FIELD PERFORMANCE OF NAILED SOIL W ALL IN RESIDUAL SOIL

By I. H. Wong; Member, ASCE, B. K. Low/ Member, ASCE,

P. Y. Pang/ and G. V. R. Raju4

ABSTRACT: A soil nailing technique was used to stabilize a 9-m-deep permanent cut in residual soil for an
expressway project in Singapore. This paper describes the construction details, instrumentation, and performance
of the nailed soil wall and the results of a field pullout test on a grouted nail. Results of numerical analysis are
compared with the measured performance of the wall. The nailed soil wall performed well. Postconstruction
performance of the wall showed moderate increase in wall displacements and nail forces due to loss of soil
suction resulting from seepage of rainwater into the soil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION tion depth was limited to 1 m because of the close proximity

Soil nailing is a method of soil stabilization for slopes, ex-
cavations, and tunnel portals that uses metallic inclusions. This
technique has often been used for retaining both temporary
and permanent excavations (Shen et al. 1981; Juran et al.
1988). Because of its inherent advantages, such as the speed
and simplicity in construction, its application is rapidly in-
creasing in Southeast Asia. This paper describes the perfor-
mance of a permanent soil nailed wall constructed in residual
soils in Singapore.
SITE LOCATION
The site was located at the boundary of the Nanyang Tech-
nological University (NTU), Singapore. A proposed extension
of the Pan Island Expressway required a 9.0-m-deep excava-
tion at the boundary of the NTU campus near Residence Hall
5. There are multistoried buildings about 10 m behind the
excavated face, and a campus road immediately above the ex-
cavated face. The soils at the site are residual soils of the
Jurong formation consisting of grayish-yellow hard clayey silt.
The N-values were typically in the range of 35-65 over the
top 10 m and exceeded 100 at depths greater than 15 m. The
average liquid and plastic limits of the soils are 42 and 22%,
respectively. A typical cross section of the ground before and
after excavation is shown in Fig. I. Due to the uneven ground
surface, the depth of excavation varied from nearly 4.5 m at
the shallow section to 9.0 m at the deepest section. The project
was executed during the rainy season in the second half of
1992.
of existing structures and the NTU campus road immediately
above the cut. In addition, since the project was executed dur-
ing the rainy season, greater unsupported excavation depths
were not recommended. Problems occurred during the third
excavation stage when some tensile cracks parallel to the ex-
cavation appeared on the ground at about 1.5 m behind the
cut face at one section, due to the presence of an abandoned
sewer line behind the wall face. This required stabilization by
filling the tensile crack with grout. However no cracks were
visible on the pavement or near the foot of the buildings.
Nail
As soon as the first lift of excavation was finished, boreholes
100 mm in diameter were drilled in the soil using an auger
bit at a 15° inclination to the horizontal. The boreholes were
spaced 1.0 m horizontally and 1.0 m vertically. Each borehole
was 7-m long and uncased throughout its length. A 7-m-Iong,
high yield strength (<J'y =460 N/mm') ribbed steel rod 25 mm
in diameter was inserted into the borehole. In order to provide
a uniform thickness of grout, the nail was maintained centrally
in the borehole using plastic centralizers spaced at 1-m inter-
vals along the nail length. The annular space around the nail
was then filled with a cement grout [water-cement (w/c) ratio
= 0.45-0.50]. The 28-day characteristic strength of the grout
was 30 N/mm'. Since the wall was designed as a permanent
structure, a special additive known as CONBEXTRA was
mixed with the grout for corrosion protection. The details of
the nail are shown in Fig. 2.

WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS rNlTH PRESSUR€ CEll

Excavation
The excavation was carried out using a backhoe in lifts of NTU C.\NPUS ROAD

1.0 m with a face slope of one horizontal to eight vertical. 8

Even though the soil had adequate cohesive strength that made
it self-supporting for greater depths, the incremental excava- C

'Prof., School of Civ. and Struct. Engrg., Nanyang Tech. Univ., Sin-
SHOTCRffi WAll. 0 L NAIL
gapore 639798.
2Sr. Lect., School of Civ. and Struct. Engrg., Nanyang Tech. Univ.,
Singapore 639798.
3 Asst. Chf. Civ. Engr., Public Works Dept., MND Build., 5 Maxwell ;8
Rd., Singapore 06911 O.
4Geotech. Engr., Maunsell Consultants (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., The Con-
course, 300 Beach Rd., Singapore 199555; formerly, Civ. Engr., Promet
Engrg. (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., 21 Pandan Rd., Singapore 609273.
Note. Discussion open until January J. 1998. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on April 11, 1996. This paper is part of the JOUTIUlI rOOTING
of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 11, No.3, August, 1997.
©ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/97/0003-0105-01121$4.00 + $.50 per page. FIG. 1. Ground Profile at Site Before and After Construction
Paper No. 13042. and Instrumentation

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / AUGUST 1997/105

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112

 3Y75 THROUGHOUT
l[HlilH OF WAll
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
--
SIEH FABRIC
0811UI
___
--4.A-.!OOO
FIG. 2. Typical Details of Soil Nail (Courtesy PWD, Singapore)
Facing
After the nails were grouted, the excavated soil face was
covered with a steel welded mesh (lO-mm bars at 100-mm
intervals in both directions), placed with its center 50 mm from
the soil face, and covered with a 100-mm-thick layer of shot-
crete (with a 28-day characteristic strength of 30 N/mm 2 )
sprayed on to the soil face. A second layer of BRC welded
mesh was thcn placed with its center 50 mm from the shotcrete
surface, and another layer of shotcrete 100-mm thick was then
sprayed over it. Thus the total thickness of the shotcrete facing
was 200 mm.
The connection of each nail to the facing was made by
bcnding a SOO-mm length of nail onto the BRC welded mesh.
To provide rigid support to the nails at these connections, three
bars 25 mm in diameter at 2S0-mm intervals were used as
wales running throughout the length of the wall at each nail
head level. The nail head was then covered with shotcrete after
FIG. 3. Details of Nail-Facing Connection
1061 JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES 1 AUGUST 1997
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112
PLASTIC CENTRAliZERS
AT 1000mm INIERVAlS.
-. :J"" "t....
.,.. ;~' "'"mm niN.
---------------J .rt1RtH~,
li
_______ .' O~
tying the bent portion of the nail to the wale bars. The details
of the nail connection at the facing are shown in Fig. 2. The
construction detail of the nail-facing connection at the site is
shown in Fig. 3.
The process of installing the nails and shotcreting the facing
was repeated with an incremental depth of excavation of 1.0
m each time until the required 9-m excavation depth was
reached. In order to distribute the weight of the shotcrete wall
on the soil at the toe of the wall, a 300-mm-thick cantilever
footing was provided. The footing was then backfilled to a
depth of 1.8 m as shown in Fig. I.
Drainage
Drainage of the soil nailed wall was provided to prevent the
buildup of pore pressure on the facing. In this project, the
surface water was prevented from coming into contact with
the facing by means of a surface drain provided at the top of
the wall as shown in Fig. I. The presence of the pavement
also helped in preventing the rainwater from seeping into the
nailed zone. The drainage of the soil was achieved by the
provision of a number of weep holes spaced at 2-m intervals
in both directions. These weep holes consisted of 7S-mm-di-
ameter heavy duty polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes perforated
all around with 13-mm-diameter holes staggered at IOO-mm
intervals. Each PVC pipe was wrapped with a geotextile to act
as a filter prior to installation in the weep hole. The length of
each weep hole was 1.5 m. These weep holes sloped down-
wards toward the facing at an inclination of 4°.
Typical details of the nailed cross section of the wall at the
deepest excavation zone are shown in Fig. I. The completed
wall with the expressway is shown in Fig. 4.
PULLOUT TEST ON IN SITU GROUTED NAILS
To understand the load transfer mechanism between soil and
nail and to estimate the quality of bond achieved between the
 the ground surface. Three vibrating wire strain gauges were
mounted on the steel bar at a 2-m spacing to measure the axial
tensile force in the nail during the pullout. The strain gauge
was installed after grinding a flat surface on the nail bar in
order to ensure that the strain gauge was installed on the neu-
tral axis of the bar. This arrangement was used to minimize
the interference of nail bending on the measured axial nail
forces. The possible shift in the neutral axis of the nail bar
from the bar axis due to bending was ignored.

