Clouterre 1991 Recommendations Clouterre English Translation PDF

FRENCH NATIONAL RESEARCH 1111111111111111111111111111111
PROJECT CLOUTERRE PB94-109980
RECOMMENDATIONS
CLOUTERRE
1991
Soil Nailing Recommendations - 1991
For Designing, Calculating, Constructing
and Inspecting Earth Support
Systems Using Soil Nailing
PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Presses de l'ENPC, 28 Rue des Saints-Peres
75343 Paris Cedex 07, France
Tel. 33 (1) 44 58 28 30
Original Document: Recommandations CLOUTERRE -1991

ISBN 2-85978-170-6
English Language Translation: Soil Nailing Recommendations - 1991
Printed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with the permission of the Presses de
l'ENPC. All copyrights to future reproduction are retained by the Presses de l'ENPC. Neither the
FHWA nor the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) will authorize or expressly permit any
other party to distribute copies of this document in France.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHWA-SA-93-026
1111111111111111111111111111111
PB94-109980
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Auqust 1993 ~
RECOMMANDATIONS CLOUTERRE 1991
6. Performing Organization Code
(ENGLISH TRANSLATION)
Soil Nailing Recommendations-1991
8. Performing Organization Report No.
7. Author(s) See Introduction for further information on authors of
original French version and translation of the English version.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
See Introduction
11. Contract or Grant No.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
English Translation Published by
Federal Highway Administration
400 Seventh Street,m SW. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20590
15. Supplementary Notes
See introduction for further information on authors of original French version and translation of the English version.
16. Abstract
The Recommandations CLOUTERRE 1991 - constitute the culmination of the French National Project CLOUTERRE, which
was conducted from 1986 to 1990 with a total bUdget of 22 million French francs. These "Soiling Nailing Recommendations"
represent a major contribution·to the engineering community interested in the cost effective earth excavation support system
known as soil nailing.
Nailing, a recent technique of reinforcing in-place soils, started in France in the first wall built in Versailles in 1972. Since
then, the French experience has continued to progress to the point that in 1990 more than 100,000 square meters of walls
were built on highway, railway, and building construction projects. This remarkable development is due to the two principal
advantages of soil nailing: its financial competitiveness compared to other earth support systems and its speed of
construction. However, one must also credit the National Project CLOUTERRE that has greatly eased the dissemination of
the technology to National and international audiences.
Soil nailing techniques have been used since the 1970s and technical papers have been published at geotechnical
conferences around the world since its inception. However, as late as 1992 no document that summarizes the whole design
and construction process, from geotechnical investigation to field quality control, as this one does was available.
Shortly after publication by the Presses de IEcole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees (EN PC), bilingual engineers recognized
the value of producing an English translation of the document. This document is a faithful translation of the original book
published by the Presses of ENPC. It was prepared under the general supervision of Mr. Francois Schlosser, the Scientific
Director of the French National Project CLOUTERRE and President of Terrasol in Paris.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public from
Nails, soil nails, soil nailing, soil-nailed wall, anchored wall,
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
reinforced earth, ground modification, retaining wall, French
Virginia 22161
National Project Clouterre
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 321
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO 51 UNITS
•• •
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM 51 UNITS
Symbol When You Know MUltiply By To Find Symbol mSymbol When You Know MUltiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m meters 3.28 feet ft
m
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
2
in square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm 2 mm 2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in 2
ft2 square feet 0.093 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
square meters m2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd 2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi 2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km 2 km 2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi 2
VOLUME VOLUME
II oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters ml ml milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces II oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters I I liters 0.264 gallons gal
It' cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ft3
yd' cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd'
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 I shall be shown in m3 .
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
Ib pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 pounds Ib
T short tons (2000 Ib) 0.907 megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.103 short tons (2000 Ib) T
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)

of Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celcius °C °C Celcius 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit of
temperature or (F-32)/1.8 temperature temperature temperature
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux Ix Ix lux 0.0929 foot-candles Ic
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candelalm 2 cdlm 2 cdlm 2 candelalm 2 0.2919 foot -Lamberts II
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

Ibf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 pOllndforce Ibl
Ibf/in2 poundforce per 6.89 kilo pascals kPa kPa kilo pascals 0.145 poundlorce per Ibl/in2
square inch square inch
-- I"
• SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate (Revised June 1993)
rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
Preface
PREFACE
(TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION)
The French National Research Project CLOUTERRE and the resulting manual
Recommandations CLOUTERRE -1991 are important contributions to the engineering
community interested in the cost effective earth excavation support system known as Soil
Nailing.
Soil nailing techniques have been used since the 1970s and technical papers have been
published at geotechnical conferences around the world since its inception. However, there is
at this time (1992) no document that summarizes the whole design and construction process,
from geotechnical investigation to field quality control, as this one does.
Shortly after publication by the Presses de l'Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees (ENPC),
Paris, France, bilingual engineers recognized the value of producing an English translation of
the document.
This document is a faithful translation of the original book published by the Presses of
ENPC. It was also prepared under the general supervision of Mr. Fran~ois Schlosser, the
Scientific Director of the French National Project CLOUTERRE, Professor at the ENPC, and
President of Terrasol, Geotechnical Consultants, Paris.
In this book, the reader will find many references to French publications and to agencies that
produce documents in France relevant to the subject. Titles of French publications are listed
as originally referenced, along with an English translation of the title. French abbreviations
for the various agencies involved have been maintained in the text. A list of abbreviations is
included showing both the proper title and a translation. This is to provide the reader with a
reasonably good indication of what organization in his or her own country would produce
similar publications, guidelines, specifications, or regulations.
The translators also found the need to develop a list of the agreed translations of various
terms and expressions. These are presented in the Lexicon. This is not a true dictionary in the
technical sense, but represents the translators' experience in dealing with soil nailing terms in
common use in the U.S.A.
Some additional comments are in order about the translation, which has been a truly
international team effort.
The first translation of the document was made by Mr. Bernard Myles and associates at Soil
Nailing Limited, Cardiff, UK, together with contributions from the Transport Research
Laboratories of the UK Department of Transport.
Various chapters from that document were then distributed to Messrs. Claude Plumelle,
Professor (CNAM), Consultant at the CEBTP; Daniel Raynoud, Engineer at the CEBTP;
Philippe Unterreiner, Assistant Professor (ENPC), Research Engineer (CERMES); and John
v
Walkinshaw, P.E., G.E., Regional Geotechnical Engineer for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in San Francisco, California. These corrected chapters were retyped
and redistributed for final review and further corrections. In this process, all chapters
received at least a double review by Messrs. Unterreiner and Walkinshaw for technical
accuracy of the translation. In the process some minor typographical errors in the original
document were corrected. The final document was then submitted to an American editor
prior to printing.
The whole effort would not have been possible without the patient and tireless assistance of
Ms. Pat Thoburn (Soil Nailing Limited, Cardiff, UK) and Mr. Philippe Unterreiner (CERMES-
ENPC/LCPC, Paris, France), who coordinated the effort and kept the translators on schedule.
Financial support for redrafting the figures (done at Terrasol using the originals) and
publication of the manual was given by Mr. Douglas Bernard, Director of the FHWA Office
of Technology Applications, Washington, D.C., under the guidance of Mr. John Hooks, Chief
of the Structures and Soils Application Branch.
In France, the translation was sponsored by the Direction des Affaires Economiques et
Internationales (DAEI), Ministere de l'Equipment, du Logement, des Transports et de
L'Espace (MELTE).
In the United Kingdom, Soil Nailing Limited has received financial support from its parent
company, Ryan Group Limited, for the preparation of the prepublication document.
Participants were sponsored by their respective companies or agencies with much time
donated by each individuaL
vi
Preface
PREFACE
(TO THE ORIGINAL FRENCH DOCUMENT)
The Soil Nailing Recommandations 91 constitute the culmination of the French National Project
CLOUTERRE, which was conducted from 1986 to 1990 with a total budget of 22 million
French francs.
Nailing, a recent technique of reinforcing in-place soils, started in France with the first wall
built in Versailles in 1972. Since then, the French experience has continued to progress to the
point that in 1990 more than 100,000 square meters of walls were built on highway, railway,
and building construction projects.
This remarkable development is due to the two principal advantages of soil nailing: its
financial competitiveness compared to other earth support systems and its speed of
construction. However, one must also credit the National Project CLOUTERRE that has
greatly eased the dissemination of this technology to National and International audiences.
The Soil Nailing Recommandations 91 are the result of an important team effort of reflections
and synthesis and represent well the five years of research, studies, and tests of the National
Project. They should allow for a large development of soil nailing and, notably, its use in
permanent structures in Geotechnical Engineering; this is the second application of limit state
concepts to ground reinforcement, after the Recommandations sur la Terre Armee (Reinforced
Earth Recommendations) published by the Direction des Routes (French Highway
Administration) in 1979. The present stage of knowledge has allowed us to develop only
design concepts for dimensioning at ultimate limit state; the design at service limit state is at
the present time an area of research and study for future years.
vii
Please allow me to thank all the participants of the French National Project CLOUTERRE
and particularly those who have participated in the preparation and editing of these
recommendations.
C. MARTINAND
Directeur des Affaires Economiques et Internationales
Ministere de l'Equipement, du Logement
des Transports et de l'Espace
viii
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
These recommendations have been compiled from studies of the French National Project
"CLOUTERRE" (dou =: nail, terre =: soil) carried out from 1986 to 1990 by a group of
contracting authorities, prime contractors, research centers and laboratories, consulting firms,
and construction companies under the auspices of The Economic and International Affairs
Division (DAEI - Direction des Affaires Economiques et Internationales) of The Ministry of
Public Works, Housing, Transport and Space (MELTE Ministere de l'Equipement, du
Logement, des Transports et de l'Espace), and the National Federation of Public Works
(FNTP - Federation Nationale des Travaux Publics).
ix
This study and research program has been financed by members of the National Project:
Bachy, Ballot, Bouygues, CEBTP, ENPC-CERMES, Cofiroute and Socaso, DDE de la

Moselle et de Savoie, DDST de la Martinique, EMCC, FNTP, Fougerolle, Gie Semed
Dumez, IMG, Intrafor, Forezienne d'Entreprises, LCPC, Laboratoires Regionaux de
l'Est Parisien, de Lorraine et du Rhone, Ministere des Transport du Quebec, Sade,
Scetauroute, Sefi, SEMALY, SETRA, Societe du Metro de Marseille, Soletanche, Spie-
Batignolles, Terrasol,
with the support of the DAE!.
The French National Project CLOUTERRE included a management committee presided over
by R. Soulas and a scientific committee presided over by F. Schlosser.
The running of the Project was guaranteed by R. Soulas, R. Aris, F. Schlosser, and C.
Plumelle.
These recommendations comprise seven chapters compiled by six working groups under the
direction of the scientific committee and finalized by the editing committee.
x
Introduction
The following have taken part in drawing up and editing these recommendations:
Scientific Committee of the French National Project CLOUTERRE

President: F. Schlosser
Members
M. Boucherie (Socotec) J.R. Brulois (Bachy)

P. de Buhan (LMS) P. Delage (CERMES-ENPC/LCPC)
J.M. Forestier (DAEI) J.-P. Gigan (LREP)
N. Goulesco (Bouygues) D. Gouvenot (Soh~tanche)
G. Haiun (SETRA) L. Hurpin (Bouygues)
M. Lenoire (FNTP) I.-P. Magnan (LCPC)
G. Maraficaud (Intrafor) C. Plumelle (CEBTP)
P. Unterreiner (CERMES-ENPC/LCPC) P. Vezole (Forezienne d'Entereprises)
Members of the Editing Committee
D. Allagnat (Scetauroute) M. Besson (Intrafor)

F. Blondeau (Terrasol and M. Boucherie (Socotec)
Blondeau Consultants) S. Buzet (Bouygues)
G. Bolle (Spie-Batignolles) P. Clement (Bachy)
J.R. Brulois (Bachy) P. Delmas (LCPC)
J.-P. Clautour (Sefi) J.-P. Gigan (LREP)
P. de Buhan (LMS) D. Gouvenot (Soletanche)
B. Gicquel (Bouygues) G. Haiun (SETRA)
N. Goulesco (Bouygues) L. Hurpin (Bouygues)
Y. Guerpillon (Scetauroute) J. Marchal (LRR)
C. Heurtebis (SETRA) G. Mercieca (CEBTP)
M. Khizardjian (LRR) C. Plumelle (CEBTP)
Y. Matichard (LRL) M. Salomon (CEBTP)
A. Morbois (Scetauroute)
A. Raharinaivo (LCPC)
B. Simon (Terrasol)
Spokesmen
M. Boucherie (Socotec) J.-P. Gigan (LREP)

A. Guilloux (Terrasol) G. Haiun (SETRA)
C. Plumelle (CEBTP) F. Schlosser (Terrasol)
Editing Committee:
J. P. Magnan (LCPC) C. Plumelle (CEBTP)

J. Salen<;on (LMS) F. Schlosser (Terrasol)
P. Unterreiner (CERMES-ENPC/LCPC)
xi
xii
List of Symbols and Definitions
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS
GEOMETRY
Symbols Unit Definition

H m Height of nailed wall
L m Length of nails
Sv m Vertical spacing of nails
Sh m Horizontal spacing of nails
La m Anchor length of nails
Ls m Grouted length of nails
De m Drill hole diameter (grouted bars)
Da m Diameter of bar
e degree Inclination of nails on the horizontal
~ degree Angle of inclination of the talus on the horizontal
11 degree Batter of facing
i degree Angle of incidence of nails on the normal to the failure
surface
Aa m2 Section of metallic bar
Ae m2 Grouted section
FORCES - MOMENTS
Symbol Unit Definition

Te kN Shear force in the nail
Til kN Axial force (or tension) in the nail
M kNm Bending moment in the nail
To kN Axial force (or tension) in the nail at the facing
Tmax kN Maximum axial force (or tension) in the nail
Te kN Critical creep force (axial)
TL kN Ultimate skin friction force
Tc kN Elastic limit of the reinforcement
xiii
PRECEDING PAGE
BLANK
STRESSES

0' kPa Normal stress
1: kPa Tangential stress
p kPa Pressure on the nail
0'0 kPa Initial normal stress on the nail
.1.0' kPa Increase in normal stress due to dilatancy
O'v kPa Vertical normal stress in the soil
AXIS, DISPLACEMENTS, DEFORMATIONS

x m Horizontal axis parallel to the soil nailed wall
y m Horizontal axis perpendicular to the soil nailed wall
z m Vertical axis
X m Longitudinal axis along the nail
Y,Z m Transverse axes to the nail
Dx, Dy, Dz m Relative soil-nail displacements
Dh m Horizontal displacements at top of wall facing
Dv m Vertical displacements at top of wall facing
Eij without Linear deformation tensor
VELOCITY

V mls Viscosity of grout
xiv
ACCELERATIONS

ah m/s 2 Horizontal acceleration
av m/s 2 Vertical acceleration
all m/s 2 Nominal acceleration
SAFETY FACTORS

rm without Partial safety factor
r sJl r Q1 r y without Load factors
xv
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOIL AND OF THE NAILS

<p' degree Effective friction angle of the soil
<Pll degree Undrained friction angle of the soil
u degree Dilatancy angle of the soil
11 without Real coefficient of soil-nail friction
11* without Apparent coefficient of soil-nail friction
c' kPa Drained cohesion of the soil
cll kPa Undrained cohesion of the soil
wL % Liquid limit
wp % Plastic limit
PI % Plasticity Index
Ie % Consistency index
Sr % Degree of saturation
W % Water content
WOPN % Optimum water content (standard proctor)
e without Void ratio
K without Earth pressure coefficient
Ko without Coefficient of earth pressure at rest
Ka without Active earth pressure coefficient
Kp without Passive earth pressure coefficient
Po kPa Horizontal earth pressure between nails
Y kN/m3 Total unit weight of soil
y' kN/m3 Effective unit weight
Yd kN/m3 Dry unit weight
Yw kN/m3 Unit weight of water
Ys kN/m3 Specific unit weight of the solids
I m4 Nail moment of inertia
E kPa Young's modulus
Ea kPa Young's modulus of the bar
Ee kPa Young's modulus of the grout
EM kPa Pressuremeter modulus of the soil
Es kPa Modulus of subgrade reaction
10 m Transfer length of the nail
ks kN/m3 Coefficient of subgrade reaction
kp kN/m3 Initial slope of soil-nail skin friction mobilization law
PI kPa Limit pressuremeter pressure
qs kPa Unit skin friction
R ll kN Tension resistance of the nail
Re kN Shear resistance of the nail
Mo kNm Plastic moment of the nail in simple bending
M max kNm Plastic moment of the nail in composite bending
cre kPa Steel elastic limit
cre kPa Tension stress at failure of the grout
xvi
GROUT PASTE CHARACTERISTICS

C kN/m3 Cement batch weight
B kN/m3 Bentonite batch weight
E kN/m3 Water batch weight
C/E without Cement/water ratio
Yc kN/m3 Unit weight of cement
Yb kN/m3 Unit weight of Bentonite
ACTIONS

G kN Permanent loads
FlO kN Loads due to water
Q kN Variable loads
FA kN Accidental loads
MISCELLANEOUS

d without Density of nails
n without Total number of nails
N without Minimum number of preliminary tests
C without Classification index of the structures
L4 without Global corrosion index
I without Global classification index of the structures
R n Resistance measured (Wenner method)
p Ocm Apparent specific resistance
pH without Opposite value of the logarithm of the value expressing
the hydrogenion concentration in moles/liter
xvii
SIGN CONVENTION
Forces Tn Positive in tension

Stresses a,p Positive in compression
Displacements X Oriented from the nail head to its tip
(inside the reinforced mass)
Angles e Positive below the horizontal
i Positive below the normal to the failure surface
~ Positive above the horizontal
11 Positive for a facing inclined inward
xviii
Contents
CONTENTS
Page
Preface (to the English Translation) v
Preface (to the original French Document) vii
Introduction ix
List of symbols and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xiii
Chapter 1: THE TECHNIQUE USED FOR SOIL NAILED STRUCTURES:

DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENTS 1
Chapter 2: SOIL NAILING IN RETAINING STRUCTURES:

MECHANISMS AND BEHAVIOR 25
Chapter 3: CONCEPTION AND DESIGN 73
Chapter 4: INVESTIGATION AND TESTS 167
Chapter 5: WALL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION 203
Chapter 6: DURABILITY OF STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Chapter 7: SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS 251
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
LEXICON 281
FRENCH STANDARDS WITH CORRESPONDING ISO/ ASTM/BSI/DIN . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
TABLE OF CONTENTS 293
xix
xx
CHAPTER 1
THE TECHNIQUE USED FOR SOIL NAILED

STRUCTURES: DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE
1.1. Definition of a soil nailed wall
Constructing a soil nailed wall involves reinforcing the soil as work progresses in the area
being excavated by the introduction of passive bars, which essentially work in tension. These
are usually parallel to one another and slightly inclined downward. These bars can also work
partially in bending and by shear. The skin friction between the soil and the nails puts the
latter in tension.
Using this method, and working from the top downward, a mass of reinforced soil is
gradually built up. In order to keep the soil from caving in between the bars, some sort of
facing needs to be installed. This is generally made with some shotcrete reinforced by a
welded wire mesh. This facing can be vertical, battered to a wide variety of angles, or made
up of a series of benches (Figure 1).
The passive bars are often referred to as "nails" and the soil reinforcing technique is known
as "soil nailing."
Once it has been constructed, a soil nailed wall shows a certain similarity with a Reinforced
Earth wall. However, the fact that a soil nailed wall will have been built downward with the
soil being reinforced in situ, while a Reinforced Earth wall is constructed by building an
embankment that is then strengthened as the work progresses, constitutes an essential
difference.
By its very definition, a soil nailed wall is difficult to build under a water table. In these
circumstances, special procedures will need to be introduced, such as pumping operations to
lower groundwater levels, drainage, etc.
PRECEDING PAGE
BLANK
,,/ 'I r
10 Clusaz (1981) 10 Plagne (1988)
Sand and
gravel
E
t-
Grouted nails
Driven
steel an les
A30 Freeway Knutangg,J 1987) Lyon subway t 1986)
Figure 1. Examples of soil nailed walls.
2
Chapter 1: The Technique Used for Soil Nailed Structures
1.2. Building phases
A soil nailed wall is constructed in successive phases from the top to the bottom, comprising
(see figure 2):
1) Excavation, generally limited to 1 or 2 meters deep and possibly limited in length

depending on the type of ground being stabilized.
2) The introduction of subhorizontal or inclined nails into the in situ soil.
3) Building a facing wall on site (shotcrete over a welded wire mesh or fibrous concrete) or
installation of precast elements (or panels) that can be architecturally treated in various
ways.
1_ Excavation 2 _ Installing the nails
3 _ Reinforced shotcrete 4 _ Excavation

(or prefabricated facing panels)
Figure 2. Construction phases of a soil nailed wall.
During the excavation phase, the soil must remain stable. This calls for some degree of
short-term cohesion in the soil, although it does not need to be highly cohesive. About 4 kPa
cohesion in Fontainbleau sand was sufficient to assure stability of one meter excavation
phases in the first CEBTP experimental wall of the Project CLOUTERRE. If the soil shows
little sign of cohesion, it is possible to carry out the excavation in slots; phases 2 and 3 are
3
carried out in that order, although these can be reversed, i.e., the shotcrete can be applied
before the nails are introduced.
Nails can be installed in two principal ways:
Either by drilling and then grouting with cement grout or mortar in a predrilled hole,
Or by either percussive methods or vibro-drilling.
In 1989, soil nailing with grouted nails accounted for just over half the total number of
square meters of the soil nailed in France.
Other techniques are currently being developed. These combine vibration driving with
injection processes. In the United Kingdom and France, certain techniques have appeared
recently that involve driving nails by a compressed air launcher or a pyrotechnic launcher.
The nails are generally made of steel, although other materials have been used, in particular
glassfibers. In the case of reinforced shotcrete, the facing wall is constructed to a calculated
thickness that depends, mainly, on the grid layout of the nails, but the actual volume of
shotcrete, because of over excavation of the planned cross-section used, is often higher.
Unlike other techniques, such as Reinforced Earth, the building of a soil nailed wall involves
a critical phase with respect to local or overall stability. The latter can be lower during the
building phase than when the wall is finally built. Local excavation stability during the
earthwork phase depends directly on the height of soil excavated, as was shown in the tests
and experiments conducted for the CEBTP No.2 experimental wall of the Project
CLOUTERRE (figure 3).
Fontainebleau sand ('f =38 0

J C =4 kPa )
1.80m
I
.'
• I .' .•
/. . . .' .
"j'_ Failure
. . .... surface
Struts [
a- Stable b _ At stability limit C- Failure
Figure 3. Stability of excavation phases in CEBTP NO.2 experimental wall

(French National Project CLOUTERRE, 1989).
4
Weepholes must always be provided through the facing so that any water infiltrating the
structure can drain away. In areas subject to internal hydraulic flows of water, it is
appropriate to install drainage measures, such as:
Subhorizontal drains.
Drainage details, such as geocomposites installed before the facing wall is constructed.
2. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Origins of soil nailing
The origins of soil nailing come, in part, from techniques developed for rock bolting and
multianchorage systems, and also from Reinforced Earth techniques, which in practical terms
show close similarities to the soil nailed technique.
Among those structures or reinforcing techniques for in situ soil that are reasonably close to
soil nailed walls, the following should be given special mention:
Retaining walls using anchored bars and faced with reinforced concrete constructed in
schists in 1961 (Bonazzi and Colombet, 1984) (figure 4).
The Austrian method for supporting galleries and tunnels as developed by Rabecwiz
(1964). This method is now often used in place of traditional earth supports.
Alluvio _ _-o
E
Altered~ Q
SChist
Figure 4. Overflow spillway of Notre-Dame-de-Commiers, 1961

(Bonazzi and Colombet, 1984).
This latter technique involves reinforcing the ground using anchored bars (bolts) all around
the gallery immediately after the face has been excavated, thus allowing an appreciable
5
reduction in the amount of final lining required (figure 5). The nails used are usually
between 3 and 6 meters long.
TRADITIONAL ME THOD I AUSTRIAN METHOD

",_---1
Earth
disPlacemeot~ \
//'" tI I
Unloaded arch ~/
X \
~
Reinforced ground
I
0: =0 ( mass
~\ I
I
Reinforced
\
\
\
\ , I~~,' Mesh -®
concrete - -
0;.: confinig pressure
Pi : initial pressure
Figure 5. Traditional and Austrian tunnelling method for lining a

gallery: principle and behavior.
2.2. Developments in the use of soil nailing for earth support systems
The development of the soil nailed wall has progressed as follows:
1) First wall built at Versailles in 1972/73 by the companies Bouygues and Soletanche
during work on adding SNCF railroad tracks (Rabejac et Toudic, 1974). This involved a
temporary wall being built in Fontainebleau sand, using a high density of short nails
anchored with grout (figure 6). This was the first time the soil nailing technique was used
on a wall in France.
2) First experiment on a full-scale structure in Germany (Stocker et al., 1979). The wall was
built using grouted nails and was loaded to failure with a surcharge at the top.
6
3) First attempt at "industrialization"

with the development of the first
prefabricated facing components
in France (Louis, 1981). SOIL NAILING
4) National research project for soil

Reinforced concrete
nailing (French National Project
CLOUTERRE 1986-1990) '",,- wall
"
~4 ~
commissioned by the DAEI
(Ministry of Public Works) with ."r J""....,...-, - ----- - __ , E,isting->JQ!l
the support of the National Fontainebleau· " ~
Federation of Public Works and sand' 21 0 I I' ff I
the Ministry of Research. . I
I
\
It is also interesting to note here the

parallel developments that have Grouted
nails
taken place in techniques for building
earth support systems that are also
based on the reinforcement of in situ
soil, and which bear certain
similarities with soil nailing, such as: Figure 6. Soil nailed wall at Versailles
(Rabejac and Toudic, 1974).
The root pile technique (in France
referred to as "micropiles"), which
has been developed in Italy by Lizzi (1979), and which is also used for the construction of
earth support structures. This falls midway between the stabilization of slopes and
reinforced soil walls (figure 7).
Figure 7. Sloped soil nailed wall with micropiles (Lizzi, 1977).
7
The technique with multiple prestressed anchors:
Commonly called "anchored or tie back walls" where the structure is again built in phases
and from the top down (figure 8) (Blondeau et al., 1987). The main difference with a soil
nailed wall is in the use of prestressed anchors instead of nails. This technique reduces
the magnitude of horizontal displacement during excavation.
~ 25.00 m
39.40 NGF
:1
,
-------------
Ground ~=~~-11-,L-~l,.-:~
anchors
640kN
Anchore d
wall
kN
__ Ground
-\ Nails
\ OOChO:
7 6.00NGF
"=-3.80
I-------'-="---'-''---IIFOUNDATION RAFT MIXED SOIL NAILED WALL
Figure 8. Anchored wall, 35 meters high and mixed

soil nailed wall (Blondeau et aI., 1987).
At present, the highest vertical facing wall constructed using the soil nailing technique is the
temporary wall built in connection with the excavations for the Opera at Montpellier. This
wall, which surrounds the excavation, is 21 meters high and was constructed using the
percussive technique (method of Hurpin) in fine cemented sand (figure 9a).
8
FILL
H=21m
CEMENTED .
SAND
/ ' 7
Shotcrete
a. 21-meter high vertical soil nailed wall (Montpellier Opera, 1985).
Shotcrete
facing
Grouted nails
Steel bars ep32mm
Soil: Clayey grovel

alluvia
Grouted nails
Steel bars ep40 mm
b. Inclined soil nailed wall, 28 meters high (Southern entrance of Dombes Tunnel,
Rhone-Alpes TGV line, 1990).
Figure 9. Highest soil nailed walls built in France (as of 1990).
9
It is, in fact, a combined wall, since at its top it uses a row of prestressed anchors. The
highest soil nailed wall built to date without using active anchors is to be found at the
southern end of the Dombes tunnel, built for the TGV as part of the east Lyon by-pass. Some
28 meters in height, it has a batter of 17° (figure 9b).
Although data collection has not been easy, in France, during 1988, it is believed a minimum
of 50,000 square meters of soil nailed walls were constructed. For example, cut and cover
sections built as part of the TGV Atlantique line as it exits Paris, involved nearly 40,000 m 2 of
soil nailed walls built over a two-year period. Outside France the technique has also seen
developments in Germany and Austria, and it is beginning to be used in the USA. However,
in overall terms, worldwide development is still in its infancy.
By far the majority of structures being built are still temporary, although 1988 and 1989 saw
the construction in France of more short-, medium-, and long-term structures.
More rapid development of the technique would need:
Soil nailing to be used for permanent structures. This was one of the aims of the National
Project CLOUTERRE; it is this lack of experience of how long and how well soil nailed
structures will last (corrosion of the nails) that has, until now, limited the technique to
temporary structures only.
An improved, more aesthetic facing by the implementation of new techniques

(prefabricated concrete components, etc.).
2.3. Soil nailing and patents
The concept of soil nailing has not been patented, nor is it patentable, given the large number
of precedents that exist in this field.
However, numerous technology patents have been, and can be, taken out. These relate
mainly to the nails and the facings (prefabricated components). In addition, several patents
deal with systems for protecting the nails against corrosion.
2.4. Advantages and drawbacks
The main advantages of soil nailing for excavation support systems are:
Reduced construction equipment/materials.

