G

Ground
dAAnchors
h anddAAnchored
h d
Structures

Presentation to:

WV Expo 2008 – Charleston Civic Center

Jonathan Bennett PE – Chief Engineer
Earth Support Division

March 20, 2008

GeoStructures Earth Support Division
GeoStructures’
focuses on the engineering and construction of
ground anchors and anchored structures.
 Tieback Walls Soil Nailing

Underpinning Micropiles Tiedowns

 Tieback Wall Soil Nailing

Underpinning Micropiles Tiedowns

Jon Bennett - Speaker Bio
Chief Engineer – GeoStructures Earth Support Division (formerly TerraTech)
BS Civil Engineering (Structures) – West Virginia Institute of Technology
MS Civil Engineering (Structures) – West Virginia University
MEM Engineering & Technology Management – George Washington University
Professional Engineer in WV, VA, MD, and PA
Professional background in Structural and Foundation Engineering with CH2M
Hill and the Parsons Corporation prior to joining TerraTech in 1993.
15 yyears involvement in the design,
g construction and management
g of design-build
g
specialty geotechnical construction projects throughout the mid Atlantic region of
the United States.
Chairman of the DFI Tiebacks and Soil Nailingg Committee. Heavily y involved in
industry development efforts for Tieback Walls, Soil Nailing, and Micropiles
through DFI, ADSC, and ASCE GEO Institute. Involved in AASHTO specification
development for anchored walls and micropiles with T15 Committee.

Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

GROUND ANCHORS
• A Ground Anchor is a structural element installed in a g grout-filled hole in
soil or rock that is used to transmit an applied tensile force into the ground.
• Ground Anchors can be installed vertically, horizontally, or in inclined
positions. A minimum inclination of 10 degrees below horizontal is desirable
i order
in d tto allow
ll ffullll grouting
ti off th
the ground
d anchor
h h hole.
l
• Ground Anchors derive their load capacity from the bond stresses between
the grout body and surrounding soil or rock. Hence, the load capacity of a
ground anchor is the lesser of tendon strength or grout bond strength
strength.
• Grouted Ground Anchors used to offer lateral support are often referred to
as “Tiebacks”. Soil Nails, Micropiles, and Tiedowns are also forms of
Ground Anchors.
Components
• Anchorage
• Tendon
• Bonded Length
• Unbonded (Free) Length
• Corrosion Protection (for Permanent Applications)
Strand Tendon Bar Tendon

Picture courtesyy of Lang

g Tendons Picture courtesyy of Dywidag
y g Systems
y International ((DSI))
SCOPE
• Materials / Corrosion Protection
• Tendon Design
• Grout
G t – Ground
G dBBond
dGGuidelines
id li
• Handling and Installation
• Testing
g and Acceptance
p
TIEBACK WALLS
• Definitions
• Applications
pp
• Components
• Types and Facing Options
• Construction Procedures / Sequence
• Design Background
• T ti
Testing
• Case History
• As the name implies,
p , Tieback Walls use “Tiebacks” or Ground Anchors for
lateral support.
• Tieback Wall construction typically is done from the top down. This is a
departure from conventional retaining wall construction wherein the retained
material
t i l iis removed,
d ththe wallll iis constructed,
t t d andd th
then th
the retained
t i d material
t i l
is put back behind the wall.
• Unlike conventional retaining wall construction, tieback wall construction
does not substantially disturb the material or structures that the wall is
retaining or supporting.
• Tieback Walls are often used to provide excavation support for the
construction of conventional retaining walls. Using a permanent facing for
the tieback wall often is more economical than constructing a conventional
retaining wall.
• Because of the unique top-down construction approach, Tieback Walls can
often be used where conventional retaining walls cannot be constructed or
are not an economically feasible option.
Applications
• Permanent Earth Retention
p
• Temporary y Excavation Support
pp
• Slope Stabilization / Landslide Stabilization or Repair
• Repair or Rehabilitation of Existing Retaining Walls
• Tieback Bridge Abutments
• In-situ Hazardous Material Containment
Components
1. Soldier Piles
2. Lagging
3. Tiebacks (Ground Anchors)
4. Wales or Through-Beam Connections
5 Permanent Facing System (if required)
5.
Components
1. Soldier Piles
2. Lagging
3. Tiebacks (Ground Anchors)
4. Wales or Through-Beam Connections
5 Permanent Facing System (if required)
5.
Types
• Temporary
p y Excavation Support
pp
• Permanent Earth Retention w/ CIP or Shotcrete
• Permanent Earth retention w/ Segmental Precast Facing
Precast Facing vs. CIP or Shotcrete Facing

Superior Drainage System

Free-draining material and unrestricted outlet path for effective flow management.