- --- - The pullout test was conducted using a center-hole jack

bearing against a concrete pad at the nail head. The displace-

----- ment at the nail head was measured using a dial gauge. The
movement of the concrete pad was also monitored and was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

found to be negligible. The design ultimate structural capacity

of the nail was 200 kN. Except for the last load of 78 kN,
FIG. 4. Completed Soil Nailed Wall each intermediate load was maintained constant for 5 min, and
the strain gauge readings were then recorded. The strain read-
80 .-----,----,---.,-----r----r--,-----, ings were converted into axial force by considering only the
Nail dikmeter ~ 25 mrrl, \ steel area and elastic modulus. This simplifying assumption is
Grout hole dialneter =1100 mrr\
i
i I I '
.!!

Ii believed to be reasonable because of the likely cracking of the

Applieo pulI-o\.lt load l' 50 kN: I grout material when tensile loads are induced. From the mea-
_ 60 ·······;-_·i-·---·-l---1r--·· sured axial force, the bond stress mobilized at the nail/soil
~ Ci' i __ Mobilized bond stress interface is calculated using the following expression:
-; ~ c............ i -e- Avg. mobilized bond stress
U 1/1 - ............' __ Axial force
5 m
.... 1/140 ' ........... bond stress at the naiVsoil interface T =~ (I)
7r.D.'61
~; ~
~~=:::::E:::::~;~~"~~l==~=3~=1
where 'OT = change in axial force between two points on the
~ ~20
iii t: nail; D = grout hole diameter; and 'Of is the length between

~.I.~i
two points where the difference in force is considered.
The variation of the axial tensile force and mobilized bond
• i . stress along the nail length at loads of 50 and 78 kN is shown
; i ,

O+--'--+---'---I-'---+--'---t--L--+----'--II--~ in Fig. 5. At a load of 50 kN, the average bond stress was

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 21.6 kPa and the peak bond stress was 26.7 kPa, which was
mobilized in the middle portion of the nail.
Distance from facing (m) When the pulling load was being increased towards 50% of
the structural capacity of the nail, pullout failure of the nail
(a) occurred at a load of 78 kN. The average bond stress at failure
was 35.3 kPa and the peak bond stress was about 70.3 kPa,
100 .,---.,..-,- - ' I- - - ; , - - "--.,----.,..----, which was mobilized towards the inner end of the nail. In the
Applied pulltout load = 78 kN present case, the pullout failure load of 78 kN corresponds to
- - Mobilized bond stress 40% of the ultimate structural capacity of the nail.
80 -e- Avg. mobilized bond stress The load versus displacement plot from the pullout test is
-
~ Ci'
_ll.
- - AXial force shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the relative
displacement required for the full mobilization of bond stress
Gl ::. 60 is 8 mm. Results reported by Cartier and Gigan (1983) also
~ 1/1 show that the relative displacement required for the full mo-
o 1/1
....
Gl
"- bilization of the nail pullout capacity is small.
'iii 1ij 40 *.-----¥
t:'C
.!l! S 100
~m
20 -
80
o +-~_+--'-+-~-t--'---'---t--'--t----'-~
Z
~ ,
. .--.- .. - _.-..~.-.-.
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 QI 60
...
(.)

-
0
Distance from facing (m) u.
:l
40 'Nailbardia;:;;eie~25
(b) ~ I ,
mm
"5 Grout hole diameter
;
100
Q.
FIG. 5. Nail Force Variation in Pullout Test: (a) At 50 kN Pullout 20 ......... ··--···1·····.. . + .. -.._.- f·
Load; (b) At Failure Load ,

1
nail and the in situ soil, a pullout test was conducted on a o I ' ' , , i ' , ' ,
specially installed nail at the project site. o 5 10 15 20 25
The pullout test was conducted on a 7-m-long nail installed
Displacement of Nail Head (mm)
in the same way as the actual nails used in the project. The
nail for the pullout test was installed at a depth of 1.5 m below FIG. 6. Pullout Test Results on Nail

