Soil Nailing Earth Retention

GROUND MODIFICATION, PROBLEM SOILS, AND GEO-SUPPORT 121
SOIL NAILING EARTH RETENTION ON THE PARK LAFAYETTE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
DEVELOPMENT IN MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
Eric W. Bahner, P.E., M.ASCE1 and Mike Christensen2
Abstract: The Park Lafayette development currently under construction in

Milwaukee, Wisconsin consists of two 20-story towers supported on a combination of
spread footings and drilled shafts. The development includes four levels of
underground parking, requiring a 14m (45 ft) deep excavation immediately adjacent
to city streets and Milwaukee County property. The presence of the adjacent County
property required an unprecedented level of pre-construction planning by the
Developer, Construction Manager Hunzinger Construction Company, and Specialty
Contractor Edward E. Gillen Company. The small site footprint required that the
earth retention system be installed such that the retention system would also serve as
the backside form for the foundation walls. The 13 corners in the foundation footprint
complicated this necessity. Gillen and Hunzinger determined that soil nailing would
be the most cost effective method to retain the excavation. To avoid conflicts with
new foundation walls, the excavation footprint was oversized 150 mm (6 inches) on
each side to allow for irregularities in the excavation and shotcrete face and lateral
movement of the earth retention system. Construction of the soil nail wall proceeded
through the winter of 2006 to 2007 with minimal delay. Optical survey monitoring
by the construction manager indicated that the 150 mm (6-inch) wall offset was
sufficient to allow foundation wall construction to proceed with modifications to
neither the retention system nor the foundation walls.
INTRODUCTION
The latest addition to the City of Milwaukee’s skyline is the Park Lafayette
condominium development on the city’s east side. Dense urban development and
severely limited/restricted parking in the area required that the Developer incorporate
substantial underground parking into the design to accommodate the needs of the
businesses and private residents. To address the earth retention needs for this project,
the authors’ companies worked with the Developer to secure the necessary
permits/easements to allow construction, and then designed an earth retention system
to safely and cost effectively retain the excavation. The principal author and his firm
successfully designed and constructed a temporary soil nail wall to retain the
excavation. To minimize excavation backfilling costs and expedite construction of
the underground parking levels, the soil nail wall was designed to incorporate the
1
Chief Engineer, Edward E. Gillen Company, 218 West Becher Street, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 53207,
Tel: 414-769-3120, Email: eric.bahner@gillenco.com
2
Sr. Project Manager, Hunzinger Construction Company, 21100 Enterprise Avenue, Brookfield, WI,
USA, 53045, Tel: (262)-797-0797, Email: mchristensen@hunzinger.com
121
Copyright ASCE 2009 2009 International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo
Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification, Problem Soils, and Geo-Support
122 GROUND MODIFICATION, PROBLEM SOILS, AND GEO-SUPPORT
construction of the perimeter drainage system as the excavation was advanced, and
the new foundation walls were formed and poured against the shotcrete facing of the
soil nail walls.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Work on the project proceeded in the late summer/fall of 2006 upon the successful
completion of negotiations with the Milwaukee County Parks Department [Parks
Department]. The site is located at the northeast corner of North Prospect Avenue
and East Lafayette Place.
The site is triangular shaped and encompasses slightly more than 1 acre. The west leg
of the site is bounded by major east side arterial North Prospect Avenue, and the
south leg of the triangle, by East Lafayette Place. The hypotenuse of the triangle runs
parallel to land owned by the Parks Department. The site was relatively flat and
sloped down to the North. Beyond the east property line, the terrain slopes down
sharply to a former railroad grade that now serves as a bike trail.
The development features two 20-story towers and four levels of underground
parking extending to depths of 12 to 14 m (40 to 45 ft). Refer to Figures 1 and 2.
The majority of the development is supported by a combination of spread and
combined footings at the base of the parking structure excavation, while the south
tower area is unexcavated and supported on belled caissons.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface profile consists of approximately 2 to 4 m (8 to 10 ft) of