Minimum Schedule Impact

Panels can be manufactured prior to or concurrently with pile installation.
Rapid, productive installation.

Precision Alignment
Adjustable connections allow alignment to be adjusted independent of pile alignment.
Interlocking panel joints maintain alignment.

High Quality Control

Plant manufactured.
No Hot or cold weather placement concerns.

Superior Appearance
Plant manufactured.
Panel geometry easily accommodates form liners for a variety of finishes.
Other Precast Facing Architectural Finishes
Construction Sequence
Excavation Support Construction Sequence
1. Install soldier piles (by drilling or driving).
2. Excavate in safe lifts not to exceed five feet each and install lagging to 2
f t below
feet b l tieback
ti b k grade. d
3. Install tiebacks. Allow 72 hour minimum grout cure time prior to testing.
4. Test tiebacks in accordance with PTI – Recommendations for Prestressed
Rock and Soil Anchors. Lock off tiebacks at specified load.
5. Continue excavation and lagging in accordance with Step 2 above to either
2 feet below tieback g
grade or construction subgrade,
g whichever comes first.
Excavation Support Construction Sequence
Soldier Pile Installation
• Drilled and Set HP Section
• Driven HP Section
• Drilled Pipe
Lagging Installation
• Install Piles and Excavate in Safe Lifts not to Exceed 5’ in Soil.
• Install Lagging Boards on Exposed Soil Face.
• Repeat Excavation Lift and Board Installation as Required.
Tieback Installation
• Position Drill and Drill Hole for Ground Anchor.
• Insert Anchor in Drilled Hole and Tremie Grout.
• Post Grout as Required to Increase Bond Capacity.
Permanent Wall Construction Sequence (Precast)
1. Install soldier piles (drilling generally used for permanent walls).
2. Excavate in safe lifts not to exceed five feet each and install lagging to 2
f t below
feet b l tieback
ti b k grade. d
3. Install tiebacks. Allow 72 hour minimum grout cure time prior to testing.
4. Test tiebacks in accordance with PTI – Recommendations for Prestressed
Rock and Soil Anchors. Lock off tiebacks at specified load.
5. Continue excavation and lagging in accordance with Step 2 above to either
2 feet below tieback g
grade or construction subgrade,
g whichever comes first.
6. Place filter fabric over timber lagging and install concrete leveling pad.
7. Layout and attach panel connections to soldier piles.
8. Set bottom course of precast facing panels, install drain pipe, and place
drainage stone to top of precast course.
9. Install remaining precast facing panels and place drainage stone with each
corresponding lift.
Permanent Wall Construction Sequence (Precast)
 Design Background

In 1939, Karl Terzaghi published the paper “A Fundamental

Fallacyy in Earth Pressure Computations”
p where he
recognized that the earth pressure distributions for braced or
anchored cuts do not correspond to the traditional equivalent
fluid pressure (triangular) diagrams derived from Rankine
and Coulomb earth pressure theory
theory.
The later works of Karl Terzaghi and Ralph Peck (1967) form
the framework for earth pressure diagrams used in the
Karl Terzaghi
design of modern braced and anchored cutscuts. These works
along with others since that time and actual field testing
consistently point away from the classic triangular earth
pressure diagram and toward a rectangular or trapezoidal
apparent earth pressure distribution.
The most recent and definitive work in the design of Tieback
walls with regard to apparent lateral earth pressure is the
FHWA Geotechnical
G t h i l Engineering
E i i Circular
Ci l N No. 4 “G
“Ground d
Ralph Peck Anchors and Anchored Structures” (1999) which
recommends a trapezoidal earth pressure diagram.
Design Background
Tieback Testing

Ground Anchors are tested to verify load capacity.

