Soil nails & cutting slopes: Design to EC7 & BS 8006-2

Alan Phear NIGG Seminar on Geotechnical design to EC7 Thursday 11 April 2013

(Val Ferret, Tour de Mont Blanc, 2012)

Soil nails & cutting slopes Design to EC7 & BS 8006-2 8006 2
CONTENT OF TALK Unreinforced cutting slopes - design of slope stability to EC7. Design of soil nailing to BS 8006-2.

Outline of 1st part of talk (on EC7)

Multiple p documents to refer to! What we used to do Geotechnical G t h i l risk i k categories t i in i EC7 Headlines for overall stability in EC7 New principles of designing to EC7 g requirements q Limit states Design Water pressures & slope drainage Design approach & partial factors for DA1 BS6031: 2009
3

Multiple documents to refer to! (1)

EC7 BS EN 1997-1:2004. Geotechnical Design Part 1: General Rules. BS EN 1997 1997-2: 2: 2007. 2007 Geotechnical Design Part 2: Ground investigation & testing. Other Eurocodes BS EN 1990. Basis of structural design BS EN 1991. Actions on structures National Annex to EC7 (2006) Non-contradictory complementary Information eg - BS 6031: 2009. Code of practice for earthworks.

Multiple documents to refer to! (2)

Execution standards Published documents e.g. g PD 6694-1 ( (traffic loading g on structures) De facto standards
Highways Agency (HA) DMRB HA MCDHW (Series 100) HA IAN 124/11. Use of Eurocodes for the design of highway structures. (This doesnt cover earthworks) Network Rail. NR/L3/CIV/071. Geotechnical Design. Issue 4.

What we used to do

For slope p design, g , there is little change g from what we used to do!
Design was governed by BS6031 in which a global factor of safety was applied to cover overall uncertainty
For first time slides with a good standard of investigationa factor of safety between 1.3 and 1.4 should be designed for. For a slide involving an entirely pre-existing slip surface a factor of safety of 1.2 should be provided [ 6.5.1.2 BS6031: 1981]

Wh change? Why h ? Think more about inputs to design and therefore should get a more reliable design Design to EC7 applies the partial factors as close to the source of the uncertainty as possible
6

Structured risk management & reporting process

D Desk k study, t d i including l di walkover (risk ) identification) Ground investigation (investigating ( g g risks) ) Interpretation of ground model & geotechnical parameters

Design process Cut slope X-sections

1. Shallow Cut (EC7 Category 1) 2. Conventional Cut - with no unusual characteristics (EC7 Category 2)

Geometry (road or railway cuts) & risk Road or railway y categories

Road or railway

3. Unconventional Cut with unusual characteristics (EC7 C Category t 3) an example

Unusual traffic conditions at toe Deep cut in Difficult ground Unusual groundwater profile

Headlines for overall stability in EC7

Overall stability y is Section 11 of EC7 but should be the first thing checked for a site/structure Covers soil and rock slopes Satisfy the GEO and STR limit states for ULS and SLS UK adopt DA1 for slopes DA1, combination 1 is A1 & M1 & R1 DA1, DA1 combination bi ti 2 is i A2 & M2 and d R1 For slopes, checking GEO and STR limit states, R1 is always unity for DA1 For slopes, combination 1 is not usually relevant (Embankments are covered by Section 12 of EC7)
10

Some principles of Geotechnical design to EC7

Be aware of the distinction between permanent/variable actions and favourable/unfavourable actions Use of characteristic values with partial factors to form design values Application to several aspects of uncertainty rather than a single lumped factor of safety applied to cover all uncertainty

11

Design requirements Limit states

ULS and SLS Ultimate limit states that apply to slope stability are GEO and STR Take into account all relevant modes of failure
GEO = failure or excessive deformation of f the th ground d

STR = internal failure or excessive deformation of a structure (due to slope stability failure). Ground structure interaction shall be considered by allowing for the difference in relative stiffnesses [11.5.1(11)]

Deep and shallow failures

BS EN 1990:2002+A1 permits variation of relevant partial factors where consequence of failure is either higher or lower than normal does t this s app apply y here e e for o s shallow a o failures? a u es as the consequences of failure are usually only increased maintenance.
13

Water pressures

Water p pressures in EC7 should not be factored [A.2.1, , NA] ] For ULS design values of groundwater pressure shall represent the most unfavourable values (~condition) that could occur during the design lifetime of the structure [2.4.6.1 (6)P]

For SLS design values shall be the most unfavourable values (~condition) which could occur in normal circumstances [2.4.6.1 (6) P] C Consider id seepage d down slope, l rapid id d drawdown d etc. t Noted N t d in code w.r.t slopes along waterfronts [11.3 (5)], choice of calculation method [11.5.1 (3)] and joints and fissures in rock [11.5.2 (1) P]

14

Slope drainage
Examples of how pore pressures can be limited by drainage: Crest drain or ditch toe t drain d i or v channel h l Slope drains Deep sub-horizontal drains
Drainage needs to be maintained (which is an operational cost & is only y done sometimes!)

EC7 2.4.6.1 (11) addresses this topic.