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES I AUGUST 1997/107

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112

 Lateral Wall Displacement (mm)
INSTRUMENTATION o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
o ;-.-.-.........,~.-.;-~..-tO~...,...~j;W.-......-j;~...-r:"....,.."'1
Several cases of instrumented soil nailed walls built in re-
sidual soils have been reported in the literature [for example,
see Shen et al. (1981). Plumelle et al. (1990), and Thompson
and Miller (1990)]. To enhance the understanding of the be- 2
havior of soil nailed structures in residual soils, the structure
was instrumented as follows.
The soil nailed wall was instrumented with inclinometers,
strain gauges, and earth pressure cells. Five SINCO inclinom-
eters were installed in 16-m-deep boreholes at different sec-
tions along the length of the wall. The inclinometers were
located 0.3 m behind the facing to monitor the lateral defor-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mation of the excavated face. Due to the presence of the road

immediately behind the edge of excavation, it was not possible
to install inclinometers far away from the facing of the wall.
The inclinometer readings were taken during the excavation
stages and also after the construction of the wall to monitor
its long-term performance of the wall. Inclinometer readings
were taken daily during the construction and at three to four
days intervals for about nine months after the end of wall
construction. Readings were discontinued for about 27 months
until December of 1995, when another set of readings was
taken.
The forces in the nails were monitored using vibrating wire
strain gauges. Three strain gauges were spot welded to each
nail at 2-m intervals. The locations of the gauges on the nail
are shown in Fig. 1. Due to cost constraints only one strain
gauge was used at each location of a nail. Hence it was not
possible to deduce the bending moments in the nails. Each
gauge was mounted on the bar on the horizontal axis passing
through the center of the bar. During insertion of the steel bar
into the borehole, care was taken to ensure that the orientation
of the gauges was unchanged. The strain gauge readings were
taken daily during the excavation stages and at three to four
day intervals after the completion of the project.
Pneumatic earth pressure cells were installed at a depth of
1.5 m below the ground surface at the back of the wall in
order to monitor the earth pressure acting on the facing. How-
ever, the earth pressure readings indicated unreliable values.
PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTURE
Lateral wall Displacements
The lateral displacements of the excavated face as measured
by the inclinometer were plotted against depth in Fig. 7. The
displacement profiles were plotted successively at excavation
depths of 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 m. Fig. 7 also shows the displace-
ment profiles of the wall during the postconstruction period.
It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the lateral movement is greatest
-/1- Ex-slage 7 (h • 7 m)
-)(- Ex-otage 8 (h • 8 m)
-Jl:- End or Construction (h =9 m)
-·0- 3 months .fter con$truction
--+- 9 months after construction
- - 36 months after construction
10
FIG. 7. Measured Lateral Wall Displacements
at the crest of the wall at all stages. The displacements de-
creased gradually below the crest of the wall to almost zero
at the toe. When the excavation depth was increased from 5
m (stage 5) to 6 m (stage 6) there was a rapid increase in the
lateral displacement. This is because of the delay in construc-
tion due to heavy rains for a period of about three weeks.
During the subsequent seventh and eight excavation stages,
the displacements increased further, and then there was a rapid
increase of displacements during the final excavation stage. At
the end of the final excavation stage, the maximum displace-
ment at the crest of the wall was only 26 mm (0.29% of the
wall height). During the first three months following the con-
struction, the crest displacements of the wall increased by
about 5 mm. Over a period of 36 months after wall construc-
tion, the crest displacements increased by about 11 mm. Dur-
ing the same 36-month period, the displacement at the toe of
the wall increased from zero at the end of construction to about
4mm.
The displacements of the wall during the postconstruction
period could be attributed to the effect of dissipation of neg-
ative pore pressure in the soil due to destruction of soil suction
as a result of seepage of rainwater. The displacements started
stabilizing three months after the completion of the wall. The
displacement history at the crest of the wall is shown in Fig.
8. The figure shows a steady increase in wall displacements

-
'0 60
c _ 50
4)E E
4)_ E 40
0_
«S In
- CI) 30
c.~
.~ <.> 20
C- (~
-ca
Es: 10
-CI)
«S
..J
o
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Start date 3rd July 1992 Time (days)
FIG. 8. Lateral Displacement History at Crest of Wall

