the same in both vertical and horizontal
directions and the vertical and horizontal spacing are the same, the total

D-25
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 26 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

reinforcement area per unit length calculated above is the same for each
direction.

d. Verify Minimum Reinforcement Ratios

asm = 123 mm2/m > 90 mm2/m
asn = 295 mm2/m > 90 mm2/m

which satisfies this limit.

e. Verify Maximum Reinforcement Ratios

asm = 123 mm2/m < 550 mm2/m
asn = 295 mm2/m < 550 mm2/m

which satisfies these limits.

Reinforcement Details
Reinforcement details should follow AASHTO (1996) specifications or ACI
(2000) and should include:
• Minimum cover = 50 mm (2 in.)
• Appropriate development lengths
• Appropriate splice locations and specific lengths

f. Select Factor CF
Use CF = 2 for temporary facing from Table 5.1.

g. Flexural Capacity
The facing resistance for flexure is estimated using the simplified formulas from
Section 5.4.1 as follows:

CF  Sh 
RFF = × (a sn + a sm ) [mm 2 /m] ×   × h [m] × f y [MPa ] =
265  Sv 
2
RFF = × (295 + 123) × 0.10 × 420 = 132 kN (29 kip)
265
This value could have also been computed from Table 6.4. With the total
reinforcement ratio:

ρ TOT =
(295 + 123) × 100 = 0.84 %
1,000 × 50

D-26
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 27 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

the facing resistance for flexure results in RFF = 129 kN, which is practically the
same result.

h. Calculate ultimate loads, FSFF × To and compare with flexural capacity, RFF
For the temporary facing, FSFF = 1.35
Design load = 1.35 × 97 = 131 kN (29 kips) (Case 2)
Design load = 1.35 × 64 = 86 kN (19 kips) (Case 4)

Remaining cases must also be verified.

As the design loads are always smaller than RFF, there is no need to redesign.

Permanent Facing

a. Limits of Reinforcement Ratios

f c' [psi] 4,000

ρ min [%] = 0.24 = 0.24 = 0.21 %
f y [ksi] 75

f c' [psi]  
ρ max [%] = 0.05  90  = 0.05 4,000  90  = 1.46 %
f y [ksi]  90 + f y [ksi]  75  90 + 75 

Considering the width of the analysis section, b = 1 m (3.3 ft), the ratio of
reinforcement is area per unit length is
aS = ρ d × width
aS MIN = 0.0021 × 100 [mm] x 1.0 [m] = 210 mm2/m (0.043 in.2/ft)
aS MAX = 0.0146 × 100 [mm] x 1.0 [m] = 1460 mm2/m (0.26 in.2/ft)

b. Select Reinforcement
Use a reinforcement mesh made of No. 16 metric bars (#5 in English units) at
300 mm (12 in.) center-to-center each way. No waler bars are used. The total
reinforcement area per unit length at midspan and around the nails is:
asm = asn = 199 × 1,000/300 = 663 mm2/m (0.31 in.2/ft)

c. Reinforcement Ratios
The reinforcement ratios along each direction and the total reinforcement ratio
are:

D-27
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 28 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

663
ρ hm = ρ hn = ρ vm = ρ vn = × 100 = 0.66 %
1,000 × 100
ρTOT = 1.33 %
d. Select Factor CF
For permanent facing use CF = 1 (from Table 5.1)
Because the same reinforcement is used in both directions and throughout the
permanent facing, the flexural capacity per unit length at midspan and at nails is:
1
RFF = × 1326 × 0.2 × 420 = 419 kN (93 kips)
265
With the total reinforcement ratio ρTOT = 1.33 percent, the facing resistance for
flexure can be also estimated with Table 6.4, which gives RFF = 421 kN (92
kips), same result as that with formulas

e. Calculate ultimate loads and compare with flexural capacity

With FSFF = 1.5 for the permanent facing,
Design load = 1.5 × 97 = 146 kN (32 kips) (Case 2)
Design load = 1.5 × 64 = 96 kN (21 kips) (Case 4)
The flexural capacity of the permanent facing RFF = 421 kN (92 kips), the
capacity is verified. There is no need to redesign.

5. Punching Shear Resistance (RFP)

a. Calculate RFP for temporary facing
The punching shear failure consists of the failure of a truncated cone of mean
diameter D’C = LP + h. The resisting shear force on this cone, VF, is calculated
as:

VF = 330 f c' [ MPa] π D' c [ m] h [m]

For the problem conditions, VF results:

VF = 330 × 21 × π × (0.225 + 0.10) × 0.10 = 154 kN (34 kip)
The resistance against punching shear failure is:
R FP = C P VF ,
where CP is assumed conservatively equal to unity, thus:

D-28
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 29 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

R FP = 154 kN (34 kip).

This value could have also been computed from Table 6.4. For h = 0.1 m (4 in.),
f'c = 21 MPa (3,000 psi), and LP = 225 mm (9 in.), Table 6.4 gives RFP = 150 kN
(35 kip), which is the same value calculated with formulas.

b. Calculate RFP for permanent facing

D’C is defined for permanent facings as D’C = minimum of SHS + hC or 2hC,
where SHS is the headed-stud separation and hC the effective headed-stud length.
For the problem conditions:
hC = LS + tP - tSH = 105 + 19.1 –7.9 = 116 mm (4.6 in.), and SHS = 150 mm (6 in.)
D’C = min (150 + 116 or 2 × 116) = 232 mm (9.1 in.)
Therefore, the resisting shear force is:
VF = 330 × 28 × π × 0.23 × 0.116 = 146 kN (32 kip)
The resistance against punching shear failure is:
R FP = C P VF
where CP is assumed conservatively equal to unity, thus:
R FP = 146 kN
Table 6.4 gives, for hC = 116 mm (4.6 in.), f'c = 28 Mpa (4,000 psi), and SS = 150
mm (6 in.), a shear-punching resistance of RFP = 148 kN (33 kips).

6. Headed-Stud Tensile Resistance (RFS)

Calculate the nail headed-stud tensile capacity
RFS = 4 AH fY = 4 × (π 12.72/4) × 0.420 = 213 kN (47 kips). Table 6.4 provides
essentially the same value.

A summary of the facing capacities and verification is presented in Table D.6. The lowest
value of the facing failure mechanisms is the flexure capacity of the construction shotcrete
facing. This is the typical case of most soil nail walls when a 100-mm (4-in.) thick initial
facing is used. However, when the long-term distributed load acts behind the wall, the
punching shear capacity of the permanent facing controls. In all cases, the existing facing
capacities exceed the criteria established by the minimum recommended factors of safety.

D-29
 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 30 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Table D.6: Summary and Verification of Facing Capacities.

Design Loads (To × FS) (1)
Failure Mode Symbol Facing Static Seismic Facing Remarks
Loads Loads Capacity (kN)
Temp. 131 132 OK
Flexure RFF
Perm. 146 419 OK
107
Temp. 131 154 OK
Punching Shear RFP
Perm. 146 146 OK
Headed Stud Tensile RFS Perm. 194 146 213 OK
Note: (1) Corresponds to Case 2.

STEP 4: DEFORMATION ESTIMATES (Section 6.5)

Construction-induced wall deflections can be estimated from existing correlations (Clouterre, 1991)
presented in Figure 5.23. For a vertical soil nail wall with sandy soil behind, it is expected that the
maximum vertical and horizontal permanent deflections at the top of the wall (δh, δv, respectively)
will be approximately:

δh = δv = H / 500 = 10 × 1,000 /500 = 20 mm (4 in.)

It is estimated that these deflections are within tolerable limits for this type of noncritical structure.
The wall deformation is expected to have some influence within a distance DDEF behind the wall.
This distance of influence is estimated to be (Figure 5.23):

DDEF = C H (1- tan α) = 0.8 H = 8 m (26 ft)

Because future structures will be placed at least 10 m (33 ft) behind the wall, the potential
detrimental effect of the wall lateral deflections is not considered significant in this area.

It is expected that the deflections will increase to their maximum values over a period time,
probably weeks or up to a few months after nail installation.

The long-term performance regarding lateral deflections will be better for the non uniform-nail-
length pattern.

If consistent with local practice, or if there is any indication of past poor performance of slopes and
other retaining structures in the area, it may be advisable to specify a monitoring control system
during and after construction.

D-30
 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 31 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

STEP 5: OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

A. Drainage

The low groundwater table at the site indicates that special considerations of internal drainage are
not warranted. Internal drainage is limited to the installation of geocomposite drain strips,
weepholes, and toe drains, as specified. Details of the surface control are left to the contractor and
for review by the engineer.

B. Other Performance Verification

Other performance criteria include durability and aesthetics. No significant exposure to

aggressivity is expected at the site. Additionally, the CIP facing will have conventional cement
content and water/cement ratios, so this facing system is expected to provide sufficient durability.

Aesthetic requirements called for a CIP concrete permanent facing as a minimum. Therefore, this
criterion is also met.

SUMMARY OF DESIGN

Nails
Element Description Values
Nail Pattern Square -
Vertical, SV 1.5 m (5 ft)
Nail Spacing
Horizontal, SH 1.5 m (5 ft)
Nail Inclination Not uniform 20° (first nail), 15° (remaining)
Nail Number Per section 7
Uniform Pattern L = 7.0 m (23 ft)
Nail Length L1, L2, L3=10.0 m (32.7 ft), L4, L5=7.0m (23.0 ft), L6 = L7 = 5.0
Non-Uniform Pattern
m (16.4 ft)
Type Threaded No. 25 mm (No. 8)
Nail Bar
Material Steel Grade 520 (75 ksi)
Drillhole Minimum Diameter 150 mm (6 in.)
Grout-protected nail bar Class II Protection
Corrosion Protection Minimum Cover 50 mm (2 in.)
PVC Centralizers as specified
Grout Neat Cement minimum f’c = 21 MPa (3,000 psi) (at 28 days)
Ultimate Bond Minimum specified Qu= π × 0.15 × 100 = 47 kN/m (3.3 kips/ft)
Strength

D-31
 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS Page 32 of 32
Written by: CAL Date: 11/06/01 Reviewed by: RDE Date: 12/06/01
Client: FHWA Project: GEC#7 Project/Proposal No.: ME0202 Task No: 04

Facing

Element Description Temporary Facing Permanent Facing

Thickness (h) 100 mm (4 in.) 200 mm (8 in.)
General Facing Type Shotcrete CIP Concrete
Comp. Strength, f’c 21 MPa (3,000 psi) 28 MPa (4,000 psi)
Type WWM Steel Bar Mesh
Reinforcement Grade 420 MPa (Grade 60) 420 MPa (Grade 60)
152 × 152 MW 19 × MW 19 No. 13 @ 300 each way
Denomination
(6 × 6 - W2.9 × W2.9) (No. 4 @ 12 in. ea. way)
Other
Type Waler Bars 2 × 13 mm (2 × #8) -
Reinforcement
Type 4 Headed-Studs 1/2 × 41/8
Steel 250 MPa (Grade 420) –
Bearing Plate
Length; LBP = 225 mm (9 in.) –
Dimensions
Thickness: tP = 25 mm (1 in.) –
– Nominal Length: Ls = 105 mm (4 in.)
– Head Diameter: DH = 25.4 mm (1 in.)
Headed Studs Dimensions – Shaft Diameter: DS = 12.7 mm (1/2 in.)
– Head Thickness: tH = 7.9 mm (0.3 in.)
– Spacing: SHS = 150 mm (6 in.)

