Innovative Method of Construction of RUB by Box

Pushing Using Soil Nailing Technique

Dharm Singh *
Ajit Singh **

Synopsis : The RUB/Salimgarh, Delhi was the prestigious job of box pushing
for Common Wealth Games 2010. It was constructed by using Soil Nailing
Technique FIRST TIME IN INDIAN RAILWAYS. The RUB was pushed under
the extremely busy double line railway track of Delhi-Shahdara section of
Northern Railway, connecting Northern India to Eastern region.Three precast
boxes of 22m length each (Total 3x22m) were required to be pushed in
highly unstable sandy soil strata in a very short span of time. In addition to
the above the retaining walls of random rubble stone masonry of about
2.0m thickness had to be dismantled on both entry and exit ends during the
Box pushing. The dismantling of these retaining walls would have exposed
unsupported vertical earth face of more than 8.0m height, making it prone
to collapse. Since 200 to 250 trains pass through this section daily, so it
was a zero mistake tolerance site and any disruption to rail traffic would
have caused severe operational repercussions and resultant financial losses.
As per the Subsoil investigation report the embankment mainly consisted
of silty fine sand (C=0, -290). Since this was highly unstable, cohesionless
sandy soil strata, conventional method of box pushing was not feasible
without stabilizing the sandy strata. Therefore, box pushing using innovative
soil nailing technique was adopted in consultation with CRRI.

1.0 Introduction
A Road Under Bridge (RUB) was to be constructed by Northern
Railway Construction Organization as a part of a ring road bypass
from Salimgarh Fort to Velodrome road in connection with
COMMONWEALTH GAMES-2010. This road was proposed to move
along old Bela road and pass under west end approach of old Rail
cum Road Bridge over river Yamuna to Salimgarh Fort (Fig.1).

* Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) Northern Railway, New Delhi

** Secretary to CAO (Construction), Northern Railway, New Delhi

222
 Fig.1 : Key Plan

2.0 Site Conditions

The above RUB was to be constructed at a location where rail level
(RL 214.06m) was about 6.00 m above Natural Ground Level (NGL
RL being 208.46 m) and the embankment was contained between
two rubble stone masonry retaining walls, constructed in the year
1867 as an approach of old rail cum road bridge over river Yamuna.
Required road level through RUB is RL 206.01 i.e. about 2.45 m
below the NGL. Width of the railway embankment between the
retaining walls was 15m (Fig.2a) supporting two main lines, i.e. North
line and South line. The existing railway track was built about 143
years back. In the absence of records/ plans, cross section of
retaining walls was explored by adopting GPR (Ground Probing
Radar). As per GPR study the retaining walls had a thickness of
more than 2m at the lowest point with battered inside face. The
proposed RUB consisted of two of RCC boxes of internal dimensions
(opening) 10.5mx5.75m each and one RCC box of internal dimension
(opening) 9mx4m, to be pushed under two railway tracks. The outer
dimensions of the boxes were 12mx7.45m and 9mx5.70m
respectively (Fig.2b).

223
subsoil investigation was also carried out and it was found that
embankment mainly consisted of silty fine sand (c=0, =290) up to
NGL. As per the Subsoil report, below NGL, there was conglomerated
soil up to 2m depth and thereafter the strata consisted of fine sand
up to 6m depth.

Fig. 2 (a) : General arrangement (X-section)

Fig. 2 (b) : General Arrangement (Front view of Boxes)

3.0 The Problems Anticipated

The said RUB had to be constructed by box pushing technique. The
estimated pushing length was about 22m for each box. These precast
box segments were required to be pushed in highly unstable,
cohesionless sandy soil strata. The rubble stone masonry retaining

224
wall of one side having battered inside face was required to be
dismantled to begin the box pushing. This would have resulted in
exposure of unsupported vertical earth face of more than 8m height,
having cohesionless soil strata with high possibility of imminent
collapse on exposure. Moreover, due to site constraints earth cushion
over the top of the box could be kept 1 m only, making it more
vulnerable during pushing operation. Thus, a need was felt to stabilize
the cohesionless soil strata by adopting suitable technique before
taking up box pushing operation.
The various anticipated problems that could be countered are
summarised below :
Exposure of unsupported vertical earth face of more than 8 m
height after dismantling of the random rubble stone masonry
wall.
The silty sand strata were prone to collapse inside the box, when
cut with steep slope during box pushing.
Retaining wall on exit end was likely to bulge in face of
approaching box during pushing due to jacking force.
Severe disruption of traffic in case of any failure
Water supply pipe line of 1 feet dia feeding the Delhi Jn. and
railway colony could be damaged.
Hundreds of S&T cables could be damaged.
OHE masts had to be shifted.
Work was to be done in very congested (heavy traffic rail and
road) area.
It was considered to be a Zero Mistake Tolerance Zone besides
having highly unfavorable Soil strata.