miscellaneous urban fill underlain by stiff to hard clay. Very dense/hard till deposits
(hardpan) are present below the clay beginning at depths of 12 m (40 ft) and greater.
Occasional zones of buried rubble containing perched water were noted on the south
end of the site. Occasional boulders were noted in the profile at the clay/hardpan
interface.
Groundwater was observed at depths of 8 to 18 m (26 to over 60 ft) below original

site grades up to 14 days after completion of the subsurface exploration for the
project.
RETENTION SYSTEM DESIGN
The design process began with the development of preliminary drawings and an
extremely complicated negotiation process with the Milwaukee County Parks
Department to secure a temporary easement to allow soil nails to encroach onto
Milwaukee County parklands. Permit drawings were completed in April 2006 and
approval was received from the Parks Department later that summer.
122
Based on our experience, the very stiff to hard clays and hard/extremely dense
hardpan are well suited to soil nailing, and typically demonstrate very little lateral
movement while in service. The soil nail walls were designed using a Braced Cut
approach as described by Nicholson (1986) and Bahner (1994, 2005), and checked
using the CALTRANS
Figure 1
Development Layout
123
Figure 2
Typical Building Section
124
computer program SNAILZ. Both approaches provided similar results. The nails
consisted of 200 mm (8 in) diameter drilled shafts with grouted in place steel bar
tendons. The nails were installed in a 1.5 m (5 ft) vertical by 1.8 m (6 ft) horizontal
grid pattern as the excavation was advanced. Nail lengths were determined based on
the expected soil pullout resistance, which was confirmed during construction, and
estimated soil and surcharge loads. In general, the nail lengths typically ranged
between 0.6 and 0.8 times the total height of the excavation. Many examples of
typical wall cross-sections and shotcrete facing details are presented in the literature.
A typical soil nail wall cross section is provided in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3
Typical Soil Nail Wall Cross-Section
125
Where sufficient space was available, the upper 1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft) of the
excavation was open cut at a 1H:1V slope to minimize the quantity of earth retention
necessary. These slopes were protected with reinforced visqueen and wire mesh
anchored to the slope. The visqueen is used to prevent seepage behind the shotcrete
facing and promote runoff into the excavation. Based on the experience of the
principal author, proper protection of open cut slopes above soil nail walls is critical
to the overall long-term performance of the earth retention system. Consequently, the
principal author and his company [the Specialty Contractor (SC)] requires that slope
protection be designed and installed by their own field crews, or that this protection
be installed to the specifications of the SC.
To reduce the costs of backfilling between the retention system and the new basement
walls, the Construction Manager required that the earth retention system be
positioned such that the front face of the retention system was flush with the back
face of the new foundation wall. As a result, the retention system was constructed at,
or very near, the property line, and included 13 corners. The excavation was
oversized 150 mm (+6 in) to account for irregularities in the excavated face of the cut,
irregularities in the shotcrete face and potential lateral deflection of the soil nail wall.
Perimeter drainage was provided by tacking geocomposite drain board strips onto the
excavation face between the soil nail columns before shotcrete application. The drain
board strips were extended to the excavation base and connected to the sub-floor
drainage system via bleeder pipes extending through the new foundation walls. A
waterproofing membrane was applied to the face of the shotcrete before constructing
the foundation walls. The one-sided forming system used to construct the new
foundation walls was self-supporting and did not rely on the earth retention system
for lateral support.
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
As excavation proceeded, open cut slopes were systematically protected with