Rapid construction.
Readily adaptable to different sites.
Readily adaptable to heterogeneous soils.
Competitive cost.
10
To construct a soil nailed wall requires only a limited amount of light equipment: an earth-
working machine for the excavation, a drilling machine and grout-injection equipment or a
mechanical hammer for installing the nails, and a pump for spraying the concrete if the
facing comprises reinforced shotcrete.
The work is completed rapidly because it is being done at the same time as the excavation.
Even though the technique is simple, the construction of a soil nailed wall requires both care
and skill on the part of the company in charge.
Soil nailing is readily adaptable to otherwise difficult sites as long as no prior excavation
work is needed and light equipment can be used. In particular, it allows structures to be built
on slopes where access is difficult. It can also be built in segments and, if necessary, on a
curve or with benches.
Although the majority of soil nailing research and studies undertaken to date have been
limited to homogeneous soils, this technique also adapts well to heterogeneous soils insofar
as the density of nails can be adapted to the type and the resistance of soils found. Grouted
nails can pass easily through locally heterogeneous soils with occasional boulders; it is also
possible, if space allows, to locally modify the orientation, length, or density of the nails.
The soil nailing technique represents a most competitive cost solution in that it combines
speed, simplicity and the use of light equipment.
However, soil nailing does have certain drawbacks, for example:
Lateral and vertical movements inherent to the very nature of the technique itself.
Use limited to soils that have no water table or that are protected by a reduction in the
water table level.
Use can be difficult or delicate in certain soil conditions - cohesionless sands, caving
sands, soils containing pockets of water, soils containing a high quantity of clay where
the moisture content might increase after construction, and frost-susceptible soils.
With regard to both short- and long-term structures, particular attention should be paid at all
times to the durability of any nails used in corrosive soils and to long-term movements,
particularly those caused by creep in clays.
Lateral and vertical displacements constitute a limitation that is particularly important on

urban sites because of the presence of other structures in the vicinity. In fact, as will be
shown in paragraph 3.4. of chapter 2, the upper part of the facing of a soil nailed wall
displaces both laterally and vertically during the course of construction. The extent of these
displacements can vary from between one and four thousandths of the height of the wall
(figure 10). These displacements affect the surface of the neighboring soil, but reduce with
distance from the facing. It is also important to check that the existing structure is able to
tolerate, without any damage, a horizontal deformation of the soil Eh in extension, together
11
with a differential vertical movement (distortion 'Yu) over a distanceA from the facing (See the
values given in paragraph 3.4.2. of chapter 2).
Existing structure
>.. = H [1 - ton JK
L
Displacement
of facing
Figure 10. Use of soil nailing technique on an urban site with existing structures nearby.
Generally speaking, the attenuation of the displacements away from the facing is not linear
(Peck, 1969) and can sometimes be concentrated at a fissure that forms at the end of the
upper nails.
Where the existing structure is unable to tolerate these distortions, the design may have to
include prestressed anchors and whalers at the top of the nail. Even with these measures it is
important to check again during construction that displacements are kept within a tolerable
level for the existing structures.
The building of soil nailed walls below a water table should not be undertaken without prior
permanent lowering of the water table to protect the structure against pore water pressures.
These precautions are taken in order to resolve the problems associated with building the
structure, as well as the problems of its long-term stability.
The limitations posed by the type of soil found impose several constraints. In cohesionless
sands, it is not possible to ensure the stability of a near-vertical excavation, even one that is
limited in both length and height. Caving sands and water pockets may lead to instability of
the structure and have serious repercussions. In order to try to avoid this situation, the soil
will need to be drained as the excavation work progresses. Certain precautions must be taken
where clay soils are found to prevent the ingress of water, that will lead to a loss of strength
in the soil and consequently a significant reduction in the soil/nail friction. Finally, recent
12
experiences with soil nailed walls built in mountainous districts have shown that frost-
susceptible soils create problems as a result of the swelling that occurs under the influence of
frost and its effect on the soil nailed. Appropriate measures should therefore be taken, either
by increasing the size and number of nails to absorb the effects of the pressure caused by this
swelling or by installing an insulating structure next to the facing (a Texsol wall,
prefabricated wall panels) to prevent the freezing front from penetrating the soil.
3. THE FRENCH NATIONAL PROJECT "CLOUTERRE"
3.1. General background
The technique of reinforcing soil by the use of "nails" is relatively recent, as was noted in the
previous section. From the very beginning, France has lead in this field, both practically and
theoretically. However, following the initial spurt of using soil nailing for short-term earth
support structures at the beginning of the eighties, developments for medium- or long-term
structures were still being held up by the lack of recommendations and regulations.
To respond to this need, the Project CLOUTERRE (Memorandum of Presentation - April

1986) was set up in 1985 at the initiative of the DAEI and the FNTP. This national project
conforms with the structure of all other national projects. Thanks to its original financing,
more than 21 organizations from different backgrounds have been able to participate together
in a research project that resulted in 1991 with the writing of the recommendations that are
presented here.
3.2. The participants and financing of the project
Besides the DAEI, which initiated the project and which financed approximately 15 percent
of the 21 million francs budget, 21 other participants from widely varying backgrounds also
took part. These have included public and semi-public organizations (7), public and private
contracting authorities (3), and building contractors (11), who, among them, have financed
more than 85 percent of the Project CLOUTERRE either by direct contributions or by
supplying materials and manpower.
3.3. The research program
The aim was to promote the use of soil nailing, both for short-, medium-, and long-term
structures, based on the recommendations issued. The areas of application needed to be well-
defined and the level of knowledge improved. It was on this basis that the research program
was launched in 1986 and finished in 1991. The Project CLOUTERRE did not set out to
develop or research new construction techniques, which are the responsibility of the
contractors; it sought only to conduct research targeted at improving understanding of the
behavior and design of the structures built.
13
Four central areas of research were therefore defined and studied:
1) To better understand the behavior of soil nailed walls.

2) To define the limitations of the process.
3) To improve methods for designing structures.
4) How to use soil nailing for long-term structures.
The first area involved not only the overall behavior of a soil nailed wall when it fails
(internal and external stability) and under service loads (deformations and movements of the
soil nailed mass), but also the local behavior where soil and nail interact, which is a vital
element for the internal stability of any soil nailed structure. Studies into the internal stability
of a soil nailed wall during the excavation phase were carried out with the full-scale
experimental soil nailed wall CEBTP No.2 (CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, December 1989) and using
centrifuge models of walls under construction (French National Project CLOUTERRE, LCPC,
October 1987 and December 1989). The deformations and movements of soil nailed walls
under service loads have themselves been studied with measurements taken on several in-
service structures together with numerical analysis (French National Project CLOUTERRE,
CERMES, October 1986, October 1988, and December 1989).
In addition to the full scale soil nailed wall of the CEBTP Experiment No.1, which was
instrumented and monitored from the time of its construction until it failed (French National
Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, May 1986), five other soil nailed structures built by different
owners in France have been instrumented within the Project "CLOUTERRE": The A 71
Vierzon-Bourges Highway (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, October 1987 and
December 1989); the RN 90 by-pass of Aigueblanche, Esserts cut section (French National
Project CLOUTERRE, CETE Rhone-Alpes, March 1988 and French National Project
CLOUTERRE, LRPC, December 1989); the A 30, Knutange-Hayange highway section, Bois
des Chenes Tunnel (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CETE de l'Est, November 1987
and March 1988); cut section of the terminus for Line D of the Metro-Lyon, Venissieux
(French National Project CLOUTERRE, INSA Lyon, October 1988); sloping wall at the A6-A40
(split) at Macon (French National Project CLOUTERRE, Scetauroute, March 1988).
As far as soil/nail interaction is concerned, a principal input in the soil nailing design, it has
been possible to significantly extend our knowledge of the factors involved, thanks to the
numerous experimental, numerical, and theoretical studies conducted as part of the Project
CLOUTERRE.
The experimental studies comprised not only original laboratory research, development of a
local normal pressure gauge on a bar 20 mm in diameter and housed in a sample tested in a
triaxial testing chamber (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CERMES, December 1989);
the shearing of sand samples reinforced by rods or metal piates (French National Project
CLOUTERRE, CERMES, September 1987, June 1988, and December 1989); direct shear tests
between sand and steel with a normal stiffness imposed (French National Project
CLOUTERRE, IMG, October 1989); pull-out tests on nails in a calibrated chamber (French
National Project CLOUTERRE, IMG, May 1987) but also full scale tests conducted by the
CEBTP; pull-out tests on several types of nails (French National Project CLOUTERRE,
14
CEBTP, June 1987, June 1988, and December 1989); and shearing of a sand mass reinforced
with vertical nails (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, June 1988).
Data have also been compiled on more than 450 pull-out tests carried out by contractors and
this has made it possible to set up the only data bank that exists in this field (CLOUTERRE,
CEBTP, December 1987). This data bank makes it possible to estimate for the preliminary
design the soil/nail interaction parameters by using charts (chapter 3, appendix 1).
The theoretical and numerical aspects of the soil/nail interaction were developed in two
directions:
1) Development of the interface behavior law of skin friction from pull-out tests results
(French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, June 1988 and December 1989).
2) Development and use of interface elements in computer modelling of soil nailed walls
(French National Project CLOUTERRE, CERMES, December 1989, and French National
Project CLOUTERRE, IMG, May 1988 and March 1989).
For the second direction of the research, the objective was to determine the limitations of the
soil nailing technique by bringing together all the participants with their experiences. This
has allowed the definition of the soils for which nailing is well-suited, those presenting some
risk, and those to exclude.
The third direction of the research-improved design methods---eonsisted of comparing the

various design methods used in France, studying the influence of the various parameters,
notably the soil/nail interaction, and calibrating the design methods against real cases.
The fourth direction of the research was to study the corrosion and durability of nails (French
National Project CLOUTERRE, TERRASOL, December 1989).
3.4. Full-scale tests on soil nailed walls at the CEBTP
The originality of the Project CLOUTERRE lies in the fact that three fully instrumented
experimental soil nailed walls were built by the CEBTP and monitored from construction to
failure.
Each of these experimental walls was conceived to study a different failure mode. The
CEBTP No.1 experimental wall failed through breakage of the nails after partial saturation of
the soil from the top of the wall (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, May 1986).
The CEBTP No.2 experimental soil nailed wall, on the other hand, failed by increasing the
height of the excavation phase (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, December
1989). The CEBTP No.3 experimental soil nailed wall was failed through progressive
shortening of the lengths of the nails (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP,
December 1989).
15
To provide the best experimental conditions, each of the three walls was built in
Fontainebleau sand, which had been excavated, replaced, and compacted under strict
compaction control. Like many natural sands, it contained a small percentage of fines, which
when combined with the water used with compaction, possessed sufficient apparent cohesion
to ensure the stability of the various excavation phases during the course of construction.
• First experiment CLOUTERRE at the CEBTP (1986)
The soil nailed wall built as part of this experiment was constructed in excavation phases of
one meter in height, and used grouted nails 6 to 8 meters long. Its total height was 7 meters.
The structure had been designed with a sufficiently low safety factor for failure by breakage
of the nails (F = 1.1) so that it would be possible to break it easily by gradually saturating the
soil, starting at the top of the wall. The effect of saturation was to reduce the apparent
cohesion and to increase the overall weight. The total failure of the structure was prevented
because the shotcrete embedded itself in the foundation soil. Thanks to the instrumentation
developed, it has been possible to carry out a number of measurements (tensions in the nails,
displacements of the facing and distortion of the soil nailed mass, etc.) both during and after
construction and up to the point of failure. Moreover, the excavation of the soil nailed wall,
once collapsed, allowed a detailed and more fruitful investigation to be conducted into the
behavior of the structure at failure (figure 11).
5m Water filled basin

i
__ ---l ~~:_~_9_e---1mif---_----"
27em
Observed
H=7m
27em
Figure 11. Post-failure observations of the first full-scale experimental soil nailed wall
(CEBTP-French National Project CLOUTERRE 1986).
16
• Second experiment CLOUTERRE at the CEBTP (1989)
The aim of the second CEBTP experimental wall was to look into the stability, both local and
global, of the soil nailed mass during the excavation phase. For this, a soil nailed wall 6
meters high was built then brought to failure point through extending the height of
excavation at the foot of the wall from 1 to 3 meters. During the first excavation phase (1
meter high excavation), the excavation - like the wall - was stable. During the second
excavation phase (2 meters high), local failure occurred and stabilized itself through arching.
In overall terms, the wall remained stable. During the third pass (3 meters high), the
effectiveness of the arch was destroyed and local failure propagated to the surface level. This
in turn led to overall and internal failure of the wall (figure 12).
h (m) 1.80 m
6
1-
fT-------
1
!I
II .
:1 ----
5 I
nails
Failure surface
Figure 12. Post-failure observation of the second full-scale experimental soil nailed
wall (CEBTP - French National Project CLOUTERRE, 1989).
• Third experiment CLOUTERRE at the CEBTP (1989)
The third CEBTP experiment with a soil nailed wall sought to study the type of failure
caused by the nails being too short. A soil nailed wall 6 meters high was therefore
constructed and brought to failure point by gradually reducing the length of the telescopic
17
nails (comprising nails slid into tubes). After reducing the length of the nails to a minimum,
the whole of the soil nailed mass sank 0.27 cm and slid along a well-defined failure surface,
which was demarcated by the nails (figure 13).
The uniform lengths of the nails used at the outset of the trial were gradually reduced during
the course of the experiment until finally very short nails were used at the base of the wall
(0.50 m), increasing, as a function of height, up to 2.30 meters at the top.
This layout imposed the shape of the failure surface which corresponded to a failure limit
between a failure due to lack of adherence and the external failure mode.
Protective
frame
Shotcrete
facing
Crack
___::-j"oj,-~ Struts in contact

I.---;~:ltl=:::.:--~ with frame after
failure
Extracted parts of
telescopic nails .--- 25.5"cni
E
o
o
r<)
Fontainebleau sand
{
'P': 38 0
, C': 4 kPa
Figure 13. Post-failure observations on the third full-scale experimental soil nailed wall
(CEBTP-French National Project CLOUTERRE, 1989).
18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Internal Reports of the French National Project CLOUTERRE.
Memoire de presentation du Projet National "CLOUTERRE," Avril 1986.

Memorandum of Presentation of the National Project CLOUTERRE.
CEBTP (1986). Compte rendu de l'experimentation en vraie grandeur de la paroi clouee No 1.

Rupture d'une paroi clouee par cassure des armatures, Mai 1986.
Report on the experiment No.1 of a full-scale soil nailed wall. Failure of soil nailed wall as a result
of breakage of the nails.
CERMES (1986). Modelisation numerique du clouage, Octobre 1986.

Numerical modelling of soil nailing.
CERMES (1986). Etude du clouage en modele reduit, Octobre 1986.

Study of soil nailing using small scale models.
IMG (1987). Essais de laboratoire realises en chambre de calibration (pre-rapport), Mai 1987.
Laboratory tests carried out in a calibration chamber (initial report).
SETRA (1987). Le renforcement des ouvrages en Terre Armee, Aout 1987.

Reinforced earth structures.
CEBTP (1987). Essais de traction sur differents types de clous dans du sable de Fontainebleau
(pre-rapport), Juin 1987.
Pull-out tests on various types of nails in Fontainebleau sand (initial report).
CERMES (1987). Rapports d'avancement, Juillet 1987:
I Etude du fluage des sables

II Essais d'arrachement au triaxial
III Influence de la mise en place des barres sur Ie frottement en laboratoire
Progress reports:
I Study of creep in sands

II Pull-out tests in triaxial chamber
III Influence of installation method of the nails on skin friction in the laboratory
19
CERMES (1987). Essais de sable renforce par des plaques a la boite de cisaillement
(rapport d'avancement), Septembre 1987.
Shear box tests on sand reinforced by plates (progress report).
LCPC - CERMES (1987). Premiers essais en centrifugation, Octobre 1987.

First centrifuge tests.
CEBTP (1987). Projet d'instrumentation du mur cloue M4 de l'autoroute A 71 a

Vierzon, Octobre 1987.
Instrumentation project for the soil nailed wall (M4) section of the A 71 Vierzon highway.
CETE DE L'EST (1988). Projet d'instrumentation des parois clouees du tunnel du Bois
des Chenes, autoroute A 30, 1987.
Instrumentation project for the soil nailed walls at the tunnel - Bois des Chenes, A 30
Highway.
CEBTP (1987). Banque de donnees des essais d'arrachement de clous et autres

inclusions rigides, doc. No.1, Decembre 1987.
Data bank containing results of pull-out tests on nails and other rigid inclusions.
CETE RHONE ALPES (1988). Project d'instrumentation de la paroi clouee de la

tranchee des Esserts RN 90, Mars 1988.
Instrumentation project for the soil nailed wall - Esserts cut section of the RN 90
highway.
CETE DE L'EST (1988). Compte rendu d'instrumentation et de mesures des parois

clouees du tunnel du Bois des Chenes, autoroute A 30, Mars 1988.
Report on instrumentation system and measurements for the soil nailed wall - tunnel at
Bois des Chenes, Highway A 30.
IMG (1988). La methode des equations integrales aux frontieres appliquee au renforce-
ment des sols, Mai 1988.
Boundary element method applied to the reinforcing of soils.

inclusions rigides, doc. No.2, Juin 1988.
Data bank containing results of pull-out tests on nails and other rigid inclusions.
CEBTP (1988). Essais de traction de tubes battus dans du sable de Fontainebleau, Juin
1988. Pull-out tests on tubes driven into Fontainebleau sand.
CEBTP (1988). Essais de traction en vraie grandeur de differents types de clous dans
du sable de Fontainebleau, Juin 1988.
Full scale pull-out tests of various nail types in Fontainebleau sand.
CEBTP (1988). Essais de cisaillement in situ sur soil renforce, Juin 1988.
In situ shear tests on reinforced soil.
20
CEBTP (1988). Rapport final interaction sol-clou, Juin 1988.

Final report on soil/nail interaction.
CERMES (1988). PIuage des sables, Juillet 1988.

Creep of sands.
SEMALY - INSA DE LYON (1988). Instrumentation d'une paroi clouee a Venissieux,

Octobre 1988.
Instrumentation of a soil nailed wall - Vinissieux.
CERMES (1988). Modelisation numerique du mur de Saint-Remy, Octobre 1988.

Numerical modelling of the wall at Saint-Rimy.

inclusions rigides, doc. No.3, Janvier 1989.
Data bank containing details of pull-out tests on nails and other rigid inclusions.
IMG (1989). La methode des equations integrales aux frontieres appliquee au

renforcement des sols, Mars 1989.
Boundary elements, method applied to the reinforcement of soils.

inclusions rigides (comparaison avec DTU 13.2 et SETRA 1985), doc. No.3 bis),
Mars 1989.
Data bank containing details of pull-out tests on nails and other rigid inclusions
(comparisons with DTU 13.2 and SETRA 1985).
IMG (1989). Essais de cisaillement direct a rigidite normale imposee sur materiaux
fins, Octobre 1989.
Direct shear tests with controlled normal stiffness on fine soils.
CEBTP (1989). Mur M4, Autoroute A 71 Vierzon-Bourges, Decembre 1989.

Wall M4, A 71 Vierzon-Bourges Freeway.
CEBTP (1989). Compte rendu de l'experimentation en vraie grandeur de la paroi

clouee No.2. Rupture du massif de sol cloue en cours de terrassement,
Decembre 1989.
Report on the experiment No.2 of a full-scale soil nailed wall. Failure of the soil nailed
mass during course of excavation.
CERMES (1989). Interaction sol-clou, etude en laboratoire, Decembre 1989.

Soil/nail interaction, laboratory tests.
CERMES (1989). Modelisation non lineaire des murs cloues: cas du mur de Saint-
Remy, Decembre 1989.
Nonlinear modelling of the wall at Saint-Rimy.
21
TERRASOL (1989). Synthese des etudes de corrosion pour des ouvrages metalliques
enterres, Decembre 1989.
Synopsis of corrosion studies carried out on burried metal structures.
CEBTP (1989). Determination du mode operatoire de l'essai de traction sur dou. Test
sur deux types de dous suivant un essai a vitesse constante et un essai par palier
de fluage, Decembre 1989.
Determining the working method for conducting pull-out tests on nails. Tests on two
types of nail with a constant speed test and incremental loading.
CERMES (1989). Interaction sol-dou. Etude a la boite de cisaillement, Decembre 1989.

Soil/nail interaction. Shear box tests.
LCPC (1989). Experimentation en centrifugeuse sur massifs en sols doues, Decembre

1989.
Centrifuge experiments on soil nailed walls.
CEBTP (1989). Compte rendu de l'experimentation en vraie grandeur de la paroi

douee No.3. Rupture du massif de sol c10ue par raccourissement des dous,
Decembre 1989.
Report on the experiment No.3 of a full-scale soil nailed wall failure of the soil nailed mass
caused by shortening of the nails.
CETE RHONE ALPS (1989). Compte rendu de l'instrumentation de la paroi c10uee de

la tranchee des Esserts, Decembre 1989.
Report on instrumentation system for the soil nailed wall - Esserts cut section.
22
PUBLICATIONS
BLONDEAU, F. and LUCAS, E. (1987). Soutemement d'une fouille de grande hauteur

(36 m) par un mur a anorages multiples et environement sensible (Monaco). Actes
du Colloque International Interactions Sol-Structure, Paris, Presses de l'ENPC.
Support of an excavation of great height (36 m) by a wall with multiple anchoring systems
in a sensitive environment (Monaco).
BONAZZI, D. and COLOMBET, G. (1984). Reajustement et entretien des ouvrages de

talus. Colloque renforcement en place des sols et des roches, ENPC Press, Paris,
1984.
Correction and maintenance of slopes.
GOULESCO, N. and MEDIO, J.M. (1981). Soutenements des sols de deblais a l'aide
d'une paroi hurpinoise (autoroute A 86 Nogen-sur-Marne), Revue de I'AFTES (47),
Septembre-Octobre 1981.
Support of in situ soils by the method of Hurpin (Highway A 86 Nogent-sur Marne).
GUILLOUX, A., GONIN, H., and NOTTE, G. (1983). Experiences on a retaining

structure by nailing in moraine soils. Proc. of VIIIth ECSMFE, Helsinki 1983.
LIZZI, F. and CARNAVALE, G. (1979). Networks of root piles for the consolidation of
soils; theoretical aspects and tests on models. Pr\lc. International Symposium on
Soil Reinforcement, ENPC, Paris.
LOUIS, c., (1981). Nouvelle methode de soutenement des sols en deblais, Revue
Travaux No. 553.
New methods of retaining soils in cuts.
MEDIO, J.M., GOULESCO, N., and GUEGAN, Y. (1983). Exemples d'application de

soutenements doues: dix ans d'hurpinoise.
Application examples of soil nailed walls. Ten years of the method of Hurpin. Sols et
Fondations 184.
PECK, R.B. (1969). Deep excavations and tunelling in soft ground. State of the art
report. Proc. of VIIth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico, 1969.
RABCEWICZ, L.V. (1964, 1965). The new Austrian tunnelling method, Parts 1 to 3,
Water Power, London, November-December 1964, January 1965.
RABEJAC, S. and TOUDIC, P. (1974). Construction d'un mur de soutenement entre

Versailles-Chantiers et Versailles-Matelots, Revue generale des chemins de fer, 93
eme annee, pp. 232-237.
Construction of a retaining wall between Versailles-Chan tiers.
23
SCHLOSSER, F. (1982). Behavior and design of soil nailing, Proc. Symp. Recent
developments in ground improvement techniques, AIT, Bangkok, pp. 319-413.
SCHLOSSER, F. (1983). Analogies et differences dans Ie comportement et Ie ca1cul des

ouvrages de soutenement en Terre Armee et par douage des sols, Annales de
l'ITBTP (418), Serie: Sols et Foundations, 1184-10.1983.
Similaries and differences in the behavior and design of Reinforced Earth and soil nailing,
retaining structures.
STOCKER, M., KORDER, C.W., CASSLER, G., and CUDEHUS, G. (1979). Soil Nailing.
c.R. ColI. Intern Renforcement des sols (2), Paris, ENPC Press, pp. 469-474.
24
C HAP T E R 2 _
SOIL NAILING IN RETAINING STRUCTURES:

MECHANISMS AND BEHAVIOR
1. PRINCIPLE OF STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR
The monitoring of the CEBTP full-scale experimental soil nailed walls, No's. 1, 2, and 3, and
the interpretation of the results obtained, enabled the principles governing the behavior of
soil nailed structures to be better understood. It has to be recognized that the level of
understanding was fairly limited in this field because of the large number of parameters
(geometry, length, inclination of nails, nature of the soil, etc.) coming into play, contrary to
reinforcement techniques for backfills such as Reinforced Earth, where the geometry, soil,
reinforcements, and facings used are far more standardized. To obtain a better understanding
of how soil nailing works, the latter will be examined with reference to Reinforced Earth,
highlighting the differences and similarities.
The first fundamental difference between the two techniques comes from the method and
phasing of construction (Schlosser, 1983). Soil nailing is a technique for reinforcing in situ
soil, where the soil nailed structure is built by cutting in successive phases. Reinforced Earth
is a technique for reinforcing backfills, where the reinforced structure is built as a fill, in
successive phases from the bottom to the top. Therefore, very different distributions exist
between the two techniques regarding displacements and deformations, as well as stresses in
the soil and reinforcements for equivalent geometries.
During successive excavations, the soil that will form the soil nailed wall is subject
simultaneously to lateral decompression and to settlement. As a result, at the end of
construction a slight tilting of the facing occurs where horizontal and vertical displacements
are at their maximum at the head. On the contrary, with Reinforced Earth walls, lateral
displacements at the foot of the wall increase during the successive phases of backfilling due
to the compression of the lower layers caused by the weight of the soil. The result is that,
during construction, a slight deformation of the facing occurs at the base of the wall where
horizontal displacements are at their maximum (figure 1).
25
~
\ -
\ "'-
\
\
\
\ r-
-
,,
\ I
\
\
- , I
, ,...
\
\ I
\ 8 I
~
- \
Soil nailed wall Reinforced Earth Wall
Figure 1. Comparison of lateral displacements between a soil nailed

wall and a Reinforced Earth wall.
Load at head of nail

To (kN)
15
af phase 7
End of phase 6
Beginning of phase 6
Creep after construction)
10
Beginnig of phase 7
5
End of phase 4
End of phase 3
Doys
Ot--.----r-,--------r--,----,,--,--,--,--r---.-r-r---,--,----,,--..,.---,-r-,--=-
o 100 150 200
Figure 2. Progressive loading in tension of nail NO.3 during successive excavation.

phases of the first full-scale experimental wall at CEBTP (CLOUTERRE, 1986).
26
Chapter 2: Soil Nailing in Retaining Structures: Mechanisms and Behavior
The techniques are also significantly different regarding the loading in tension of the
reinforcements. In the case of soil nailed walls, the horizontal decompression of the mass
during the successive excavations result in preferential tensile stresses in the subhorizontal
nails. Tension in a row of nails starts only when the lower levels are being excavated. For
example, observing nail No.3 in figure 2, it can be seen that the tension in the nail, which
was nil at excavation phase 3, increases progressively with the later phases 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Furthermore, the increase in tension in nail No.3, due to excavation j (j = 4, 5, 6 and 7), is all
the smaller as j is greater; more precisely the tension of a nail i depends mainly on the three
following excavation phases, i+ I, i+2, and i+3. The result is that the lowest rows of nails are
the least subjected to tensile stresses. However, at the end of construction, progressive
tension of these rows increases due to long-term deformations.
Inversely, in Reinforced Earth walls, which are built from bottom up, the lowest
reinforcement is the first to be subjected to tension.
In spite of these very different modes of tensioning, very interesting and important
similarities can be seen when comparing the final distribution of tension in the
reinforcements and in the nails. As also observed in many other reinforcement techniques,
the tensions in the nails are maximum inside the soil nailed mass, not at the facing. This
result is very general and characterizes reinforcement techniques in which the interaction
with the soil is continuous along the whole length of the reinforcements. The geometric
location of the points of maximum tension T max makes it possible to separate the soil mass
into two zones:
1) An "active" zone situated behind the facing, where the skin friction stresses applied by
the soil on the nails are directed outward.
2) A "passive" zone where skin friction stresses are directed inward and oppose the lateral
displacement of the active zone.
For Reinforced Earth, the location of maximum tension Tmax is well-known because of the
simplicity of the geometry and of the standardization of the materials. The same cannot be
said of soil nailed structures, where the parameters coming into play are more numerous and
complex; previous experience has shown that it is more complicated to determine the
location of Tmax. This is one of the reasons why no general design method - of the local
equilibrium type - that enables the calculation of nail tensions has been developed, despite
some interesting attempts (Juran et al., 1990).
Basset and Last (1976) gave an interesting mechanical explanation - applicable to any type
of reinforcement - of the shape and of the line of maximum tension that could be
considered as potential failure surface. Using the concept put forward by Roscoe (failure lines
in a material correspond to zero extension lines (e = a)), they have shown that the presence
of horizontal reinforcements resisting tension behind a vertical retaining wall completely
modified the field of deformations and, that insofar as the reinforced soil could be considered
as a material with practically no variation in volume under shear (dilatany angle v = 0), the
failure lines became vertical at the head (figure 3).
27
Line a __J.:~H:.~=i=-:li-ct="I=+*"'*"t:~o:.._ -Potential

failure
surface
1-:
- y
f3
a. Without inclusions b. With horizontal inclusions
Figure 3. Influence of quasi-inextensible nails on the shape of the potential failure surface
(Basset and Last, 1978).
It is interesting to note that the difference between passive reinforcements, such as strips or
nails, and active reinforcements, such as prestressed ground anchors, is very significant if one
considers the distribution of tension. In a prestressed ground anchor, the tension force is
constant over the whole of the free length, while in soil, nail tension varies over the whole
length of the reinforcement.
Reinforced Earth strips and nails in soil nailed walls behave differently. While Reinforced
Earth strips are flexible, work only in tension and take up no shear force or bending moment,
nails often have some stiffness that enables them to work not only in tension but also in
bending and shear. However, the nails at service loads in a structure are, in practice, not
subject to bending and shear, except sometimes locally, near the facing. The facing may
s0metimes hang on the nails during the first phases of construction when it is very thick or
when the short-term adherence of the ground is small.
28
In France, soil nailing has developed around two techniques:
The first method, which has been initiated by Hurpin and is often referred to as "method
of Hurpin," uses low-capacity nails of short length and fairly close to each other (5" , 5 h :::;
1 m), as in the Reinforced Earth technique. Nails are usually driven.
The second method consists of grouting into the soil bars, generally of high capacity (TG >
200 kN). These are of longer length and more widely spaced (5" , 5h > 1 m), and the
overall behavior is considered to be similar to that of the previous method as long as
5 v 5 h :::; 6 m 2•
The two main differences between the two methods concern:
The stresses taken up by the facing (tension To at the head of the nails, local pressure p of
the soil); those stresses are much lower in the method called "method of Hurpin," which
makes possible the use of thinner facing.
The forces and bending moment mobilized in the nails; in the "method of Hurpin,"
neither shear force nor bending moments are mobilized in the nails because of their small
moments of inertia.
2. SOIUNAIL INTERACTION
Two types of interaction develop in nailing used in retaining structures:
The most important interaction is the shear stress (skin friction) applied by the soil along
the nail, which induces tension in the nails.
A second, less important interaction is the passive pressure of the earth along the nail
during the displacement of the latter. The passive earth pressure mobilized makes
possible the bending moment and shear force to be mobilized in the nails; this
mobilization occurs only if a shear zone develops in the soil nailed mass.
2.1. Soil/nail friction
2.1.1. Similarity between skin friction in a fill and an in situ soil
Experience with Reinforced Earth has shown that friction along a linear reinforcement placed
within a soil and subject to tension was affected by the three-dimensional nature of the
contact surfaces. In dense granular soil, under the effect of shear stresses 't applied by the
reinforcement, the tendency of the zone of soil surrounding the reinforcement to increase its
volume is restrained by the low compressibility of the neighboring soil; this results in an
increase L1a of the normal initial stress a o applied to the surface of the reinforcement. This is
29
the phenomenon of restrained dilatancy (Schlosser and Elias, 1978) that, in the case of
Reinforced Earth, led to the definition of an apparent coefficient of friction 11' defined by:
't
J1* =
which can be significantly higher than the real coefficient of friction:
J1
This phenomenon was measured in situ for the first time by Plumelle (1979) at the CEBTP
during pull-out tests of passive ground anchors that had been buried in an embankment
consisting of Fontainebleau sand. Figure 4 shows that, in the immediate vicinity of the
ground anchor, the increase .1.0' can reach four times the value of the initial normal stress 0'0'
cr (kPa) , "
'.' . '.:", :'" :,',
.......
.' .. ".: '::., : SAND
"',: "', . :>:... . ',: "
100
~ t::.cr i> PRESSURE CELLS
d[= .
~ - - GROUND ANCHOR
-H-
20cm
50
Distance d (an)
2816 70 100 200
Figure 4. Increase of normal stress due to restrained dilatancy around an inclusion that is in tension.
Within the framework of the Project CLOUTERRE (French National Project CLOUTERRE,
CERMES, December 1989), this phenomenon was also observed during the pull-out tests of
small-scale nails in a minicalibration chamber, while the additional normal stress generated
was measured locally. Figure 5 shows, in the case of a smooth nail, the variations of fl' in
function of the initial stress and the density of the sand.
30
Concerning soil nailing and in situ soils, the same phenomenon of restrained dilatancy for
friction on nails was observed by Cartier and Gigan, 1983. It was also shown by Schlosser
(1983), that the soil nail unit skin friction qs was practically independent of the depth; the
decrease of the apparent friction coefficient fl * with depth, due to the decrease of dilatancy, is
compensated by the increase of the normal vertical stress crv = y z; that is to say: (
qs = J.1* (z) 'Y z = constant
1,0
0,8
\
0,6 0.._
O-("S:::g
Smooth nail
0,4 Smooth nail (High density sandi
(Low density sand, I = 85%)
D
I D= 45% to 60%)
0,2
(J (kRJ)
o
01----,---,----.,----,-----,-_
100 500
Tmax
Figure 5. Variation of J.1* as a function of 0"0 (CERMES, CLOUTERRE, 1989).
Figure 6, taken from observations on the A86 freeway experimental soil nailed wall with
driven steel angles (Cartier and Gigan, 1983), illustrates this point.
There is therefore a certain similarity between friction in piles and in nails that justifies the
use of correlations between the results of in situ tests and the soil nail unit skin friction qs
along the nails.
31
9~ ( kPa )
200 + Square angle nails 50x50x5 mm 0::,

o Square angle nails 60x60x6 mm b
(Values of qA adjusted to equivalent size of
150 square angle nails 50x50x5 mm)
+
100 + o
o
Average value + o
90 kPa
50
Fontainebleau sand
Depth (m)
Figure 6. Variations of unit skin friction with depth (after Cartier and Gigan, 1983).
Boulon et al., (1986) have carried out theoretical and experimental studies on the influence of
the compressibility of the soil around the reinforcement on the value of qs' using an analogy
with a direct shear box with controlled normal stiffness (k = a/iI) Assuming that the
thickness e of the zone of sheared soil is small compared to the radius R of the inclusion,
stiffness can be expressed as a function of the pressuremeter modulus EM using the formula:
k = 2
where R is the radius of the nail.
Graphs (figure 7) enable qs to be estimated as a function of the normal initial stress 0'0 and of
the value k in the case of sands.
2.1.2. Mobilization of skin friction along a nail
Numerous experimental studies were carried out on the mobilization of skin friction in nails
within the Project CLOUTERRE that make it possible to predict accurately and completely
the results of previous studies (Plumelle, 1979, 1984).
32
Un =k::: ~
R u R
Nail
EL Rough surface
9.6 ~
00 ao
10
20 'k=OMPa/m
• k= 1000
----. A k =0 MPo/m
k = 500¢
15
• k =5CXX> "
6. k= IOCXX) "
D k=20000 "
,
I
I
--- --
.k
_.- • k = 1000
= 25(X)
•okk== 5000
ok=oo " 5
~o
I
\
-- 00
\-\*
\~>"
o trA":>~ t_-..-_-__ .A __
__ A______ ~
1500 o 300 6(X) 9:X) 1200 1500

0-0 (kPa)
Dense sand. Rough surface. Loose sand. Rough surface.
Figure 7. Study of the influence of the stiffness of the soil k on the unit skin friction
(Boulon et aL, 1986).
As in the case of piles, the mobilization of skin friction requires only a very small relative
displacement of the nail in relation to the soil, of the order of a few millimeters, as was
confirmed by the pull-out tests in the minicalibration chamber previously mentioned.
The mobilization of the local unit skin friction between soil and reinforcement can be validly
represented by a bilinear law of the Frank and Zhao type (1982), as shown by the comparison
between the theoretical and experimental pull-out curves for the tests carried out in the
Fountainbleau sand at the CEBTP (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, June 1988
and December 1989) (figure 8).
This law is represented in the plane ('1:, y) by a limiting value at qs and two straight lines
having slopes in the ratio of 1 to 5 that intersect at a co-ordinate equal to qJ2. Skin friction
can therefore be characterized by two parameters: k~, the slope of the first segment, and qs the
ultimate unit skin friction.
33
Figure 9 shows the stress-displacement experimental curves obtained in pull-out tests

conducted by loading increments, at the CEBTP in Fountainebleau sand (Deguillaume, 1991).
It can be observed that, for the same type of nail the displacement necessary to reach the
limiting value on the loading curve is all the greater as the nail is longer. This is due to the
deformation of the nail, which behaves as a rigid nail for the shorter lengths and as an
extensible nail for longer lengths.
These results are very similar to the results obtained, particularly by the LCPC, regarding the
friction along piles.
Tension load at the head of the nail

To (kN)
30 L=4m
Theoretical curve
2
{kJ3= 25 M Palm )7 Ex erimental curve
20 I~ 'l
q6 - - - - - - -
y
15
LJ kJ3/5 61 T
10 q..b 1 c;:=1--.
""2
FRANK and ZHAo'S LAW
y
O~----.-- __r----r---r---,-------.--.-------'--'----
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement at head (Yo) (mm)
Figure 8. Modelling of an experimental pull-out curve using the Frank and Zhao's law
(CEBTP, CLOUTERRE, 1988).
34
'l"o (kPo)
Average unit skin friction
80
L=2m L =3m
__-=-=~~---=--=~L=4 m
L=6m L =9m
60
40
20
Yo (mm)
6 8 12 14 16 18
2 4
Figure 9. Pull-out tests on prefabricated nails installed in a backfill: Average unit skin friction curves
versus displacement at head (Deguillaume, 1981).
2.1.3. Influence of the type of nail
Within the Project CLOUTERRE, a study was carried out to investigate the friction of several
types of nails placed in some Fontainebleau sand:
Driven bars (steel angle).

Tubes driven and grouted.
Bars grouted under gravity in predrilled boreholes.
Bars grouted under low pressure in predrilled boreholes.
Bars grouted under high pressure in predrilled boreholes.
Results (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, June 1988 and December 1989) have
shown that nails grouted under gravity presented a wide variability in the parameters k~ and
qs of the pull-out curve compared to the other types of nails. In particular, it seems the
smoother and more even the walls of the borehole, the lower the values of k~ and qs. This
seems to be due to the fact that drilling reduces normal stress to zero and because of that the
initial stress aD after installation of the nail is, very low. Besides, drilling irregularities cause
important effects of restrained dilatancy leading to high values of the increase of normal
stress L\a.
35
2.1.4. Correlations between parameters (k~, qs) and PI
During the Project CLOUTERRE, charts were developed for estimating qs (chapter 3,
appendix 1) as a function of the various types of nails mentioned in the previous paragraph
and as a function of main soil types (sand, gravel, clay, marl and weathered rock). These
charts are based on a database containing more than 450 pull-out tests on nails, obtained
from the various members participating in the project. Correlations obtained are different
from those obtained by the DTU 13.2, the SETRA 1985 and TA 86, but they are not
fundamentally different, as shown in figure 10. It is also possible to estimate the value of the
parameter k~ from the following formula, adapted from the work carried out by Frank:
k~
where R is the radius of the nail, EM the pressuremeter modulus, and m a factor, which
depends on the nature of the soil and which can vary from 1 to 5.
Figure 11 compares the values thus obtained with experimental values for different types of
nails.
NAIL GROUTED UNDER GRAVITY

FLOW IN SAND
0.25
0.20
- - - Clouterre 1991
- - - - DTU 13.2
0.15 - - - SETRA 1985
0.10
0.05
a
a 2 3 Pe (MPo )
Figure 10. Comparisons between the charts from CLOUTERRE, DTU 13.2, SETRA 1985,
developed to estimate the unit skin friction qs'
36
(kPa Imm)
400 ••• •
•
o
m. kJ3
et. 0
• Clays
o Sands
A Marl-limestone
100
50 (X) 150 2C()
~ ( kPa Imm)
Figure 11. Determination of the coefficient m giving the value of k p to be

used in the law (1:, y) (CEBTP, CLOUTERRE, 1989).
2.1.5. Influence of moisture content on skin friction
In a soil with frictional characteristics that, nevertheless contains a nonnegligible fraction of

fines, the short-term soil nail skin friction can be greatly influenced by the degree of
saturation Sr' Figure 12, which illustrates the influence of this parameter, is taken from
experiments carried out during studies performed by the Reinforced Earth Company; the
maximum pull-out force is divided by a factor greater than 2 when the moisture content is
increased from the optimum water content (Proctor) to the saturation moisture content. The
displacement corresponding to this maximum force is divided by 3.
In fine-grained soils (clay and silt), the degree of saturation is an essential parameter since, in
rapid shear of a saturated soil, the soil nail friction can be reduced to the undrained adhesion
(a fraction of the undrained cohesion).
37
To (kN)
Tension at head
Very clayey grovel
(34% of weight from particles smaller than 80p.m,PI=IS)
30
I Ribbed
. striP
.
Height of overlaying soil, Sm
20
L=2m
10
-L Satured
" --------- ---------------yo (m)
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Figure 12. Pull-out tests of a Reinforced Earth ribbed strip in a very clayey gravel.
Influence of the degree of saturation.
2.1.6. Mobilization of skin friction with deformation
It is the internal deformations of the soil nailed wall, and especially the horizontal extension,
that induce the mobilization of friction along the nails and the tension of the latter. These
wall deformations are due to the lateral decompression of the soil as excavation proceeds.
Figure 13-which relates to the first full-scale experimented soil nailed wall at the CEBTP-
shows that, in the case of a soil nailed wall in sand with a ratio of the length of the nails to
the height H of the wall (LIH) equal to 1.1, the extension zone is situated mainly at the front
of the nailed mass at a distance of 0 to 4 m from the facing. However, in the case of the soil
nailed wall built in a clayey soil (M4 wall; Vierzon-Bourges A 71 freeway; French National
Project CLOUTERRE; COFIROUTE-SOCASO-CEBTP, December 1989), horizontal extension
appears far more uniformly distributed within the soil nailed mass (figure 14).
38
8m ,/" Crocks at failure
1i-'--------=::...r·-- 4m
:-- / -
Z----;T"'----:1.;-- Shotcrete facing
At failure
End oi
e'J-co\Joflon
50 (rrm) 50 100 150 Displacement (mm)
Figure 13. Horizontal displacements in the first full-scale experimental soil nailed wall
at the CEBTP (CLOUTERRE, 1986).
Inclinometer Inclinometer Inclinometer

n03 n02 Facing
!
Depth (m) 0 (mm)
j o n ". . . . . . . .. " , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .. . . . .
5 10 15 20
2 E
0
<t
Il1
3
5 -,-
'" E
Figure 14. Horizontal displacements of the M4 soil nailed wall (clay soils) built at Viezon, monitored by
COFIROUTE, SACASO, CEBTP (CLOUTERRE, 1989).
39
2.2. Lateral earth pressure on the nail
2.2.1. Similarity with piles subjected to horizontal loading
The CEBTP experiment No.1 conducted within the Project CLOUTERRE clearly showed that,
in the vicinity of a failure surface due to breakage of the nails, a shear zone develops within
the soil nailed wall where soil deformations are concentrated (figure 15a). When the nails
have some bending, they are subjected to bending stiffness moment and shear forces in
addition to tension forces, in the same way as a pile loaded with a horizontal force and a
moment at the top (figure 15b).
In this case, the deformations of the nails are calculated like piles subjected to a lateral load
at the head by using the simplified method of the coefficient of subgrade reaction, which
leads to the solution of the equation:
EI o
coefficient of subgrade reaction,

lateral displacement of the nail,
coordinate along the nail,
lateral pressure on the nail,
diameter of the nail.
The solution of this equation introduces the notion of transfer length 10 given by:
I
o
= 4J k4EID
s
When the length L of the bar on either side of the shear zone exceeds 310 , the nail can be
considered as infinitely long and symmetrical with respect to the shear zone where the
bending moment is therefore nil.
The coefficient of subgrade reaction ks is generally calculated from the pressuremeter

modulus EM! the same way as for piles. The transfer length of the nails is usually in of the
order of 10 centimeters.
Generally, calculations in the elastic phase must be supplemented by a phase where the soil
plastifies. A lateral pressure reaction curve is used that comprises a linear elastic phase
corresponding to the coefficient of subgrade reaction ks and a plastic graduated step limited
by the ultimate lateral pressure Pu taken as being equal to the limit pressure PI or to the creep
pressure PI from the pressuremeter test.
40
In soft soil, the plastification of the soil limits the lateral pressure on the nails; in stiffer soils,
it is the plastification of the nail.
Water filled basin

5m __11~r,
__ ~~~~~_9_e_m-ft .-
Vem LEGEND
Observed
___ Line of maximum tension
o Point of zero moment
~ Zone of sheared soil
H=7m
27em
a. Failure of the CEBTP No.1 experimental soil nailed wall (1986).
b. Analogy with a pile loaded horizontally at its top (Schlosser, 1982).
Figure 15. Nails subjected to bending moment and shear force.
41
2.2.2. Shear tests on soil reinforced with rigid nails
Several experimental studies with a direct shear box or in situ tests on soil reinforced with
rigid vertical or inclined nails were carried out by, among others: Juran et al. (1981); Marchal
(1984); Plumelle (French National Project CLOUTERRE - CEBTP, June 1989); Delage et al.
(French National Project CLOUTERRE - CERMES, December 1989).
The results agree and show (figure 16) that, in addition to the friction angle of the soil, the
reinforced soil has an apparent cohesion c* due to the presence of the nails. The apparent
angle of friction <p* is smaller than the angle of friction <p of the soil since the nails prevent a
clear-cut failure plane from developing. As long as the confining pressure is not too high, the
presence of the nails improves the shear strength. However, the experimental value of the
apparent cohesion c' is generally higher than the theoretical value given by the formula:
'LTo
c *
S
a
32 0'"'---0 I(X)
Soil only .cr"" c' experimental
24 ,+.;
't' 0" " 8J
,/ Soil with bars
~........,..---=~:lI::-=--""" - -..I 16 ,,$1 ep*

1 40
1
I
I I E (%) E (%)
:..,. 7-0 ~-ro~"'7-r:-~
(../-/_-"-'........t. "" ~ ""'" ~~J-!~ o I 2 4 6 8 10 4 6 8 10
a. Juran et al. (1981).
42
2m
1,-, I Ii' I IC[
F --~">"" .... ".::. ,'.,': ~E

~.~.~. .' .~~~~ ~~ -~
{~'.~',:. ;);.~h~.~r·~;ane
T (kPa) 11-'-I--:-'-1+-:-~G;~utednails: borehole q, 63 mm
30
20
o With nails
tJ. Without nails
a-(kPa)
10 20 30
b. CLOUTERRE CEBTP (1988).
Figure 16. Direct shear tests on soil reinforced with vertical bars.
where To is the shear force in a bar on the shear plane and S the total cross section of
sheared bars.
This is explained by the fact that the presence of the nails significantly modifies the
distribution of the normal stress cr and of the tangential stress 't along the shear plane. Finite
elements studies showed how complex the behavior was (Juran et a1., 1981).
The tests carried out by the CEBTP within the framework of the Project CLOUTERRE, on an
in situ sand mass reinforced with grouted bars (see figure 16), have shown that stress-
deformation curves in shear tests with and without nails have the same initial modulus of
deformation and that the peak was reached for practically the same displacement value.
2.2.3. Influence of the direction of the nails on the mobilization of stresses
All experimental studies carried out, in particular those of Marchal (1984), show that the
direction of the nails with respect to the potential failure surface plays a role in the
mobilization of tension and shear (figure 17) and, more generally, in the overall shear
strength of the reinforced soi1.
43
Jewell (1980) did verify experimentally that optimum directions for the mobilization of
tension in flexible nails corresponded to the directions of maximum extension in
nonreinforced soil (that is to say, approximately 30° in relation to the normal at the shear
surface) (figure 18), as had been demonstrated theoretically by Basset et aL, (see paragraph I,
chapter 2). Therefore, for example, a marked inclination of the nails toward the bottom of a
vertically faced wall reduces the tensile forces mobilized in favor of the shear force and
bending, as shown by the results of theoretical finite element studies (Shaffie, 1986)
(figure 19).
3O-+------Q----,-------.-------,
20+----+-~------'~~-___t---__t
,..- ~"-20 30 40 50 60 70 80
"...L=-21° ~.~ (mm)
-IO+-----t-----::~--+----+-------i
... ----. Rigid bars

-30+-----7"t------1f---- 1.: angle of inclination of
the bars with respect
to the normal to the
failure sur face
Figure 17. Variations of the ratio between the tensile force and the shear force as a function
of the displacement on the failure surface (Marchal, 1984).
44
COMPRESSION
I \
EXTENSION COMPRESSION \ I
\
l-re = 0".. tang '('I + 6:( inclu. I

max
THEORY EFFICIENT - -
FLEXIBLE NAIL Jz~::6::::~=
•
-30 0 30 60 90 120
I__~I~NC::::L~T~",,~;.;;I~~I~;"'N,.;.I.:..:N .. I. INCLI~SIO"i I INEFFICIENT FLEXIBLE NAIL
COMPRESSION
Figure 18. Influence of the orientation of flexible nails on the tensions mobilized and the
increase of the shear stress at failure (Jewell, 1980).
2
Displacements: X 10
h;',:;,j Plostified soil
r-- -- ~ ~ --.~.-:~~~ -;.~- -.-:-::
• " • • .. ' .,~. A...... -.;.' : ....
". ,':::. ;F·:.. ,· ':.~ .,'.r