1081 JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES 1 AUGUST 1997

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112

 Normalized Nail Force (TN)
0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3
•
~
..
.s:.
Q,
0.4
•
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

41
0.5
">
41
•
eo .----r---,--r--.--,-----r-.., ~ 0.6

!: +--- 'ii
•
(d) !:t::::l::.:~~.~.-.~. -~,..::;;;~.~~
··1·········-+..·....-..·1-··

,fow_·-..l---_>----4-_4--
o J...-N.........
-+- . . .-+---.,
=:.==
_~
0::
0.7

0.8

0.9

Empirical Earth Pressure

Diagram (Terzaghi &
Peck 19967)

FIG. 11. Nondlmenslonal Maximum Nail Force Variation with

Depth at End of Wall Construction

in the nails. At a few strain gauge locations, the calculated

I tion, which exceeded the limiting value of 39.8 kPa obtained
2 3 ..
Dlstlnee from facln, ,ml
FIG, 9. Measured Nail Force.
immediately after construction, which started slowing down a
few months after the end of wall construction.
Nail Forces
The force distribution in the nails obtained from the strain
gauge readings is plotted at the end of wall construction and
at 9 and 36 months after construction in Fig. 9. As shown
there, at the end of wall construction, the maximum nail force
recorded by the strain gauge in the upper rows of nails was
located 4 m from the facing. A check was made on the mea-
sured nail forces by back-calculating the bond stress mobilized
bond stress was found to be more than that mobilized in the
pullout test at failure, which is 39.8 kPa. For example, the
back-calculated bond stress between the middle and end strain
gauges in nail row 3 is 42.5 kPa at the end of wall construc-
5
from the pullout test on the nail. The forces in all the nails
increased during the postconstruction period, except at a few
strain gauge locations. The drop in the nail force, as indicated
by some strain gauges, could be due to the loss of sensitivity
of the strain gauges resulting in erroneous strain readings. This
increase in the nail forces is also a manifestation of the loss
of soil suction during the periods immediately after construc-
tion of the wall. There was only a slight increase in nail forces
in the top four rows of nails during the nine-month period
after construction. In contrast, the nail forces in the lower three
rows increased significantly over the same period. The post-
construction displacements of the wall might have resulted in
the mobilization of forces in the lower rows of nails.
The effect of the loss of soil suction on the nail forces can
be best understood by plotting the variation of the nail forces

60 ~----.-!- - - - , - i --------r'---I;--.--~I---.'I-----'
50 . . .End..oi:..w alL...·..
I
l-.' .· _. ·.·.·.. . ·-f.. . . ._.......§.!.~~1.~. .~~~f.~~~.~.!~~~ . .
i i , ;

40 ~Q~!>!T~!!Q~·_. ·+·..__ -r-·..·..·_..·. · ·t-· ·.·.· ·..·.i'· ::1 ..:::- .

30 __.-.-.., If'-~ I I ! i \

'iii
z
~~ ~--+=:::*~:::=:~::::::l~---t---J
O-+--''--'--'---\----'--'--'--!--'--'--'-+-L-...........-t-..........'-'--t-............-'--+-'-----'---'--j
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Start date 9th June Time (days)
FIG. 10. Nail Force Variation with Time

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / AUGUST 1997/109

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112

 JOB TITLE: pie-extension .1 e 1

FLAC (Version 3.03)

2.50

LEGEND

3/02/1995 16:59
2.00
.lep 11
-4.306E+00 <x< 3.181E+Ol
-8.056E+00 <y< 2.806E+Ol

1.50
Grid plot
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I , , , , , , , , , !
0 1E 1

8oundory plot
\ \ \ 1.00
I I ! I ! I I I I ! I
0 1E 1
\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\1
\ \ \ \ 1\
.50
\ \ \ \\
\ \
\ \ ,\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \\l \11\1\\\\\\1\ \ .00

-.50

Nonyong Tech. University

Geotechnics Loborotory
.00 .50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
.1 e 1