4.0 Various Alternatives Explored

4.1 The Pipe arch roofing : In recent years many pipe arch roofing
jobs have been successfully completed in China. In Beijing, for the
2008 Olympics, several projects using pipe arch roofing have been
undertaken. The latest Chinese developments include projects in
Hangzhou Jiefang Road and Shenyang Yunhe and eight projects in
the Beijing area, with the total length of pipe used being in excess of
30 km.
The possibility was explored to provide pipe arch roofing just above
the top level of the box to support the tracks in case of collapse of

225
embankment. However, as the earth cushion available over the box
was only 1 m, hence formation of arch with span more than 12 m
was not found feasible.
4.2 The stabilization of soil by cement/ bentonite grouting
Many firms dealing with soil stabilization were consulted for
suggesting some scheme for soil stabilization. The possibility of
cement/ bentonite grouting from top of embankment was also
explored. However, it was not found feasible because of anticipated
difficulties in grouting from top due to inadequate working space
around the tracks and heavy rail traffic.
4.3 Supporting of track by providing relieving girders
The possibility was also explored for supporting of track by providing
relieving girders. However, due to less vertical clearance over the
box this alternative was also not found feasible.
4.4 The Soil Nailing Technique
Thereafter CRRI was consulted for suggesting a scheme for
stabilization of cohesionless soil strata so that it remains stable when
cut to almost vertical profile (even reverse due to inside batter of
retaining wall) for a height of about 8.45 m during box pushing
operation. The Soil Nailing Technique" was found most suitable
for stabilization of slope having cohesionless soil strata after several
round of discussion followed by site visits, exploratory boring,
laboratory tests etc. The details of designing of soil nailing and
construction methodology were finalized in consultation with CRRI.
However, keeping in view the anticipated problems during
construction, several modifications were incorporated in the
methodology suiting the site requirements.
4.4.1 The basic fundamental of soil nailing: In Soil Nailing
Technique the soil slopes, cuttings and retaining walls are passively
reinforced by the insertion of steel bars. A typical polygonal slip
surface is shown in Fig. 3.

226
 Active Forces :
1) Gravity Force
2) Active earth pressure
Resisting Forces :
1) Friction & cohesion of soil
on slip surface
2) Frictional resistance
transmitted by the nails

Fig. 3 : A typical polygonal slip surface with soil nailing

4.4.2 The use of Soil Nailing Technique
(a) As a method of soil stabilization
Soil and rock nailing is a relatively new construction technique
first used in Europe to stabilize and construct tunnels. In North
America, it is quickly becoming a popular method of soil and
rock retention, slope stabilization, and shoring.
(b) As an alternative to retaining wall
Soil nailing provides economic benefits and a rapid means of
constructing retaining walls and retention support systems
(Fig. 4a & b).
Using top-down construction and this technology, the
highways can be constructed in the minimum right-of-way.
Soil nailing allows excavation very close to city streets and
utilities and eliminates detours during construction

Fig. 4(a) : Holes are being drilled Fig. 4(b) : Reinforcing steel
into the excavated face is applied and the face is
measuring 6 to 8 inches in shotcreted.
diameter

227
5.0 Field Investigation :
5.1 The GPR (Ground Penetration Radar) survey :
The GPR study was carried out to determine the dimensions of the
retaining walls. The interpretations of GPR study are:
a) Width of wall was found to be about 1.5 m thick at ground level
and about 2.0 m thick at bottom level of proposed box of main
carriageway. The photographs are shown in Fig.5.
b) The soil was amalgamated with boulder/ballast and no clean
interface was observed.
c) The wall thickness varied uniformly along the height with some
variation due to weathering which had taken place over the
years.

Fig. 5 The retaining wall of 2 m thickness to be pierced by concrete

boxes of size 12.1mx7.45m (two nos.) and 10.5mx5.7m
d) Since GPR can only produce view of the strata orthogonal to it,
hence it was not possible to obtain the depth of foundation.
However, our main concern was to have an idea about continuity
and width of retaining wall at bottom level of the box, hence our
purpose of getting GPR study was served.
5.2 The soil exploration
Soil investigation was carried out twice to ascertain the type of strata,
which was the prime factor in deciding the methodology to be
adopted. As per laboratory tests carried out it was revealed that the
soil at the site was primarily silty fine sand and could be classified
as SM. The soil parameters were C=0 and between 28 to 30