Internal Drainage

Geocomposite drain strips, weepholes, and toe drains, as specified.

CONCLUSIONS

The available soil information indicates that the design of the soil nail wall for the project
requirements indicated is feasible. Materials commonly used in soil nail walls, as well as typical
dimensions, were used in the design. These conditions met all the design criteria for stability and
strength established for this type of noncritical structure. The level of corrosion protection
necessary is not particularly demanding.

D-32
 APPENDIX E

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOIL NAIL WALLS

This appendix presents the following specifications:

Procedural Specifications for Soil Nail Walls .............................................................................E-2

Performance Specifications for Soil Nail Walls ........................................................................E-17
Shotcrete Specifications for Soil Nail Walls .............................................................................E-19
Geotechnical Instrumentation for Soil Nail Walls.....................................................................E-28

The specifications contain sufficient information to construct soil nail walls according to the
current U.S. practice. The specifications provide commentary to assist the design engineer in
making appropriate modifications for project-specific conditions. For materials used in soil nail
walls, the reader is referred to other sources including AASHTO (1996), and FHWA (2002) and
ACI references on shotcrete [e.g., ACI (1994), ACI (1995a)]. For testing of materials, the reader
is referred to AASHTO (1992) and ASTM (2002).

E-1
 SOIL NAIL WALL

PROCEDURAL SPECIFICATIONS

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Scope of Work
B. Material
C. References to other specifications

[Section 1.01 may not be necessary if Federal Highway Specifications 2002 (FHWA,
2002) are used.]
(Project-specific needs may require different type of facing including reinforced
shotcrete, cast-in-place concrete, and precast concrete panels.)

1.02 SCOPE OF WORK

A. This work consists of constructing a permanent soil nailed wall as specified herein
and as shown on the plans. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, and
equipment required to complete the work. The Contractor shall select the
excavation, drilling, and grouting methods and the diameter of the drillholes to
meet the performance requirements specified herein or shown on the plans.

B. The work shall include excavating in staged lifts in accordance with the approved
Contractor’s plan; detailing the drilling of the soil nail drillholes to the diameter and
length required to develop the specified capacity; grouting the nails; providing and
installing the specified drainage features; providing and installing bearing plates,
washers, nuts, and other required miscellaneous materials; and constructing the
required temporary shotcrete face and constructing the final structural facing.

(Project-specific needs may require different type of facing including reinforced

shotcrete, cast-in-place concrete, and precast concrete panels.)

1.03 MATERIAL

A. Material shall conform to the following sections and subsection (use as required).

1. CIP concrete [see AASHTO (1996), Section 8 “Concrete Structures”].

2. Reinforcing Steel [see AASHTO (1996), Section 9 “Reinforcing Steel”].
3. Permanent Shotcrete (see specification in this appendix).

E-2
 4. Forms and Falsework (use agency-standard specifications).
5. Architectural Finish (use agency-standard specifications).

B. Soil Nails

1. Nail Solid Bar. AASHTO M31/ASTM A615, Grade 420 or 520, ASTM A 722
for Grade 1035. Deformed bar, continuous without splices or welds, new,
straight, undamaged, bare, or epoxy-coated, or encapsulated as shown on the
Plans. Threaded, a minimum of 150 mm (6 in.) on the wall anchorage end, to
allow proper attachment of bearing plate and nut. Threading may be continuous
spiral deformed ribbing provided by the bar deformations (continuous thread
bars) or may be cut into a reinforcing bar. If threads are cut into a reinforcing
bar, provide the next-larger bar number designation from that is shown on the
Plans, at no additional cost.

2. Bar Coupler. Bar couplers shall develop the full ultimate tensile strength of the
bar as certified by the manufacturer.

3. Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating. ASTM A 775. Minimum 0.4 mm (0.016 in.)
thickness electrostatically applied. Bend test requirements are waived. Coating
at the wall anchorage end of epoxy-coated bars may be omitted over the length
provided for threading the nut against the bearing plate.

4. Encapsulation. Minimum 1-mm (0.04-in.) thick, corrugated, HDPE tube

conforming to AASHTO M252 or corrugated PVC tube conforming to ASTM
D1784, Class 13464-B.

C. Soil Nail Appurtenances

1. Centralizer. Manufactured from Schedule 40 PVC pipe or tube, steel, or other

material not detrimental to the nail steel (wood shall not be used); securely
attached to the nail bar; sized to position the nail bar within 25 mm (1 in.) of the
center of the drillhole; sized to allow tremie pipe insertion to the bottom of the
drillhole; and sized to allow grout to freely flow up the drillhole.

2. Nail Grout. Neat cement or sand/cement mixture with a minimum 3-day

compressive strength of 10.5 MPa (1,500 psi) and a minimum 28-day
compressive strength of 21 MPa (3,000 psi), per AASHTO T106/ASTM C109.

3. Fine Aggregate. AASHTO M6/ASTM C33.

4. Portland Cement. AASHTO M85/ASTM C150, Type I, II, III, or V.

E-3
 5. Admixtures. AASHTO M194/ASTM C494. Admixtures that control bleed,
improve flowability, reduce water content, and retard set may be used in the
grout subject to review and acceptance by the Engineer. Accelerators are not
permitted. Expansive admixtures may only be used in grout used for filling
sealed encapsulations. Admixtures shall be compatible with the grout and
mixed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

6. Film Protection. Polyethylene film per AASHTO M171.

D. Bearing Plates, Nuts, and Welded Stud Shear Connectors.

1. Bearing Plates. AASHTO M183/ASTM A36.

2. Nuts. AASHTO M291, grade B, hexagonal, fitted with beveled washer or

spherical seat to provide uniform bearing.

3. Shear Connectors. AASHTO Construction Specifications, Section 11.3.3.1.

E. Welded Wire Fabric. AASHTO M55/ASTM A185 or A497.

F. Reinforcing Steel. AASHTO M31/ASTM A615, Grade 420, deformed.

G. Geocomposite Sheet Drain. Manufactured with a drainage core (e.g., geonet) and a
drainage geotextile attached to or encapsulating the core. Drainage core to be
manufactured from long chain synthetic polymers composed of at least 85 percent by
mass of polypropylenes, polyester, polyamine, polyvinyl chloride, polyoleofin, or
polystyrene and having a minimum compressive strength of 275 kPa (40 psi) when
tested in accordance with ASTM D 1621 Procedure A. The drainage core with the
geotextile fully encapsulating the core shall have a minimum flow rate of 1 liter per
second per meter of width tested in accordance with ASTM D 4716. The test
conditions shall be under an applied load of 69 kPa (10 psi) at a gradient of 1.0 after
a 100-hour seating period.

H. Underdrain and Perforated Pipe

1. Pipe. ASTM 1785 Schedule 40 PVC solid and perforated wall; cell
classification 12454-B or 12354-C, wall thickness SDR 35, with solvent weld or
elastomeric joints.

2. Fittings. ASTM D3034, Cell classification 12454-B or C, wall thickness SDR

35, with solvent or elastomeric joints.

E-4
 I. Temporary Shotcrete. Submit for approval, all materials, methods, and control
procedures for this work.

1.04 CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

A. The soil nailing contractor shall have completed at least 3 permanent soil nail
retaining wall projects during the past 3 years totaling at least 1,000 m2 (10,000 ft2)
of wall face area and at least 500 permanent soil nails.

B. Provide a Registered Professional Engineer with experience in the construction of

permanent soil nail retaining walls on at least 3 completed projects over the past 3
years. The Contractor may not use consultants or manufacturer’s representatives to
meet the requirements of this section. Provide on-site supervisors and drill operators
with experience installing permanent soil nails on at least three projects over the past
3 years.

1.05 SUBMITTALS

A. The Contractor shall submit a brief description of at least 3 projects, including the
owning agency’s name, address, and current phone number; location of project;
project contract value; and scheduled completion date and actual completion date for
the project.

B. At least 60 calendar days before starting soil nail work, identify the Engineer, on-site
supervisors, and drill operators assigned to the project, and submit a summary of
each individual’s experience. Only those individuals designated as meeting the
qualifications requirements shall be used for the project. The Contractor cannot
substitute for any of these individuals without written approval of the Owner or the
Owner’s Engineer. The Owner’s Engineer shall approve or reject the Contractor
qualifications and staff within 15 working days after receipt of the submission.
Work shall not be started on any soil nail wall nor materials ordered until the
Contractor’s qualifications have been approved by the Owner’s Engineer. The
Engineer may suspend the work if the Contractor substitutes unqualified personnel
for approved personnel during construction. If work is suspended due to the
substitution of unqualified personnel, the Contractor shall be fully liable for
additional costs resulting from the suspension of work and no adjustment in contract
time resulting from the suspension of the work will be allowed.

C. The Contractor is responsible for providing the necessary survey and alignment
control during the excavation for each lift, locating drillholes and verifying limits of
wall installation. At least 30 days before starting soil nail work, submit a
Construction Plan to the Engineer that includes the following.

E-5
 1. The start date and proposed detailed wall construction sequence.

2. Drilling and grouting methods and equipment, including the drillhole diameter
proposed to achieve the specified pullout resistance values shown on the plans
and any variation of these along the wall alignment.

3. Nail grout mix design, including compressive strength test results (per
AASHTO T106/ASTM C109) supplied by a qualified independent testing lab
verifying the specified minimum 3-day and 28-day grout compressive strengths.
Previous test results for the same grout mix completed within one year of the
start of grouting may be submitted for verification of the required compressive
strengths.

4. Nail grout placement procedures and equipment.

5. Temporary shotcrete materials and methods.

6. Soil nail testing methods and equipment setup.

7. Identification number and certified calibration records for each test jack and
pressure gauge and load cell to be used. Jack and pressure gauge shall be
calibrated as a unit. Calibration records shall include the date tested, the device
identification number, and the calibration test results and shall be certified for
an accuracy of at least 2 percent of the applied certification loads by a qualified
independent testing laboratory within 90 days prior to submittal.

8. Manufacturer Certificates of Compliance for the soil nail ultimate strength, nail
bar steel, Portland cement, centralizers, bearing plates, epoxy coating, and
encapsulation.

D. The Engineer shall approve or reject the Contractor’s Construction Plan within 30
working days after the submission. Approval of the Construction Plan does not
relieve the Contractor of his responsibility for the successful completion of the work.