FIG. 12. FLAC Grid Used In Numerical Analysis of Soil Nailed Wall

with time. The history of the nail forces are shown in Fig. 10
for a typical strain gauge. For strain gauge location A1 (Fig.
1), the nail forces progressively increased at a slow rate during
the excavation stages and the period immediately after con-
struction. The axial force in the nail at this location six months
after the end of wall construction was about 36% more than
immediately after the end of wall construction. There was a
slight reduction in the nail force during the subsequent 30
months.
The measured maximum nail forces at the end of wall con-
struction are compared in a nondimensional form (TN = Tm•.I
-y-H·Sv·Sh ) in Fig. 11, with the range of forces corresponding
to Terzaghi and Peck's (1967) earth pressure diagram used in
the design of braced excavations in stiff clays. For stiff clays
the suggested maximum design lateral pressure is between
0.2-yH and O.4-yH. The measured nail forces approximately
correspond to a maximum lateral pressure of 0.2-yH in Ter-
zaghi and Peck's design diagram. The measured forces in the
lower two rows of nails were very small because they were
installed after most of the displacements due to excavation had
already taken place.
COST ANALYSIS
The savings realized by using soil nailing in this project can
be shown by cost comparisons with other alternative retaining
systems. In Singapore, the commonly used alternatives for re-
taining structures are gravity walls and contiguous bored piles.
The cost of each system per unit surface area of the excavated
face for this project are compared as follows:
2
Soil nailing US$470/m
Gravity retaining wall US$S70/m2
110/ JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / AUGUST 1997
Contiguous bored piles US$60S/m 2
Contiguous bored piles are commonly used as cantilever walls
in Singapore and Malaysia. The system consists of 0.8-1.2-
m-diameter contiguous bored piles connected by a capping
beam
These figures are at the 1992 price level in Singapore. Soil
nail walls, which offer the same technical advantages as con-
tiguous bored pile walls in the construction of retaining sys-
tems for steep cut slopes, also offer savings in material
usage-in this case, savings of 21 % compared to gravity wall
and 28.7% compared to contiguous bored piles. Each system
has its own advantages. The gravity wall results in an aes-
thetically appealing facing. The contiguous bored piles mini-
mize lateral displacements and do not require any open ex-
cavation; hence they are suitable in situations where soil
nailing cannot be used.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
The soil nailed retaining wall was modeled using the finite
difference program FLAC (Cundall 1991). The problem was
analyzed by discretizing the soil mass in the vicinity of the
structure into 650 soil elements. A finer grid was used in the
nailed zone due to expected higher stress gradients, and a
coarser grid was used in the unreinforced zone. The finite dif-
ference grid used in the analysis is shown in Fig. 12.
PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS
Soil
A saturated undrained analysis was performed. The soil is
modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb material. The relationship be-

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112

 to behave as a linearly elastic material. The shear behavior of
the soiVnail interface was modeled using a spring-slider mech-
anism. The bond strength of the nail was based on the pullout
(a) capacity obtained from the test. The bond stiffness of the nail
elements were calculated based on the displacement required
for full mobilization of bond in the pullout tests, which is 8
mm. The three-dimensional (3D) nature of the nails was taken
Z 40 ,---r:=----:--;---,-----,-----,,----,---, care of by averaging their cross-sectional area over the hori-
... Na~ Row 2 : :
';; 30 ······.. ····t···· ..· · · · · · · • · ..····..·.. it·· .... zontal spacing of nails.
l:! 20 ~ _ ! .
.2 j i
(b) 'ii 10 "\ "/".. Facing
c 0 +-~-i--~--.,I--~-+-~-+-~--.,I--~-+-~~
l! 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 The shotcrete facing of the wall was modeled as linearly
:l
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

elastic beam elements. The modulus of elasticity of these beam

£ 40 .-----,-----,,...----,-----,...---,---,
... Nail Row 3 ! ! Q : i elements was calculated based on the characteristic strength of
-; 30 ;;::;.::~~.-...'i"""_ ! i ····;····..···········t··········· ·..··
! shotcrete. The input parameters of the facing elements are
~ 20 ._ .
shown as follows:
(c) ... 1 0 · · · · 1.. ··.. · .. ;
~ 0 +-~-i--~--il--~-+-~-+~--"I--~+-~~ Young's modulus (kPa) 3.32 X 107
l! 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
~ Cross-sectional area (m2 ) 0.2
~ 40 .,--N-o-i'.,...-R-o-w-4-.:---------,----.
i i