• Tiebacks / Tiedowns
• Soil Nails
• Micropiles in Tension
• Micropiles in Compression
Ground Anchor Testing

• All “tieback” anchors are tested to verify

erif load capacit
capacity.
• Tiebacks have an unbonded length or free stressing length to transfer
the anchor load outside of the retained soil theoretical failure wedge as
opposed to Soil Nails being fully bonded along their length.
• A sample of soil nails (typically 5%) are tested to verify bond transfer
capacity assumptions used in the soil nail wall design.
• That is an important distinction when differentiating between tieback
testing and soil nail testing.
• For this section, we are focusing on testing of “tieback” anchors.
Tieback Anchor Behavior

Movement
M Load Elastic Material

Load Plastic Material

Movement
M t
Both the Post Tensioning Institute and AASHTO have published Ground Anchor
Testing Specifications. The testing procedures are virtually identical with the
AASHTO version being an adaptation of the PTI guidelines.
Proof / Performance Testing

• Incremental loading and unloading

nloading to a ma
maximum
im m test load of 1
1.33DL.
33DL
• The first two or three anchors shall be Performance Tested and a
minimum of 2% thereafter. The remaining anchors shall be proof
tested.
• Performance test utilizes cyclic loading in order to differentiate elastic
movement from residual movement at each test increment.
• In both types of tests, the maximum test load is held for a short term
creep test to ensure the anchor will have acceptable long term creep
behavior.
behavior
• If the PTI Service Load design methodology is used, then a production
anchor can be tested without increasing the bar size. If a maximum
test load
l d off greater than
h 1 1.33DL
33DL iis used,
d the
h bbar must b
be ddesigned
i d ffor
the maximum test load instead of the design service load.
Prooff T
P Testt Procedure
P d
AL
0.25DL
0.50DL
0.75DL
1.00DL
1.20DL
1.33DL
33 Max
a Test
es Load
oad ((10
0 minute
u e hold)
o d)
AL (optional)
Adjust to Lock-Off Load
Performance Test Procedure

AL AL
0.25DL 0.25DL
AL 0.50DL
0.25DL 0.75DL
0.50DL 1.00DL
AL 1.20DL
0.25DL AL
0.50DL 0.25DL
0.75DL 0.50DL
AL 0.75DL
0.25DL 1.00DL
0.50DL 1.20DL
0.75DL 1.33DL Max Test Load (10 min hold)
1.00DL AL
Adjust to lock-off load
Acceptance Criteria
• Creep
· Shall not exceed 00.040
040 inches at the maximum Test Load during
the load hold period of 1 to 10 minutes.
· If that value is exceeded, then the load hold period shall be
extended
d d to 60 minutes
i andd the
h totall creep movement bbetween 6
and 60 minutes shall not exceed 0.080 inches.
• Movement
· Residual movement – no absolute criteria
· Minimum Apparent Free Tendon Length >= 0.80 (Lu + Lj)
· Maximum Apparent Free Tendon Length <= Lu + Lj + 0.5Lb
• Lock-Off Load
· Within 5% of designated Lock-off load as verified by lift-off.
Proof Testing
• Determines whether the anchor has sufficient load capacity.
• That the apparent
pp free tendon length
g has been satisfactorily
y
established.
• That the creep rate stabilizes within specified limits.