1.06 STORAGE AND HANDLING

A. Store and handle soil nail bars in a manner to avoid damage or corrosion. Replace
bars exhibiting abrasions, cuts, welds, weld splatter, corrosion, or pitting. Repair or
replace any bars exhibiting damage to encapsulation or epoxy coating. Repaired
epoxy coating areas shall have a minimum 0.3-mm (0.012-in.) thick coating.

E-6
1.07 EXCAVATION

A. The height of exposed unsupported final excavation face cut shall not exceed the
vertical nail spacing plus the required reinforcing lap or the short-term stand-up
height of the ground, whichever is less. Complete excavation to the final wall
excavation line and apply shotcrete in the same work shift, unless otherwise
approved by the Engineer. Application of the shotcrete may be delayed up to 24
hours if the contractor can demonstrate that the delay will not adversely affect the
excavation face stability.

B. Excavation of the next-lower lift shall not proceed until nail installation, reinforced
shotcrete placement, attachment of bearing plates and nuts, and nail testing have
been completed and accepted in the current lift. Nail grout and shotcrete shall have
cured for at least 72 hours or attained at least their specified 3-day compressive
strength before excavating the next underlying lift.

1.08 NAIL INSTALLATION

A. Provide nail length and drillhole diameter necessary to develop the load capacity to
satisfy the acceptance criteria for the design load required, but not less than the
lengths or diameters shown in the plans. Drill holes for the soil nails at the
locations, elevations, orientations, and lengths shown on the Plans. Select drilling
equipment and methods suitable for the ground conditions and in accordance with
the accepted installation methods submitted by the Contractor. The use of drilling
muds or other fluids to remove cuttings will not be allowed. If caving ground is
encountered, use cased drilling methods to support the sides of the drillholes. [The
use of self-drilling nail bars (also known as hollow, self-grouting or pressure-
grouted nail bars) will not be allowed.] Provide nail bars as shown in the Plans.
Provide centralizers sized to position the bar within 25 mm (1 in.) of the center of
the drillhole. Position centralizers as shown on the Plans so that their maximum
center-to-center spacing does not exceed 2.5 m (8.2 ft). Also locate centralizers
within 0.5 m (1.5 ft) from the top and bottom of the drillhole.

1.09 GROUTING

A. Grout the drillhole after installation of the nail bar and within 2 hours of completion
of drilling. Inject the grout at the lowest point of each drillhole through a grout tube,
casing, hollow-stem auger, or drill rods. Keep the outlet end of the conduit
delivering grout below the surface of the grout as the conduit is withdrawn to
prevent the creation of voids. Completely fill the drillhole in one continuous
operation. Cold joints in the grout column are not allowed except at the top of the
test bond length of proof tested production nails.

E-7
 B. Test nail grout according to AASHTO T106/ASTM C109 at a frequency of one test
per mix design and a minimum of one test for every 40 m3 (52 cy) of grout placed.
Provide grout cube test results to the Engineer within 24 hours of testing.

1.10 NAIL TESTING

A. Perform both verification and proof testing of designated test nails. Perform
verification tests on sacrificial test nails at locations shown on the Plans. Perform
proof tests on production nails at locations selected by the Engineer. Testing of any
nail shall not be performed until the nail grout and shotcrete facing have cured for at
least 72 hours or attained at least their specified 3-day compressive strength.

B. Testing equipment shall include 2 dial gauges, dial gauge support, jack and pressure
gauge, electronic load cell, and a reaction frame. The pressure gauge shall be
graduated in 500 kPa (75 psi) increments or less. Measure the nail head movement
with a minimum of 2 dial gauges capable of measuring to 0.025 mm (0.001 in.).

1.11 VERIFICATION TESTING OF SACRIFICIAL NAILS

A. Perform verification testing prior to installation of production nails to confirm the

appropriateness of the Contractor’s drilling and installation methods, and verify the
required nail pullout resistance.

B. Verification test nails shall have both bonded and unbonded lengths. Along the
unbonded length, the nail bar is not grouted. The unbonded length of the test nails
shall be at least 1 m (3 ft). The bonded length of the soil nail during verification tests,
LBVT, shall be at least 3 m (10 ft) but not longer than a maximum length, LBVT max,
such that the nail load does nor exceed 90 percent of the nail bar tensile allowable
load during the verification test. Therefore, the following requirements shall be met:

3 m (10 ft )
L BVT ≤ 
 L BVT max

The length LBVT max is defined as:

C RT × A t × f Y
L BVT max =
Q ALL × FST ver
where,

CRT = Reduction coefficient. Use CRT = 0.9 for 420 and 520 MPa (Grade 60 and
75) bars. If 1,035 MPa (Grade 150) bars are allowed in the job, use CRT =
0.8;
E-8
 At = Nail bar cross-sectional area;
fY = Nail bar yield tensile strength;
QALL = Allowable pullout resistance per unit length (QALL = Qu/FSP), as specified
herein or in plans; and
FSTver = Factor of safety against tensile failure during verification tests (use 2.5 or,
preferably, 3).

The maximum bonded length shall be preferably based on production nail maximum
bar grade. Provide larger bar sizes, if required, to meet the 3-m (10-ft) minimum test
bonded length requirement at no additional cost.

The Design Test Load (DTL) shall be determined as follows:

DTL = LBVT × QALL

DTL shall be calculated based on as-built bonded lengths.

C. Perform verification tests by incrementally loading the verification test nails to

failure or a maximum test load of 300 percent of the DTL in accordance with the
following loading schedule. Record the soil nail movements at each load increment.

Verification Test Loading Schedule.

Load Hold Time
0.05 DTL max.(AL) 1 minute
0.25 DTL 10 minutes
0.50 DTL 10 minutes
0.75 DTL 10 minutes
1.00 DTL 10 minutes
1.25 DTL 10 minutes
1.50 DTL (Creep Test) 60 minutes
1.75 DTL 10 minutes
2.00 DTL 10 minutes
2.50 DTL 10 minutes max.
3.0 DTL or Failure 10 minutes max.
0.05 DTL max. (AL) 1 minute (record permanent set)

The alignment load (AL) should be the minimum load required to align the testing
apparatus and should not exceed 5 percent of the DTL. Dial gauges should be set to
“zero” after the alignment load has been applied. Following application of the
maximum load (3.0 DTL) reduce the load to the alignment load (0.05 DTL
maximum) and record the permanent set.

E-9
 D. Hold each load increment for at least 10 minutes. Monitor the verification test nail
for creep at the 1.50 DTL load increment. Measure and record nail movements
during the creep portion of the test in increments of 1 minute, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 30,
50, and 60 minutes. Maintain the load during the creep test within 2 percent of the
intended load by use of the load cell.

1.12 PROOF TESTING OF PRODUCTION NAILS

A. Perform successful proof testing on 5 percent of the production soil nails in each nail
row or a minimum of 1 per row. The Engineer shall determine the locations and
number of proof tests prior to nail installation in each row. Production proof test nails
shall have both bonded and temporary unbonded lengths. The temporary unbonded
length of the test nail shall be at least 1 m (3 ft). The bonded length of the soil nail
during proof production tests, LBPT, shall be the least of 3 m (10 ft) and a maximum
length, LBPT max, such that the nail load does nor exceed 90 percent of an allowable
value of the nail bar tensile load during the proof production test. Therefore, the
following requirements shall be met:

3 m (10 ft )
L BPT ≤ 
 L BPT max

The length LBPT max is defined as:

CR × A t × f Y
L BPT max =
Q ALL × FST proof
where,

CRT = Reduction coefficient. Use 0.9 for 420 and 520 MPa (Grade 60 and 75)
bars. If 1,035 MPa (Grade 150) bars are allowed in the job, use CRT =
0.8;
At = Nail bar cross-sectional area;
fY = Nail bar yield tensile strength;
QALL = Allowable pullout resistance per unit length (QALL = Qu/FSP), as specified
herein or in plans; and
FSTproof = Factor of safety against tensile failure during proof production tests (use
1.5.

The maximum bonded length shall be based on production nail maximum bar grade.
Production proof test nails shorter than 4 m (12 ft) in length may be constructed with
less than the minimum 3-m (10-ft) bond length.

E-10
 The Design Test Load (DTL) shall be determined as follows:

DTL = LBPT × QALL

DTL shall be calculated based on as-built bonded lengths.

B. Perform proof tests by incrementally loading the proof test nail to 150 percent of the
DTL in accordance with the following loading schedule. Record the soil nail
movements at each load increment.

Proof Test Loading Schedule.

Load Hold Time
0.05 DTL max. (AL) Until Movement Stabilizes
0.25 DTL Until Movement Stabilizes
0.50 DTL Until Movement Stabilizes
0.75 DTL Until Movement Stabilizes
1.00 DTL Until Movement Stabilizes
1.25 DTL Until Movement Stabilizes
1.50 DTL (Max. Test Load) Creep Test (see below)

The alignment load (AL) should be the minimum load required to align the testing
apparatus and should not exceed 5 percent of the DTL. Dial gauges should be set to
“zero” after the alignment load has been applied.

C. The creep period shall start as soon as the maximum test load (1.50 DTL) is applied
and the nail movement shall be measured and recorded at 1 minute, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10
minutes. Where the nail movement between 1 minute and 10 minutes exceeds 1 mm
(0.04 in.), maintain the maximum test load for an additional 50 minutes and record
movements at 20 minutes, 30, 50, and 60 minutes. Maintain all load increments
within 5 percent of the intended load.

1.13 TEST NAIL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

A. A test nail shall be considered acceptable when all of the following criteria are met:

1. For verification tests, the total creep movement is less than 2 mm (0.08 in.)
between the 6- and 60-minute readings and the creep rate is linear or decreasing
throughout the creep test load hold period.

2. For proof tests, the total creep movement is less than 1 mm (0.04 in.) during the
10-minute readings or the total creep movement is less than 2 mm (0.08 in.)

E-11
 during the 60-minute readings and the creep rate is linear or decreasing
throughout the creep test load hold period.

3. For verification and proof tests, the total measured movement at the maximum
test load exceeds 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation of the test nail
unbonded length.

4. A pullout failure does not occur at 3.0 DTL under verification testing and 1.5
DTL test load under proof testing. Pullout failure is defined as the inability to
further increase the test load while there is continued pullout movement of the
test nail. Record the pullout failure load as part of the test data.

B. Maintaining stability of the temporary unbonded test length for subsequent grouting
is the Contractor’s responsibility. If the unbonded test length of production proof
test nails cannot be satisfactorily grouted subsequent to testing; the proof test nail
shall become sacrificial and shall be replaced with an additional production nail
installed at no additional cost to the owner.

1.14 TEST NAIL REJECTION

A. If a test nail does not satisfy the acceptance criterion:

1. For verification test nails, the Engineer will evaluate the results of each
verification test. Installation methods that do not satisfy the nail testing
requirements shall be rejected. The Contractor shall propose alternative
methods and install replacement verification test nails. Replacement test nails
shall be installed and tested at no additional cost.