\ ' ..
: ~ ;.' ..... , ......:: ".;"- .~;'" <.'
SOIL NAILED WALL SOIL NAILED WALL

(Horizontal nails) (Nails inclined 30° to the horizontal)
Figure 19. Calculations using the finite elements method; influence of the inclination of the nails.
45
2.2.4. Mobilization of the tension, shear force, and bending moment
Concerning the mobilization of tension, shear force, and bending moment when a reinforced
soil is subjected to shear, theoretical studies using elasto-plasticity (Schlosser, 1982, 1983;
Blondeau et al., 1984), as well as experimental studies (Marchal, 1984), have pointed out the
following results:
1) In the shearing of a soil nailed mass, the failure of a nail can occur either by tension-shear
at the intersection with the failure plane, or by plastification at the points of maximum
bending moment, which are located outside the failure surface (figure 15). The material
that forms the nails being selected for its ductility (mild or semihard steel), plastification
at the points of maximum bending moment practically never corresponds to rupture of
the nails. It is followed by a phase of deformation where plastification is limited and can
be schematized by two plastic hinges in the nails, its lateral displacement being limited by
the mobilization of the lateral resistance of the soil p". During this mobilization, the nail
can break due to tension-shear at the point of maximum shear.
2) The soil-nail bond can also fail according to two modes corresponding to the two types of
interaction:
The shear stress can reach its limiting value qs' causing failure through lack of
adhesion.
The lateral pressure p, applied by the nail on the soil, can reach its limiting value Pu
causing the nails to cut into the soil (phenomenon similar to the "wire butter cutter"
effect).
3) Within the framework of an elasto-plastic calculation of the soil nail system, the study of
the mobilization and combination of the different criteria of the nail resistance and of the
soil nail interaction makes it possible to define the multicriteria rule. It enables the mode
of failure of the soil nail system to be determined. The principle consists of combining the
curves representative of the different criteria of the nail and of its interactions, in the
plane (Til, Tc ) corresponding to the point of zero bending moment (M = 0) of the nail,
that is to say, at the point of intersection of the nail with the potential failure surface.
It is convenient to use the nail's own resistance criterion, for which Anthoine (1987) proposed
the following simplified formula:
in which RIl , Rc and M o are the nail tensile, shear, and bending resistances respectively.
The failure of the nail through tension and pure shear (M = 0), which corresponds to the
limit behavior of a sheared nail along a joint in a rock, is represented by the equation of an
ellipse:
46
and the plastification of the nail at the point of maximum moment (Tc = 0) by the equation of
a parabola:
= a
where a is a constant equal to 3.12 and T,o is the shear force corresponding to the potential
failure surface.
The plastification of the nail corresponds to a soil nail lateral pressure, whose maximum
value on the potential failure surface is:
Po
The value of the soil bearing pressure Pll determines the type of failure that occurs and can be
characterized by the following expressions of the shear force on the potential failure surface:
Pll :::; Po
(failure by plastification of the soil before the nail)
Pll ~ Po
(failure by plastification of the soil with plastic hinges in the nail)
where band c are two coefficients equal to 1.62 and 0.24, respectively.
NOTE: In the case of a limit analysis calculation, where it is assumed that the soil is plastified
all along the nail between the two points of maximum moment, one obtains a different
formula that yields a multicriteria, which is very close numerically:
47
·flB
Failure due to lack of adhesion is expressed by the criterion:
The intersection of these different criteria gives, in the plane (Tn' Tc) corresponding to the
point of the nail on the potential failure surface, the multicriteria of figure 20. It enables the
respective values of Tc' Tn and M mobilized to be defined at failure of the nail by using a
generalization of the normality rule to the present case.
It is interesting to note that this multicriteria was established by considering that failure of
the soil by bearing pressure, in the lateral pressure interaction between nail and soil,
corresponds to the plastification of a first point in the soil. This is a very conservative
assumption and one can, in a more realistic way, consider that the soil is plastified over a
certain length of the nail.
INCLUSION
NORMAL FORCE INTERACTION
o Inclusion first in a
plastic state
Potential
failure surface
---- -- -. ~/
~ Stresses in the
inclusion I
....... I
" I
I
reD Skin friction
interaction
I
Tn
Figure 20. Representation of the various interaction mechanisms within the normal force (Tn)
and shear force (Tc ) plane; multicriteria approach (Schlosser, 1982).
48
Another approximation has been done by assuming that, in the phase of limited
plastification, the plastification of the nail was reduced to two fixed plastic hinges. This is an
optimistic assumption since in reality the sections that are the most loaded do not necessarily
plastify completely to develop two plastic hinges.
These theoretical and experimental results can be compared with observations on real
structures, but one must keep in mind that the stresses in a soil nailed wall are different from
and more complex than in a simple shear experiment with a shear box. During construction,
a lateral decompression of the soil occurs, which loads the nails preferentially in tension.
Shear really develops only near failure and locally within the soil mass, along the failure
surface; it is then possible to mobilize shear forces in the nails. This was observed in the soil
nailed wall of the first CEBTP experiment.
However, it must be pointed out that the shear forces thus mobilized remain small compared
to the tension forces and that they can be considered as negligible in the case of driven metal
nails (bars of small sections).
To best use the nails by having them loaded in tension and to limit the deformations in the
upper part of the wall, it is preferable to have nails that are placed as horizontally as possible
so as to reduce vertical displacements. This is illustrated in figure 19, taken from a theoretical
finite elements study.
3. BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURES
3.1. Distribution of tension in nails and line of maximum tension
Several full-scale experiments carried out before the Project CLOUTERRE had shown that the
distribution of tension along the nails in a soil nailed wall was fairly similar to that observed
and calculated with the finite elements method in Reinforced Earth walls.
In this case, the points of maximum tension in the nails divide the mass into an active zone
and a passive zone (see paragraph 2.1. chapter 2). Full-scale experiments, instrumentation of
in service structures, small-scale laboratory models and calculations carried out for the Project
CLOUTERRE made it possible to know more about this distribution.
Generally, the shape and the position of the line of maximum tension, which can be
considered as a potential failure surface, are very different from the Coulomb straight line.
This line is situated nearer the facing and is curved in shape with, at its head, a vertical part
at an approximate distance of 0.3 H from the facing (being the height of the wall), in the case
of a wall with a vertical facing and a soil with a horizontal surface (figure 21). However, the
inclination of the facing with respect to the vertical and the presence of a slope at the head of
the wall modify the position of the line of maximum tension.
49
b __
If the influence of the inclination of the nails has been the subject of detailed studies in the
Project CLOUTERRE (small-scale models, experiments, finite elements calculations), the
influence of the inclination of the facing remains to be studied.
As in Reinforced Earth, the ratio To/Tmax of the tension at the facing to the maximum tension,
always smaller than I, varies as a function of many parameters; a wide spacing of the nails
(horizontal spacing Sh and vertical spacing Sv ) and pronounced rigidity of the facing tend to
increase this ratio. Measurements carried out to now show that, under service conditions, the
value of this ratio appears smaller than in Reinforced Earth, with an average value of around
0.4 to 0.5 for identical spacing. This is explained by the lateral decompression of the soil
occurring during excavation phases before the installation of the nails in the construction of a
soil nailed wall.
3.2. Stresses in the soil of a soil nailed structure
It is possible to estimate the state of stress in the soil of a soil nailed wall, along the line of
maximum tension from the knowledge of the maximum tension Tmax' by considering the ratio
K defined by:
Tmax cos e
K
where: overburden pressure above the point of maximum tension,

vertical and horizontal spacings between nails,
inclination of the nails with respect to the horizontal.
This formula, valid in the case of a Reinforced Earth wall with vertical facing, consists of
comparing the maximum tension in the nails to the active earth pressure force that would be
exerted on the facing if the nails were eliminated but the same lateral displacements
maintained.
Experiments conducted on real structures, small-scale models, and finite elements

calculations show that the state of stress is near K o (coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest)
at the head of a soil nailed wall, while, at the bottom, it is lower than the coefficient of active
earth pressure K a (figure 22). This is explained, on the one hand, by the fact that the nails
strongly limit the displacements of the facing, on the other hand, by an arch effect. When
geometry makes it possible (L Yo H), an arch effect develops between the top of the wall and
its base, which is restrained. This tends to reduce the maximum tensions at the base (K < K a)
and to increase it at the head (K > K o)'
This decrease in coefficient K with depth, from K o to K a, is far more marked in soil nailed
walls than in Reinforced Earth walls. This is due to the construction method going from top
50
---",..
to bottom and from the successive construction stages that, once the top of the wall is built,
mobilize the arch effects between the top of the wall and its base.
=::::::::-<::::::::""_~_- PASS IV E ZONE
ACTIVE
ZONE
H=7m
a. CEBTP No.1, CLOUTERRE, 1986.
0.5 H
1--
"' FINE SAND

(4/: 30° to 36°)
ACTIVE ----+If-
ZONE
H=5.5m
S,/=0.7m
Sh =0.7m
b. Cartier and Gigan, 1983.
Figure 21. Behavior of a soil nailed wall: passive and active zones, maximum tension line.
51
3.3. Mobilization of the bending resistance of the nails
Nails, particularly grouted nails, have some bending resistance. To be mobilized, this
resistance requires concentrated and important deformations. Models and full-scale
experiments have shown that this bending resistance of the nails is only really mobilized in
the vicinity of failure when a surface or a zone of shear develops in the soil nailed wall. In
fact, as long as the deformations of a soil nailed wall remain small, that is to say, under
service state, the bending resistance of the nails is modestly mobilized.
In service state and in ordinary structures with subhorizontal nails, the maximum value of
the T c / Til ratio of shear to normal forces is negligible in the case of driven metal nails and
low to very low in the case of grouted nails. The highest values are reached at the top of the
wall, near the facing where bending is at its greatest, because of the construction method
(figure 23) of successive excavations from top to bottom.
But, when a shear zone develops near failure, bending becomes important, as shown in
figure 24, which illustrates the soil nailed wall in CEBTP experiment No.1. The average
bending angle of the nails is 20° for a transfer length [0 = 20 cm. Therefore, the bending
resistance of the nails is mobilized at ultimate limit states. The bending resistance of the nails,
when it is important, tends to orientate the tensions along the failure surface, which has a
beneficial effect on safety. This point is not generally taken into account in the design of
structures at the present time.
3.4. Deformations and displacements of a soil nailed wall
3.4.1. Internal deformations of walls under in-service stresses
The results of the various experiments and instrumentation program on real structures,
carried out during the French National Project CLOUTERRE (CEBTP 1, CEBTP 3, Vierzon,
Knutange, Aigueblanche, Macon) helped to define the orders of magnitude of extension and
distorted deformations to which a soil nailed wall is subjected.
As shown in figure 25, it is possible to consider that the average deformations of a soil nailed
wall with a horizontal surface can be estimated from the values of three displacement
parameters:
<>0 horizontal surface displacement behind the wall,

<>h horizontal displacement of the top of the facing,
<>v vertical displacement of the top of the facing.
In all instrumented structures, it seems that the horizontal displacement <>h at the head of the
facing is about equal to the vertical displacement <>v.
Displacement <>0 is generally comprised between 4H/10 000 and 5H/10 000; its value varies
inversely to the L/H ratio and also depends on the nature of the soil.
52
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 Tmax·cose 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Tmax .cose
K= 0 K=
y. H. Sy . Sh "-
"- , yH,Sy,S h
\ \ '\
\ 0 ....
2
\'
2
3
\
..... .....
r;r '"
.....
'" '"
~o
3
4
1
/ \
\
4 \ c5 I
5 : \
F/ \ 6 ? \
5 7 \K
i \ a
K
o
Depth Z
Depth Z \K a K
o
( m)
(m)
a. Experimentation on the wall of the A86 b. Experimental wall No. 1 at CEBTP

Freeway (Cartier and Gigan, 1983). (CLOUTERRE, 1986).
0 0.1 0.2 Tmax' cos e 05 Tmax ' cos e

0 K=
y.H. Sv,Sh K= y.H. Sv,Sh
0.2
1
2
0.4 I
Ko Ko
\\ 3
0.6
I
~
I 4
0.8
I
I
I
\K a
0 5
Z/H
0- Flexible nai Is
• -Rigid nails
c. Reduced scale models

~ Under bending
moments
Z/H
.-
0- Finite elements
CEBTP
d. Numerical models (finite elements)

(CERMES, CLOUTERRE, 1986). (CERMES, CLOUTERRE, 1988).
Figure 22. State of stresses in the soil in a soil nailed wall (comparison with Ko and Ka states).
53
0 0.1 0.2 Tmax cos e

0
yH Sh Sv
''Q.
0.2 ? ,,
/
/
,
o\ Tc max ~ e
:7
--- Tmax cos
0.4 '( T max
I
y H Sv Sh
t I
0.6 ? I
I
I
I
9 • Flexible nails ~ Under bending
I
I I
I
o Rigid nails moments
0.8 6 d
1.0
ZI H
Figure 23. Mobilization of bending resistance in reduced scale models of soil nailed
walls under working stresses (Juran et aI., 1985).
Bending strain
€(xI0- 3 )
7 "'S::""a-:-t-:-u-ra-:-t:7"io-n-:---G=-I-o":""b-a":""'-s-a":'"fe""":"t-y-'
2.5 phases factor
1. F = 1.10
2 t
7. F= 1.00 Failure
1.5 6 CEBTP 1, Clouterre
0.5
0
€1
Row nO? P"I
€ 1- €2
-0.5 Tube €= - 2 -
.....
t2
-I
L (m)
-1.5
0 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 24. Mobilization of the bending resistance of the nails near the failure surface
in the first full-scale experimental soil nailed wall (CEBTP, CLOUTERRE, 1986).
54
1-__ I
I --__ I
I
-- ---_ I
t-- -_ I
I ---- I
t- - __ -----
I ----
H t-- - ---- :
~. -------- I
,----__ I
1 --------
t------ - - - ---- 8h~8v(L/H)

rI __
- - --- -- ° 0 (L/H
L
.1
Figure 25. Schematic deformations of a soil nailed wall.
These displacements show that there is a slight distortion of the soil nailed mass. However, very few nail bending
measurements have been carried out on the nails. The results do not enable an order of magnitude of bending
mobilized in service to be given; it remains very small, in any case, for structures designed normally.
3.4.2. Displacements of the facing
Figure 26a shows a number of results of measurements of facing displacements, at the head
of in-service soil nailed walls, obtained in the framework of the Project CLOUTERRE.
Horizontal and vertical displacements at the head of the facing seem roughly equal. They are
comprised between H/l 000 and 4H/l 000/ H being the height of the soil nailed wall, as
shown in figure 26b.
More precisely, displacements at the head of the facing depend on the following parameters:
Rate of construction.
Height of excavation phases and spacing between nails.
Extensibility of nails.
Global safety factor of the wall.
L/H ratio.
Inclination of the nails and, in this case, their bending stiffness.
Bearing capacity of the foundation soils.
55
When the soil nailed wall has a low global safety factor, the values of ()o and of ()h tend to be
higher. For the soil nailed wall in CEBTP experiment No.1 from the Project CLOUTERRE, the
wall was designed near to failure (F = 1.1), displacement ()h had a value of 3H/1 000.
Generally, the wall tilts outward more when its H/L ratio is high. It is therefore normal that
the displacements of the facing vary in the opposite direction to the ratio LIH, as shown by
figure 26c which corresponds to the phases of the construction of the soil nailed wall of
CEBTP experiment No.1 of Project CLOUTERRE.
Furthermore, as mentioned in paragraph 2.2.3. of this chapter, a marked inclination of the

nails below the horizontal promotes the mobilization of bending moment and shear force to
the detriment of tension. As a result, larger displacements of the facing occur, as shown by
parametric studies using the finite elements method (figure 19). Note that, as regards the
mobilization of forces and moment in the nails, horizontal displacement ()v is related to
tension, while vertical displacement ()h has a stronger tendency to mobilize bending moments
in a way similar to the behavior of a pile loaded laterally at its head.
When a check is carried out to see if existing structures, in the vicinity of a soil nailed wall
designed and built according to the present recommendations, can resist the field of
displacements caused by the construction of the wall, the following state of the arts rules
should be taken into account:
Intermediate soils
(rocks) Sand Clay
'\ = ()h H/1000 2H/1000 4H/1000

K 0.8 1.25 1.5
Where K is used to determinate the length over which deformations are dampened:
A H (1 - tanll) K
Account must also be taken of the fact that the foundations of the wall can significantly
influence the displacements at the top of the wall.
3.4.3. Behavior of the wall during construction
During the construction of the wall, the mobilization of the tension in the nails occurs only
during the three to four subsequent excavation phases; then this tension stabilizes (figure 2).
This tension corresponds mainly to the lateral decompression of the soil and to the
development of successive arch effect as excavation progresses. It is all the more rapid as the
height of the excavation is greater. Note that the distribution of tension along the nails
evolves as the wall is being built. The To I Tmax ratio, near 1 at the beginning of tension,
56
reaches progressively much smaller values, as a function of the level of the layer considered,
going from 0.3 to 0.7 in the case of the soil nailed wall CETBP No.1 (figure 27). Those values
can be smaller for narrower spacing.
The displacements of the facing bJz and bv , small at the beginning of the construction,
increase more quickly than proportionally to the depth. This is due to the influence of the
L/H ratio, which decreases as the wall is being built (paragraph 3.4.2. of this chapter) (figure
26c).
/
~\ (mml / C E BTP wall,,1
20 all (H=7m)
/
/
/
/
15 /
/
/
///0....
/ " ' - VIERZON M4 wall
CEBTP wall#3 10 /
( H=6m 1 ~~_A / (H=5m 1

/
/
/
/
5 /
/
/
/
/ 0h (mml
o 5 10 15 20
8. Observed displacements on the top of the wall facings.
Horizontal displacement 8h
CEBTP wall..1 o Clouterre
at the top (mm 1
VIERZON M4
wall
X :H '000
(
3H / 'XXX)
1 H /1000
• Schlosser and Guilloux ,1982
° •
o.0oi'---- CEBTP wall'!*'3
Height of wall (ml
5 10 15 20 25
b. Horizontal displacements in soil nailed walls.
Figure 26. Displacements of the facings of soil nailed walls.
57
2.5
1.5
0.5
Heightofwall(ml Hj
o
2 3 4 5 6 7
c. Evolution of normalized displacements (Oh divided by H) of the wall

during the different stages of construction.
Figure 26. Displacements of the facings of soil nailed walls.
The local stability of the excavation phases is one of the very important points in the
construction of a soil nailed wall. Numerous studies have examined this point in Project
CLOUTERRE using full-scale experiments, centrifuge small-scale models, and numerical
modelling. The arch effect is the major phenomenon in the local stability of the excavation. It
requires good points of support at the level of the upper nails and at the base of the
excavation; furthermore, it is very sensitive to the displacements of these supports. Water
infiltrations and creep must be prevented by reducing the duration of excavation phases.
There exists a critical excavation height that must not be exceeded. If exceeded, the arch
effect is destroyed, thus causing a global failure with soil flow along the whole length of the
facing. If the nails are flexible, they generally resist this type of failure but the facing drops,
which requires a complete taking up operation. The critical height is mainly a function of the
nature of the soil; it is generally limited to 2 m only and experience enables it to be
determined.
When the nature and behavior of the soil lead to a critical height that is too small, the local
stability is improved by an arching effect in the horizontal direction by carrying out the
excavation in contiguous or alternative slots.
58
All observations and monitoring have shown that creep occurs in soil nailed walls after their
construction. This shows itself as a slight increase in displacements and additional tension in
the nails, especially those at the bottom of the wall.
4
Phase 7
5 Phase 6
Phase 5
6 Phase 4
Figure 27. Development of stresses in the nails during construction of a soil

nailed wall (CEBTP No.1, CLOUTERRE, 1986).
3.5. Behavior of the facing
Studies and instrumentation programs conducted for the Project CLOUTERRE did not permit
an accurate investigation into the behavior of wall facings. Generally, the facing is subjected
to tension To of the nails at the head and to earth pressure Po (z) between the nails. It behaves
more or less like a floor slab. It is necessary to know the values of the two parameters To and
Po for designing the facing.
4. TYPES OF FAILURE OF SOIL NAILED WALLS
A distinction is made between the internal failure of a soil nailed wall and the external
failure in which the wall behaves like a monolithic block.
4.1. Failure by breakage of the nails (internal failure)
Failure caused by breakage of the nails is the type of failure that has been the subject of most
studies by means of small-scale models and full-scale experiments pushed to failure.
59
The CEBTP experiment No.1, where the soil nailed wall was pushed to failure by saturation,
showed that in the vicinity of failure and around the line of maximum tension, a zone of
sheared soil develops where the nails are bent. The failure surface that develops in the soil is
very close to the line of maximum tension, which can, therefore, be considered as a potential
failure surface (figure 28).
H=7m
LEGEND
----- Maximum tension line
o Point of zero moment
~ Zone of sheared soil
Figure 28. Failure by breakage of the nails during the first full-scale experimental
soil nailed wall at CEBTP.
The bending resistance of the nails prevents the development of a clear-cut failure surface
like the one that can be observed in small-scale model tests using perfectly flexible nails.
With flexible nails, failure is sudden and without warning. The resistance to bending of the
nails allows greater deformations before failure; this forms a warning sign and allows more
progressive failure to take place.
This type of failure can occur in the cases listed below:
1) It may come from underdesigning the cross sections of nails.
2) It may be induced by corrosion of the steel bars in the nails. This type of failure has been
provoked on an experimental Reinforced Earth wall (Guilloux et Jailloux, 1979). The
observed failure was very sudden and corresponded exactly to the line of maximum
tension.
60
3) It may be produced by a surcharge on top of the wall, if the wall has not been designed
to resist it. This type of failure has been initiated in the experiment of a soil nailed wall in
Germany (Stocker et al., 1979). That failure was fairly sudden and the failure surface,
whose location on top of the wall was linked to the surcharge, corresponded well to the
maximum tension line.
4) It may be induced by saturation of the wall under the effects of water infiltrations (rain or
thaw). It is this procedure that was used for the soil nailed wall of the first experiment at
the CEBTP. The bending resistance of the bars prevented a complete failure at the
destruction of the structure.
5) It may be caused by the ice lenses in frost-susceptible soils. This phenomenon induces
tension in the nails next to the facing when the frost front forms within the soil. It was
observed recently on some soil nailed walls in the mountains and lead to some facing
damages. When the facing is very resistant, nails may break by tension and the wall may
fail with the facing being disconnected.
4.2. Failure by lack of adherence (internal failure)
This failure is more difficult to model in the laboratory and to provoke in a full- scale
structure. This is why it has been much less studied than the failure by breakage of the nails.
However, this type of failure is more frequent than the previous one in real structures and
results from a poor estimation of the unit skin friction of the nails and/or construction
mistakes. Two structures are known to have failed from inadequate adherence; one in service
structure, called "Eparris wall" in 1980, and the soil nailed wall of the experiment No.3 at the
CEBTP (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, December 1989).
The failure by lack of adherence is characterized by the fact that the nails do not have
sufficient length in the passive zone to be able to balance the maximum tensions. The nails
are then pulled out of the soil. Experience shows that this type of failure is not usually
sudden, except in some cases during construction, and that large deformations develop.
Figure 29 shows the profile of the displacements that developed during the failure of the
Eparris wall, which was constructed in a very clayey soil. In that case, it is the decrease of
the mechanical characteristics, and thus of the unit skin friction following heavy rains, that
was responsible for the failure.
61
Failure mecanism
CLAY
y = 20 kN/m 3
c'= 0
cP =28 0
4.3m
Soil unit skin friction: 15 kN 1m
130 kN
- - - 330kN
Figure 29. The deformed shape of the Eparris wall after failure.
In the CEBTP experiment No.3, failure was obtained by decreasing the length of the nails in
the passive zone using telescopic nails (figure 13, chapter 1).
This type of failure can occur:
In fine-grained soils under the effect of saturation or increase in moisture content.
During construction, if the length of the nails at the head of the wall is insufficient,
especially following an erroneous evaluation of the unit skin friction.
4.3. Failure during excavation phases
4.3.1. Failure due to excessive height of continuous excavation (internal failure)
During the construction of a wall, if the height of the excavation phase is too great, fairly
sudden failure can occur through local instability and propagation to the top of the walL In
this type of failure, the soil flows behind the facing due to successive elimination of the arch
effects.
62
The facing drops as one block until stopped by the foundation soil; the nails deform through
bending but may not break.
This type of failure and instability was the subject of a particular study in the Project
CLOUTERRE (see paragraph 3., chapter 1). It proved to be more frequent than the previous
ones. To prevent it, the excavation height must be kept lower than the critical height or
excavation in slots must be used.
4.3.2. Failure by piping of the soil (internal failure)
This type of failure is rather similar to the previous one in the mode of the failure. It differs
from it though by its cause, which is the existence of a pocket of water in the soil due to be
nailed. During excavation, pore water pressure in this pocket, together with the resulting
water flow forces, destroys the stability of the soil locally in the zone being excavated. Rapid
and regressive failures cause the soil to flow behind the facing. A sudden subsidence of the
facing occurs that can have repercussions on both sides of the pocket of water. This type of
failure is frequent and results either from the heterogeneity of the soil or from the lack of
drainage during construction.
4.4. External failure and mixed failure
The external failure of a soil nailed wall occurs generally by sliding along a failure surface,
affecting the whole structure and going through the foundations (figure 30b).
This type of failure is common to all retaining structures. External failure is due to either
poor quality foundation soils or to insufficient length of the nails resulting in global failure
that, in part, takes the form of sliding of the wall on its base.
Mixed failure relates to a failure surface both in the wall and outside the wall (figure 30c). It
combines both internal instability and external instability of the wall. Mixed failure is
generally due to nails being of insufficient length, associated with a defect in strength of the
nails or in the unit skin friction.
5. MIXED STRUCTURES
Mixed structures are retaining structures in which the reinforcement of in situ soil combines
the nailing technique and other retaining methods (prestressed anchors, bracing system).
In general, the aim of a mixed structure is to limit the lateral displacements of the structure
or to prevent instability problems from developing (blocking the displacements at the top of
the very high wall). Mixed structures are used as well to obtain higher excavation phases or
when confronted with problems of instability due to flow of water.
63
./
8. Internal failure.
b. External failure.
Fa i lure surface
Breakage
of the nails
c. Combination failure.
Figure 30. Different types of failure in a soil nailed wall.
64
5.1. Soil nailed wall with a row of prestressed anchors at the upper part
This is the most conventional mixed structure, the aim of which is to reduce the lateral
displacement of the nailed wall by blocking deformations at the top. Figure 31 shows some
examples of mixed structures already built.
It is important for the grouted anchorage zone of the prestressed ground anchors to be
separated from the soil nailed wall and placed behind the latter. An approximate rule
consists of placing the grouted anchorage beyond the most critical failure surface affecting
the whole of the structure, in particular when the aim is to prevent the occurrence of
disorders in existing neighboring structures.
5.2. Nailed Tervoile
Nailed Tervoile is a technique in which the wall is built in successive excavations, placing the
nails and the active ground anchors as work progresses. The facing is placed as excavation
progresses (figure 32) and comprises lengths of prefabricated posts, assembled as the work
progresses.
5.3. Nailed Berlin wall
This technique differs from the previous one by the installation of posts before excavation
(figure 33). Nailing makes it possible to increase the distance between the posts by reducing
the moments in the facing and the stresses in the posts.
65
L=6m
L= 6 m :::=--:!J.------I-------~----jl====_-L:7m
-} l=9m
L=4m
H=16.5m
~v:1!!ltt=:==~~
WEATHERED
SCHISTS r -_ _ L : \GrOund anchors
5m
L=19m
Grouted nails
a. The wall at Ferrieres (EDF, 1981).
FILL
. . __ Whaler
--=~--:..---:.-...:--,-_.:..--c.....7~:i beam
Ground anchor •
£,\.
X
H=21 m
CEMENTED
SAND
Shotcrete
b. The wall at Montpellier Opera (1985).
GROUND
ANCHORS
GROUTED NAilS
c. The wall at the north entrance of the Cotiere Tunnel (TGV Rhone-Alpes, 1990).
Figure 31. Different types of mixed structures.
66
Drainage
materials
Facing
Sections of
prefabricated posts
assembled in advance
Light facing
Figure 32. Sketch of a nailed Tervoile wall.
67
Reinforced shotcrete
facing
888
8 0 ~
~ Ia 8 la
~ 8 ~
~ ~ 8 kJ kJ
l!J ~
~ ~
-8 tJ
8 8
ta kJ
8 ~
8 8
Passive
nails
Figure 33. Sketch of a nailed Berlin wall.
68
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANTHOINE, A (1987). Stabilite d'une fouille renforcee par clouage, Proc. 4th Franco-Polish
Conference.
Stability of an excavation stabilized by nailing.
BASSETT, RH. and LAST, H.C. (1978). Reinforced Earth below footings and embankments,
Proc. ASCE Symp: Earth Reinforcement, Pittsburgh, 222-221.
BLONDEAU, F., CHRISTIANSEN, M., GUILLOUX, A, and SCHLOSSER, F. (1984). TALREN:

Methode de ca1cul des ouvrages en terre renforcee, Proc. Int. Conference. In Situ Soil and
Rock Reinforcement, Paris, 219-224.
TALREN: Design method of reinforced soil structures.
BOULON, M., PLYTAS, c., and FORAY, P. (1986). Comportement d'interface et prevision du
frottement lateral Ie long des pieux et des tirants d'ancrage, Revue Franc;aise de
Geotechnique, Vol.2, 31-48.
Interface behavior and prediction of skin friction along piles and ground anchorages.
CARTIER, G. and GIGAN, J.P. (1983). Experiments and observations on soil nailed structures,
Proc. 8th ECSMFE, Vol. 2, Helsinki, 473-476.
CSTB (1983). Travaux de fondations profondes pour Ie batiment. Document technique unifie
13-2 Sept. 83. Cahier 1877. Commentaires au cahier des charges de Juin 1978.
Deep foundations works for buildings, unified technical document. Commentary to bid documents.
DEGUILLAUME, J. (1981). Influence du dimensionnement et des modes de sollicitations sur

la capacite des tirants d'ancrage dans un sable fin. These de Docteur Ingenieur de
l'Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6 erne.
Influence on sizing and loading methods on the capacity of ground anchors in a fine sand.
FRANK, R and ZHAO, S.R (1982). Estimation par les parametres pressiometriques de
I'enfoncement sous charge axiale de pieux fores dans les sols fins. Bulletin de liaison des
laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees No.119, Ref.2712, pp. 17-24 et Journal of Southwestern
Jiaotong University, Sichmuan, No.1, 1983, pp. 1-10 (en Chinois).
Estimation through pressuremeter parameters of the settlement under load of drilled shafts in fine
soils.
GASNIER, Rand PLUMELLE, C. (1984). Etude experimentale en vraie grandeur de tirants

d'ancrage. Proc. Int. Conf: Renforcement en place des sols et des roches. Paris. Presses de
I'ENPC.
Full-scale experimental study of ground anchors.
GUILLOUX, A and SCHLOSSER, F. (1982). Soil nailing. Practical application. Symposium on

Soil and Rock improvement Techniques, Geotextiles, Reinforcement Earth, and Modern
Piling Methods. Bangkok, November/December.
69
JEWELL, RA. (1980). "Some Effects of Reinforcement on the Mechanical Behavior of Soils,"
Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. Cambridge University.
JURAN, 1., SCHLOSSER, F., LOUIS, c., KERNOA, M., and ECKMANN, B. (1981). "Soil
Reinforcing by Passive Bars," Proc. 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Stockholm.
JURAN, 1., SHAFFIE, S., and SCHLOSSER, F. (1985). Les soutenements par douage - Etude
sur modeles numeriques. Proc. 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco (3), pp. 1713-1716.
Support by nailing - study of numerical models.
JURAN, 1., BAUDRAND, G., FARRAG, K., and ELIAS, V. (1990). Kinematical limit analysis
for design of soil nailed structures. Journal of Geotech. Div., ASCE, vol.1l6, Janvier. 1990,
54-72.
MARCHAL, J. (1984). Reinforcement des sols par c1ouage. Etude experimentale en

laboratoire, Proc. Int. Conf. In Situ Soil and Rock Reinforcement, Paris, 275-278.
Reinforcement of soils by nailing - experimental study in the laboratory.
MARCHAL, J. (1986). "Clouage des sols. Etude experimentale en laboratoire de l'interaction

sol-dou." Bull. de liaison des laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees No. 143, Mai-Juin 1986.
Soil Nailing. Experimental Study in the laboratory of Soil-Nail Interaction.
PLUMELLE, C. (1979). Etude experimentale du comportement des tirants d'ancrage. These de

Docteur Ingenieur de l'Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6 erne.
Experimental study of the behavior of ground anchors.
BUREAU SECURITAS (1986). Recommendations concernant lei conception, Ie calcul

l'execution et Ie contrale des tirants d'ancrage (TA 86), Edition Eyrolles, 1986.
Recommendations concerning the conception, the design, the construction, and the testing of
prestressed ground anchors.
SETRA - LCPC (1985). Regles de justification des fondations sur pieux a partir des resultats
des essais pressiometriques. Ministere de l'Urbanisme du Logement et des transports.
SETRA et LCPC (Octobre 1985).
Rules for the justification of pile foundations from the results of pressuremeter tests.
SCHLOSSER, F. and ELIAS, V. (1978). Friction in Reinforced Earth, Proc. Symp: Earth
Reinforcement, ASCE, Pittsburgh, 735-763.
SCHLOSSER, F. (1982). Behaviour and design of soil nailing. Proc. Symp: Recent
Developments in Ground Improvement Techniques, Bangkok, 399-413.
70
SCHLOSSER, F. (1983). "Analogies et differences dans Ie comportement et Ie calcul des