15

(from CIRIA C591)

Partial factors for GEO and STR, DA1

ACTION
Symbol A1 Set A2

P Permanent t Variable

U f Unfavourable bl Favourable Unfavourable Favourable

G G Q Q Symbol

1 35 1.35 1.00 1.50 0 Set M1

1 00 1.00 1.00 1.30 0 M2 1.25 1.25 1.4 1.4

SOIL PARAMETER
Angle of shearing resistance Effective cohesion Undrained shear strength Unconfined strength

c cu qu R;e

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

RESISTANCE
Earth a resistance es s a ce R1 = 1.0 0

Watch-its (1)
Different p partial factors are applied pp to cu and for M2 material e.g. temporary works design for cut slope in Lambeth Clay over Thanet Sand (however this would be SLS design) EC7 makes no distinction between temporary works or permanent works => > the choice of partial factors is pertinent to the limit state being considered however risk assessment is recommended [ 2.4.7.1 (4)(5)] Slope stability problems are in many ways about geometry; consider sensitivity analysis of design values of geometrical data [2.4.6.3] and consider 3D failure surface if appropriate [11.5.1(9)]
17

Watch-its (2)
Overall stability of specific structures (spread foundations, piles, anchorages, retaining walls and embankments) should be accounted for [11.1 11 1 (2)] V Verify if stability bili of f slope l including i l di existing, i i affected ff d or planned l d structures in ULS for GEO and STR [11.5.1(1)] For existing failed slopes, consider circular as well as non-circular failure Partial factors normally used may not be appropriate failure. [11.5.1(8)]

18

Watch-its (3)
Favourable & unfavourable gravity loads: Since a distinction between favourable and unfavourable gravity loads is not possible in assessing the most adverse slip surface, any uncertainty about weight density of the ground should be considered by applying upper and lower characteristic values of it [11.5.1(12)] Acceptable analysis methods: A slope analysis should verify if the th overall ll moment t and d vertical ti l stability t bilit of f the th sliding lidi mass. If horizontal equilibrium is not checked, inter-slice forces should be assumed to be horizontal => Swedish Circle Method (Fellenius) (1927) and Janbu (1957) with horizontal interslices forces are NOT acceptable [11.5.1(10)] 11 5 1(10)]
19

BS 6031: 2009
Code of Practice for Earthworks Non-contradictory complementary information (NCCI) 7 is called Design of earthworks and gives guidance on how to apply EC7 to slope stability design. design Lots of other useful advice.

20

Soil nails & cutting slopes Design to EC7 & BS 8006-2 8006 2
CONTENT OF TALK Unreinforced cutting slopes - design of slope stability to EC7. Design of soil nailing to BS 8006-2.

21

Soil nails & cutting slopes Design to EC7 & BS 8006-2 8006 2
BS 8006-2 was published in late 2011 and addresses the design of f soil il nailing. ili It should be read in conjunction with the Execution standard for soil il nailing, ili BS EN 14490: 14490 2010. 2010 It has partial factors which are compatible with EC7. Parts of it are based on the CIRIA book on soil nailing, CIRIA C637. In the h f following ll i slides, lid I will ill discuss di some aspects of f BS 80062.

22

Topics in BS 8006-2 (soil nail design) Applications A li i & construction i considerations S Suitability it bilit of f ground d& groundwater conditions Basis for design (including soil nails, durability, facings) Serviceability & movements Design verification Maintenance

23

Reinforced soil & soil nailing

BS EN 1997-1 1997 1 Geotechnical Design does not cover the design and execution of reinforced soil structures nor soil nailing. In the UK, the design and execution of reinforced fill structures should be carried out in accordance with BS 8006 1 and BS EN 14475 8006-1 14475. The partial factors set out in BS 8006-1 should not be replaced by similar factors from Eurocode 7. (NA.4) In the UK, the design and execution of soil nailing should be carried out in accordance with BS 8006-2 and BS EN 14490 The 14490. Th partial i l factors f in i BS 8006-2 8006 2 are compatible ibl with EC7.

24

Drilled then grouted nails

Photo courtesy of AD Barley

Photo courtesy of Cementation Foundations Skanska Ltd

Self-drilled nails
sacrificial drill bit hollow bar coupler h d head plate nut

Self-drilled Self drilled nails

Photo courtesy of Dywidag Systems International

Photos courtesy of Ischebeck TITAN Ltd

26

Basis of design
Design method Analysis Analysis of stability Soil nail pullout resistance Soil nail element design Durability & degradation Facing g design g Drainage design

Materials for soil nail tendons

U Uncoated co ed s steel ee Galvanised steel Coated C t d steel t l Stainless steel Fibre reinforced plastic
Glass fibre Carbon fibre Polyester composites Vinylester composites

Photos courtesy of Tony Barley & Stainless St i l St Steel l Ltd

28

Corrosion protection guidance for soil nails

LOW RISK CATEGORY To or P in SCE T in HCE P in HCE

MEDIUM RISK CATEGORY To or P in SCE T in HCE P in HCE

HIGH RISK CATEGORY To or P in SCE T in HCE P in HCE

Each category has temporary nails or permanent nails in a slightly corrosive or highly corrosive environment

Summary of corrosion protection guidance for soil nails

MOST corrosion protection systems are appropriate with most risk categories and SLIGHTLY CORROSIVE ground conditions or environments. i ONLY A FEW corrosion protection systems are appropriate for HIGH RISK category with HIGHLY CORROSIVE ground conditions or environments Refer R f to Table T bl 9 of f BS 8006-2. 8006 2

Guidance on design of facings

Hard Soft Flexible
Image courtesy of Mott MacDonald

Photo courtesy of A Arup & AMEC

Image courtesy of Arup)

31

Design verification
Approach BS 8006-2 follows the approach to soil nail testing given in the Execution standard (BS EN 14490) Number of Tests Related to Geotechnical Risk Category Philosophy The way the Th h nail il is i tested d needs d to model the way it is actually loaded practice. in p

Summary
EC7 has resulted in only limited changes to the way p stability y design g is carried out in the U UK. slope I have talked about some of these changes & have have noted a few Watch-its. I have briefly introduced BS 8006-2 Soil nailing design. g I would welcome views in the discussion on some of the questions I have raised.

33