2. For proof test nails, the Engineer may require the Contractor to replace some or
all of the installed production nails between a failed proof test nail and the
adjacent passing proof test nail. Alternatively, the Engineer may require the
installation and testing of additional proof test nails to verify that adjacent
previously installed production nails have sufficient load carrying capacity.
Installation and testing of additional proof test nails or installation of additional
or modified nails as a result of proof test nail failure(s) will be at no additional
cost.

1.15 WALL DRAINAGE NETWORK

A. Install and secure all elements of the wall drainage network as shown on the Plans.
The drainage network shall consist of installing geocomposite drain strips, PVC
connection pipes, wall footing drains, and weepholes as shown on the Plans.

E-12
 Exclusive of the wall footing drains, all elements of the drainage network shall be
installed prior to shotcreting.

1. Geocomposite Drain Strips. Install geocomposite drain strips centered between

the columns of nails as shown on the Plans. The drain strips shall be at least
300 mm (12 in.) wide and placed with the geotextile side against the ground.
Secure the strips to the excavation face and prevent shotcrete from
contaminating the geotextile. Drain strips will be vertically continuous. Make
splices with a 300 mm (12 in.) minimum overlap such that the flow of water is
not impeded. Install drain plate and connector pipe at base of each strip. Repair
damage to the geocomposite drain strip, which may interrupt the flow of water.

2. Footing Drains. Install footing drains at the bottom of each wall as shown on
the Plans. The drainage geotextile shall envelope the footing drain aggregate
and pipe and conform to the dimensions of the trench. Overlap the drainage
geotextile on top of the drainage aggregate as shown on the Plans. Replace or
repair damaged or defective drainage geotextile.

1.16 SHOTCRETE FACING

A. Provide construction shotcrete facing and permanent shotcrete facing (if required) in
accordance with ______. (Refer to the permanent shotcrete specification that is
provided subsequently in this Appendix). Where shotcrete is used to complete the
top ungrouted zone of the nail drill hole near the face, position the nozzle into the
mouth of the drill hole to completely fill the void.

1. Final Face Finish. Shotcrete finish shall be either an undisturbed gun finish as
applied from the nozzle or a rod, broom, wood float, rubber float, steel trowel or
rough screeded finish as shown on the Plans.

2. Attachment of Nail Head Bearing Plate and Nut. Attach a bearing plate,
washers, and nut to each nail head as shown on the Plans. While the shotcrete
construction facing is still plastic and before its initial set, uniformly seat the
plate on the shotcrete by hand-wrench tightening the nut. Where uniform
contact between the plate and the shotcrete cannot be provided, set the plate in a
bed of grout. After grout has set for 24 hours, hand-wrench tighten the nut.
Ensure bearing plates with headed studs are located within the tolerances shown
on the Plans.

3. Shotcrete Facing Tolerances. Construction tolerances for the shotcrete facing

from plan location and plan dimensions are as follows:

E-13
 Horizontal location of welded wire mesh; reinforcing bars, and
headed studs: 10 mm (0.4 in.)

Location of headed studs on bearing plate: 6 mm (¼ in.)

Spacing between reinforcing bars: 25 mm (1 in.)

Reinforcing lap, from specified dimension: 25mm (1 in.)

Complete thickness of shotcrete:

If troweled or screeded: 15 mm (0.6 in.)
If left as shot: 30 mm (1.2 in.)

Planeness of finish face surface-gap under 3-m (10-ft) straightedge:

If troweled or screeded: 15 mm (0.6 in.)
If left as shot: 30 mm (1.2 in.)

Nail head bearing plate deviation from parallel to wall face: 10 degrees

1.17 FORMS AND FALSEWORK

A. Prepare and submit forms and falsework drawings according to Section _____ (use
Agency standard specifications).

1.18 REINFORCING STEEL

A. Submit all order lists and bending diagrams, fabricate reinforcing steel, ship and
protect material, place, fasten, and splice reinforcing steel according to Section(s)
____________. (Agency standard specifications sections and subsection, if
available, should be substituted).

1.19 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

A. Design concrete mixture, store, handle, batch, and mix material and deliver concrete,
provide quality control, and construct concrete facing according to Section(s)
_______________. (Agency standard specifications sections and subsection, if
available, should be substituted).

1.20 ARCHITECTURAL SURFACE FINISHES

A. Design and furnish textured form liners, install form liners, and apply a surface
finish (color/stain application) that will duplicate the pattern shown on the plans.
Submit detailed drawings of the form liner for approval by the Engineer at least

E-14
 7 days before form liner work begins. Before production work begins, construct a
1-m (3-ft) high, by 0.5-m (1.5-ft) wide, by 3-m (10-ft) long test panel on site using
the same forming methods, procedures, form liner, texture configuration, expansion
joint, concrete mixture and color/stain application proposed for the production work.

1.21 BACKFILLING BEHIND WALL FACING UPPER CANTILEVER

A. Compact backfill within 1 m (3 ft) behind the wall facing upper cantilever using
light mechanical tampers.

B. Backfill shall be relatively free draining granular material.

1.22 ACCEPTANCE

A. Material for the soil nail retaining wall will be accepted based on the manufacturer
production certification or from production records. Construction of the soil nail
retaining wall will be accepted based on visual inspection and the relevant
production testing records.

PART 2 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

2.01 SOIL NAILS

A. Measure production of soil nails by the linear meter (or foot). The length to be paid
will be the length measured along the nail bar centerline from the back face of
shotcrete to the bottom tip end of nail bar as shown on the Plans. No separate
measurement will be made for proof test nails, which shall be considered incidental
to production nail installation. Measure verification test nails by the each. Failed
verification test nails or additional verification test nails installed to verify
alternative nail installation methods proposed by the Contractor will not be
measured.

2.02 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION

A. Measure excavation for the soil nail wall as the theoretical plan volume in cubic
meters (feet) within the structure excavation limits shown on the plans. This will be
the excavation volume within the zone measured from top to bottom of shotcrete
wall facing and extending out 2 m (6 ft) horizontally in front of the plan wall final
excavation line. Additional excavation beyond the Plan wall final excavation line
resulting from irregularities in the cut face, excavation overbreak or inadvertent
excavation, will not be measured. No measurement will be made for using
temporary stabilizing berms. General roadway excavation will not be a separate

E-15
 wall pay item but will be measured and paid as part of the general roadway
excavation including hauling.

2.03 WALL FACE

A. Measure soil nail retaining walls by the square meter (foot) of wall face.
Measurement will be made on the vertical plane of front face accepted in the final
work. No measurement or payment will be made for additional shotcrete or CIP
concrete needed to fill voids created by irregularities in the cut face, excavation
overbreak or inadvertent excavation beyond the Plan final wall face excavation line,
or failure to construct the facing to the specified line and grade and tolerances. The
final pay quantity shall include all structural shotcrete, admixtures, reinforcement,
welded wire mesh, wire holding devices, wall drainage materials, bearing plates and
nuts, test panels and all sampling, testing and reporting required by the Plans and this
Specification. The final pay quantity shall be the design quantity increased or
decreased by any changes authorized by the Engineer.

2.04 PAYMENT

A. The accepted quantities, measured as provided above, will be paid for at the contract
unit price per unit of measurement for the pay items listed below that are shown on
the bid schedule. Payment will be full compensation for the work prescribed in this
section. Payment will be made under:

Pay Item Pay Unit

Permanent Soil Nails. No. ___ Bar (Grade ___) Linear meter (or linear foot)
Permanent Soil Nails. No. ___ Bar (Grade ___) Linear meter (or linear foot)
Verification Test Nails Each
Structure Excavation-Soil Nail Wall Cubic meter (or cubic foot)
Soil Nail Wall Square meter (or square foot)

E-16
 SOIL NAIL WALL

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 SECTION INCLUDES

A. 1.02 Scope of Work

B. 1.03 Pre-Approved List
C. 1.04 Available Information
D. 1.05 Soil Nail Wall Design Requirements
E. 1.06 Design Submittals

1.02 SCOPE OF WORK

A. Specifications under a performance type contracting method are identical to the

Procedural Specifications except for the first section.

B. This work consists of designing and constructing permanent soil nail retaining
wall(s) at the location shown on the drawings. The Contractor shall furnish all labor,
plans, drawings, design calculations and all other material and equipment required to
design and construct the soil nail wall(s) in accordance with this Specification.

1.03 PRE-APPROVED LIST

A. The prime Contractor must select one of the specialty contractors listed below and
shall identify the specialty contractor on his proposal at the bid opening. No
substitution will be permitted without written approval of the Engineer. Substitution
after the bid opening will not be grounds for changes in bid prices.

1. Name and address of specialty contractor 1.

2. Name and address of specialty contractor 2, etc.

1.04 AVAILABLE INFORMATION

A. Available information developed by the (Agency) include the following items:

1. Contract Drawings titled, _________________, dated _____________.

2. Geotechnical Report (Provide complete references for all available

geotechnical data and reports).

E-17
 3. Other (Agency-developed Inspector Information; Design Guidelines, etc.).

(Note: These performance specifications must be completed by adding

Subsections 1.03 to 1.21 and Section 2.0 from the Procedural Specifications.)

1.05 SOIL NAIL WALL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

A. Design the soil nail walls using the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method, also
known as Service Load Method (SLD), as outlined in FHWA Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 7. “Soil Nail Walls.” Soil/rock design shear strength
parameters, slope and external surcharge loads, seismic design coefficient, type of
wall facing, architectural treatment, corrosion protection requirements, easements,
and right-of-ways will be as shown on the Drawings.

1.06 DESIGN SUBMITTALS

A. At least 45 days before the planned start of the wall excavation, submit complete
design calculations and working drawings to the Engineer for review and approval.
Include all details, dimensions, quantities, ground profiles and cross-sections
necessary to construct the wall. Verify the limits of the wall and ground survey data
before preparing the drawings. The working drawings shall be prepared to the
(Agency) standards. The drawings and calculations shall be signed and sealed by a
Professional Engineer registered in State of [Name of State/Commonwealth]
_____________. The Engineer will approve or reject the Contractor’s submittals
within 30 calendar days after the receipt of the complete submission. The Contractor
will not begin construction or incorporate materials into the work until the submittal
requirements are satisfied and found acceptable to the Engineer.

E-18
 SOIL NAIL WALL

SHOTCRETE SPECIFICATIONS

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Scope of Work
B. Materials
C. References to other specifications (e.g., Soil Nail Wall Specifications)

1.02 SCOPE OF WORK

A. This work consists of constructing one or more courses of shotcrete on a prepared

surface.

1.03 MATERIALS

A. (Use agency standard specifications for the following:)

1. Air-entraining admixture (wet mix only)

2. Chemical admixtures (wet mix only)
3. Concrete coloring agents
4. Curing material
5. Hydraulic cement
6. Pozzolans
7. Reinforcing steel

B. Shotcrete Aggregate

1. For fine aggregate, furnish rounded particles conforming to AASHTO M 6

Class B including the reactive aggregate supplementary requirement, except as
amended or supplemented by the following:

Material passing 75-µm sieve, AASHTO T 11 ........................ 3.0 % max

Sand equivalent value, AASHTO T 176............... 75 min. referee method

2. For coarse aggregate, conform to AASHTO M 80 class B, except as amended or

supplemented by the following:

Los Angeles abrasion, AASHTO T 96 ..................................... 40 % max.