Performance Testing
• Determines whether the anchor has sufficient load capacity.
• That the apparent free tendon length has been satisfactorily
established.
• The magnitude of residual movement at each load increment.
• That the creep rate stabilizes within specified limits.
SR 56 Section 021 Cambria County ~ Landslide Stabilization
Johnstown, PA
SOIL NAILING
• Definitions
• Applications
pp
• Components
• Types and Facing Options
• Construction Procedures / Sequence
• Design
• N il T
Nail Testing
ti
• Case History
• Soil Nailing g uses an arrayy of grouted
g g
ground anchors or “Soil Nails” to
improve the strength characteristics of a soil mass. This improvement in
strength properties causes the soil to be self supporting and stable against
lateral movement.
• Sh t t is
Shotcrete i typically
t i ll used d as a facing
f i ini order
d tto contain
t i the
th retained
t i d soil.
il
• Like Tieback Wall construction, Soil Nailing is generally performed from the
top down and as such offers many of the advantages that Tieback Wall
construction does in addition to others
others.
• Soil nailing does not require the installation of vertical pile elements nor
does it require toe embedment. Because of this, it can be more economical
than Tieback Walls in situations where it is appropriate.
• Because of the way in which Soil Nailing is installed, it is more sensitive to
site soil conditions than Tieback Walls and may not be appropriate under
certain circumstances.
Applications
• Permanent Earth Retention
p
• Temporary y Excavation Support
pp
• Slope Stabilization
• Repair or Rehabilitation of Existing Retaining Walls
Components
p
1. Shotcrete Facing System
2. Soil Nails
3. Permanent Facing System (if required)
Types
• Temporary
p y Excavation Support
pp
• Permanent Earth Retention w/ CIP or Shotcrete
• Permanent Earth retention w/ Segmental Precast Facing
 Design Considerations
Because Soil Nailing is primarily a form of ground improvement, it is generally looked at in
terms of soil-structure interaction as opposed to being designed strictly as a force resisting
structure. Therefore,
Th f the
h d design
i off a soilil nailing
ili system iis approached
h d as a slope
l or soilil
mass stability problem.
There are a number of methodologies used for the analysis and design of Soil Nailing
systems.
- Two part wedge limit equilibrium analysis – The Krantz Method
- University of California Davis limit equilibrium model – The Davis Method
- Modified Davis Method
- Log-spiral
L i l surface
f iincluding
l di b bending
di stiffness
tiff – The
Th Ki
Kinematical
ti l M
Method
th d
- Methods outlined in FHWA Research Projects – Slope Stability / Soil-Structure Interaction
SOFTWARE
- GoldNAIL by Golder Associates (Circular Slip Circles)
- SNAIL by Caltrans (Bi-Linear Wedge Analysis)
- General Slope Stability Programs modified to consider the effects of Soil Nails
Similar results are obtained from all of these methods for normal design conditions that are
vertical walls without slope surcharge. Some of the software on the market (i.e. GoldNAIL)
tends to be quite conservative in terms of nail lengths and nail bond stresses required.
 Design Guidelines and Specifications
The FHWA took the lead in the 1990’s in developing design guidelines for Soil Nail Walls
through a number of Demonstration Projects.
In 1996, FHWA produced the Manual for Design and Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail
Walls with Golder Associates based on Demonstration Project 103. This document
introduced the program GoldNAIL for the design of soil nail walls. GoldNAIL remains one of
two dominant computer programs for soil nail wall design.
In 2003, FHWA superseded the previous manual with Geotechnical Engineering Circular 7
– Soil Nail Walls. This document was developed by GeoSyntec Consultants and included
CalTrans SNAIL in the software lineup. There is considerable debate in the industry
regarding
di theth nailil testing
t ti procedures
d included
i l d d iin GEC
GEC-77 and
d requests
t hhave bbeen maded tto
change those requirements. It is recommended to use the testing rpocedures included in
the 1996 manual.
Later in 2008, it is expected that the Deep Foundations Institute will publish its Guide
Specification for Temporary and Permanent Soil Nail Walls that will include provisions for
using hollow bar (self drilling) soil nails. This specification was developed by the DFI
Tiebacks and Soil Nailing Committee with input from consultants and design-builders
throughout the United States. It is more of an industry consensus document than the
previous specifications included in the FHWA publications.
Soil Nail Testing

• In soil nail str

structure
ct re design
design, we
e are more concerned withith bond transfer
values along the nail than the overall pullout capacity.
• Tiebacks have an unbonded length or free stressing length to transfer
the anchor load outside of the retained soil theoretical failure wedge as
opposed to Soil Nails being fully bonded along their length.
• All “tieback”
tieback anchors are tested to verify load capacity. However, due to
the relatively large number and low capacity of soil nails on a typical
job, a sample of soil nails (typically 5%) are tested to verify bond
transfer capacity assumptions used in the soil nail wall design.
• Because we are not testing all of the nails, we use a higher test load
(1.5DL vs. 1.33DL) to offset the reduction in number of tests.
• S
So, with
i h soilil nailing,
ili we are talking
lki about
b b
bond
d value
l verification
ifi i
testing and sampled proof testing to a higher test load.
BW Parkway / MD 197 Ramp B Southbound ~ Earth Retention System
Laurel, MD
UNDERPINNING
Underpinning is the addition of support to an existing foundation
foundation. A foundation
may require underpinning in order to transfer building loads to a lower elevation
and permit adjacent excavation or to increase load carrying capacity. Normally,
underpinning involves both vertical and lateral support. This process typically
requires
i h
handd excavation
ti off vertical
ti l shafts
h ft ((pits)
it ) b
below
l th
the existing
i ti ffootings.
ti
The pits are then filled with concrete thus creating new foundation elements for
the building or structure.
MICROPILES
• Definition
• History & Development
• Materials
• Installation Equipment
• Structural Configurations
• Typical Capacity Ranges
• Applications
• D i and
Design dC
Construction
t ti S Specifications
ifi ti
• Design Comparison
• Testing
• Q&A
• A Micropile
p is ggenerally y defined in the industry
y as a reinforced small
diameter (less than or equal to 12”) drilled and grouted replacement pile.
• A “replacement” pile refers to a foundation pile where soil or rock is
removed during the installation process as opposed to a displacement pile
th t displaces
that di l soilil as it iis iinstalled.
t ll d
• Micropiles can be installed at angles and are able to resist both axial and
lateral loads.
• Micropiles develop their axial capacity primarily through the bond between
grout and soil or rock in the bonded zone of the pile. Because of this,
micropiles provide both tension and compression resistance thus making
them useful in a variety of applications.
• They are installed using much of the same drilling and grouting equipment
that is used for tiebacks and soil nailing.
• Because of specialized installation methods, micropiles can be used in soil
and rock conditions where the use of conventional deep foundation systems
are not a reasonable alternative (such as in Karst topography or low-
headroom conditions).
History & Development