Ouvrages de Soutenement en Terre Armee et par Clouage du Sol", Annales de l'Institut
Technique du Batiment et des Travaux Publics No.418.
Similarities and differences in the behavior and the design of retaining structures of Reinforced
Earth and by soil nailing.
SCHLOSSER, F., JACOBSEN, H., and JURAN, 1. (1983). Soil Reinforcement, General Report
for Speciality Session No.5, Proc. 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, Helsinki, 83-104.
SHAFIEE, S. (1986). Simulation numerique du comportement des sols doues. Interaction sol
renforcement et comportement de l' ouvrage. These de Doctorat de l'Ecole Nationale des
Ponts et Chaussees, Paris.
Numerical simulation of the behavior of soil nailing. Interaction soil nail and behavior of the
structure.
STOCKER, M.F., KORBER, G.W., GASSLER, G., and GUDEHUS, G. (1979). Soil nailing. Proc.
Int. Conference on Soil Reinforcement. (2), Paris, Presses de I'ENPC, 469-474.
71
72
C HAP T E R 3 _
CONCEPTION AND DESIGN
1. CONCEPTION OF STRUCTURES - CODE OF PRACTICE
1.1. Possibilities and limitations of the technique
The nailing of in situ soils is a technique largely developed for the construction of short-,
medium-, or long-term retaining structures in cuts (see chapter 1). This is because:
It readily adapts to site conditions, insofar as it does not need any preliminary
excavations beyond the facing of the structure; also, because of the lightness of the
equipment used, it is suitable for sites where access is difficult.
It is suitable for heterogeneous soils, insofar as the height of the excavations, the method
for introducing the inclusions, and their density can be fairly easily adapted to the type
and resistance of the soils encountered.
Because of its speed of construction, and particularly because the general excavation work
can be performed almost simultaneously with the various phases of construction of the
wall.
The main limitations to the use of the technique are caused by local environmental
constraints in the immediate vicinity of the structure itself, by special soil conditions to which
the technique is not suited, or because there is a water table present.
1.1.1. Constraints linked to the immediate environment
The actual behavior of a soil nailed retaining structure can induce displacements and
deformations that might be regarded as an obstacle to the use of the technique, particularly
in urban areas.
The upper part of the structure's facing moves both laterally and vertically, mostly during
the construction phases. These displacements are of the order of one to four thousandths of
the vertical height of the structure. However, the values of these displacements depend on a
number of factors, particularly the height of the wall, the angle to which the facing is sloped,
the density and stiffness of the nails, the quality of earth involved, and the conditions under
which the structure is being built (see chapter 2, paragraph 3.4.).
73
These displacements in turn affect the surface of any neighboring soil and decrease with the
distance from the facing. In practice, checks should be carried out to ensure that any
neighboring structures likely to be affected by these deformations will be able to tolerate
them without being damaged (see chapter 1, paragraph 2.4. and chapter 2, paragraph 3.4.2.).
Certain special design provisions, such as combining soil nailing with prestressed ground
anchors (mixed structures), or using head struts, will help reduce those displacements. One
should check that any lateral and vertical displacements are still compatible with the degree
of deformations that can be tolerated by existing structures.
It is also important to remember, however, for all structures, that legal easement needs to
extend beyond the facing, indeed as far as the furthest extremity of the inclusions (nails and
ground anchors) (see figure 1).
D 0
o 0
o 0
~
.
..~:-.--
. ., . I. "
c...::r- - -
. _
-
:
--i
. •
I:
I
__Permanent ---!i
easement I;
Figure 1. Illustration of permanent easement needed for soil nailed walls.
1.1.2. Special soil conditions
While nailing of in situ soils is a technique recognized as suitable in technical terms for most
soil types found, it is less suitable under certain conditions. This can be because of the way
the structure is being built or sometimes even by its design.
The technique does not generally adapt well in the following cases:
Where sands have no apparent cohesion and where the stability of the excavation cannot
be guaranteed, even though it might be limited in length and height. In more general
terms, using the technique on clean, granular, dry soils that have no apparent cohesion is
often difficult, even though it may prove possible to take certain precautionary measures
(pretreatment of soils by injection, excavation phases built to a lower height, etc.). The
cost advantages are quickly lost.
74
Chapter 3: Conception and Design
In very plastic, clayey soils and very sensitive soils, particularly where there is a relatively
low unit skin friction value between the soil and the inclusion.
In swelling clays or soils that are frost susceptible (Le., on sites where there is a high frost
index). In these cases, high forces could develop in the nails and the facing. It should be
noted, however, that in the case of frost susceptible soils certain provisions (the
introduction of some sort of protection along the length of the facing, for example) could
help limit or avoid in situ soils from freezing and avoid all the resulting consequences.
In soils known to be highly aggressive with respect to the materials from which the nails
and the facing are made, particularly where long-term structures are involved.
1.1.3. Water tables
The construction of a soil nailed wall under a water table should not be planned because
problems would be experienced both with the building process as well as with the design
(stability of the structure, water flows through the facing, etc.). The only exception is if the
site can first be properly drained to safeguard the structure against the action of the water
table both during its construction phase and during its service life. Generally speaking, such
a step will not prove either technically or economically viable except on low permeable soils.
The same problem, of course, is encountered with soil types containing small lenses or
pockets of granular soil filled with water. This can lead to instability that has grave
repercussions on the structure during and after construction.
1.2. Choice of the soil nailing technique
The techniques most commonly used for installing the nails are percussion or vibration of the
nail into the soil, or grouting the nails into a hole that has been premade, usually by drilling.
From the point of view of work involved, both techniques have advantages and drawbacks
(see chapter 4).
• Driving (mainly percussion) is particularly suitable for soft grounds containing no hard
obstacles or too many large blocks, and for lighter nails of average length, not exceeding
eight or so meters. For reasons linked to their installation, these nails must have some
stiffness; they are therefore made from bars having a fairly high mechanical efficiency
(steel angle, metallic tubes, etc.)
The use of driven reinforcement bars raises some technical difficulties when it comes to
protecting them against corrosion. Special care must be taken when they are used in either
medium- or long-term structures in aggressive soils (see chapter 6).
• With the drilling process, it is possible to use nails of any length and in practically any
type of soil. In fact, this is still the only technique possible for very long nails and in soils
where they cannot be driven.
75
If either one of these two techniques can be used, the choice as to which will be used, will, in
addition to economic criteria, depend on other technical factors, particularly on the type of
nail and any potential difficulty in using that nail (stability of the borehole walls, for
example), the efficiency of the nail in certain types of terrain (pull-out resistance), and the
height of the excavation passes that can be made (see chapter 5). Therefore, in granular soils
of loose to medium density, and with a small apparent cohesion, driven nails will be the
better option (for the reasons given above).
1.3. General geometric layout
1.3.1. Facing-elevation and layout plan
In practice the maximum height of a retaining structure that it is possible to construct using
in situ soil nailing remains limited by environmental or economic as opposed to operational
constraints.
To date, retaining structures up to 28 meters high have been built.
On urban sites, and for reasons clearly linked to the amount of space taken up by the works,
structures are generally designed with vertical facings (figure 2a). In this sort of situation, a
short-to-medium-term structure will most often be found to be economical, even though
more and more frequently the facing is designed to be integrated in the long-term structure.
Whether for a short-, medium-, or long-term structure, it is recommended that every effort be
made to provide the facing with a sloping surface (figure 2b). This will appreciably improve
stability, both during construction and during the structure's service life.
Again, for both short-, medium-, or long-term structures, and particularly where these are
built to a considerable height, a stepped or terraced arrangement is generally found to be
best, both technically and aesthetically (figure 2c). It also goes some way toward alleviating
the problem of drainage and offers the possibility of easy access to the different parts of the
structure. This can prove extremely useful when it comes to maintenance or monitoring of
the structure, or if any subsequent work needs to be done on it.
a. Vertical facing
76
Batter 7] ", '

~~~~'
.. r-_,-- . _ . } Drains
-------,-- '" Drain

-_.-.
b. Sloping facing c. Stair step arrangement
Figure 2. Geometric layouts of facing.
As a general rule, the nails are laid in rows, slightly inclined to the horizontal. As a result,
any layout being planned for the structure is essentially limited by the possibilities for
installing the nails. In particular, the area needed for the equipment available for reentrant
angles and the risk of nails intersecting with one another or with a neighboring area of the
facing in the case of salient angles. With the exception of certain special cases, where
technical solutions can generally be found (for example, local use of struts for sharp reflex
angles on a temporary wall). In practice it is possible to design structures that have a curved
or broken line arrangement (figure 3).
•
• •
--------:-
•
•
•
•
.
• • •
Figure 3. Perspective view of a soil nailed wall.
77
1.3.2. Length, layout, and angle of installation of the nails
The choice as to the length, angle of installation, and layout of the nails depends on a
number of factors-in particular on the height of the facing and the angle at which it slopes,
the type of nail used (drilled or grouted in a borehole), the quality or the nails involved (on
which will depend the soil/nail unit skin friction), and any environmental constraints that
might need to be borne in mind.
As a general rule, for a structure with a vertical facing, the average length of the nails is
about:
0.5 to 0.7 H (H = total height of structure) for driven nails (driven into the soil using the
percussive method or vibro-driven), at close centers (approximately one or two nails per
square meter).
0.8 to 1.2 H (H = total height of structure) for nails grouted in borehole, laid out in the
ratio of about one nail per 2.5 to 6 m 2 of facing.
Generally speaking, for anything above one nail per 6 m 2 of facing, it should be pointed out
that the soil/nails, when taken together, will no longer behave like a "reinforced soil"
material or be sufficiently homogenous with the scale of the structure to satisfy the rules of
calculation contained in these recommendations.
It should be noted that while the use of driven nails leads in principle to a total length of
nails that is greater than those for nails installed by drilling, it also allows facings that are
thinner and less reinforced. In any case, the choice as to one or the other of these two types
of nails is in practice largely conditioned by other considerations (see paragraph 1.6.2.).
Designing nails of the same length along the whole height of the structure is an usual
measure and often the most practical, particularly when it comes to the question of supply
and the actual carrying out the work. Moreover, all things being equal, with this solution it is
often possible to minimize the easement of the structure (figure 4a).
0 ® (0
~h ~h ~h
I I
I '" I
I
I \
\ \
I I
\
I
I
I
I
Lengths more of less Lengths decreasing Lengths increasing with

constant with depth depth (not recommended)
Figure 4. Examples of nail distribution in a soil nailed wall.
78
It is, however, possible to design a different layout for the nails in special situations to
respond to certain environmental constraints. Thus, the introduction of longer nails into the
upper part might be found to work well for very tall structures (figure 4b). This also allows
lateral displacement to be slightly reduced at the head of the structure. On the other hand, an
inverse distribution (length of nails increasing with depth) is not suitable and, generally
speaking, is not advised (figure 4c).
The nails are laid out in rows. They are distributed (in terms of density) over the full height
of the structure in order to respond to certain criteria relating to stability or setting.
Nails laid out in the upper part of the structure contribute more toward reducing tilting and,
in general terms, to any lateral displacement at the head of the facing. Those installed lower
down are more efficient in relation to failure as a result of any sliding movement taking
place at the base of the structure. This is because of their orientation in relation to the
potential failure surfaces and their greater anchorage length beyond these failure surfaces
(provided that the nail/facing connection offers sufficient resistance).
It is possible to vary the "distribution" of the nails by modifying their unit capacity (length,
section) or the vertical spacing Sv and the horizontal spacing Sh between the nails.
Choosing among these different possibilities generally comes down to what is practical in
terms of the type of nail and whether there are any existing underground structures present
(utilities, foundations for structures, etc.), as well as, to some extent, the views of the
company charged with undertaking the work.
At the preliminary design phase of the structure (see paragraph 1.6), and unless one is able
to draw on specific experience, the usual choice is a uniform distribution of the nails.
For installation reasons, the nails are slightly inclined downward from the horizontal.
However, the nails are more efficient at controlling lateral displacements of the structure,
when there is no inclination. In principle, then, one should seek to use the lowest degree of
inclination compatible with the proper installation of the bars. While this inclination can
depend on the technology available and the working conditions under which the nails will
have to function, as well as on the type and quality of soils in which they are to be
introduced, in practice current technologies use an angle of inclination of 50 to 15 0.
For obvious practical reasons, and insofar as this is possible, it is preferable to make all the
nails inclined at the same angle. Different layouts can, however, be justified in certain special
and localized cases; for example, if it is known that some obstacle exists (part of the
foundations for an existing building, pipes and cables, etc.), a nonuniform layout may be
required.
79
1.4. Construction provisions
1.4.1. Protection against entry of water
It is vital that structures be fully protected against the water ingression, which can result in
loads being put on the facing causing it to split or rupture. It could also bring about a rapid
reduction in its structure resistance (through the speeding up of corrosion of the reinforcing
bars, especially when the water contains aggressive substances). Its appearance maybe
spoiled (water staining, cracking, etc.).
Even when the ground is not the site of a true water table as such (a situation where,
generally speaking, soil nailing is not suitable), there may still be some water entry from, for
example, infiltration by surface waters, from random underground flow paths, the presence
of pockets of water, or even accidentally damaged pipes.
In order to protect the structures against the effects of such water entry, some provisions for
drainage must be taken. In order to avoid or limit the infiltration of surface waters into the
soil, steps must be taken to catch the water and channel it away.
• Protection against groundwaters (figure 5a)
Drainage measures can be provided in several ways. One can use subhorizontal drains,
usually comprising of perforated filter tubes installed either by drilling or tamping. Such a
layout is recommended for medium- to long-term structures, particularly when the surface of
any surrounding ground has no proper system to protect it against the infiltration of surface
water flows, or even so that any pockets of water known to exist or found during the
construction process can be "discharged." The minimum density of these drains will be about
one for every 50 m 2 of facing.
In all cases, small weepholes must be provided, perhaps linked to the drainage complex
located at the back of the facing before these are concreted over (porous slab, half shells,
geotextile composites). These should be laid out in a regular formation with a density of at
least one for every 10 m 2 of facing.
• Protection against surface waters (figure 5b)
Protection against the infiltration of surface waters running into the soil and along the length
of the structure's facing must be taken care of by the installation of devices for collecting and
channelling away such water. These should be easy to get to and maintain and, wherever
possible, the surface of any surrounding ground should be made impervious to water.
When the ground supports a roadway, however, the structure can be protected by making
the roadway as impervious as possible and designing watertight ditches or conduits for
collecting the water and channelling it away, beyond the zones involved. Where this can be
done, it is useful to make the surface slope gently away from the face so that the ditches or
conduits and the drainage network can be installed at a sufficient distance from the facing
and beyond the roadway.
80
system
Drain
Drains
Weephole
~.L _
a. Protection against groundwaters.
membrane
Weephole
-u-f-' Drainage system
b. Protection against surface waters.
Figure 5. Drain layout.
If the structure is supporting a slope, then planting its surface, at least near the wall facing,
could afford a degree of protection against water.
The same is true of short-term structures, although, generally speaking, simpler short-term
solutions can be found.
1.4.2. Embedment of facing toe
Often, for reasons of stability, and to avoid the pressure under the facing exceeding the
bearing capacity of the underlying soil, it will be necessary to provide a toe to the facing
below the level of the excavation. This construction detail is good also to prevent fines from
being carried away by any potential water flow in front of a facing that has been badly
"closed off" so as to keep the soil confined behind the facing (figure 6).
81
• Loose ground
f ~0.40m
min
Poor "closing off " • Rocky foundations
of facing ~ f
min
~ O.20m
\\~,?\\,"~,'t /
' ........ ~
~
Figure 6. Embedment of the facing at the toe of the wall.
The embedment of the toe will depend primarily on the soil properties and the geometry of
the facing (height, slope). With medium- to long-term structures, it should never be less than
0.20 meters for rocky soil, and 0.41 meters or H120, whichever is the higher value, in a soil.
Normally this requirement will be easily met, for example, by the thickness of the pavement
section where a road is constructed.
1.4.3. Aesthetics of the structures
Appearance is an important consideration for medium- to long-term structures. Architectural

design will take into consideration the geometry of the cross section (to what angle should
the facing wall slope, should it be stepped or terraced, etc.) and the way in which the facing
walls are treated. Obviously, one will be looking to hide the heads of the nails in the concrete
of the facing. This may result in the facings being thickened, especially around the heads of
the nails where they need to be properly covered to prevent the concrete from cracking. One
option for improving the aesthetics of the facing might be, for example, to cover it with
prefabricated or cast-in-place architectural panels. These elements may also be part of the
final structure. In this case, one must design for the loads in the temporary facing to be
transferred to the final facing.
It should also be pointed out, however, that the final appearance of the structure still relies
on how well it has been conceived with an understanding of the building techniques
involved and the care with which it has been erected.
1.5. Mixed structures
Walls that are only anchored by prestressed ground anchors or that use only struts fall
beyond the scope of this document. It only deals with soil nailed structures which have, at a
82
maximum, two layers of prestressed ground anchors or two rows of struts in their upper
part. Such structures are referred to as "mixed structures."
These prestressed ground anchors or struts at the top are used to limit the deformations of
the soil nailed mass when sensitive structures have already been built nearby (see chapter 1,
paragraph 2.4. and chapter 2, paragraph 3.4.2.).
1) When designing mixed structures, prestressed ground anchors must have enough total
length so that the anchored length is beyond the soil nailed zone. It is, in fact, most
important that the anchored length be located in an area sufficiently well behind the soil
nailed mass so as to be able to regard it as "fixed" in relation to a soil nailed wall, as
these anchors are being installed to limit displacement.
2) Furthermore, one must ensure that the most critical potential failure surface of any mixed
structure does not intersect the anchor zone and is kept at a sufficient distance from it
(figure 7).
Most critical potential

failure surface
Figure 7. Layout of ground anchors in mixed structures.
It should be noted that, unlike nails, prestressed ground anchors can carry only constant
tensile forces along their free length.
In order to design the soil nailed wall, the recommendations given in paragraph 3 of this
chapter will be applied.
For prestressed ground anchors, refer to the Recommandations TA 86 on design, calculation,

construction, and inspection of ground anchors.
When using struts and when calculating with limit equilibrium methods, the possibility of
buckling must be checked using the compressive elastic limit of the struts.
83
1.6. Preliminary design
1.6.1. Objectives of preliminary design
A preliminary design is needed for a soil nailed wall in the same way as it would be for any
other civil engineering structure or any part of a structure, for example, like the foundations.
A preliminary design is useful at the pilot planning stage, or when alternatives are being
considered, it also enables the feasibility of a soil nailed wall to be assessed and calculated
sufficiently accurately so the cost involved can be estimated.
As will be discussed in this chapter, the methods used for justifying soil nailed retaining
structures are in practice the methods used to analyze a structure's internal and external
stability when the geometry, resistance values, and layout of the nails have been determined
in advance. They do not help us to calculate the in-service forces in the various rows of nails.
Thus, the designer must take advantage of some simple preliminary designs that will enable
him to later define the essential characteristics, such as resistance values, lengths, and
spacings required by the final design.
These preliminary design rules are based on experience gained during the construction of
such structures and from parametric studies carried out using the limit equilibrium methods
presented in this chapter. In particular, they rely on charts based on results calculated with
these limit equilibrium methods.
Depending on the given soil conditions, the design of the structure and therefore its
preliminary design will depend mainly on:
The soil nailing technology used.

The level of deformations acceptable for the structures surrounding the excavation.
This second factor is only taken into account on a global basis by verifying that the
anticipated level of deformation is compatible with the existing structures.
At the design stage, the use of nails longer at the top will allow the lateral displacements to
be slightly reduced. If these displacements are still too high, other prestressed ground
anchors or struts at the top can be used.
Preliminary design is only a first step in any project involving soil nailed walls. Whatever the
method used for working out this preliminary design, the final structure must conform with
the calculation methods presented in paragraph 3.2 of this chapter. The only exception is the
so-called "simple" structure, which falls within the "standard" category (see chapter 6,
paragraph 2) and is characterized by the following features: homogeneous soil (no water
present), height less than 5 meters, no surcharge, no prestressed ground anchors used,
geometry of structure and nails conform with charts, no existing structures that could be
affected if the wall were to fail, and external stability checked by other means.
84
1.6.2. Influence of the technology involved and influence of the geometric parameters
The majority of soil nailed retaining structures constructed in France relate to two distinct
technologies (see chapter 2, paragraph 1): .
The method of Hurpin with nails driven into the ground on close spacing (Sv and Sh ::; 1 m).
Widely spaced grouted nails (1 m 2 ::; Sv . Sh ::; 6 m 2 ).
With the first method, the nails are relatively short (length of about 0.5 to 0.7 times the
height of the wall). These are driven into the ground at close spacing and generally comprise
reinforcing bars, which are driven using either percussion or vibratory methods.
With the second method, which uses widely spaced nails, the nails are generally longer (L =
0.8 to 1.2 H when supporting level ground, up to L = 1.6 H for structures that have a slope at
their head) and involve nails being grouted into the soil.
The choice as to which technology to use is therefore a vital factor at the design stage, since
to a large degree it will affect the structure's geometry.
As can be seen from table I, the method of Hurpin results in a longer total nail length. This
higher density makes it possible to use thinner facings with less steel reinforcing mesh.
TABLE I. Order of magnitude of the main characteristic dimensions of soil nailed walls in
the case of a vertical facing with a horizontal earth platform.
Nails at close centers Widely spaced nails

(method of Hurpin*) method**
Length of nails 0.5 to 0.7 H 0.8 to 1.2 H
No. of nails per m 2 of

facing 1 to 2 0.15 to 0.4
Perimeter of nail 150 to 200 mm 200 to 600 mm
Tensile strength of
reinforcing bar (nail) 120 to 200 kN 100 to 600 kN
Density of nailing
(paragraph 1.6.3) 0.4 to 1.5 0.13 to 0.6
driven or vibro-drilled reinforcing bars, small diameter grouted reinforcing bars
** large diameter reinforcing bars grouted into the soil
The most important geometric parameters relating to the stability of the mass are:
- The length (L) of the nails.
85
Their angle of installation (8).

The batter (11) of the facing.
The angle (/3) of the slope with respect to horizontal, above the soil nailed mass.
For a same factor of safety for stability, it is possible to vary these parameters at the
preliminary design level. Figure 8 shows the weight of the parameters e and 11 on the total
length (I.L) of nails per meter length of wall. The calculations are for a soil with no long-term
cohesion and for a soil nailed wall, in which the nails work only in tension (with same
length, same section, same angle of installation, and same resistance) and having a normal
stability (overall safety factor F = 1.5) using the standard definition. The results are as
follows.
The angle 8 of the nails is generally of limited influence. When working out preliminary
designs one can disregard the influence of the angle of installation within the interval:
0::; 8 ::; 20°.
With a change in the batter of the facing it is possible to gain 10 percent on the total
length of the nails when the tan 11 value changes from tan 11 = 0 to tan 11 = 0.2. Where a
soil has some cohesion, the influence is even greater and, all other things being equal,
approximately 30 percent can be gained with a cohesion of 20 kPa.
The angle ~, as measured from the horizontal of the slope above the mass of reinforced
soil, is the parameter that has the greatest influence. A slope of tan ~ equal to 0.2
increases the total length of the bars by nearly 20 percent, and a slope of tan ~ equal to
0.4 results in an increase of 55 percent.
1.6.3. Nailing density parameter
For a soil nailed wall in an homogeneous soil with identical nails (same length, same section
and same orientation) arranged in a uniform way, it is useful to introduce the following non-
dimensional parameter, the so-called "reinforcement density":
whereby TR = min (Tc , TL ) is the ultimate tensile force that can be mobilized at the head of
the nail, Sh Sv are the vertical and horizontal spacings between the nails and L represents the
length of the nails.
This parameter thus represents the maximum tensile force in a nail as it relates to the weight
of the soil reinforced with the grid spacing chosen. It can therefore be used to characterize
the density of reinforcement for any part of the facing of any soil nailed wall, particularly
where nails with different resistances are used.
86
y= 20kN/m3
c'= 0
a (m/ml)
y>' =30°
100 T L /L=40kN/ml
F=1.5
80
60 +---1----I---f--+---+--t-
....
-- .....=!==~~~--j-
40 +--f=-'j'-...:::-:..::-~
20 -I---1----I---f--+---+--t--+
~+-10--+---0l----I---+-110f-----1---+-12-0----4-8
(degree)
-\
a 8=lo2J- ---'
(m/ml)
--- --
60 I-- -
- -
-L
40
--- 1'------- t- ______
... ------
20
o
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 tan 7)
L:L{m/ml}
/3
8=10 0 I
I
I
80 I
,-
60 ".'"
40
-- --- '"
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 tan /3
-- .... -- Calculations for nails of constant length (Sv variable I L=9.15m)

-0- Calculations with constant horizontal nail spacing Sh
(Lvariable I Sh=1.5m)
Figure 8. Influence of parameters e, U, ~ on the total length of the nails.
87
More precisely, one can distinguish between the maximum tensile strength T G of the nail,
which can be mobilized when the reinforcing bar fails, and the maximum force that can be
mobilized at the head of the nail T L ' which results from the soil/nail skin friction. With the
help of the latter, one can define a new nondimensional parameter, d, which is characteristic
of the soil/nail skin friction (Gigan, 1987). In order to distinguish it from the former, it is
referred to as "nailing density."
The ratio TJL represents the friction force t per meter of nail. The interesting point of
defining the nailing density d consists of not having to consider the tensile resistance T G of
the bar.
1.6.4. Preliminary design charts
The preliminary design phase of a soil nailed wall seeks to define in approximate terms, the
lengths, spacings, and resistance values of the nails in order to ensure both the internal and
the external stability of the structure.
At this stage, except in special cases, one will be looking only at walls in which all the nails
are identical and evenly distributed. One will also assume the soil to be homogeneous. The
wall to be designed is, then, characterized by a uniform reinforcement density X or nailing
density d.
At this stage calculations can also be made based on pure tension, Le., by assuming that,
whatever the angle of incidence on the potential failure surface, the nails are only working in
tension and their bending stiffness can be neglected.
Based on limit equilibrium methods, several charts have been published, the most important
being those by Gigan (1986) and Juran (1990). Only the Gigan data will be looked at here.
Gigan's work was developed on the basis of a calculation program that uses the classic
method of vertical slices with circular potential failure surfaces. Any bending in the nails was
disregarded. The resistant cross sections of the reinforcing nails were determined in such a
way that the tensile strength of nails T G is always greater than the pull-out resistance T L of
the nail, calculated for the total length of the nail. The use of this conservative rule can be
justified for preliminary design and sometimes has the advantage of considerably simplifying
the analysis of the stability of soil nailed walls. In fact, in this case, the only failure criterion
to be considered is failure by pull-out of the nails.
The charts proposed by Gigan are based on a system of coordinates (tan <1>, N = e/y If) where
H is the height of the soil nailed wall, and which characterizes the shear resistance of the soil
in question - assumed to be homogeneous. Here one finds isovalue curves for the nailing
88
density d corresponding to the stability limit of the wall. Each chart is presented for one
determined L I H value.
Figure 9 shows examples of this type of diagram and how they are used. Having located the
joint M (tan <p, ely H), one finds point A, corresponding to the overall safety factor F, which is
generally sought (in this case the coefficient F will be the same for internal stability with
respect to failure by pull-out as for the external stability - or both - studied by potential
failure circles). Bearing in mind the definition used for the safety factor (Tmax = elF + a tan
cpIF), point A is where OMIOA = F, and the corresponding nailing density is determined by
the isovalue curve d passing through point A.
Let us look, for example, at the case of a soil nailed wall whose height H = 10 meters and
where the soil has the following geotechnical characteristics: y = 20 kNlm 3, cp = 35°, e = 20 kPa.
If the value chosen for L I His 0.8, then by interpolation, one finds a nailing density d = 0.33
for F = 1.5 one finds:
d 0.3
which yields
52,8 kPa
If the nails have been grouted, one can use Sh = Sv = 1.5 meters, which results in a value of
TL = 118.8 kN with Tc ~ TL •
It should be noted that these diagrams have only been developed for an angle of installation
of the nails of i = 20°, where the influence of any variation in i was considered negligible,
and which involved only simple geometries (vertical facing, horizontal soil at the head,
rectangular or trapezoidal section of wall).
The full set of charts is included in appendix 2 of this chapter.
These charts are simple and quick to use. In this respect they are well-suited for preliminary
design requirements, but their results are fairly conservative with regard to the assumptions
on both the tensile strength and the pull-out resistance of the nails, especially in the case of
nails made with grouted bars.
89
N=£
yH 0.3r-----;::=====;;;====;----li--~~~-::---1
T, I L / H = 0.6
I d= Y~\V L . L
-j
O.II-~\---\.---\~~~-~-+----=~;;;:::--------j
°0 2
ton f
N=_c_ 0.3 .-------------,------------~
YH L/H = 0.8
I F= OM
OA
I
I 2
tan If'
Figure 9. Examples of charts for preliminary design (Gigan, 1986).
90
2. PRINCIPLES USED WHEN CALCULATING THE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
In accordance with the evolution of current French regulations for designing Civil
Engineering structures, these recommendations are presented in the spirit of "limit state
design," as defined in circular 79.25, dated 13 March 1979, relating to the design of
constructions (Directives Communes, 1979). They therefore conform with the spirit of other
European regulations now in preparation (Eurocodes and European Standards). It should be
noted that within this framework, the global safety factor corresponding to the traditional
method is replaced by partial safety factors (resistance factors and load factors). With these
partial safety factors, it is possible to share the margin of safety among the different
parameters (resistances and loads) used in the analysis of stability.
Current Civil Engineering regulations distinguish between:
Ultimate limit state (ULS) design that the objective of checking that the probability of
collapse of the structure is acceptable.
Serviceability limit state (SLS) design that may seek to ensure:
• That the probability of not exceeding a threshold deformation considered to be critical

is acceptable.
• That the stresses applied to any materials used are such that they are likely to stay
below thresholds above which durability could be compromised.
The strict application of all these principles, Le., both ultimate and serviceability limit states
to soil nailed structures, is not possible given our present knowledge. The aim of this section
of chapter 3 is to outline and justify ways of adapting these principles to the design of soil
nailed structures. The design is limited to ultimate limit state stability calculations.
2.1. Analysis of stability
Stability of a soil nailed wall could be analyzed either by calculating the deformations or by
using limit equilibrium analysis.
2.1.1. Calculations of deformations
This type of calculation, which is usually done by using the finite elements method, cannot,
given our present knowledge, be used to study the stability and design of soil nailed
structures. It has been the subject of research, in particular within the framework of the
French Project CLOUTERRE, and developments are proceeding with a focus on the practical
implementation of such a method.
91
2.1.2. Limit equilibrium methods
Limit equilibrium methods examine the equilibrium of a volume of soil at failure by taking
into account the strength of any materials used. They analyze the structure's internal and
external stability by verifying the static equilibrium of a part of the system limited by a
potential failure surface. Stability is defined in relation to the most critical potential failure
surface. These methods do not allow us to calculate how forces are shared between the
different nail rows when the structure is in service. Thus, the positions of nails cannot be
optimized to limit the deformations of the wall and prevent any risk of progressive failure by
breakage of nails one after another.
Two types of methods can be highlighted.
1) What we shall refer to as "classical" limit equilibrium methods, Le., verifying the
equilibrium of a part of the soil mass limited by a potential failure surface and subjected
to external forces, and any stresses or forces mobilized respectively in the soil and nails.
The latter are determined based on the failure criteria of the materials used together with
several assumptions. Classical methods of slices (Fellenius, Bishop) or the perturbation
method (Raulin et al., 1974) are examples here. These methods have the advantage of
having been widely used for many years in non-reinforced soils where they have been
well-calibrated against real measurements. For the last 10 years or so, these methods have
also been applied to reinforced structures (Reinforced Earth, soil nailed walls). With these
methods, one can analyze stability along internal, mixed, and external failure surfaces and
also failure surfaces around the whole structure.
2) The methods based on limit analysis and more recently yield design theory (Salenc;on,
1983), in particular the kinematic approach, study the static equilibrium of one part of the
system limited by a potential failure surface. This part is subjected to the effects of
external forces, to the resistance stresses that can be mobilized in the soil, and the nails
along the potential failure surface, according to the failure criteria of the materials
involved. These methods, while mechanically more rigorous than classical limit
equilibrium methods because they do not need any additional assumptions, are still not
yet sufficiently well-proven under actual conditions. Furthermore, to date, they have only
been developed for simple cases of soil nailing with homogeneous soil, simple geometry,
no water present, and no shear and bending in the nails (Anthoine, 1990).
In both of these types of limit equilibrium methods, the effects of nailing the soil are taken
into account in the form of vector forces applied to the points where the nails intersect with
the potential failure surface. The forces in the nails are determined based on our knowledge
of the various modes of the failure of the soil nailed structure and the corresponding failure
criteria for both the soil and nail materials, as well as the soil/nail interaction.
Above all, the practical validity of these methods assumes the possibility of simultaneously
mobilizing the limit states of the soil and the various nail rows. This implies the strain
compatibility at failure of both the nails and the soil, the ductility of the nails, and gradual
plastification of the soil. This assumption of the simultaneous mobilization of resistances is,
92