228
degrees. The top layer of about 1 m thickness was filled up soil,
mainly due to penetration of ballast into the bank. The water table
was not encountered up to 6.5 m depth below formation level.
5.3 Carrying out pull out test on driven and grouted nails
In order to determine the apparent coefficient of friction between in-
situ soil and nail, necessary for design, in-situ pull-out tests were
conducted (Fig. 6). These test were conducted at different levels
of retaining wall in order to have an idea of the effect of over burden
on bonding strength of nails The pull-out tests were also conducted
under live load and without live load conditions so as to have an
idea of its effect on bonding strength of nails in both the conditions.
Three types of nails were used, which are given as under :
(i) Driven nails of 32 mm diameter: For driven nails 32 mm Fe415
TOR steel was used.
(ii) Driven nails of 28 mm diameter : For driven nails 28 mm Fe415
TOR steel was used.
(iii) Perforated pipe nails 89 mm dia with perforations of 12 mm @
50mm c/c in staggered manner on the periphery of the pipe.
After driving of these nails grouting was done with 1:1 cement-
sand mortar.

Fig. 6 Hole being drilled in stone masonry retaining wall to install

soil nail prior to conducting Pull-Out test required for
designing soil grouted nail

229
6.0 Soil Nailing Design
The design of soil nailing system was carried out by CRRI using
GEO 4 software. The input parameters considered for designing the
soil nailing system are given as under:
a) Live load: 110 kN/m on each track.
b) Geometry of the cut slope :
i) The batter of the soil slope () 83.16 degree (inward slope)
ii) The depth of over burden above the box was taken as 1.0m.
iii) The parapet wall height was taken as 0.7 m.
c) The soil properties : Based on the soil investigations carried
out the following soil parameters were taken in the design :

Cohesion (c) 0
Angle of internal friction () 29 degree
Bulk density of soil () 17 kN/m3

d) Nail parameters: The inclination of nails was considered nil i.e.

nails were proposed to be driven horizontally and the nail heads
were to be anchored. Based on the pull-out tests carried out,
following pull-out strength values (bearing capacity) were taken
in the design :
Type of nails Design values of Pull-out strength (kN/m)
Grouted nails 9
Driven nails 4

7.0 The various methods of Soil Nailing

7.1 By rotary drilling machine: Initially it was planned to do nailing
work by rotary drilling machines as advised by the CRRI. Four such
machines were also bought from Kolkata (Fig. 7). However, these
machines did not work properly. Speed of drilling was also very slow,
and the surrounding soil was getting disturbed during drilling.

230
 Fig. 7 Soil nailing by rotary drilling m/c

Fig. 8 Soil nailing being done manually

7.2 Manually : The Soil nailing was done manually up to 4 m length

taking reasonable time and efforts (Fig. 8). However, it started taking
too much time after 4 m length; hence it was decided to explore
another possibility for expediting the soil nailing work.
7.3 By hydraulic rammer : As per discussion with various agencies
it was decided to procure hydraulic rammer for soil nailing. As the
same was not available in India, two hydraulic rammers were
imported from U.S. for this work. These hydraulic rammers worked
very well by making some adjustments in order to use them for soil
nailing work (Fig. 9).

231
 Fig. 9 Soil nailing by hydraulic rammer

8.0 Configuration of Soil Nailing Adopted

8.1 Inside the Box:
a) In front of the periphery of the box : Three layers of driven nails
were provided all around the boxes except in front of bottom
face, where only two layers of driven nails were provided.
b) Inside the box: A grid of nails of size 35X15 (525 nos.) and size
30X11 (330 nos) was provided in the large and the small boxes
respectively.
8.2 Outside nailing:
a) Top of the Box:
i) Grouted nails: 25 nos and 22 nos of grouted nails were
provided above the top level of the large and small boxes
respectively.
ii) Driven nails : 31 nos and 26 nos of driven nails 250 mm
below the grouted nails were provided above the top level
of the large and small boxes respectively
b) Sides of the Box: One layer of grouted nails was provided on
the outside of the box in the retaining wall to protect the side collapse
of the slope.
The X-section and front view of nailing arrangement are shown in
Fig. 10 a & b and their details are give in Table 1.

232
Fig. 10(a) X-Section showing arrangement of nailing in Box No.3

Fig. 10(b) Actual Nailing arrangements for Box No.3

233
 Table 1 : Details of nailing for Box No.3
Layer Type Dia Nos Spacing Length Total Length
No (In meters) (In meters) (in meters)
Vertical Horizontal (approx.)
1 Grouted 89 23 - 0.5 15 345
2 Driven 32 27 0.25 0.4 15 405
3 to 5 -do- 32 36 0.3 0.3 15 1620
6 to 8 -do- 32 36 0.3 0.3 8.30 900
9 to 18 -do- 28 36 0.4 0.3 6.30 2270
Side Grouted 89 14 0.5 - 15 210

Box No.3
Total Nails: 640 Nos. (37 Nos. Grouted + 603 Nos. Driven)
Total Length of Nails: 5750 m (555 m Grouted+5195 m Driven)
Box No. 1 and 2
Total Nails : 893 Nos. (42 Nos. Grouted +851 Nos. Driven)
Total Length of Nails: 7575 m (630 m Grouted+6945 m Driven)

Grand Total Nos. of nails in all three boxes = 2426 Nos.