Which came first? The Wheel or the Pile?

History & Development
• 1950’s – Post WWII Europe – Dr. Fernando Lizzi – Root Piles
• Rapid Emergence in US following FHWA Research
• 1997 FHWA Micropile
Mi il State
St t off Practice
P ti Document
D t
• 2000 FHWA Micropile Guidelines
• 2003 DFI Guide Specification
• 2005 NHI / FHWA Micropile Reference Manual
• 2006 IBC Micropile Section Adoption
• 2007 FHWA LRFD Design Specification Adoption
• Currently estimated to be $300M US market
Materials
• Pipe Casing (typically mill secondary oilfield casing)
• Solid or Hollow Reinforcingg Bars
• Neat Cement Grout

=
Equipment
Use essentially the same or similar equipment used for installation of
drilled and grouted ground anchors.
Typical Capacity Ranges
• Over 500 Tons in rock
• 20 to 200 Tons in soil ((settlement more significant)
g )
• In rock, structural capacity often governs
• Most micropile lengths are less than 100 feet
• Buckling is typically not an issue
• Cost range from $50 to $200 / LF
Applications
• Foundation Piles
pp through
• Foundation Support g Sinkholes or Difficult Soils
• Foundation Underpinning
• Slope Stabilization
• Earth Retention (A-Frame & Reticulated Structures)
Design and Construction Specifications
• 1997 FHWA Micropile Guidelines
p Guide Specification
• 2003 DFI Micropile p
• 2005 FHWA / NHI Micropile Reference Manual
• 2006 International Building Code
• 2007 AASHTO LRFD Design Specification
• Forthcoming AASHTO Construction Specification

GeoStructures can provide a recommended specification for Micropile

g and Construction.
Design
Design Comparison
• FHWA Design Criteria
– Compression: Pa = 0.40fc’Ag + 0.47FyAb
– Tension: Pa = 0.55FyAb

• DFI / IBC Design Criteria

– Compression: Pa = 0.33fc’Ag + 0.40FyAb
– Tension: Pa = 0.60FyAb

• Imposed Limitations
– FHWA Compression: Fy = 87 ksi max (strain compatibility /)
– DFI Compression: Fy = 87 ksi max (strain compatibility /)
– IBC Compression: Fy = 80 ksi max
– IBC Compression: 0.40FyAb >= 0.40Pa
Testing
• Generally based on ASTM D1143 Quick Test
• The older FHWA specifications prescribed testing to 2.5 X Service
Design Load
• Newer publications recommend 2.0 X DL. Terratech recommends
2.0 DL in most cases.
• T
Tension
i ttesting
ti is
i generally
ll considered
id d tto bbe conservative
ti
compared to compression testing because it neglects any end
bearing and is often more economical for checking capacity.
However tension test results will not give representative movement
results for compression case.
• Compression testing requires anchors to hold down testing
apparatus adding to cost but gives representative results for
compression loading.
• Some proposed testing procedures incorporate anchor testing
procedures (cycles) but AASHTO is leaning toward testing just like
other foundation piles.
Testing
• 1000k Maximum Test Load, Berryville, VA (0.5” total movement)
General Q & A
 THANK YOU
for Your Time and Attention

Contact GeoStructures for design-build geotechnical construction solutions.