;- 30
; i
·····..._·····_··t·_····_············I········_· .... t·
M .... 'R.M"· .. ,.~ ....-.+ Moment of inertia (m4 ) 6.67 X 10- 4
.. +
•

D
~ 20 Q .
... 10 ..... +i ;! . RESULTS OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
(d) :; i
c 0 +-~-i--~--i-~+-~-;-~-+-~+-~-l

l! 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 The analysis was performed by first establishing equilibrium

~ of the numerical model corresponding to the initial undrained
at rest stresses. An equivalent surcharge of 10 kPa was applied

(eJ l;j f_·.=· ~· .=N_O:;.; I+-1=R_O;.; ;W:5!~. ....._... -+.'-_ ~ +- ~· -;· ·_ · ·_ · · _· · +· · _· _· · " " -:I
.... ..._.
to represent the road immediately above the wall. The first
excavation was modeled by removing the elements in front of
the facing to a depth of I m. To model the time lapse between
the excavation and nail installation, the model was stepped to
~ 0 4 5 6 7 equilibrium after the excavation, i.e., prior to installing the

!ij ~N~.~il:R~O_\~V_._6_~D-'-if-·_.·._~·---+_~+-~_.,..... ~ i_· ·~· ·~· ~:1

nails and facing. The nails and facing were then installed and
the model was again time-stepped to equilibrium. The same
process was repeated for all the excavation stages.
(Q f_. .•. _..... ....._.....-..+ The computed nail forces are compared with the measured

Lateral Wall Displacement lmm)

~ 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
« o

wfH~j
~ /
. 2
/
~ 01234567
Distance from facing (m)
3 ....
~//
/
FIG. 13. Comparison of Measured and Computed Nail Forces
~
.//
4 0 Measured
tween the undrained shear strength s. and the standard pene- /
tration test (SPT) N-value is assumed to be s. = 5N, based on :§: I --Computed

local experience. The undrained soil modulus E. was estimated ...

~ 5 ~ /

1/
Q,
from the charts proposed by Duncan and Buchigani (1976) ell
Q
as a function of the overconsolidation ratio (OCR). The ini- ~
6
tial tangent modulus Ei used in the analysis was twice the un-

:-!
drained secant modulus E•. The OCR was estimated from the
charts in Bowles (1988) using a constant value of A = s.IP; = 7
0.3 (where p; is the effective existing overburden pressure) for
normally consolidated clay. The bulk and shear moduli of the
soil were calculated by assuming a Poisson's ratio of 0.49. 8 •

•
The coefficient of earth pressure at rest was calculated using :
the relationship K o = (I - sin<!>') OCR'i."'· (Mayne and Kul- .". ................
9
hawy 1982), where <!>' is the drained friction angle. Displacements at the end
! of wall construction
Nails 10
The nails were modeled as two-dimensional (2D) cable el- FIG. 14. Comparison of Measured and Computed Lateral Wall
ements that are effective in tension only. They were assumed Displacements