E-19
 Combine the aggregates to meet the designated gradation in Table 1.

Table 1: Shotcrete Gradation Limits for Combined Aggregates.

Percent by Mass Passing Designated Sieve (AASHTO T 27)
Sieve Size Grading Designation
A B C
19 mm 100 100 100
12.5 mm 100 100 80-95
9.5 mm 100 90-100 70-90
4.75 mm 95-100 70-85 50-70
2.4 mm 80-100 50-70 35-55
1.2 mm 50-85 35-55 20-40
600 µm 25-60 20-35 10-30
300 µm 10-30 8-20 5-17
150 µm 2-10 2-10 2-10

1.04 REINFORCING FIBERS

A. Contractor may elect to use reinforcing deformed steel or fibrillated polypropylene

fibers conforming to ASTM C 1116. The use of reinforcing fibers shall be pre-
approved by the Engineer.

PART 2 CONSTRUCTION

2.01 GENERAL

A. Conform to the following:

1. ACI 506R Guide to Shotcrete.

2. ACI 506.1 State of the Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete.
3. ACI 506.2 Specifications for Proportioning Application of Shotcrete.
4. AASHTO C 311 Method for Sampling and Testing Fly Ash or Natural
Pozzolans for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete.
5. ASTM C 1077 Practice for Laboratories Testing Concrete and Concrete
Aggregates for Use in Construction and Criteria for
Laboratory Evaluation.

2.02 PRECONSTRUCTION SUBMISSIONS

A. Shotcrete material, equipment, preparation, and application. Submit the following to

the Engineer for acceptance at least 30 days before placing shotcrete:

E-20
 1. Description of proposed equipment for mixing and applying shotcrete
conforming to Subsection 2.03. Include the manufacturer instructions,
recommendations, literature, performance, and test data.

2. Proposed shotcrete mix design conforming to Subsection 2.04 with mix

proportions.

3. Representative samples of shotcrete material, if requested by the Engineer.

4. Results of all shotcrete preconstruction testing conforming to Subsection 2.05.

5. Proposed method for applying and curing shotcrete conforming to Subsections

2.06, 2.07, and 2.08.

6. Other information necessary to verify compliance with ACI 506.2.

7. Certification that shotcrete conforms to the standards specified herein.

8. Fiber samples, if used, with supplier or manufacturer recommendations for use.

B. Submit the following to the Engineer for acceptance at least 30 days before placing
shotcrete:

1. Project references. Include project name, owner’s name, and phone numbers
from at least 3 projects of comparable nature completed in the last 2 years.

2. Nozzle operator’s experience and training. For each nozzle operator, include
shotcrete application experience on at least two projects of comparable nature.

3. Shotcrete supervisor experience. Include direct shotcrete application experience

on comparable projects.

4. Testing laboratory certification. Include documentation that the strength-testing

laboratory complies with ASTM C 1077 and has the experience to perform the
tests specified in this Section. The testing laboratory shall be AASHTO-
accredited for ASTM C 1077 or demonstrate the ability to perform the requisite
tests.

2.03 EQUIPMENT

A. Water Supply System. For dry mix, provide a water storage tank at the job site.
Provide a positive displacement pump with a regulating valve that is accurately

E-21
 controlled to provide water in the pressures and volumes recommended by the
delivery machine manufacturer.

B. Mixing. Use equipment capable of handling and applying shotcrete containing the
specified maximum size aggregate and admixtures. Provide an air hose and
blowpipe to clear dust and rebound during shotcrete application.

C. Air Supply System. Use an air supply system capable of supplying the delivery
machine and hose with air at the pressures and volumes recommended by the
machine manufacturer. Do not use air supply systems that deliver oil-contaminated
air or are incapable of maintaining constant pressure.

D. Delivery Machine. Use a delivery machine capable of supplying material to the

delivery hose at a uniform rate. The ejection from the nozzle must adhere to the
treated surface with minimum rebound and maximum density when the nozzle is
held in the range of 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) from the target surface.

2.04 COMPOSITION (SHOTCRETE MIX DESIGN)

A. Design and produce shotcrete mixtures conforming to Table 2 for the type of
shotcrete specified. Use the amount of water required to produce shotcrete of
suitable strength, consistency, quality, and uniformity with the minimum amount of
rebound. Use the same material types and sources as submitted with the mix design
in the field trials and production work.

1. Fibers. If fibers are required, add them to the mix in the proportions
recommended by the manufacturer.

2. Hydration stabilizing admixtures. Hydration stabilizing admixtures may be

used to extend the allowable delivery time for shotcrete. Dosage is based on the
time needed to delay the initial set of the shotcrete for delivery and discharge on
the job. Design shall include discharge time limit in the dosage submittal.
Dosage required to stabilize shotcrete shall be determined using job site material
and field trial mixtures. The extended-set admixture shall control the hydration
of all cement minerals and gypsum. The maximum allowable design discharge
time is 3.50 hours.

3. If a hydration-stabilizing admixture is approved for use in the concrete mix,

concrete shall be delivered and placed within the approved design discharge
time limit. An approved and compatible hydration activator may be used at the
discharge site to insure proper placement and testing.

E-22
 4. Dosage and type of extended-set admixture shall be included with proposed mix
design. When requested, the admixture manufacturer shall provide the service
of a qualified person to assist in establishing the proper dose of extended-set
admixture and make dosage adjustments required to meet changing job site
conditions.

Table 2: Composition of Shotcrete.

Maximum Air Content Minimum 28-Day
Type of Minimum Cement
W/C(1) Range Compressive
Shotcrete Content
Ratio Strength(3)
Process
(kg/m3) (lb/cy3) (%) (MPa) (psi)
Wet 325 550 0.55 NA 28 150
Dry 325 550 0.50 NA 28 150
Wet (w/EA) 325 550 0.45 5 min 28 150
Dry (w/EA) 325 550 0.45 5 min. 28 150
Notes: (1) W/C = Water/Cement (by weight).
(2) EA = Entrained Air.
(3) According to AASHTO T 23.

2.05 PRECONSTRUCTION TESTING

A. Conduct preconstruction shotcrete field trials before starting shotcrete production.

Allow the Engineer the opportunity to witness all phases of the preconstruction
testing.

1. Field Trials: Construct wood forms at least 150-mm (6-in.) thick by 1.0 m by
1.0 m (3 ft by 3 ft) in size. Have each proposed nozzle operator make test
panels on two vertical wood forms. Cure the test panels according to AASHTO
T 23, without immersing the panels.

2. Coring: Drill six 75-mm (3-in.) diameter cores from each test panel according
to AASHTO T 24. Trim the ends of the cores according to AASHTO T 24 to
make cylinders at least 75-mm (3-in.) long.

3. Compressive Strength Testing: Soak the cylinders in water for 40 hours

immediately before testing. Test three cylinders from each test panel four days
after field trial and test the remaining three cylinders 28 days after the field trial.
Perform tests according to AASHTO T 23. All specified strength requirements
shall be satisfied before the shotcrete mix design will be considered for
acceptance.

4. Mix Design Acceptance: The Engineer will accept or reject the shotcrete mix
design based on the results of the preconstruction field trials and testing. Before

E-23
 approving any changes to a previously accepted mix design, the Engineer may
require additional preconstruction testing at no additional cost to the agency.

2.06 SURFACE PREPARATION AND APPLICATION OF SHOTCRETE

A. Surface Preparation - Clean loose material, mud, rebound, and other foreign matter
from all surfaces to receive shotcrete. Remove curing compound on previously
placed shotcrete surfaces by sandblasting. Install approved depth gages to indicate
the thickness of the shotcrete layers. Install depth gages on 2-m (6-ft) centers
longitudinally and transversely with no less than two gauges per increment of
surface area to receive the shotcrete. Moisten all surfaces.

B. Weather Limitations - Place shotcrete when the ambient temperature is 5ºC or

higher. Do not perform shotcrete operations during high winds and heavy rains.

C. Shotcrete Application

1. Do not apply shotcrete to frozen surfaces.

2. Use acceptable nozzle operators who have fabricated acceptable test panels
according to Subsection 2.02.

3. Apply shotcrete within 45 minutes of adding cement to the mixture. Apply

shotcrete at a temperature between 10ºC and 30ºC.

4. Direct the shotcrete at right angles to the receiving surface except when
shooting ground reinforcing bars. Apply shotcrete in a circular fashion to build
up the required layer thickness. Apply shotcrete in a steady uninterrupted flow.
If the flow becomes intermittent, direct the flow away from the work area until
it becomes steady.

5. Make the surface of each shotcrete layer uniform and free of sags, drips, or runs.

6. Limit the layer thickness of each shotcrete application to 50 mm (2 in.).

Thicker applications may be approved if the contractor can demonstrate that no
sloughing or sagging is occurring. If additional thickness is required, broom or
scarify the applied surface and allow the layer to harden. Dampen the surface
before applying an additional layer.

7. Remove laitance, loose material, and rebound. Promptly remove rebound from
the work area.

E-24
 8. Taper construction joints to a thin edge over a distance of at least 0.3 m (1 ft).
Wet the joint surface before placing additional shotcrete on the joint. Do not use
square construction joint.

D. Production Summary - Prepare and submit a summary of shotcrete production

application for each shift. Furnish the summary to the Engineer within 24 hours.
Include the following information in the report:

1. Quantity and location of shotcrete applied including sketches.

2. Observations of success or problems of equipment operation, application, final

product conditions, and any other relevant issues during production and
application.

3. Description of placement equipment.

4. Batch number(s) if applicable.

2.07 QUALITY CONTROL RECORDS

A. Submit field quality control test reports within two working days of performing the
tests. Include the following information in the reports:

1. Sample identification including mix design and test panel number and
orientation.

2. Date and time of sample preparation including curing conditions and sample
dimensions.

3. Date, time, and type of test.

4. Complete test results including load and deformation data during testing, sketch
of sample before and after testing, and any unusual occurrences observed.

5. Names and signature of person performing the test.

6. Location of steel reinforcement, if used, covered by shotcrete.

7. Name of nozzle operator.

E-25
2.08 PROTECTION AND CURING

A. Protect and cure the surface according to ________ (Use agency specifications for
concrete curing). For intermediate shotcrete surfaces or if a stained or finished final
surface is required, cure the shotcrete according to __________(Use agency
specifications for water curing). If no stained or finished surface is required, apply
curing compound to the final exposed shotcrete surface according to (Use agency
specifications curing compound methods). Protect and maintain shotcrete at a
temperature above 5ºC until shotcrete has achieved a minimum strength of 5.2 MPa
(750 psi).