visqueen and wire mesh as described above. Once excavation reached earth retention
grade, excavation and construction of the soil nail walls proceeded in 1.5 m (5 ft)
vertical lifts to excavation base grade. Many examples of a typical installation
sequence are presented in the literature. To prevent overbreak of the excavated face,
which can add to shotcreting costs, each successive lift was rough-cut and later fine
trimmed after the nails were installed. Depending upon ground conditions, the nail
holes were drilled with hollow stem augers and/or duplex drilling methods. Nail
tendons were placed in the completed holes and gravity grouted by tremie methods.
The nail design was confirmed by verification testing at the start of the work, and by
proof testing 3 to 5 percent of the production nails. The shotcrete facing was
constructed after nail installation was complete for each lift.
Since the majority of the work proceeded during the winter of 2006/2007 in
Wisconsin, cold weather protection was essential to the quality of the completed wall.
Insulating blankets were used to protect newly excavated lifts of the excavation, and
newly placed shotcrete during initial curing. Work was stopped in the event of rainy
126
or snowy weather, and when the temperature was -7o C (20o F) and falling to avoid
problems with the quality of the constructed wall and the construction equipment. On
many occasions, drilling was completed during a late evening/early morning shift so
shotcrete work could be completed during warmer, daytime hours.
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING/WALL PERFORMANCE
During the course of mass excavation and retention system construction, the
Construction Manager retained a surveyor to monitor the excavation using basic,
optical survey methods. Survey measurements were taken at every shotcrete level as
the excavation proceeded to base grade. The goal of the monitoring program was to
confirm that the excavation and temporary retention system did not encroach into the
footprint of the new building foundation walls. There was little budget to allow more
elaborate monitoring of the retention system.
Though very simple, the monitoring program satisfactorily demonstrated that the
excavation footprint was sufficiently oversized to allow earth retention construction
and one-sided forming of the foundation walls. Although the field monitoring
program did not provide a description of lateral movement of the excavation over
time, it effectively conveyed information regarding the main concern of the
Construction Manager: Was the excavation and earth retention system encroaching
into the basement wall footprint?
CONCLUSIONS
From work on this project, and past experience with the design and construction of
soil nail walls in similar ground, the Specialty Contractor concludes the following:
• A successful soil nailing project requires teamwork with a knowledgeable

excavating contractor. Installation of the perimeter drainage system as the
excavation proceeded and one-side forming of the foundation walls required a
level of control not typically required for mass excavation.
• Accommodating the building perimeter drainage system in the soil nail wall
design, and one-side forming the perimeter foundation walls can be effective in
reducing costs associated with conventional drainage system installation and
excavation backfilling, and compressing the construction schedule.
• With favorable subsurface conditions and proper care, soil nail construction can
proceed in winter conditions.
127
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the following parties involved on this project:
Renaissant Development Group
PappaGeorge/Haymes, Ltd., the Project Architect
Bowman, Barrett and Associates, the Project Structural Engineer
The field crews of Edward E. Gillen Company and Hunzinger Construction

Company
Schneider Excavating
REFERENCES
Nicholson, Peter J. (1986). “Insitu Ground Reinforcement Techniques” presented at

the International Conference on Deep Foundations, Beijing, China, September 1986.
(Meeting Reprint).
Bahner, Eric W. (1994). “Soil Nailing in Madison Wisconsin”, Proceedings—

Woodward Clyde Shareholder’s Conference. Phoenix, Arizona, October 1994.
Bahner, Eric W. (2005). “Soil Nailing: A Local Perspective”. Geotechnical

Applications for Transportation Infrastructure, Geotechnical Practice Publication No.
3, ASCE, pp. 28-39.
128

Soil Nailing Earth Retention

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Soil Nailing Earth Retention

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GROUND MODIFICATION, PROBLEM SOILS, AND GEO-SUPPORT 121

SOIL NAILING EARTH RETENTION ON THE PARK LAFAYETTE

DEVELOPMENT IN MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

Eric W. Bahner, P.E., M.ASCE1 and Mike Christensen2

Abstract: The Park Lafayette development currently under construction in

The subsurface profile consists of approximately 2 to 4 m (8 to 10 ft) of

Groundwater was observed at depths of 8 to 18 m (26 to over 60 ft) below original

RETENTION SYSTEM DESIGN

As excavation proceeded, open cut slopes were systematically protected with

CONSTRUCTION MONITORING/WALL PERFORMANCE

• A successful soil nailing project requires teamwork with a knowledgeable

The authors acknowledge the following parties involved on this project:

Renaissant Development Group

PappaGeorge/Haymes, Ltd., the Project Architect

Bowman, Barrett and Associates, the Project Structural Engineer

The field crews of Edward E. Gillen Company and Hunzinger Construction

Nicholson, Peter J. (1986). “Insitu Ground Reinforcement Techniques” presented at

Bahner, Eric W. (1994). “Soil Nailing in Madison Wisconsin”, Proceedings—

Bahner, Eric W. (2005). “Soil Nailing: A Local Perspective”. Geotechnical

S-ar putea să vă placă și