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / AUGUST 1997/111

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112

 values at the end of construction in Fig. 13. The computed
values are in good agreement with the measured values for
nail rows 2, 4, 5, and 6. For nail row 1, the computed nail
forces are smaller than the measured values, while for nail row
7, the computed forces are almost twice the measured values.
The computed lateral displacements of the wall at the end
of wall construction are compared with the measurements in
Fig. 14. The computed lateral displacements of the wall are
greater than the measured values. However the nature of
movement of the wall was correctly represented by the nu-
merical model.
The discrepancy between the predicted and measured be-
havior of the wall could be due to the following factors:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1. The 3D nature of the problem coupled with the complex
soil/structure interaction may not be truly modeled by
the 2D plane strain analysis.
2. The elastic modulus was based on an empirical relation-
ship with the N value.
3. The soil suction and the loss of negative pore pressure
due to rainwater seepage could not be correctly modeled
using FLAC.
CONCLUSIONS
Soil nailing proved to be an effective method of retaining
a steep cut in residual soils. The maximum lateral displace-
ment of the wall did not exceed 0.4% of the wall height, even
36 months after construction.
The maximum nail forces at the end of wall construction
correspond to the Terzaghi and Peck's design lateral pressure
diagram for braced excavations in stiff clay with a maximum
lateral pressure of O.2'YH.
The postconstruction behavior of the wall showed a slight
increase in lateral wall displacements, which in turn caused a
corresponding increase in the nail tensile forces. This trend
was attributable to the loss of soil suction. One major con-
straint of a soil nailed wall is that the soil in which the nails
are to be located should be original ground. Any discontinui-
ties in the soil mass behind the wall face may create unpre-
dictable soil cracks through which water may enter and reduce
the soil stresses.
The wall performed very well without excessive displace-
ments, even under the moving loads on the pavement adjacent
to the top of the wall. This demonstrates the satisfactory per-
formance of the soil nailed wall under dynamic loading cycles
in this particular case.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers would like to thank the Public Works Department of Sin-
gapore for providing the technical details of this project. The instrumen-
tation data was provided by Mis L & M Foundation Pte. Ltd., Singapore.
1121 JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES I AUGUST 1997
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 1997, 11(3): 105-112
APPENDIX i. REFERENCES
Bowles, J. E. (1988). Foundation analysis and design, 4th Ed., McGraw-
Hill Inc., New York, N.Y.
Cartier, G., and Gigan, J. P. (1983). "Experiments and Observations on
Nailing Structures." Proc., 8th Eur. Con! on Soil Mech. and Found.
Engrg., Vol. 1, Helsinki, Finland, 473-476.
Cundall, P. (1991). "Fast Lagrange Analysis of Continua (FLAC)."
User's manual Vol. 1 and JI, Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis,
Minn.
Duncan, J. M., and Buchigani, A. L. (1976). "An engineering manual
for settlement studies." Geotech. Engrg. Rep., Dept. of Civ. Engrg.,
Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley.
Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Farrag, K., and Elias, V. (1988). "Kinematical
limit analysis approach for the design of nailed soil retaining struc-
tures." 1nt. Geotech. Symp. on Theory and Pract. of Earth Reinforce-
ment, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 301-306.
Mayne, P. W., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). "k,,-OCR relationship in soil."
J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 108(6), 851-972.
Plumelle, C., Schlosser, F., Delage, P., and Knochenmus, G. (1990).
"French national research project on soil nailing: Clouterre." Proc.,
Con! on Des. and Perf. of Earth Retaining Struct., ASCE Spec. Pub/.
No. 25, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 660-675.
Shen, C. K., Herrmann, L. R., Romstad, K. M., Bang, S., Kim, Y. S., and
Denatale, J. S. (1981). "An insitu earth reinforcement lateral support
system." Rep. Prepared for the Nat. Sci. Found., Dept. of Civ. Engrg.,
Univ. of Calif. at Davis.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1967). Soil mechanics in engineering prac-
tice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Thompson, S. R., and Miller, I. R. (1990). "Design, construction and
performance of a soil nailed wall in Seattle, Washington," Proc.. Con!
on Des. and Per! of Earth Retaining Struct., ASCE Spec. Publ. No.
25, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 629-643.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A = ratio of undrained shear strength to effective overburden
pressure;
c' = effective cohesion of soil;
D = grout hole diameter;
Ei = initial elastic tangent modulus of soil;
Eu = undrained elastic modulus of soil;
fb bond stress of nail/grout interface;
fe. = characteristic strength of grout or shotcrete;
H = total excavation depth;
Ko = efficient of earth pressure at rest;
Pp pullout capacity of nail;
p; = effective overburden pressure;
Sh = horizontal nail spacing;
Su = undrained shear strength of soil;
Sv = vertical nail spacing;
T max = maximum axial nail force at end of wall construction;
TN = normalized axial nail force;
8 = nail/soil interface friction angle;
81 = distance between two strain gauges on nail;
8T = difference in nail force between two points on nail;
"I = unit weight of soil;
(J'" = normal stress at nail/soil interface;
(J' y yield stress of nail;
'Tull = mobilized maximum shear stress at nail/soil interface; and
<1>' effective friction angle of soil.