2.09 ACCEPTANCE

A. Material for concrete will be evaluated by visual inspection of the work,

conformance testing and by certification for materials manufactured off-site.
Compressive strength will be evaluated by conformance testing using Table 2 for
specification limits. See Table 3 for minimum sampling and testing requirements
and acceptance quality category.

Table 3: Sampling and Testing of Shotcrete.

Material or Property or Test Methods or Sampling
Category Frequency
Product Characteristic Specifications Point
AASHTO T 152 or Truck, mixer
Air content – 1 per load(1) or agitator(2)
AASHTO T 196
Truck, mixer
Shotcrete Unit mass – AASHTO T 121 1 per load(1)
or agitator(2)
1 set per 25 m3
Compressive Production
II AASHTO T 23 (33 cy), but not less
strength test panels(3)
than 1 set each day (3)
Notes: (1) When continuous mixing is used sample every 7.5 m3 (10 cy).
(2) Sample according to AASHTO T 141.
(3) Prepare production test panels according to Subsection 2.05. Obtain two 75-mm (3-in.) diameter
core specimens from each panel according to AASHTO T 24. A single compressive strength test
result is the average result from two 75-mm (3-in.) diameter core specimens from the same test panel
tested according to AASHTO T 23 at 28 days.

2.10 MEASUREMENT

A. Measurement for payment for shotcrete shall be measured by the square meter
(square foot).

E-26
2.11 PAYMENT

A. The accepted quantities, measured as provided above, will be paid at the contract
price per unit of measurement for the pay item listed below that is shown in the bid
schedule. Payment will be full compensation for the work prescribed in this Section.

Payment will be made under:

Pay Item Pay Unit

Shotcrete Square meter (or square foot)

E-27
 SOIL NAIL WALL

GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Scope of Work
B. Materials
C. References to other specifications (e.g., Soil Nail Wall Specification; Survey
Specification)
D. Other? __________

1.02 SCOPE OF WORK

A. This work consists of furnishing all instruments, tools, materials, and labor and
performing all work necessary to install soil nail wall instrumentation and record the
initial readings. The Contractor shall maintain and protect all instruments for the
duration of the Contract. The Contractor shall repair or replace damaged or
inoperable instruments within 72 hours after the damage has been discovered and the
contractor informed.

1.03 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

A. Notify the Engineer prior to any work on instrumentation installation and

monitoring. All instrumentation field installations shall be performed in the
presence of the Engineer.

B. Install electrical readout instruments and wire to a readout panel. Complete wiring
to the readout panel after installation of each instrument, after each instrument is
tested by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Engineer, and prior to excavation
of subsequent soil nail lifts. Demonstrate that the system is working according to the
manufacturer’s specifications. Immediately repair or replace any monitoring device
components that are damaged or failed, for whatever reason, to perform the intended
function, to the satisfaction of the Engineer and at no additional cost.

C. Furnish and install inclinometers at the locations shown on the Plans. Install
inclinometers and take initial readings prior to soil nail wall construction. Adjust
soil nail installations at these locations as necessary to avoid damaging the
inclinometer casing.

E-28
 D. Protect all instrumentation during the term of the contract and replace or restore
them at the Contractor’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Engineer if delivered
defective or damaged during construction. Damaged or inoperable instruments shall
be repaired or replaced within 72 hours after damage has been discovered and the
Contractor informed.

1.04 EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMITTALS

A. At least 15 days prior to start of the soil nail wall instrumentation installation, submit
in writing to the Engineer five copies of: (1) a list of proposed instruments including
instrument and readout unit specifications; (2) complete and detailed installation
procedures, including both the manufacturer’s recommendations and the
Contractor’s step-by-step field procedures; (3) a wiring diagram detailing the wiring
of the instruments to the central readout panels; and (4) shop drawings and
specifications for ancillary equipment such as readout panels, load cell blockouts and
covers, other protective covers, conduit, and enclosures.

B. Install the instruments utilizing a qualified geotechnical instrumentation specialist

having experience in the design and installation of similar instrumentation systems
on a minimum of 3 similar projects. At least 15 days prior to start of the soil nail
wall instrumentation installation, submit the resume of the individual(s) responsible
for instrument installation and testing. The submittal shall include at least three
references, with current telephone numbers, of persons who can verify the
experience requirements.

1.05 QUALITY ASSURANCE

A. Factory calibration shall be conducted on all instruments prior to shipment from the
manufacturing locations. Certification shall be provided to indicate that the test
equipment used for this purpose is calibrated and maintained in accordance with the
test equipment manufacturer’s calibration requirement and that, where applicable,
calibration are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The
manufacturer prior to shipment shall make a final quality assurance inspection with
results of the inspection recorded on a checklist. A copy of the completed checklist
shall be included with each instrument shipped.

B. The Contractor shall provide the manufacturer’s warranty for each piece of
equipment furnished for the monitoring program and such warranty shall be in place
for the duration of the contract.

E-29
1.06 INCLINOMETERS

A. Install inclinometer casing in vertical drill holes within 3 degrees of vertical, as

measured by the initial inclinometer reading, and fully grouted in place to the depths
and at the locations shown on the plans. Drillhole diameter shall be not less than
150 mm (6 in.) Complete inclinometer installation at least one week prior to the
beginning of wall excavation. One of the casing grooves shall be aligned normal to
the wall to a tolerance of +/- 5 degrees throughout the length. Casings adjacent to
the soil nail wall shall be installed to a minimum penetration of 5 m (15 ft) below the
wall base.

B. Protect the top of all inclinometer casings with a locking metal protective cover of
sufficient size to allow monitoring the installation with the inclinometer wheel
attached to the inclinometer casing. After installation, survey the top of each
inclinometer casing and determine the coordinates and elevation with an accuracy of
3 mm (0.1 in.).

C. All instruments shall be compatible with and calibrated using readout devices
approved by the Engineer.

D. Inclinometer Casing. Inclinometers shall consist of internally grooved plastic,

aluminum, fiberglass, or steel casing in 3-m (10-ft) lengths, provided with all
necessary end plugs, and caps. Casing shall be the snap-together self-aligning type
that does not require couplings. The spiral twist of casing grooves in one 3-m (10-ft)
section of casing shall not exceed one degree. The top of each casing shall be
provided with plastic cap and locking steel protective monument cover cap. Casing
shall be as manufactured by Slope Indicator Company of Seattle, Washington;
Carlson/R.S.T. Instruments Inc. of Yakima, Washington; Roctest Inc., of
Plattsburgh, New York; Geokon, Inc. of Lebanon, New Hampshire; or an approved
equal.

E. Inclinometer Grout. Backfill around the inclinometer casing shall be a pumpable

mix of water-cement-lime grout consisting of one bag [43 kg (95 lbs)] of cement to
three bags [68 kg (150 lbs)] of hydrated lime. Other mixes may be used, if approved
by the Engineer.

F. Inclinometer Probe. The inclinometer probe shall be a biaxial sensor such as the
Digitilt manufactured by Slope Indicator Company; the inclinometer probe
manufactured by Carlson/R.S.T. Instruments, Inc. of Yakima, Washington; the
Accutilt instrument manufactured by Roctest, Inc. of Champion, New York; the
inclinometer manufactured by Geokon, Inc. of Lebanon, New Hampshire; or an
approved equal. The probe cable shall be heavy duty, waterproof, and designed to
support the weight of the probe without stretching, slipping, or creeping. The cable

E-30
 shall be clearly marked at 300-mm (12-in.) intervals. The readout unit shall be
compatible with the inclinometer probe. The probe and cable shall be serviced by
the manufacturer as a unit at least 30 days prior to construction.

1.07 STRAIN GAUGES

A. The strain gauges shall be weldable vibrating wire gauges manufactured by Geokon,
Inc., Roctest, Inc., or Geo Group, Inc., or approved equal. Install and protect the
strain gauges and connections in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
Field test each strain gauge to verify that it is fully operational prior to mounting on
the nail. Defective gauges shall be rejected.

B. Encapsulation corrosion protection shall not be required for the instrumented nails.
Each instrumented nail shall be epoxy coated per the soil nail wall materials
specification. The epoxy coating shall be removed as necessary to install the gauges.
Mount the gauges to the bar in pairs at each location shown on the plans. Mount all
gauge pairs on opposite sides of the bar 180 degrees apart. Mount all gauge pairs on
the same plane. Inscribe the end of each nail bar along the plane of orientation of the
strain gauges.

C. Protect all gauges, sensors, and wire assemblies from moisture. All wire
connections shall be of an approved waterproof type and shall be fitted with at least
two waterproof, tamper-resistant labels spaced 3 m (10 ft) apart at the readout panel
end of the wire. Signal cables shall not be spliced unless approved by the Engineer.
Use centralizers on the instrumented nails to ensure that the bar is located within 25
mm (1 in.) of the center of the drillhole. Install the nail so that the final locations of
the gauge pairs are at the 6- and 12-o’clock positions with a tolerance of 10 degrees.

1.08 NAIL LOAD CELLS

A. Soil nail load cells shall have an ultimate capacity not to exceed 450 kN (100 kips)
with an accuracy of 2.25 kN (500 lbs). The load cells shall be center-hole load cells
with a minimum hole diameter of 38 mm (1½ in.). The load cells shall be the
center-hole load cell manufactured by Slope Indicator Company; Geokon, Inc.; Geo
Group, Inc. of Gaithersburg, Maryland; Carlson/R.S.T. Instruments, Inc.; Roctest,
Inc.; or approved equal. Load cells shall be temperature compensated or provided
with temperature sensors as recommended by the manufacturer.

B. Mount the load cell on the nail between the bearing plate and the nut as shown on
the Plans. All bearing surfaces shall be clean. Spherical bearings shall be well
lubricated with suitable grease. Attach the cells and protect the connections
according to the manufacturer’s specifications. All wire connections shall be of an
approved waterproof type.

E-31
 C. Provide a 300-mm2 (0.5-in2) circular blockout in the cast-in-place wall facing for the
load cell assembly. Install a steel cover plate over the blockout to protect the load
cell. Paint, galvanize, or otherwise protect the cover plate from corrosion. Install in
such a manner as to allow easy future access to the load cell.

1.09 READOUT PANELS

A. The readout panels shall be of sufficient size and capacity to handle the specified
number of instruments for each instrumented section. Each instrument shall have an
isolated channel and shall be readily identified by waterproof labels resistant to
vandalism and tampering.

B. Locate one readout panel at each instrumentation section unless otherwise approved
by the Engineer. Attach the readout panel to a steel or treated wooden post that is
firmly secured in the ground and located a distance of approximately 1 m (3 ft)
behind the top of the nailed wall or at another convenient location as directed or
approved by the Engineer. Wire all instrumentation to the readout panel in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The readout panel shall be
securely sealed and shall be rated NEMA 4X or better. Protect the readout panel
from vandalism and tampering. Enclose all above-ground wiring in a steel conduit
that is firmly attached to the readout panel. Do all wiring of the instrument readout
panel during instrument installation.