Grand Total length of nails in all three boxes = 20,900 m

9.0 Construction methodology

9.1 Initially it was planned in consultation with the CRRI that soil
nailing work will be done through stone masonry retaining wall.
However, the above planning was changed, as drilling a single hole
through the retaining wall was taking hours together and thousands
of holes had to be drilled as suggested by CRRI.
9.2 Scheme of Box Pushing with Soil Nailing finally adopted
Hence, it was finally planned to dismantle the retaining walls strip by
strip of about 0.30 to 0.40 m depth from top to bottom and stabilize
the exposed vertical cut by soil nailing. It was decided to anchor the
group of 4 to 6 nails by M.S. plates/bearing plates and locally
developed holding arrangement (Fig. 11). It worked well during initial
retention of vertical cut as well as during initial pushing of few meters.
However, as box moved forward fixing of anchoring plates became
very difficult due to misalignment/ bunching of nails. Hence, anchoring

234
plates were modified for single/double nails instead of group of nails
as envisaged earlier. Some sand bags were also inserted in between
the anchoring plates to fill up the gaps.

Fig. 11 Schematic Diagram of scheme Adopted

9.3 It was planned to drive the nails forward along with pushing of
box, so that the designed length of nails was always maintained,
which was necessary for slope stability. However, as there was no
space for driving the nails in front of the periphery of the box, hence
these nails (coming in front of periphery of the box) were inserted
throughout the width of the embankment. These nails were gas cut
every time before pushing of box as soon as they were exposed
after removal of soil.
Some photographs taken during the progress of works are shown in
Fig. 12. a, b & c.

Fig. 12 (a) A view of unsupported earth face after dismantling

retaining wall

235
 Fig. 12 (b) Box pushing work in progress by using 'soil nailing'
technique

Fig. 12 (c) A view after commissioning of the Road Under Bridge

10.0 The various safety precautions taken during execution

Keeping in view the importance of the project, highly unfavourable
site conditions as well as operational/financial repercussions, all
possible safety precautions were taken as given below :
10.1 Drag sheet arrangement: This arrangement reduces frictional
forces acting on box during pushing and thereby minimizes jacking
effort and track disturbances during box pushing (Fig. 13 a & b).

236
 Fig. 13 (a) & (b) Drag sheet arrangement
10.2 Additional supporting arrangement was provided by steel
channels (ISMB 200) of 12 m length below the track at spacing of
about 1.2 m i.e. between alternate sleepers (Fig. 14). These
channels rested on cribs on one side and the retaining wall on the
other side to support the track temporarily in case of collapse of
bank. These cribs were required to be shifted at regular interval
during box pushing.

Fig.14 Supporting arrangement by Steel Channel sleepers

10.3 Rear side protection arrangement: Retaining Wall on exit
end was likely to bulge in face of approaching box during pushing
due to jacking force. Hence, protection arrangements by providing
steel sections by sheet piling methods were designed to support the
rear end retaining wall (Fig.15).

237
 Fig. 15 Rear end protection arrangement by sheet piling
10.4 Extension of cutting edge: Conventional design was modified
to have longer cantilevered front portion to facilitate flatter slope of
cut during pushing.
10.5 Round the clock observation of track parameters and track
maintenance.
10.6 The moisture in the soil was maintained by feeding water through
vertically driven perforated pipes, so as to maintain apparent
cohesion in the soil.
10.7 Shifting of S&T cables and water supply pipe line of one feet
diameter in advance.
10.8 Additional safety precautions were taken when the balance
pushing length became less than the anchoring length of the soil
nail i.e. less than 6m.
10.9 The thrust bed was constructed parallel to track due to
constraints of space in road alignment.

11.0 Conclusion
Thus, by adopting innovative technique as explained above, project
was completed in time. Moreover, this technique ensures much better
standard of safety and minimum traffic disruptions in comparison to
the conventional method of Box pushing.

238
As per the direction of Member Engineering, many senior officers
from RDSO and from other Zonal Railways visited the site during
the progress of work to have a first hand experience. As such, the
experience gained is being effectively utilized in other projects having
similar type of conditions.
To encourage the innovation in public service, Ministry of Railways
has awarded this work the 2nd Best Innovation for the year 2010-11
with award of Rs.2 lacs to the team of Northern Railway Construction
Organization.

*****

239