in spite of everything, still a good approximation of the actual - and complicated -

behavior of soil nailed walls.
In addition, these methods assume that the displacements and deformations will still be
small enough not to have to take account of any geometric changes in the structure prior to
failure. In the case of ductile nails, their reorientation during movement along the failure
surface is beneficial to the structure's stability but will not be taken into account in the
present recommendations.
We might also mention the methods of homogenization (De Buhan and Salen<;on, 1987). This
basic principle consists of replacing the heterogeneous medium made by the soil and the
nails (assumed to be regularly distributed) by a homogeneous medium that is equivalent
from the point of view of limit loading at a macroscopic scale. This approach, which can be
applied to more general problems, has already been tried for the design of Reinforced Earth
Structures (Schlosser and Long, 1972). It has proved to be very difficult to use for usual
practical applications.
2.1.3. Limit equilibrium methods with relative displacements
Another method exists that is based on classical limit equilibrium methods, which considers
that the forces in the nails are dependent on the relative displacements along the potential
failure surface. This method cannot be included in either of the two previous methods.
This approach was initially developed for studying the stabilization of unstable slopes using
soil nailing (Delmas et al., 1986). It requires behavior assumptions in order to link together
the forces mobilized in the nails and the displacements along the potential failure surfaces.
This method examines stability conditions in terms of both displacements and the strength
criteria of the materials used. Generally, it seems unsuitable for retaining structures since
there is no preexisting failure surface, but it is suitable in the case of some natural unstable
slopes. However, if the displacement criteria are not used, this method simply comes down
to a classical limit equilibrium method.
Given our present knowledge, and in the absence of any available method for calculating
displacements, limit equilibrium methods using potential failure surfaces are the approach
recommended for designing and justifying soil nailed structures. It must be emphasized that
the stability of a soil nailed wall should be studied not only when the structure has been
completed, but also at each phase of construction, some of which can be the most critical.
2.2. Assessing displacements
In practice, for many structures, particularly those in urban areas, predicting the
displacements is a major concern for the designer. Limit equilibrium methods do not provide
any results on displacements. Currently, only experience and measurements allow us to
estimate the displacements at the head of in-service walls. Remember that the order of
magnitude of displacements measured at the head of soil nailed walls varies from H/1 000 to
4H/1 000 for both the horizontal and vertical displacements (see chapter 2, paragraph 3.4.2).
93
This lack of knowledge on deformations and displacements is compensated for in practice

through certain basic rules.
The overdesign of reinforcements in the first row of nails, in comparison with the results
of stability analysis, reduces the deformations at the head of the structure.
Choosing an appropriate height for the successive excavation phases limits any
decompression of the ground due to the excavation procedures and the resulting
deformations of the structure (see chapter 2, paragraph 3.4.1.).
Moreover, remember that different distributions of the length or cross section of the nails on
one vertical plane through a structure may lead to stability conditions that are calculated as
being identical, even though the displacements and forces in the structure are not the same in
service.
Finally, we cannot separate calculations relating to the stability of the finished structure from
those linked to the various building phases. Stability calculations must, in fact, be ongoing
from the very first excavation phase to the structure being finished. The layout of the nails
plays an important role here and can even be optimized with respect to stability criteria for
the intermediate phases. Figure 10 illustrates this. The two geometric layouts show the same
stability conditions at completion of the structure and the same length of bars in each cross
section. However, the second geometric layout is preferable because the stability conditions
are improved during the intermediate construction phases. The nail forces are more
effectively spread along the failure surface and the deformations at the head of the structure
are reduced.
2.3. Experimental justifications
2.3.1. Behavior of structures in service and at failure
Since the stability of soil nailed walls is analyzed on the basis of limit equilibrium methods,
the experimental justifications for the various assumptions must come from failed structures.
This raises a difficulty since instrumentations and observations on structures pushed to

failure are always more rare and critical than those from in-service structures.
Studies on the behavior of structures at failure can be carried out in three different ways:
On scaled-down models in a laboratory.

On scaled-down models in a centrifuge.
On full-size structures.
Laboratory tests on scaled-down models may seem simple to conduct but, in fact, they prove
to be both lengthy and complicated if the construction method for the soil nailed walls is to
be respected - excavating a mass of soil and installing the nails as the excavation phases
94
Most critical potential failure surface

(F = 1.5)
(~Lj =48m )
per cross section H = 10m
Most crit ica I potent ia I fai lure surface

( F= 1.5 )
( LLi =48m)
per cross section
H= 10m
Figure 10. Influence of nail distribution on the deformations of a soil nailed wall.
progress. Many scaled-down models of soil nailed walls have been constructed as Reinforced
Earth walls, and this, of course, greatly influences the results. One intermediate solution
consists of simultaneously constructing a Reinforced Earth-type wall, together with a fill in
front of the wall. The fill is then gradually excavated once the wall has been finished (French
National Research Project CLOUTERRE, CERMES, 1986). Few scaled-down models have been
successful in reflecting the actual construction method (Fau, 1987). Moreover, scaled-down
models tested under laboratory conditions do not respect laws of similarity between
prototype and model -laws that result from the fundamental equations of mechanics.
As a result, with scaled-down laboratory models of soil nailed walls, it is not possible to
conduct reliable studies on the behavior either before or during failure. The results are at best
only qualitative and are sometimes not even representative.
Centrifuge tests allow us to respect the laws of similarity but run into trouble when it comes
to determining whether the building method has been properly represented. Moreover, they
are lengthy and costly. As part of the Project CLOUTERRE, the LCPC looked at the stability
95
of the various excavation phases for soil nailed walls based on scaled-down centrifuge
models.
Experiments on full-size structures pushed to failure are still the most reliable way of
studying the behavior of soil nailed walls at failure. Due to the cost involved, however, few
experiments have been conducted (Stocker et al., 1979, Plumelle et al., 1986). As part of the
Research Project CLOUTERRE, three failure experiments were conducted to study three
failure modes: failure by breakage of the nails, failure by pull-out, and failure by instability
during the excavations phases.
However, many observations and experiments on in-service structures have been conducted
during the last 10 years, both in France and other countries. Even though these may not
bring any direct information about the behavior of the wall when it fails, they can provide
invaluable additional data about how to estimate the deformations of in-service soil nailed
walls.
2.3.2. The four failure modes
Scaled-down laboratory models, complemented by several full-scale experiments pushed to

failure and observations of structures accidentally failed, have given us clear evidence of four
types of failure mode resulting from the following phenomena:
Breakage of the nails.

Lack of friction between the soil and nails.
Instability during excavation phases.
Overall sliding of the reinforced soil mass.
The first three types of failure are characterized by the internal instability of the soil nailed
wall. The latter is characterized by external instability.
Except in the case of lack of friction, all these failures involve slip surfaces when the whole
soil nailed mass deforms.
This is a first justification of the calculation methods using potential failure surfaces to
analyze the stability of these four types of failure.
2.3.3. Justifications based on failure in actual structures
Among the accidental or deliberate failures observed during the last 10 years, only two
typical failures have enabled us to compare the validity of the methods based on the analysis
of potential failure surfaces with reality. These are:
The Eparris wall (Schlosser, 1982) accidentally failed following heavy rainfall as a result
of lack of friction between the nails and the soil.
96
The CEBTP No.1 experimental wall (French National Project CLOUTERRE, 1986), which
failed due to breakage of the nails following an increase in the water content of the fill
(fed from a pond at the head of the structure).
After the Eparris wall failed, a series of pull-out tests were performed and the wall was
rebuilt with a sufficiently high overall safety factor (F = 1.5).
The CEBTP No.1 wall, which was heavily instrumented, was easily pushed to failure since
the original overall safety factor (before the water content was increased) was low (F = 1.10
calculated with a classical limit equilibrium method).
In both cases, it was recorded (chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.4.) that the overall safety factor,
calculated by analyzing potential failure surfaces, gave a safety factor that was near to 1.0. In
both cases, it was necessary to make assumptions on the effects of the water. However, the
corresponding ranges for the global safety factors remained small.
This gives a second justification of the limit equilibrium methods using potential failure
surfaces. It relies, of course, on all these methods being equivalent among themselves, i.e.,
particularly that they give the same value, or nearly the same value, of the global safety
factor whatever the type of soil nailed wall considered.
2.3.4. Simultaneous mobilization of resistances
One basic assumption to any limit equilibrium method is the simultaneous mobilization of all
the resistances in play in a soil nailed wall, for example:
Resistance of the nail - in particular its tensile strength.

Shear resistance in the soil.
Pull-out resistance of the nail (unit skin friction).
Passive pressure at failure of the soil normal to the nail (ultimate pressure Pu)'
This assumption on the "simultaneity of resistances" is only approximated in actual

conditions. The nail's tensile strength, like its pull-out strength, is mobilized for very small
displacements, a fact that has also been demonstrated by studies and research on deep
foundations. On the other hand, in order for it to be fully mobilized, the shear resistance of
the soil (peak resistance) needs a certain angular deformation that can be up to several
percent. As far as the passive pressure at failure of the soil is concerned (characterized by the
ultimate pressure pJ, experience shows (see figure 15, chapter 2) that large-scale
deformations are needed if it is to be fully mobilized.
Schlosser and Long (1972) have shown experimentally that in the case of reinforcements that
are relatively inextensible in comparison with soil deformations, the tensile strength of the
inclusions was mobilized more rapidly than the internal friction angle of the soil. The
opposite is true (Schlosser and De Buhan, 1990) where extensible reinforcements are involved
(geotextiles). Therefore, one might think that with a mild steel and a sufficiently stiff soil, the
tensile strength of the nails and the shear resistance of the soil would be mobilized, if not
simultaneously, then at least for deformations that were not too radically different.
97
With regard to the ultimate pressure Pu , passive pressure at failure of the soil against the
nail, this mobilization requires the presence of a shearing zone in the soil nailed wall (figure
15, chapter 2), and therefore large displacements along the failure surface. This corresponds
more closely to the mobilization of the residual friction angle than the peak angle. The
mobilization of Pu , in the case of nails made with ductile steel, allows compensation for the
reduction of the internal friction angle after the peak (residual friction) by the bending
stiffness of the nails and by a more advantageous reorientation of the nails along the failure
surface.
Even though the question of the simultaneous mobilization of the various resistances has not
been fully answered, it would nevertheless seem, when using ductile nails, that the global
safety factor is near 1 (CEBTP Experiment No.1) when the wall fails due to the breakage of
the nails. This is an additional justification for limit equilibrium methods using potential
failure surfaces, although further studies on failed structures clearly need to be conducted.
2.4. The French and international contexts
2.4.1. French context
As mentioned in chapter I, paragraph 2.2, the first soil nailed wall was constructed in France
in 1972. Its chief feature was that it used a layout of the reinforcements (grouted steel bars)
similar to the ones used in Reinforced Earth technique (Sh = Sv = 0.75 m). This meant it was
possible to have a homogeneous soil nailed mass, one which, with regard to calculations,
could be treated like a monolithic block. On the other hand, the nails were relatively short, a
fact justified by the facing having a batter (1/8).
The first designs of soil nailed walls were copied from the design of Reinforced Earth.
The first specific method for designing soil nailed walls appeared in 1980 with the initial
TALREN software package (Schlosser, 1982). This was developed for the construction of a
soil nailed wall at La Clusaz in 1980 (Guilloux et a1., 1984). This differed from the in-service
design methods of Reinforced Earth structures in that it was a classical limit equilibrium
method. It was able to take into account the varying lengths and inclinations of the bars,
their bending moments and shear forces, as well as any soil strata present, whatever its
nature, and the presence of water in the soi1. These options, which differed greatly from that
used for Reinforced Earth, were chosen mainly because of the widely varying geometries of
soil nailed walls compared with Reinforced Earth walls: differences in the length of the nails
within the same wall, different nail inclinations within one structure, different inclinations of
the facing wall, and various geometries of the soil at the head of the wal1. The software was
also developed so that it could treat slope stabilization by near-vertical nails (Schlosser and
Guilloux, 1982), whereby the bending moment is much more mobilized than the tensile
forces. Since it uses classical methods, the TALREN software package tied in well with the
design methods used to study the stability of slopes, either Bishop's method of slices or the
perturbation method. These methods have been validated over the past 30 years, thanks to
widespread use.
98
The TALREN software package, developed by the TERRASOL consulting company, was
validated on reinforced soil structures that were then either pushed to failure as part of a
research project or else accidentally failed. As of 1991, several hundred soil nailed walls
designed using the TALREN program have been successfully built. This package, thanks to
the perturbation method (Raulin et al., 1975), allows any failure surface to be taken into
account, it is also possible to work in heterogeneous soils (multilayered soils with or without
lenses) with or without the presence of water.
Two other software packages exist to analyze the stability of soil nailed walls by taking into
account the bending stiffness and shear forces of the nails. These were both developed
during the mid-1980s and are the PROSPER program, developed by the LCPC (Laboratoire
Central des Ponts et Chaussees) (Delmas et al., 1986), and the NIXESC program, developed
by the National School of Public Works (Rajot, 1983). These two packages closely emulate the
TALREN program, in particular in their use of a multicriteria analysis to deal with any
bending-shearing mobilization in the nails.
The PROSPER program is an interesting attempt to take into account displacements.

However, these displacements are assumed to be concentrated along and around the
potential failure surface. This makes the program more suitable for dealing with
displacements in unstable slopes that have been reinforced by soil nailing rather than for
retaining walls constructed with soil nailing.
During the 1980s, several programs for calculating soil nailed walls were developed either by
companies or by research laboratories. These are directly derived from Bishop's classic
method of slices and take account only of the tensile strength of the nails. They give
satisfactory results only when the nail forces are taken into account in all the equilibrium
equations of the reinforced soil mass, and not the overall moment of the nonreinforced soil
mass. The presence of nails in fact modifies the normal stresses acting along the failure
surface.
The Laboratoire de Mecanique des Solides has recently developed the STAR software
package (A. Anthoine et al., 1990), which uses logarithmic spirals as potential failure surfaces;
it is based on the yield design theory (Salenc;on, 1985). The authors indicate that by using this
theory and homogeneous soil, the logarithmic spiral results in a very simple calculation and
give a good estimation of the structure's safety compared to any other type of potential
failure surfaces. The calculation method differs slightly from other classical methods
(methods of slices and perturbation method) particularly in the following respect:
It requires no additional mechanical assumptions.
The most critical potential failure surface is never a circle, except in the case of a purely
cohesive soil.
As of 1991, this software has been developed only for simple geometries, homogeneous soils
where no water is present, and only takes account of the nail's tensile strength.
99
2.4.2. International context
2.4.2.1. The German method - Stocker et ai., (1979)
Since 1979, Stocker et aL, have been proposing a limit equilibrium method for designing soil
nailed walls at failure using bilinear failure surfaces. This method, which was developed in
the light of experience from laboratory tests on reduced scale models (figure 11), has also
been compared with tests on full-sized structures (GassIer and Gudehus, 1981).
-~ e
1
Figure 11. Bilinear failure surface used in the Stocker et aI., method (1979).
The structure's global safety factor is defined by the ratio of the resisting forces (soil reaction
along the failure plane, tensions in the nails) with the driving forces (weight and loads) and
then calculated using the kinematical approach of limit analysis.
The resistance at failure TR in every nail is taken as equal to the lowest resistance of either
breakage by traction T c or pull-out TL :
Bending moments in the nails are ignored.
100
The inclination 81 of the wedge passing through the base of the wall is determined iteratively
to obtain a minimum safety factor. The value of angle 82 is taken to be equal to rt/4 + <p/2,
where <p is the internal friction angle of the ground.
The calculation is made by considering the equilibrium of two blocks sliding in relation to
each other following a vertical straight line. The soil is assumed to be homogeneous and
without water. If layers of soil with varying mechanical characteristics are present, it is
recommended that only one value be used, weighted by the shear resistance value.
For some time now it has been suggested that the method adopts a partial safety factors
approach for the angle <p, the cohesion c, the soil/nail skin friction S5 , and the tensile
strength of the nail RIl (GassIer and Gudehus, 1983).
Two questions remain unanswered concerning this limit equilibrium method, which does,
however, have the advantage of simplicity.
1) For cases where rupture takes place exclusively inside the soil nailed mass, the bilinear
failure surface used for design is reduced to a straight line passing through the bottom of
the wall, even though many experiments have shown that the internal failure surface is
curved and cannot be approximated by a straight line.
2) This method is based primarily on observations and comparisons made with tests on
scaled-down models. Some experiments on full-size structures have been carried out, the
structures having been pushed to failure by local surcharges. A mixed rupture
mechanism with the two blocks has been clearly observed when the surcharge is applied
behind the wall. Is the mechanism used for designing the structures the most critical of
all the failure mechanisms?
2.4.2.2. The Shen method, USA (1978)
This method, first developed at the University of California at Davis, is a limit equilibrium
method, as well. It assumes that the potential failure surfaces are vertical axis parabolas, the
vertices of which are located at the bottom of the facing (figure 12).
The soil is assumed to be homogeneous and without water, and the geometry of the wall is
simple (vertical facing, horizontal soil surface at the top, parallel nail rows, equidistant and of
the same length). The nails are assumed to work only in tension.
As with the Stocker method, two blocks separated by a vertical line passing through the
extremity of the nails are examined when the failure surface exits beyond the reinforced
volume. To calculate the forces between these two blocks, a coefficient K is used, defined as
the ratio of the horizontal and vertical stresses, and taken as equal to 0.4 in frictional soils
and 0.5 for cohesive soils.
101
y
aH
B c
Figure 12. Shen design method (1978).
The same global safety factor F is taken for both soil and nails, whereby:
't
mob
= e/F + cr tan g cp/F
't
mo
b = . (TF TF
mln - , - ]
G L
Thus, the minimum safety factor value corresponding to the most critical parabola can be
calculated.
The validity of this method, which is limited to very simple geometries and a specific failure
mechanism, has been assessed by analyzing the failure surfaces observed in structures, as
well as the heights of walls at failure observed on reduced scale models in centrifuge. The
agreement between the forecast and experimental results appears acceptable for the few
simple experiments conducted.
The method has recently been modified to take account of more complex geometries.
102
2.4.2.3. Juran design method (1990)
Juran has developed a limit equilibrium method to calculate the failure point for soil nailed
walls, which is similar to the one he developed for Reinforced Earth (Juran et al., 1977) and
has been used as the basis for the current design methods of Reinforced Earth walls. The
potential failure surfaces are taken to be logarithmic spirals intersecting the bottom of the
wall. The nailed mass is divided into slices parallel to the nails. The assumption formulated
is that the horizontal component EH of the force between any two slices remains constant
(figure 13a). The soil is assumed to be homogeneous and without water.
It is also assumed that the points of maximum traction and maximum shear force in the nail
rows coincide with the most critical potential failure surface, i.e., correspond to the minimum
global safety factor.
This method is interesting in that it can, by considering the local equilibrium in each slice, be
used to calculate the tensile and the shear forces developed in each nail row at their point of
intersection with the failure surface. Thus, the soil nailed wall can be designed to avoid any
risk of progressive failure through the nail breakage beginning with rupture in one nail row.
It does not, however, allow analysis of mixed failures.
The shear forces are calculated, based on the assumption that the maximum shear force in a
nail is mobilized at the point that coincides with the considered potential failure surface.
The bending stiffness of the nails is also taken into account on the basis of the
nondimensional parameter N defined as follows:
where ks is the lateral coefficient of subgrade reaction, [0 is the transfer length of the nail, and
[0 = (4 E I / ks D?/4, and D is the nail diameter.
The maximum tension T" and the maximum shear force Tc in a nail row are determined in
accordance with two nondimensional parameters:
TN T" / y H Sv Sh
TS T c / y H Sv Sh
Figure 13b shows the type of graph proposed to calculate T" and Tc knowing the value of the
nondimensional parameter N.
This design method was proposed (Juran et al., 1990) for designing soil nailed walls at a
serviceability limit state. The assumption is that the peak shear resistance of the soil is
mobilized under service conditions along the maximum tension line, irrespective of the value
103
of the wall's global safety factor. This assumption, which is based on an analysis of results
from a few full-sized structures (Juran et al., 1988) needs to be justified, both theoretically
and experimentally. However, the approach is interesting and merits being looked at in
greater depth from the point of view of developing a method to cover the internal design of
soil nailed walls for service limit states.
(a )
i= 15°
0.3f----+-- "7=0
1{3=0 0.08
:z 0.2 f--"',;,--- (J)

I-- I-
0.06'----......
0.11----
......---"<:-"d----j
0.04 t---~---+---~
O'--------'----L---...L-----l o'------'------'---..L-------.JL---.....J
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.05 C.IO 0.15 0.20 0.25
c/yH c/yH
(b )
Figure 13. Juran design method (1990): charts used to calculate Tn = Tmax and Te.
104
3. GENERAL METHOD FOR STUDYING THE STABILITY OF A SOIL NAILED

STRUCTURE
3.1. Limit state design - Assumptions and data
3.1.1. Principles of limit states design
The stability of a soil nailed structure is justified in terms of its ultimate limit state by looking
at sufficient potential failure surfaces, whether these intersect the nails or not, to determine
the most critical one (figure 14).
Figure 14. Different types of potential failure surfaces.
The application of limit equilibrium methods to soil nailed walls consists of comparing the
forces or stresses resulting from the external actions, with the maximum resisting forces or
stresses that can be mobilized in the soil nailed mass, for a series of potential failure surfaces.
3.1.1.1. Basic formula
For limit equilibrium methods of slices (Bishop or perturbation method), the equilibrium
analysis can be presented using the following symbolic form:
where r S3 : method factor that takes account the approximations inherent in the design
method
105
r m: partial safety factors
In this symbolic form, the formula: 't(rcG + rQQ = rcwF w + r A FA + rTFT + rRFR) represents
the force or stress on the potential failure surface resulting from the combination (marked +)
of the actions shown between the parentheses, and where 'tmax (soil nailed) represents the
resisting force or stress that can be mobilized in the nailed soil along the potential failure
surface.
The term 'tmax (soil nailed) thus "incorporates" any increase (or reduction) in the shear
resistance of the soil along the potential failure surface due to the presence of nails, the effect
of which is to increase (or reduce) the normal stresses on the potential failure surface.
The following notations are used for the actions:
G : permanent loads
Q: variable loads
Gw : effects of water
FA accidental loads
FT ground anchors forces
FR nail forces (reinforcement)
The actions are shown in the above formula with their representative value, which is either
the characteristic value defined on a statistical basis or a value defined by a code (nominal
value).
The characteristic value is defined by the ratio of the most probable value and the dispersion
coefficient. One takes for the most probable value its arithmetic average. The dispersion
coefficient value is determined to ensure that the characteristic value, maximum or minimum,
a minimal probability is not achieved (above or below).
Nominal values are carefully fixed by codes on the assumption of known extreme values or
on the basis of other values that might be reasonably considered.
The way in which the representative values of each action are calculated is explained in
paragraph 3.1.2. Each action is ascribed a load factor (rc, r Q, r cw, r A , rt , rr)'
The resistance of a given material is expressed by its characteristic value that, in principle,
shows an acceptable probability of not being reached. With regard to soils, the geotechnical
engineer will give the characteristic values to be taken into account and that will be
combined with the corresponding partial safety factor r m'
3.1.1.2. How to account for nails and prestressed ground anchors
The difference between external forces and resistances is conventional and could be subject to
different interpretations depending on the design method used and the point of view
106
adopted regarding prestressed ground anchors and nails. In the form shown above, the
forces in both nails and prestressed ground anchors are shown as external forces (F R and FT )
through their tangential components on the potential failure surface, and playa role in the
resistance ['t max (soil nailed)] with the effect of their normal components on the potential
failure surface.
In any limit equilibrium method, the values of the forces in the nails FR are calculated for
each potential failure surface. This is done by taking account of the nails' resistances and the
soil-nail interaction (one might, for example, use the multicriteria approach [see paragraph
3.2.2. of this chapter]). This is why the load factor r R of Fr will be written as the inverse form
of the partial safety factor of the nails:
1
r m,R
Within the framework of ultimate limit state design, the current rules consider that the forces
present in the prestressed ground anchors are external forces and are therefore known; they
are independent of the potential failure surface considered.
In an ultimate limit state calculation, it would be appropriate to take as the tensile value of a
prestressed ground anchor the smallest value between the guaranteed elastic limit of the
reinforcing bar and the anchor limit pull-out force. Moreover, steps should always be taken
to verify the compatibility between the corresponding total displacement (soil + tie-back) and
the deformations experienced by the nail and the soil at failure. Since this design procedure
is recognized as complex, the value of the tension will be taken as equal to the lock-off
tension, T b , at the same time bearing in mind the soil creep and the steel's "relaxing."
The load factor r T of the tensile force FT in the prestressed ground anchor will be taken as
being equal to I, given that the tension at failure will be higher than the lock-off tension.
(See current regulations for details about lock-off tension values, Recommandations TA 86).
3.1.2. Actions
3.1.2.1. Types of actions
The actions to be considered are as follows:
a) Permanent forces (G) of the soil's own weight, either in situ or brought in, and of any
structures that form part of the site and/or that affect it, loads caused by buildings
located in the structure's area of influence, and long-term surcharges.
b) Variable forces (Q) might include:
107
The effects of rolling loads, vibrations, cyclic loads.

Climatic effects (for example, effects of ice on the heads of the ground anchor rods).
c) The effects of water (GJ resulting from pore water pressure in the soil nailed mass. In
principle, soil nailed structures must, insofar as possible, have drainage facilities in their
area of influence. If, in spite of everything, pore water pressure remains, this absolutely
must be taken into account.
d) Accidental forces (FA) may be caused by:
Earthquakes and impacts.

Exceptional hydraulic conditions (flooding).
e) Forces in the nails (FR)
f) Forces in the ground anchors (FT)
3.1.2.2. Characteristic values of these actions
The minimum or maximum characteristic values given for a specific action will be chosen
depending on whether its effect on the structure is to stabilize or destabilize it with respect to
the considered potential failure mechanism.
In the absence of any specifications to the contrary being given in the contract documents,
the following characteristic values of actions will be used in the above formulae.
1) Permanent forces (G)
• Forces due to weight
For soils and other materials likely to be included in a soil nailed structure, the following
characteristic unit weight values will be used:
- Soils
Unit weights are assessed on the basis of representative measurements. In the absence of
such measurements, the following nominal values may be used on condition that these
clearly result in improved safety for the structure (Table II).
108
TABLE II. Nominal values of the density of some soils.
In situ State Unit Weight Unit Weight

(kN/m 3) (kN/m 3 )
Soil Type loose dense
Silt 17 20
Clay 17 19
Marl 20 22
Sand 18 20
Gravel 18 21
Chalk 17 19
Weathered rock 20 22
Reinforced concrete: Yb .
mm
= Ybmax = 25 kN/m 3
3
Steel: Ya .
mm
= Ya
max
= 78.5 kN/m
The consistency principle requires that one material is considered to have the same typical
unit weight values, whatever its effects, stabilizing or destabilizing, with respect to the
considered potential failure surface.
• Effects of water (G w)
Pore water pressures are calculated from the most critical flow net by taking as the unit
weight of the water:
Ymin = Ymax = 10 kN/m3

• Forces of prestressed ground anchors (FT )
The tensile forces FT in the prestressed ground anchor will be calculated on the basis of the
procedure explained in paragraph 3.1.1.2. It is recommended that the following equation be
adopted: FT,min = FT,max = Tb (lock-off load).
• Forces of the nails (FR )
The characteristic values of the forces in a nail will be taken to be equal to the limit forces in
that nail determined, for example, on the assumption of a multicriteria approach and using
characteristic material resistance values (see paragraph 3.2.2. of this chapter).
2) Variable forces (Q)
The characteristic values of variable loads are defined in the contract documents. If this is not
the case, take as the characteristic values of the variable load on a platform:
109
FQ,mzn. a kPa
FQ,max 10 kPa
3) Accidental actions of type (FA)
- Seismic loading
Forces of a seismic origin, specified in the contract documents or by current regulations, are
given by a nominal acceleration value (aN) and by a topographic coefficient (rot). From these
values, one deduces the maximum characteristic values of the seismic coefficients to be
applied to the actual weight of all or part of the structure. These coefficients are:
K H = ± aN / g rot (horizontal component)
Kv = + 0.5 K H (vertical component)
The plus sign corresponds respectively to an outward horizontal and a downward vertical.
The minimum characteristic values are kH = 0 and kv = a

3.1.2.3. Combination of actions and calculations
The combination of actions and calculations to be considered are:
• Fundamental combinations:
+r 51 G.
mzn + GW + r Q Q + r F + _ R
F_ )
T T r
m,R
• Accidental combinations:
R
F -)
mzn +Gw +Q+FA +rT FT +r-
't(Gmax +G.
m,R
where Gmax permanent forces having a destabilizing effect,

Gmin permanent forces having a stabilizing effect,
r 51 load factor for the Gmax force,
r'51 load safety factor for the Gmin force.
For reasons of simplification, only one basic variable force will be considered in all the
combination of actions.
110
The load factors values of the actions are given in table III.
It must be remembered that the forces of the nails FR are reduced by the partial safety factor
r m,R , which applies to the nail's failure criterion.
• Remarks
1) r S1 = 1.05 for unfavorable gravitational forces and r'Sl = 0.95 for favorable gravitational
forces.
These values differ from those applied to other permanent forces (rS1 = 1.2 and r'Sl = 0.9),
and this is justified because gravitational forces, which are dominant in soil nailed
structures, are known with a fair degree of accuracy. Uncertainties may arise with the
geometries involved (ground dimensions, excavation elevations, etc.).
2) The consistency principle, already referred to in paragraph 3.1.2.2. above, dictates that a
single volume of soil be considered with the same characteristic unit weight value, as
well as the same partial safety factors r s 1 or r'Sl , whatever the considered potential
failure surface.
3) A partial safety factor equal to 1 will be used when determining the unit weight of water.
The calculated buoyant unit weight value will be equivalent to:
y' = r S1 Y- Yw (overall destabilizing force)

Y' = r'Sl - Yw (overall stabilizing force)
4) r GW =1. This again refers to the consideration that, for simplification purposes and in the
case of forces linked to pore water pressures or to flows of water that will have to be
taken into account, it will be assumed that safety will have already been accounted in
the representative Gw values.
3.1.3. Resistances
3.1.3.1. Failure criteria of materials
As indicated in paragraph 2.1. above, the application of limit equilibrium methods to soil
nailed structures requires the compatibility of the deformations at failure of the soil and the
nails (ductility of the nails, the soil and the soil-nail interface).
111
TABLE III. Justification of the stability of the soil

nailed wall at ultimate limit state. Partial load factors.
LOAD FACTORS
NATURE OF FORCES NOTATION Fundamental Accidental

Combination Combination
1) Permanent forces, type G.
Soil unit weight G
de-stabilizing force lSI = 1.05 lSI = 1.0
stabilizing force 1'51 = 0.95 1'51 = 1.0
Other permanent forces

unfavorable forces lSI = 1.20 lSI = 1.0
favorable forces 1'51 = 0.90 1'51 = 1.0
Water pressures Gw lew = 1.00 lew = 1.0
Nail force FR l / lmR* l/lm,R*
Ground anchor force FT IT = 1.00 IT = 1.0
2) Variable forces, type Q (live

loads, climatic forces) Q IQ = 1.33 IQ = 1.0
3) Accidental forces, type FA =

FA IFA = 1.0
Method factor 1 53 = 1.125 1 53 = 1.0
• See Table IV - Design Resistances
It will be subsequently assumed in the presentation of design methods that this compatibility
exists both for standard nails and the majority of soils. All limit equilibrium methods take
into account only the following failure criteria for the materials.
• Soil
The soil is characterized by a Mohr-Coulomb type criterium where <p is the friction angle and
c is the cohesion. As long-term conditions are always less favorable, one shall, when studying
the internal and external stability of a soil nailed wall following completion, take for <p and c
the properties <p' and c' in drained conditions, whether or not the soil is saturated. For
temporary phases, depending on the soil water content, one may use the short-term
112
characteristics Cll and <Pll of the saturated soil or the characteristics C and <P of the nonsaturated
soil at the in situ water content measured with a triaxial apparatus.
• Nails
The nails will be characterized by the three following resistances:
RIJ - resistance to simple tension,

Rc - resistance to shear force,
Mo - moment of plastification of the nail in pure bending, which will be determined as
shown below.
• Soil-nail interaction
With regard to soil-nail interaction, two criteria relating to the two modes of interaction will
be examined:
The limit skin friction, which will be characterized by the unit skin friction qs.
The ultimate bearing pressure Pll under the soil on the nail, which will be taken to be
equal to the limit pressuremeter pressure PI .
3.1.3.2. Characteristic values of strength parameters
As indicated in paragraph 3.1.1.1., the characteristic values of strength parameters of the soil
and the soil-nail interactions will be taken to be equal to the most representative average
values.
• Soil
It will be the geotechnical engineer's responsibility to define the characteristic values for the
shear strength parameters of soils. These must take account of the dispersion, quality, and
representativeness of test results.
With regard to the soil, one shall take the long-term characteristic values of the internal
friction angle <p', and the cohesion c', determined based on tests carried out either in situ or
in a laboratory.
• Nail
Where nails include a metal reinforcing bar sealed in grout, the strength of the grout will not
normally be taken into account, except where this can be specifically justified with the
regulations on reinforced concrete (BAEL 83).
The characteristic nail strength values (RIJ , Rc and M o) will be calculated on the basis of the
guaranteed elastic limit cre of the steel where the nails include a metal reinforcing bar.
113
• Soil-nail interaction
At the project design stage, the characteristic value for the soil nail unit skin friction qs will be
determined based on the charts provided in the appendices of this chapter.