C. Provide data logger devices compatible with the instrumentation for acquisition of
strain gage and load cell data. The data logger shall be compatible with strain gages
and load cells installed without degrading the accuracy of the instruments. The data
logger shall have programmable reading intervals, data storage, and capability of
downloading to a computer. Software to communicate with the data logger, and for
downloading data, shall also be provided. The data logger shall be fully
programmed for the project with software customized to this particular system and
application and shall be compatible with the Owner’s portable PC system. The
Owner’s personnel shall be trained in the use of the data acquisition system to the
satisfaction of the Engineer.

1.10 WALL SURVEY

A. Install reflective survey prisms at the locations shown on the plans in the shotcrete
face while shotcreting the initial soil nail wall lift.

1.11 MONITORING AND REPORTING

A. For each inclinometer installed, take initial inclinometer readings at least 48 hours
after installation and before the beginning of wall excavation. Monitor in
E-32
 accordance with the inclinometer probe manufacturer’s recommended procedures
and AASHTO T-254. The Owner’s personnel shall be trained in the use of the
inclinometer data acquisition system to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

B. Provide a hard copy of the data and a graph of movement (mm or in.) versus depth
(m or ft) for each inclinometer in both directions to the Engineer within 24 hours of
monitoring the inclinometers. Include all sets of readings. Summarize and include
the survey data with the submittal. Submit an electronic copy of the data in a format
compatible with the software GTILT.

PART 2 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT

2.01 MEASUREMENT

A. No separate measurement will be made for the materials and work specified in this
Section. The unit of measurement for Soil Nail Wall Instrumentation will be lump
sum.

2.02 PAYMENT

A. Soil nailing instrumentation will be paid for at the contract lump sum amount for the
item Soil Nail Wall Instrumentation. Payment will be full compensation for
furnishing all materials, labor, equipment, tools, and incidentals necessary to
complete the work as specified in this Specification and as shown on the Plans.

B. Upon satisfactory installation and final acceptance by the Engineer, all instruments
and readout units furnished and installed under this Section shall become the
property of the Owner.

Pay Item Pay Unit

Soil Nail Wall Instrumentation Lump Sum

(Alternately and where the scope of the instrumentation during design is not well
developed, payment can be made on an each basis for each instrument provided and
installed. In addition payment can be made for each readout instrument should the
agency not own any.)

E-33
 APPENDIX F

USER’S GUIDE FOR SNAIL, VERSION 3.09

SNAIL is executed by typing the command nail.exe at the DOS prompt in a directory where the
executable file resides. The following screen appears:

Press <ENTER> to Continue.

The following screen asks for type of units to be used:

1. English to English
2. From English to Metric
3. From Metric to Metric

If user desires to create a new file, enter N,

screen prompts:
“Type in the name of your Data File now”
for new filename,
Use up to a maximum of 32 characters
Press <ENTER> to continue,

If user desires to open an existing file, enter Y or <Enter>,

then user is prompted, ”Enter the Name of the File Now”
then user must enter filename
Maximum: 32 characters;
filename entered should include disk designation (e.g., C:\ \design\data input1;
no extension is needed,
Press <ENTER> to continue,
Press <Backspace> to erase

F-1
 The next screen asks:
Do you want to change the title? (Y/N)
If Y, the next message asks:
Type in your new title
Use up to a maximum of 32 characters
Press <ENTER> to continue,
Press <Backspace> to erase

If N, ready to input data.

Data for SNAIL should be entered for each of the parameters requested in different input panels,
which are organized by category and are presented below. To move from one panel to another, the
Page Down and Page Up keys can be used. Once created, the data is saved in data files that can be
reopened and modified.

The data input panels are:

Project Description (Optional)
Wall Geometry
Reinforcement Parameters
Soil Parameters
Search Limit
Depending on the Options selected, additional data may be required, including:
Surcharge
Earthquake Acceleration
Water Surface
Search Limits Specification
Slope Below Wall
Varying Reinforcement Parameters
External Horizontal Force
Specified Failure Plane

All data must be entered using the units requested.

INPUT PANELS
Project Description
Data identifying the project consist of characters and numbers. Characters following a comma are
not considered in this panel.

Wall Geometry (Panel 1)

Required data include angles (I1, I2,…) and lengths (S1, S2,…) to define wall geometry above the
wall toe. Coordinate (0,0) is toe of wall. Enter all data in blank spaces. A blank entry means zero.

F-2
The following data can be edited at any time.

1. Vertical Wall Height

2. Wall Batter from the vertical axis
3. First Slope Angle
4. First Slope Distance from Wall Crest
5. Second Slope Angle
6. Second Slope Distance from First Slope
7. Third Slope Angle
8. Third Slope Distance from Second Slope
9. Fourth through Seventh Slope Angle, and Slope Lengths
Panel 1
1.-WALL GEOMETRY:
H= ft-------Vertical Wall Height.
B= Degree---Wall Batter from Vertical Line.
I1= Degree| S1= ft---1st Slope Angle and Distance.
I2= Degree| S2= ft---2nd Slope Angle and Distance.
I3= Degree| S3= ft---3rd Slope Angle and Distance.
I4= Degree| S4= ft---4th Slope Angle and Distance.
I5= Degree| S5= ft---5th Slope Angle and Distance.
I6= Degree| S6= ft---6th Slope Angle and Distance.
I7= Degree-----7th Slope Angle.
2.-REINFORCEMENT INPUTS:(Use OPTION 5 if LE, AL, SV, D, or BSF* varies.)
N= ---------Number of Reinforcement Levels.
LE= ft-------Reinforcement Length.
AL= Degree---Reinforcement Inclination.
SV1= ft-------Vertical Distance to first Level.
SV= ft-------Vertical Spacing from second to N level.
SH= ft-------Horizontal Spacing
PS= Kips-----Punching Shear at reinforcement head.
FY= Ksi------Yield Stress of Reinforcement.
D= in-------Diameter of Reinforcement.
DD= in-------Diameter of Grouted Hole.
Use Arrow and Return Keys to move around, Backspace and Delete Keys to edit
When data entry finished, press Page Up, or Down, or Esc Key to Run program.

Press PAGE UP or PAGE DOWN to Continue

Figure F.1 shows the sign convention of angles and lengths.

Reinforcement Parameters (Panel 1)

Nail parameters can be modified simultaneously in all nails (through Panel 1) or directly modified
at every nail level in Panel 5. The exception are parameters marked with *, which can only be
modified indirectly in Panel 5.

F-3
Constant Parameters are:
1. Number of nail (reinforcement) levels (Maximum of 30)
2. Nail (Reinforcement) length (*)
3. Reinforcement inclination (*)
4. Nail vertical distance to first level (can be negative)
5. Vertical spacing (*)
6. Horizontal spacing
7. Punching shear capacity
8. Nail bar yield strength
9. Diameter of nail bar (*)
10. Diameter of drillhole
11. Bond strength*

Figure F.2 shows the definition of constant reinforcement parameters

-+ +
-
Sign Convention Sign Convention
(Wall) (Slope)
6
8
4
5
7 9
3

1 Note: a. 4, 6, 8 (Slope Distances are measured

along the slope and not horizontally).

b. 3, 5, 7, 9 represent the slope angles.

Figure F.1: Wall Geometry Definition.

A Wall Crest

4 4
7 6
Level 1
3 (+)
5 11 5
7 6
Level 2 (1)
2 10
10
9 A Toe

Section A-A Elevation

Figure F.2: Reinforcement Parameters.

F-4
Soil Parameters (Panel 2)
A maximum of seven soil layers can be specified with the following variables:
1. Unit Weight, GAM.
2. Friction Angle, PHI.
3. Cohesion, COH.
4. Bond Stress, SIG.
The boundary between soils layers is defined by specifying the coordinates of two points behind the
wall. Layer order is from left to right, or from top to bottom.

Search Limit (Panel 2)

The search area limits are defined along the backslope (Figure E-3) by the x-coordinates of points
LS and LN. The left limit can start at the wall or at a user-selected location. If LS is not entered,
the program uses LS=0 and the search starts at the wall crest. The right limit is always user-
defined. The program automatically divides the search distance into ten equal length segments.
Panel 2

3.-SOIL PARAMETERS:
NS = Number of soil types.(1=Top layer to 7=Bottom layer-
Layers must not intersect within limits of search).
Weight| Angle|Cohes.| Bond*| XS | YS | XE | YE
LAYER Pcf | Deg. | Psf | Psi | (ft) | (ft) | (ft) | (ft)
1

4.-SEARCH LIMIT:
LS= ft-Begin Search.If LS=0, Search starts at wall crest.
LN= ft-End Search.(Horizontal Distance From Wall Toe).
+++++++++++ End of Data Inputs required to run SNAIL.++++++++++++
5.-SURCHARGE: Maximum of 2 different surcharges are entered.
First | Second
XL= | ft-----Begin Surcharge: Dist. from Toe.
XR= | ft-----End Surcharge: Dist. from Toe.
PL= | psf/ft-Loading At Begin Surcharge.
PR= | psf/ft-Loading At End Surcharge.
+++++ Use 'UP'or'DOWN'arrows to scroll. Hit 'Q' or 'q' to quit.+++++

Press PAGE UP or PAGE DOWN to Continue

Surcharge (Panel 2)
Surcharge cases that can be considered with SNAIL are:
No load,
Uniformly distributed load, and
Uniformly varying load.

F-5
Up to two sets of surcharges, defined from left to right (Figure E-4), can be considered in SNAIL.
Surcharges can be placed in front and behind the wall (0,0 is at wall toe). If the surcharge in front
of the wall extends to the wall, use XR= -0.1.

Search Limit
Y

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Specified
Node (L) Search Limit

11
LN
10
Upper
Wedge 9
LS 8 Failure Plane at Node 7
Search Line
Limit 7

Lower 6 (J)
Wedge
5 Search Grid
(Shown for L=7)
4
Option #2 FSEARCH = 2
3 For this specified failure plane:
2 II=6, JJ=4, LA=7, LB=7.
1
X
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(I)

Figure F.3: Search Grid Definition.

Loading Intensity Loading Intensity

Begin 3 3 4 End 4

1
Distance from toe
(Begin Surcharge) 3
4
2
Distance from toe 4
(End Surcharge) 3

-1 1
-2
2
Example of
Surcharge on
both sides of wall

Figure F.4: Surcharge Definition.

Earthquake Acceleration (Panel 3)

Enter:
1. Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient
2. Vertical Earthquake Coefficient

F-6
The vertical earthquake coefficient (if used) must be entered as a decimal fraction of the horizontal
earthquake coefficient.

Water Surface (Panel 3)

A water surface, if used, is defined using three coordinate points. Enter coordinate points with 0,0
always at the wall. For analysis beyond wall toe, the water surface is specified as follows: (1) The
coordinates of the left point are on the wall face, the water surface coincides with the wall behind
and the ground surface below; (2) the y-coordinate of left point is negative, the water surface flat or
coincident with ground surface. Water table points must form a concave surface (i.e., dips toward
the face), otherwise, an error is generated.

Panel 3
6.-EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION:
KH= A/G------Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient.
PKH= %KH/100--Vertical Earthquake Coefficient.
7.-WATER:
FLAGW= ==> 0= not Used. 1= Piezometric. 2= Phreatic
1st Point 2nd Point 3rd Point
X-Coor.===> XW1= ft XW2= ft XW3= ft
Y-Coor.===> YW1= ft YW2= ft YW3= ft
************************ OPTION #1 ******************************
FLAGT= ==> 0= Ultimate Bond, Yield, &Punching Shear values.
1= Factored Bond, Yield, &Punching Shear values.
2= Tie-back Wall only (with Soldier pile wall).
************************ OPTION #2 ******************************
FSEARCH= ==> 0= The Search is Routinely from Nodes 1 to 10.
1= The Search is conducted from nodes LA to LB.
2= For Specified Failure Plane. Input II And JJ.
LA= Beginning at node 'LA'. II = Horizontal
LB= Ending at node 'LB'. JJ = Vertical
************************ OPTION #3 ******************************
FLAG = ==> 0= There is no TOE; 1= There is TOE. Enter DATA:
1st Slope Angle|1st Slope Length| 2nd Slope Angle|2nd Slope Length
I8= Degree| S8= Feet| I9= Degree| S9= Feet
SD= Ft, Vertical Depth of search.| NTS= No. of Searches.

Press PAGE UP or PAGE DOWN to Continue

Before running SNAIL, the user must decide which type of analysis is required for the case being
considered. SNAIL allows the user to select the analysis type using the following options:
Option 1: Used this option to define the maximum reinforcement strength. The option is
recognized through the field FLAGT.
FLAGT = 0. Values of bond strength, reinforcement yield strength, and punching shear
capacity are entered with ultimate values. Program uses these strength parameters
divided by the indicated factor of safety.
FLAGT = 1. Values of bond strength, reinforcement yield strength, and punching shear
capacity are entered as factored values. SNAIL uses these values to calculate the factor
of safety.
FLAGT = 2. Use only for tieback walls (with soldier piles). No vertical component of
the reinforcement is transmitted to the failure wedge.

F-7
Option 2: Search is specified within limits provided by points LS to LN (x-coordinate of left and
right boundaries).
FSEARCH = 0. Search is performed for all nodes, from 1 to 10.
FSEARCH = 1. Search is performed between specified nodes LA and LB.
FSEARCH = 2. Factor of Safety of a specified failure surface is computed. Enter points
II and JJ. Results are limited to selected range.
Option 3: Toe geometry is specified (see Figure F.5)
FLAG=0. No toe is considered
FLAG=1. Toe is considered and geometry must be input:
(1) First slope angle (positive counter clockwise)
(2) Length of first slope
(3) Slope angle below toe (positive counter clockwise)
(4) Length of slope extension
(5) Maximum depth of search below toe
(6) Number of searches (maximum of five) below toe

Wall

2
Wall Toe (0,0)
+
1
6 Depths Searched
(Five Maximum)
5
+
3

4
assumed

Figure F.5. Slope Geometry below Wall Toe.

Option 4: An external horizontal force, PD, which acts on the wall is specified. Force is positive
when pointing toward the wall and negative when pointing away from the wall.
Moments due to force are not considered. Force is transmitted to lower wedge.
Option 5: FLAGN = 0. Unused variable.
FLAGN = 1. Data for varying nail parameters is entered (Panel 5).
OPTION 5 allows modifying the nail parameters listed below (Nos. 13-20) at each nail
level.
13. Total nail length
14. Nail angle of inclination
15. Nail vertical spacing
16. Nail bar diameter

F-8
 17. Bond Strength
18. Nail horizontal spacing
19. Drillhole diameter
20. Nail bar yield strength

Options 4 and 5 can be modified directly in Panel 4. The nail vertical spacing and the bond strength
must be modified outside instead so as to obtain equivalent parameters 18-20.
Panel 4
************************ OPTION #4 ******************************
PD= Kips/ft-Width. External force on Wall. -->(+)|(-)<--
AN= Degrees from horizontal. Positive = Counterclockwise.
************************ OPTION #5 ******************************
FLAGN= ==> 0= OPTION #5 is not Used; 1= Used. Enter DATA:
Reinf. Reinf. Vert. Bar Bond
Length Inclination Spacing Diameter Stress
(ft) (Degree) (ft) (inch) Factor*
LE(01)= AL(01)= SV(01)= D(01)= SIG(01)=
LE(02)= AL(02)= SV(02)= D(02)= SIG(02)=
LE(03)= AL(03)= SV(03)= D(03)= SIG(03)=
LE(04)= AL(04)= SV(04)= D(04)= SIG(04)=
LE(05)= AL(05)= SV(05)= D(05)= SIG(05)=
LE(06)= AL(06)= SV(06)= D(06)= SIG(06)=
LE(07)= AL(07)= SV(07)= D(07)= SIG(07)=
LE(08)= AL(08)= SV(08)= D(08)= SIG(08)=
LE(09)= AL(09)= SV(09)= D(09)= SIG(09)=
LE(10)= AL(10)= SV(10)= D(10)= SIG(10)=

*NOTES: The Bond Stress Factor (BSF) is a mutiplier of Bond applied

throughout a bar, regardless of soil parameters. (Default = 1.00)

+++++ Use 'UP'or'DOWN'arrows to scroll. Hit 'Q' or 'q' to quit.+++++

LE(11)= AL(11)= SV(11)= D(11)= SIG(11)=

LE(12)= AL(12)= SV(12)= D(12)= SIG(12)=
LE(13)= AL(13)= SV(13)= D(13)= SIG(13)=
LE(14)= AL(14)= SV(14)= D(14)= SIG(14)=
LE(15)= AL(15)= SV(15)= D(15)= SIG(15)=
LE(16)= AL(16)= SV(16)= D(16)= SIG(16)=
LE(17)= AL(17)= SV(17)= D(17)= SIG(17)=
LE(18)= AL(18)= SV(18)= D(18)= SIG(18)=
LE(19)= AL(19)= SV(19)= D(19)= SIG(19)=
LE(20)= AL(20)= SV(20)= D(20)= SIG(20)=
LE(21)= AL(21)= SV(21)= D(21)= SIG(21)=
LE(22)= AL(22)= SV(22)= D(22)= SIG(22)=
LE(23)= AL(23)= SV(23)= D(23)= SIG(23)=
LE(24)= AL(24)= SV(24)= D(24)= SIG(24)=
LE(25)= AL(25)= SV(25)= D(25)= SIG(25)=
LE(26)= AL(26)= SV(26)= D(26)= SIG(26)=
LE(27)= AL(27)= SV(27)= D(27)= SIG(27)=
LE(28)= AL(28)= SV(28)= D(28)= SIG(28)=
LE(29)= AL(29)= SV(29)= D(29)= SIG(29)=
LE(30)= AL(30)= SV(30)= D(30)= SIG(30)=

Use Arrow and Return Keys to move around, Backspace and Delete Keys to edit
When data entry finished, press Page Up, or Down, or Esc Key to Run program.

F-9
Once all data panels are complete, press <Esc> key

User is asked if input needs to be saved.

If N is entered, the program returns to

data input panels for further
modifications.

If Y is entered, input file must be saved.

If the selected filename is the same as an
existing file, the existing file will be
overwritten. File automatically assigned
the extension “inp.”

Press <ENTER> to continue

Entered data and problem geometry can be checked one more time through the screen.

If data requires additional modification,

press <N>
If data is correct, press Y.

The solution is initiated.

The following screen is displayed during the solution:

F-10
 Run can be interrupted by pressing <Q>.

A summary of the solution is shown graphically as follows:

The following elements are shown:

1. Problem title, filename, and run date;
2. Wall geometry with nails, boundary lines between soil layers, and water surface;
3. Critical failure surface and associated minimum global factor of safety;
4. Distance behind the wall where the failure surface daylights;
5. Search depth below wall toe (if 3-wedge option is used);
6. Surcharge, water table and the horizontal force (PD) on facing boundary lines will be
shown;

F-11
 7. Legend summarizing soil unit weight, strength parameters, water table surface (if used),
soil layers ID, vertical and horizontal nail spacing, nail bar yield strength, and facing
punching shear capacity (PS on output screen);
8. Height of the wall (H), and reinforcement length (L); and
9. If seismic loading was present, KH (horizontal seismic coefficient), ratio of vertical-to-
horizontal seismic coefficient, and Ac: yield acceleration that gives a FS = 1.0.

Then the user is asked:

Do you want to print the Minimum factors of safety? (Y/N)
If Y, analysis results is printed in a report
If N, user is asked if previous data needs to be modified

Do you want to edit previous data file for another run? (Y/N)
If N, user is asked if another existing file or a new file will be modified

Do you want to edit another file? (Y/N)

If Y, filename must be entered. If N, the program stops
Nail forces at every nail level is shown for the 10 most critical failure surfaces along with the
associated factors of safety and are saved to an output file (ASCII or text file). Additionally, the
average nail force that yields a global factor of safety=1.0 is also included in the output file. An
abridged output file of an example run is presented below:
RESULTS OF THE MINIMUM SAFETY FACTOR
FOR SPECIFIED FAILURE PLANES AT THE TOE AND BELOW

MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE

SAFETY BEHIND PLANE
FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH
(ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft)

Toe 1.354 71.5 26.1 23.9 40.1 65.4

Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi

2 = 4.490 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
3 = 10.470 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
4 = 16.449 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
5 = 22.429 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
6 = 30.767 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
7 = 39.508 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
8 = 43.524 ksi (Punching Shear controls..)

Press <ENTER> to continue...

MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE

SAFETY BEHIND PLANE
FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH
(ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft)

NODE 2 1.352 73.0 25.8 24.3 39.6 66.3

Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi

2 = 3.878 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
3 = 9.929 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
4 = 15.980 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
5 = 22.031 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
6 = 30.552 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
7 = 39.383 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
8 = 43.559 ksi (Punching Shear controls..)

Press <ENTER> to continue...

F-12
...skips intermediate results
MINIMUM DISTANCE LOWER FAILURE UPPER FAILURE
SAFETY BEHIND PLANE PLANE
FACTOR WALL TOE ANGLE LENGTH ANGLE LENGTH
(ft) (deg) (ft) (deg) (ft)

NODE 6 1.353 79.0 27.1 35.5 38.5 60.6

Reinf. Stress at Level 1 = 0.000 Ksi

2 = 0.682 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
3 = 6.911 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
4 = 14.343 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
5 = 22.843 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
6 = 31.344 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
7 = 39.845 Ksi (Pullout controls...)
8 = 43.427 ksi (Punching Shear controls..)

Press <ENTER> to continue...

********************************************************************
* For Factor of Safety = 1.0 *
* Maximum Horizontally Average Reinforcement Working Force: *
* 22.323 Kips/level *
********************************************************************

Press <ENTER> to continue...

F-13