At the construction stage, the value of qs will be determined from the compulsory pull-out
tests in accordance with the procedure given in chapter 4. With regard to the resistance of the
soil against the nail, the characteristic value of the ultimate lateral pressure Pu of the nail on
the soil will be taken to be equal to the limit pressuremeter pressure PI .
3.1.3.3. Calculation values of strengths
Strength calculation values to be used for justifying the structure will be determined from the
characteristic values by reducing them with a factor r m' called "partial safety factor":
calculation value = characteristic value / r m

The r m factor values, both in fundamental and accidental combinations, are shown in table IV
overleaf. Please note the following additional comments.
1) Shear resistance of the soil
For the shear resistance of the soil 't max = C + (j tamp, the partial safety factors r m,s and r m,<p are
applied respectively to c and tamp, which gives the following resistance calculation value:
't
max
= c / r m,c + (j tan <p / r m,<p
The coefficients r m proposed for the shear resistance of the soil in particular take account of:
Any potential differences between the resistance values of the soil in the structure and
those determined from the various tests carried out either in a laboratory or in situ.
Any potential consequences for the structure from an area of soil having a local resistance
lower than the characteristic values.
It is appropriate to remember, as in the analysis of slope stability, that the design for a soil
nailed structure is extremely sensitive to the values taken to be characteristic of the shear
strength of the soil, in particular its cohesion. This justifies the adoption of different partial
safety factor values for both the angle of internal friction and the cohesion.
2) Normal soil-nail interaction
a) The partial safety factor r m'pl values proposed for the limit pressuremeter pressure pi
are:
114
I'm'pl = 1 for short-term loadings, in particular for excavation phases,
I'm,pl = 2 for permanent loadings, which brings us back to the fact that the ultimate
pressure of the soil in contact with the nail is close to the critical creep
pressure.
b) The partial safety factor I'm E for the pressuremeter module EM , which plays a part in the
determination of the subgraJ1e reaction coefficient ks will be taken to be equal to 1.0 for all
combinations, always provided that the value used by the geotechnical engineer for E
results from a sufficient number of representative tests. M
3) Soil-nail unit skin friction: qs
The values of I'm,qs will depend on the way of determining the characteristic soil-nail unit skin
friction either from charts or from in situ pull-out tests.
It will be noted that the values suggested for are higher than those used for calculating
I'm,qs
deep foundations. This is due to the extreme sensitivity of this parameter to the conditions of
installing the nails.
4) Steels
One shall take I'm cre = 1.15 for reinforced concrete bars and other steels with an elastic limit
lower than 500 MPa, in accordance with existing regulations.
3.1.4. Situations
The whole of the structure must be justified for the situations described below.
- In course of construction
This corresponds to the excavation and earthwork phases and the gradual installation of the
reinforcements.
One phase that, in particular, should be checked is where the earthworks for a section of
excavation is completed, although neither the nails nor the facing have been installed.
It will be noted that it may be necessary to look at a set of particular parameters when the
structure is in this phase of construction, Le., for different soil resistances and hydraulic
considerations.
- In Service
This refers to a finished structure.
- In an "accidental" situation
115
This situation might correspond to the following situations:
Earthquake.
Exceptional hydraulic conditions.
One shall look at situations from the point of view of an accidental combination of actions.
Table IV.
PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS

r m applied to characteristic values of the materials
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Fundamental Accidental
combinations combinations
standard sensitive standard sensitive
1) SOIL
tangent of the effective friction angle t amp l rm,'I'11 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.20
effective cohesion c1
rm,c 1.50 1.65 1.40 1.50
undrained cohesion (<f!u=O) Cu r mc u
1.30 1.40 1.20 1.30
2) MILD STEEL
elasticity limit crc r mcr, e 1.15 1.15 1.00 1.00
3) SOIL-NAIL INTERACTION
unit skin friction (tests) 1.40 1.50 1.30 1.40
unit skin friction (charts) q, rm,q, 1.80 1.90 1.60 1.70
limit pressuremeter pressure PI rm

r ,Pl
1.90 2.00 1.00 1.10
pressuremeter modulus Em m,E 1.90 1.00 1.00 1.00
M
116
3.2. Calculation methods
3.2.1. Stages of calculation
• First design (see paragraph 1.6)
For the preliminary design of a structure, the most critical potential failure surface should be
sought by simultaneously looking at internal, mixed, and external failures (see paragraph
3.1.1. and figure 14).
• Iterations and optimizations
Where a structure is unstable, the project will be modified as many times as is necessary, and
its verification performed again. If the structure is stable, the design already verified shall be
kept, or optimized by making modifications and reverifying it.
3.2.2. Determination of nail forces at failure ("multicriteria" rule)
3.2.2.1. Failure criteria and limit equilibrium methods
The forces in the nail at its point of intersection 0 with the potential failure surface can be
represented by a system of forces:
Til normal force,

Tc = shear force,
M bending moment.
The determination of the forces and moment at which the nails fail, requires the
consideration of four failure criteria for the constituents and their interaction with one
another:
Soil-nail friction interaction: 't ~ qs

Soil-nail lateral pressure interaction: p ~ Pll
Constituent material: 't ~ k
where k is the maximum shear stress of the material from which the nail reinforcement is
made.
1) For methods based on yield design theory, it is theoretically possible to take into account
both the bending moment and the shear forces in the nails. To date, this aspect has not
been developed and only the tensile strength of the nails has been studied. Such a
calculation would lead to the determination of the maximum resistance of the nails being
dependant first on the soil-nail interaction criteria:
117
lateral pressure: p:::; Pu
and, second, by the failure criteria of the nails. Here one might, for example, use the
following simplified formula (Anthoine, 1987):
(TIt /R It )2 + (TC /R)2

C
+ IM/ M o I - 1 :::; 0
which is slightly conservative when compared with Sobotka's formulae (1954, 1955):
or Neal's (1961):
which is also considerably easier to use.
With regard to the criterion of lateral pressure (p :::; pJ, its formulation in relation to Tc and M
requires, by contrast, an assumption to be made about the distribution of the pressure along
the nail (uniform distributions, opposed from one side to another of the failure surface
(figure 15), e.g., Brinch-Hansen type distribution). The validity of this assumption needs to be
verified by experimental data.
A'
~TC =0
A: Point of maximum moment
0: Point of maximum shear force
Figure 15. Schematic distribution of the lateral pressure along the nail.
118
The maximum contribution that these criteria allow can be calculated in a similar way to that
currently proposed for nails that work only in tension. In other words, by verifying the
overall equilibrium of the cross section of the structure, which is bordered by a potential
failure surface (Anthoine, 1990).
At present, these methods are limited in that only the nail's tensile strength is taken into
account. However, where the nails are to be implemented without the introduction of any
additional assumptions, this would result in considering the potential failure surfaces as
logarithmic spirals (of angle <p) where it would be sufficient to check the moment equilibrium
at the focus of the spiral. As with c1assicallimit equilibrium methods, one is seeking for the
volume of reinforced soil showing the most critical stability conditions.
No further reference will be made in this document to methods based on yield design
calculation theory since at present these do not look at either bending or shearing in the
nails.
2. For classical limit equilibrium methods, the combination of the materials' failure criteria
and their interactions, as well as the relationships between Til , Tc , and M, have been
studied within the framework of an elastoplastic behavior of the soil-nail system (chapter
2, paragraph 2.2.). The relevant multicriteria approach has been in use for several years to
design real structures in reinforced soils approach (soil nailing and micro-piles), and has
been the subject of experimental verification tests (chapter 3, paragraph 2.3). Four criteria
that correspond to four nail failure modes will be considered.
• The soil-nail skin friction criterion (el)
This criterion, which corresponds to the structure's failure when the nails are pulled out, is
represented for a homogenous soil as:
T~q1tDL
11 5 a
where: qs is the soil-nail unit skin friction.
D is the perimeter of the nail where D = Dc (borehole diameter) for grouted nails, and
1t
D = D a (equivalent diameter) for driven nails.
La is the nail grouted length beyond the failure surface, except where there is no facing or
liaison between the head of the nail and the facing. In this case La = L*, the length L* is
the shorter of the two lengths between the failure surface and the facing or extremity of
the nail in the structure (figure 16).
119
a. Nails connected to facing.
La = L to = the sma II er of (L I' L 2 )
b. Nails free at their heads.
Figure 16. Determination of pull-out length La.
• Soil-nail lateral pressure criterion (C2)
The lateral pressure exerted by the nail on the soil is limited by the ultimate lateral pressure
of the soil Pu' Failure by bearing pressure of the soil under a nail may be defined either when
Pu is achieved at the single point 0 of maximum shear force (figure 17) (the most conservative
assumption), or when the soil is plastification over a maximum length to be defined. In the
first - the simplest and most conservative case - an analysis of the nail under combined
120
loading (normal force, shear force and bending moment) as shown in chapter 2, paragraph
2.2.1., gives us the following criterion:
(e2) Te <
-
T C2,max
D
with T = _e 1
C2,max 2 opu
where: De = diameter of the nail (grout and reinforcement),

10 = transfer length,
pu = ultimate lateral pressure.
In the second case, it will be assumed that the extent of soil plastification under the nail is,
unless justified otherwise, limited to the value nl/2, which corresponds to the distance
between the two points of maximum moment as determined by the elastic behavior of the
nail and the soil (figure 17),
In both cases the result is a criterion that focuses on the shear force Te of the type Te ::; Tmax'
--- ...... AI
l A
A: Point of maximum moment
0: Point of maximum shear force
Figure 17. Schematic representation of the soil-nail interaction (elastic behavior).
• Criteria (3) and (4)
The two criteria (C3) and (C4) involve the forces and moment (Tn' Te , and M) created in the
nail when it plastifies either by shearing at 0 (the point of maximum shear force), or by
bending moment at A and A' (maximum moment points). To simplify matters, one should
assume that the normal force Tn does not vary in the bending zone around the potential
failure surface.
121
Use Anthoine's criterion (1987) to represent the actual resistance of the nail, since this is both
simple and slightly conservative:
• Criterion (C3)
Nail plastification by shearing occurs at the point of maximum shear force O. This
corresponds (for reasons of symmetry) with the point of nail/failure surface intersection,
provided the nail lengths between one side and another on the potential failure surface are at
least longer than 310 •
At the 0 point, the bending moment is zero (M = 0) and the failure criterion, based on the
general failure criterion of the nail, can be written as:
(C3) (T/R/ + (TjR/ ~ 1
One usually takes Rc = Rn /2.

In the (Tn' TJ plane, (C3) is represented by an ellipse.
• Criterion (C4)
Using a simplified assumption (see chapter 2, paragraph 2.2.4.), nail plastification by bending
moment occurs at the points of maximum moment A and A' located on both sides of the
potential failure surface at a distance equal to Ip = 1t lj4 and calculated with an elastic
behavior of both soil and nails.
Plastification at those points (see figure 14) where the shear force is zero (Tc = 0), corresponds
to the criterion:
M ~ Mmax
with M max = Mofl - (T,/R,/l determined by the nail failure criterion.
Based on this value, the following formula gives the shear force at point 0:
122
Teo a ~o [1 - (T/RJ]
a
where A is a constant and is equal to 3.12.
In practice, which demands that nails be ductile, plastification at the two maximum moment
points A and A' in the initial phase does not imply the failure of the system. Plastification
remains localized with two plastic hinges in the nail. These hinges, which initially occur at A
and A', move as the nail continues to deform. The value of lp is initially equal to 1t lj4 but
then varies in order to meet equilibrium equations and the nail's failure criterion. The
calculation of lp in the elastoplastic phase is complicated, and certain experiments, such as the
CEBTP No.1 soil nailed wall, tend to show that lp varies even inside the same structure. In
the absence of any more detailed information, a simple assumption involves taking lp as
constant and equal to 1t 1/4. At point 0, after the two plastic hinges at A and A' have
developed, the plastification of the soil under the nail yields the following criterion:
Tc s Tc4, max
Te4,max = b(Mollo) [1 - (T,/RS] + cDe 1a p11
where band c are two constants and equal respectively to 1.62 and 0.24.
This criterion respects the equilibrium equations but not the nail's failure criterion. However,
by combining (C4) and (C3), the latter criterion is met, and this is the (conservative) measure
to be adopted when determining the multicritera approach.
An assumption in which the distance lp is different would result in a similar criterion.
3.2.2.2. Combinations of failure criteria
As indicated in paragraph 2.2.3. of chapter 2, the multicriteria rule (Schlosser, 1981, 1982,
1983) consists of representing the four criteria Cl, C2, C3 and C4 in the (Tn' TJ plane where
Tn and Teare respectively the tensile and shear forces. Their intersection is then considered to
be the resultant criterion for the forces in the nails at point O. The forces Tn ' Te are expressed
by the calculating values that take account of the various coefficients (load factors rand
partial safety coefficients r m)' The intersection of these criteria (figure 18) defines a convex
domain of stability in which the representative point for the forces in the nail at failure at the
point where it intersects with the potential failure surface can, at first, fall anywhere on the
outer edge of the domain.
It is interesting to note the important role played by the ultimate lateral pressure P1I in the
maximum shear force value Te , max resulting from the multicriteria approach:
123
Tel,max
where Tel and Te2 are both functions of Pu. If Pu is sufficiently high, Te,max can reach the value
of Re, and in this case the intersection of the criteria is reduced to C1 • This is the limit case for
a nail placed in a rocky soil, sheared along a joint.
Once the multicriterion has been determined, a rule needs to be chosen for calculating the
forces in the nails at failure.
3.2.2.3. Rule for determining forces
1. Tension and compression of the nails
The axial force Tn in the nail can be tension force (Tn> 0) or compression force (Tn < 0). The
distinction relies on the orientation of the nail compared with what is believed to be the
potential failure surface.
Experiments conducted on samples of sand reinforced with metal bars in a large shear box
(Marchal, 1984, see chapter 2, paragraph 2.2) have shown that the nail is still strained in
tension if it has an angle of incidence i of between -15° and + 90° compared to the normal to
the potential failure surface (figure 19a). In practice, the negative limit on i, which
corresponds to a nail inclined in the opposite direction to the shear, may be considered as
being independent of the shape of the potential failure surface, depending on the relative soil
nail stiffness; this angle i varies between _10° and - 20°.
124
INCLUSiON
"8
Stresses in the Potential fai lure
surface
inclusion ((3)
R :-
c 2
Rn
-c-- --- Lateral pressure interaction
..........
Soil first in a ( .) Inclusion first in (C4)
plastic state C2o- 'Plastic state
......
I
I
...... I
", I
---~---
,
\
I
I
L Skin friction
__ II ..:...in..:...te.::....r.:;.ac..:...t_io_n (C,)
~-
~~=-.::..:.....::....~~~.-:-..:.--'-...:...-:...--'-. . .:. . .-:......-:---'-~ _ _~:-='-""'----i_ n
To
Tn!
/~:::::-~--.:::::::....
/
___ ~ Potential failure
'J?7.~~~~~f'-- surface
Figure 18. Combinations of failure criteria (multicriteria rule). Determination of the forces in the nails.
125
a ) Direct shear test

(Marchal, 1984)
Tn <0 o >0
8: Inclination of the nail from the horizontal
J..=d.+{3-..!- angle between the nail and the normal

2
to the potential failure surface
b) Definitions
Figure 19. Nails put into tension or compression, depending on their orientations
with respect to the failure surface.
In c1assicallimit equilibrium methods, the nails can be stretched or compressed along the
potential failure surface, depending on the value of the angle i, as defined above (figure 19b).
As a general rule, when analyzing the internal stability of a soil nailed wall, and whatever
the method used for designing at failure, one will not take account of the compression forces
in the nails on the potential failure surface studied.
126
2. Maximum work rule
A rule currently used to determine forces in the nails is the so-called "maximum work rille."
The application of this rule to soil nailing (Schlosser, 1981, 1982, 1983) involves the
assumption that upon failure, the point P, which represents the forces in a nail, is located at
the outer edge of the domain of stability described by the failure multicriteria. The position
of this point P on the outer edge is chosen to maximize the work T' "t of the force in the
nail, in_the considered failure mechanism, in comparison with the work T* ."t of any virtual
force, T' satisfying the multicriteria rule in the nail for the same failure mechanism. This is
equivalent to choosing the representative point P so that its projection on the displacement
vector is maximized, with "tbeing the displacement of the point of the nail on the potential
failure surface considered. In order to determine the force Tin the nail, the knowledge of
only the direction of the "tvector is needed.
This procedure is equivalent to choosing the point P such that the normal at P on the outer
edge of the domain of stability is parallel to the displacement ~ In this second form, the
maximum work rule can be interpreted as a normal rule.
In practice (figure 18), the point P and the forces Tc ' Tn upon failure of the structure are
determined by considering the displacement "t tangent at the point a to the potential failure
surface. This means that one needs to look for the point P on the outer edge of the domain of
stability, where the tangent is perpendicular to the direction B:
NOTE: The limit equilibrium method with relative displacements, as used in nailing unstable
slopes and referred to at the beginning of this chapter, uses a similar procedure of
maximization. The forces in the nail are assigned parameters in function of the displacement
along the potential failure surface.
This principle comes back to the consideration that from the moment one failure criterion is
achieved (for an amplitude of displacement), the point representative of the forces on the
outer edge of the domain of stability is displaced until it reaches (for an amplitude of
displacement 02 > 01) the same position as shown in figure 18.
This calculation method must therefore lead to the same results as would be achieved using
classical limit equilibrium methods as long as they use failure criteria defined in the same
way and with the same multicriteria.
On the other hand, with this method it is possible to introduce other rules for calculating
forces in the reinforcements based on displacements criteria or resistance thresholds.
However, they are only valid when the zone of displacements prior to failure is influenced
by a preexisting failure surface that'channels' any displacements. Of course, this is generally
what happens to unstable slopes that have been stabilized with soil nailing.
127
3.2.3. Calculating the stability of the soil nailed structures
In classical limit equilibrium methods, the study of the internal mixed or external stability of
a soil nailed structure is carried out in a similar manner to the studies of the stability of
nonreinforced slopes; but forces brought about by the nails along the potential failure surface,
as well as additional stresses in the soil, should be also taken into account.
It is necessary to ensure the equilibrium of that part of the structure bounded by the
potential failure surface, by taking into account the nail's forces in the three static equilibrium
equations. Any method adapted from the calculations of nonreinforced slopes that does not
respect this condition is not recommended.
Several calculation methods are available, among which the methods of slices (Fellenius,
Bishop's simplified) and global methods (perturbation method) can be highlighted.
Each is characterized by the type of additional assumptions used to obtain the number of
equations necessary to resolve the problem. Among the methods of slices, the simplified form
of Bishop's method is the one in which the additional assumptions give the most realistic
results. Adapting it to reinforced structures involves the introduction of the forces of the
inclusions through their projections (Tn' TJ on both the normal and the tangent to the
potential failure surface at the bottom of every slice involved. This takes the form of
components oN and oT which are going to be added or subtracted from the components Ni
and Ti , which are calculated without the reinforcements in classic Bishop's method (figure
20). Equilibrium is then ensured when the following conditions are met:
In this formula, <Pi and ci are respectively the internal friction angle and the cohesion of the
soil for the slice i.
Among the global methods available, one can reference the perturbation method (Raulin,
Rouques, and Toubol, 1974); it is well-calibrated in practice and incidentally, allows us to
examine any type of surface.
When designing soil nailed structures, the potential failure surfaces to be inspected can, at
first, be any shape when it comes to determining the most critical surface. Potential failure
surfaces having a circular shape will, in particular, be systematically explored. Moreover, it
will be particularly useful to carefully examine any surface that passes through the base of
the facing with a small radius of curvature. These surfaces can be modelled by a circular
surface at the uphill slope of the facing, and by a passive earth pressure wedge in the
downhill slope (figure 21).
Planar potential failure surfaces, even where these appear in the appendix to illustrate what
safety considerations are being taken into account in the coefficients used, are not advised,
128
since these give results that are too approximate, particularly in the case of purely cohesive
soils.
Whatever the method chosen, it is important to find the volume of reinforced soil showing
the most critical stability conditions. Here it must be emphasized that this one can differ
greatly from the critical volume of the nonreinforced soil.
The study of the external stability is carried out in a similar manner to that of the overall
stability of retaining structures. It uses the ultimate limit state methods with the values of the
partial safety factors given in this chapter.
In the particular instance of a soil nailed structure being built on a site where the initial
stability, while ensured, is nevertheless low in comparison with the criterion used for the soil
nailed wall, steps should be taken to verify that the latter is having no weakening effect on
the initial stability of the site.
Where a slope is present, it is useful to verify the stability of any potential failure surface that
could occur along the slope, particularly up to a distance 3H from the facing, H being the
height of the soil nailed structure.
Figure 20. Calculation of the internal stability of a soil nailed wall using the method of slices.
129
Figure 21. Specific potential failure surface passing under the toe of the facing.
3.2.4. Examples of calculations and design
Three examples of calculations made for soil nailed walls are presented below. Of the first
two, one deals with an accidental failure due to the lack of friction, the other with failure
caused by the breakage of the nails in the CEBTP No.1 experimental soil nailed wall, which
formed part of the Project CLOUTERRE. These first two examples, details of which have
already been published in the literature, are to some extent, a good check for the limit
equilibrium methods with regard to the two most observed types of failure found in soil
nailing. The third case involves fairly detailed design of a soil nailed wall subject to water
and several different soil layers.
3.2.4.1. Example of the Eparris wall
The Eparris soil nailed wall (Schlosser and Guilloux, 1982), was built in February 1981 in a
shallow clayey formation that included some areas of sand. Water was found several meters
down and, at varying levels, this is evidence of a complicated hydrogeology. When the wall
was constructed, several subhorizontal drains, 6 meters long, were installed in the wet zones.
The tubes used to house the nails were vibrated into a predrilled borehole and then injected
with grouting at a pressure of 100 to 200 kPa. The final equivalent nail diameter was
100 mm.
In May 1981, following a period of very heavy rain, the wall failed. Figure 22 shows the
kinematics of the failure, which is completely different to those resulting from the breakage
of the nails. Pull-out tests on the nails, which were carried out following failure, showed that
130
the soil nail skin friction had a value well below that which had been adopted when
planning the design (qs = 45.5 kPa on average, instead of qs = 100 kPa). This showed that the
wall had failed due to a lack of soil nail friction.
The wall was rebuilt immediately using the same type of nails (tubes), the same diameter of
nail (Dc = 100 mm), and the same spacing arrangement (Sv = Sh = 2 m), but with a longer
length of nail (L = 10 m). The facing also had a flatter slope (inclination from the vertical 11 =
30° instead of 20°). The structure has behaved perfectly ever since.
The stability calculations of the failed wall were first made by taking all the partial safety
coefficients as being equal to 1, as well as the load factors and the method factor r S3 ' With
these values a coefficient r mill was calculated whereby:
r.mm ='tmax /'t
which, to some extent, represents the difference between the calculation method and the
reality, or can be interpreted as the overall safety factor F as used in traditional calculation
methods.
It was later noted that a partial safety factor value I m,R higher than 1.0 would not alter I mill as
long as I m,R remained lower than or equal to the minimum for the ratio R,/TL , equal to 7.0
and calculated on the length of nails located beyond the most critical potential failure surface.
This shows that the failure of the soil nailed wall has clearly been caused by a lack of soil
nail friction.
It should be noted that when formulating a pessimistic assumption for a water table at the
surface of the soil on the slope, the value of the coefficient I mill is 0.71 (figure 22).
On the other hand, when formulating an assumption of perfect drainage and the absence of
any pore water pressures in the domain of soil affected by the nailed mass, the r mill
coefficient value is 1.0.
The reality lies between these two extremes and is without doubt nearer to the value
r mill = La, when it is remembered that subhorizontal drains had been installed.
One should also note the uncertainty concerning the final diameter of the nails
(Dc = 100 mm), since investigations carried out after failure have shown fairly strong
variations in this parameter. This diameter, Dc, resulted from the drilled borehole expanding
due to pressure from the injected grout; the heterogeneity of the soil and the different
grouting pressures might explain the variations observed in this parameter, which is
fundamental in any failure caused by lack of friction.
A post-analysis calculation is able to clearly demonstrate the influence of the bending

resistance of the nails on the factor I mill' If this resistance is ignored with an assumption
based on the absence of pore water pressure, then the value of I mill is 0.92 instead of 1.00.
This shows that here the effect of the bending resistance of the nails is to increase the overall
131
..... :is 00 CI)
w
I\) ::r' e:., 0
Soil N I ~ ~ ::::
f min = 0.71 ro '< !C!:
3
Y 20kN/m o Pl' el.
fm,'f =\.0
C' 0 0.80 074 072 0.71 072 2.0. s:
+ + + '< 0 lQ
f m , q s =1.0 .-+"1
tp' 28° ::r' cr' :a
0079 074 0 0 }3
fm,P = 1.0 + 8 ro,< ~
45,5 kPa r
qs (if Pl 0
fm,r =7.0 ~"1j :3
078 48 072 0.74
Pr 500 kPa g;. ~ :3
f s = 1.0 ........ 0 CIl
3 ro >< ::J
k s Dc 9150 kPa 0.73 0.711 0.73 0.77
+
/8 ~ S· 2-
ro
~
'"
~
::!'
O·
0.77 . 2 0:12 0,75 0.81
+ + OCI ro ::J
s:-~ !II
76 0.73 0.74 0.79 0.87 ..... \0 I
+ + + + . OO"1j ....
prro l8
0.76 0.74 0.77 0.85 0.97 ~"1 ....
+ . + + + ro ()
~ 0
..... .-+
~ .....
8' ~
()
Pl 0
§.g
C Pl
Method of SV=Sh=2m ~ ::l.
;t"oo
perturbations o
~
Steel structural ___
tubing. 10 40mm,
:is
0049mm §::
AOJ A9
g-
"i\l\les '(\(j \lQI ()
~e\\\'O{C\ Steel structural tubing o"1
~s\ee\ <\> '2.':>((\((\ 10 40mm ,00 49mm
Scale:
nl
00
o 2 10m I f-£ "1j
o
~
0-
l%:~llilU*,~v~~,»~rn;;my; ~~~~
S'
OCI
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE EPARRIS WALL ()
TERRASOL Pl
........
TALREN Prgram ()
S
Pl
::to
o
Figure 22. Analysis of the stability at ultimate limit state, for the Eparris wall. ~
3.2.4.2. Example of CEBTP Experiment No.1
The soil nailed wall involved in the first CEBTP experiment, which was carried out as part of
the Project CLOUTERRE, was designed so that it would fail because of breakage of the nails.
As indicated in paragraph 3.4. of chapter 1, failure was deliberately caused by partly
saturating the soil nailed structure with water fed from a pond at the top of the structure.
The design of the wall was worked out so as to obtain a small overall safety factor, which
was calculated as being equal to 1.10 using the TALREN program and Bishop's method of
slices. A few comparisons were made following its failure using the same computer software
(Schlosser, 1989).
In order to transform the basic inequality referred to in paragraph 3.1.1.1. into an equality,
the coefficient r mill was introduced, such that:
Figure 23a shows the internal design calculations used for the wall. These calculations can be
redone starting with the fundamental inequality with respect to a failure by breakage of the
nails. By including in the calculations the previous inequality, then all coefficients are equal
to 1.0, except r mill' which is to be determined, and r m,qs , which was taken to be equal to 4.3,
(the value representing the minimum of the ratio TL / R as calculated for the length of the
Il
nails located beyond the most critical failure surface) one gets r mill = 1.10. This shows that
this coefficient fully corresponds, in respect to these assumptions, to the global safety
coefficient F = 1.10 found in traditional methods.
Figure 23b shows details of the study of the actual failure for which it was assumed that,
following the introduction of the water, it would be possible to distinguish two layers of soil:
one, virtually saturated at the base of the wall and having no cohesion (c = 0 kPa), the other
not saturated and keeping its initial cohesion (c = 3 kPa). This schematization resulted from
the observation at the moment of failure, in that a lower part of the facing had been soaked
through to a great extent. The height h of the soaked zone had been taken as the calculation
parameter, and the graph given in figure 24a shows the variation of the coefficient r mill at
failure in the function of h. It will be noted that where r mill = 1.00, the value of h varies from
2.25 m when the bending resistance of the nails is not taken into account, to 3.25 m when this
resistance is taken into account, while the observed value is around 2.5 m.
This breakup in two layers of soil having different physical and mechanical characteristics
represents an extreme case. Another approach would be to assume that the amount of water
poured into the wall is shared uniformly throughout the full height of the zone of wall
located under the pond. This assumption gives an average water content w = 19 percent
while the initial value was W o = 10.7 percent.
133
Soil N Bishop's method

I
y 16.6 kN 1m
f st 1.00
c 3 kPo
'f 38"
qs 80 kPo
Pt 1200 kPo ~ \.\0
\"(I'\{'
f min , 1.0
Ks ' B 27500 kPo
fm''f'I.O
::,<>(1'
,,>A .
fm,e' 1.0
Sv = Sh' 1m
,--£!..J-
f m,Q5'4.3
fmp'I.O
• !
.-£!-l-
fm,r =1.0
CD ~ f 53 '1.0
..-£!-2-
~ a 1. DESIGN / BREAKAGE OF NAILS
~
Scale
, I 2 Bishop's method
Soil N
y 16.6 kN 1m 19.3. kN/m
f st 1.00 1.00
c 3 kPa o kPa
'f 38" 38"

qs 80 kPa 80 kPo
Pt 1200 kPa 1200 kPa
Ks'S 27500 kPa 27500 kPa
2.BOm ------
f min , 1.0
Sv = Sh '1 m I" I 1«1,1\ -- \.cf) fm,'f= 1.0
5.00m
R~'2.:'·:'(I'
I . I fm,e' 1.0
.....---: ..E-!. f m,Q5'4.3

fm,p, =1.0
..-£!-2-
f m,. =1.0
..-£!-2-
CD ~
f 53 =1.0
~ b) STABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE

FAILURE
~~ ~
ACTUAL
® ~ura soil
h=225m
~.
Scale ,
• TALREN
~ V2.0 du 12/03/91
TERRASOL
Figure 23. Design and stability analysis of the actual failure of the first full-scale
experimental soil nailed wall (CEBTP, French National Project CLOUTERRE, 1986).
134
h
tml
I
.... I
...
'-,I ..... .....

I
3
: ...... ~With bending in
I
- '.." the nails
2
Without -Y 1
""',
bending: -',
in the nails : "
I ,
I
o 1.10 fmin
0.95 1.05
( a )
w t%l Average water content
t w = 29% I Sr = 100 1 %
~
'''''... ~ With bending
....... ~ in the nails
..... ....
....... .....
20 __________ yt:J~_%
......... ~
:
,I
.... ....... Without bending in
..........
the nai Is
fmin =0,98:, I .......... ...
(Wo=10.7%,Sr=37 % ) :
-.-.-.-.-.---·-----------
10 L-._ _---r .. ------------r·---I----------------
---r_ _-'---,-_._ _ -,-~loo.__.....,::~
'......
-._----~...
r
_ min
_ ~
0.85 0.90 0.95 1.05 1.10
( b)
Figure 24. Variations of the factor r min with the average water content wof backfill (CEBTP
wall NO.1 - calculations using the TALREN software program).
135
By assuming that the cohesion varies linearly as a function of the degree of saturation Sr ,
and the water content (where c = 0 kPa, Sr = 100 percent) one can trace two curves of the
coefficient r min (figure 24b), one taking into account the bending stiffness of the nails, and the
other not. It is noted that the value of the coefficient r min upon failure thus falls within 0.95
and 0.98.
On the whole, and in spite of the uncertainties inherent in the type of loading used in this
full-scale experiment, the results showed that the values r min calculated using classical limit
equilibrium methods are a correct approach to reality.
3.2.4.3. Example of a mixed soil nailed wall with surcharges and partial drainage in a
layer system
Here we are looking at the case of a soil nailed wall with a vertical facing, a total height of
H = 17 m, comprising five rows of nails and a row of prestressed ground anchors at the top.
The nails are shorter at the base but are also placed closer together (figure 25).
Prestressed ground anchors have been used in view of the sensitive nature of the structure
(buildings and roadway to be constructed at the upper part of the wall) and to reduce the
deformations undergone at the top of the structure to acceptable levels.
Since the structure was situated in a slope with a water table, drainage of the soil nailed
structure was provided. This drainage was effective for the prestressed anchors but only
partly effective in the zone of the lowest nails.
Figure 25 shows the results from calculations made using the TALREN software package.
The typical features of the soils, the surcharges, the nails, and the ground anchors are shown
in table V.
When designing the structure, the characteristic parameters of the nails and the ground
anchors were taken to be such that the factor r min linked to the required values for both the
load factors and the partial safety factors had a value of 1.00. It will be noted (figure 25) that
this value corresponds to two potential failure surfaces: a circle affecting mainly the nailed
structure, and another encircling a large part of the nailed structure and passing through the
centers of the prestressed ground anchors, and therefore more representative of the overall
stability of the structure.
3.2.5. Simplified methods
3.2.5.1. Assumptions
These methods are referred to as "simplified" because they formulate the assumption that the
nails work only in tension.
136
Soil N i<· 2. ·3· 4,' . 6 7 1.(.03 1. 00 1,06 1,06 1+07 I .. 10 1.(.01
y I 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 20.0 17 .0 0.0

rs1 1. 050 1. 050 1. 050 1.050 1. 050 1. 050 1. 000 1.;: 02 It 08 I.;: 04 1,10 1,11 G:OO) 1+. 01
10.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 200.0 20.0 0.0

<l> 25.0 35.0 35.0 36.0 40.0 30.0 0.0
1,02 I.;: 07 1,07 1,17~,02 1,01 1,02
qscl 0.0 120.0 160.0 200.0 0.0 80.0 0.0
/
!P1 0.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 0.0 500.0 0.0
Ks. B 0.0 17000.0 26000.0 46000.0 0.0 5500.0 0.01 / If 11 1,10 1 1,04 1.;:02 l-i- 03 1+ 06
Units in kN 1 meters, and degrees

Calculation method' PERTURBATIONS 1 f 09 1+ 17 If 06 If 04 1.; 04 1.+08 I+. 07
Sr 4
Sr 3
hl
fmin= 1.00
fm,'f= 1.30
fm,c= 1.65
Ti 1 fm,pe=z.OO
~ f m,Qs=1.50
C1 2
Nails
fm,r =1.15
Sl2.. \ f"'Q =150

Ground anchors
»:-:~
\ '
.. ··~~·.I l fm'R = 1.15
C1 4
f = 125
C1 5 " 9
~
...CD
Co)
"
.:-: /ca~e.: ..... :... .i?ni.: ..
TALREN SOIL NAILED WALL WITH GROUND ANCHORS Calculation done by

j
::::!"
Doted (12 March 1931 SURCHAGES AND PARTIAL DRAINAGE g
TERRASOL 0990-INF-S Fich: 0990infsy TERRASOL
~
Q.
...... Figure 25. Ultimate limit state design of a soil nailed wall with surcharges and partial drainage. ~
W cQ'
-...J :::J
TABLE V. Values of the parameters in the design example.
SOILS
Soil No. y r si c <P qs pI ks
1 19.0 1.05 10.0 25.0 0.0 0 0
2 19.0 1.05 10.0 35.0 120.0 1000 17000
3 19.0 1.05 20.0 35.0 160.0 1500 26000
4 19.0 1.05 30.0 36.0 200.0 2000 46000
5 20.0 1.05 200.0 40.0 0.0 0 0
6 17.0 1.05 20.0 30.0 80.0 500 5500
7 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
SURCHARGES PER UNIT LENGTH OF SURFACE

N2 0'1 0'2 rq
Sr 1 20.0 20.0 1.330
Sr 2 110.0 110.0 1.200
Sr 3 22.5 22.5 1.000
Sr 4 45.0 30.0 1.200
NAILS
N2 Tc Sh Elevation L i Dc Mo EI
C12 400 2.00 10.50 13.0 10.0 0.13 1.9 26.4
C13 400 2.00 8.00 13.0 10.0 0.13 1.9 26.4
C14 400 2.00 5.50 13.0 10.0 0.13 1.9 26.4
CIS 400 2.00 3.50 12.0 10.0 0.13 1.9 26.4
C16 400 2.00 1.50 10.0 10.0 0.13 1.9 26.4
GROUND ANCHORS
N2 Tg Sh Elevation L free L grouted i TL
Ti 1 900 2.00 13.00 13.0 12.0 10.0 1350
units in kN, meters and degrees
138
Under these circumstances, there remain only the nail failure criterion and the soil-nail skin
friction criterion ('t < qs)' which are detailed below.
a) Skin friction criterion
qs unit skin friction

1tD perimeter of the nail
La anchorage length of the nails beyond the failure surface
D = Dc for grouted nails
D = Da for driven nails
b) Nail failure criterion
This is reduced to:

T It ~ RIt
RIt = tensile strength of the reinforcing element
The tension force for calculation is then expressed as:
[q s 1t D La ,
T
It
< .
_ mm
r m, q, r:,'J
r m qs partial safety factor for the unit skin friction.
r m cre = partial safety factor for the tensile strength of the reinforcing bar.
Values for these factors are given in table IV.
With the exception of this assumption on the behavior of nails in "tension only," the
conditions for the study of the stability of the soil nailed structure are identical to those
found in general cases.
The assumption of a nail working in tension only can be justified for the reasons given
below.
• It corresponds to the way the nails work in the majority of structures in service. In fact,
the mechanism of skin friction interaction is preponderant in soil nailed retaining
structures and develops with small deformations, before the mechanism of lateral
pressure, which is only observed in the immediate vicinity of the failure.
139
• For certain techniques (driven steel bars), the nails used in retaining structures have a
section and inertia small enough, such that the results of calculations with the assumption
of "tension only" differ slightly from those where shearing and bending have been taken
into account.
Regarding this point, the following comment must, however, be added.
On the theoretical level, when using classical limit equilibrium methods, there is not always a
beneficial effect from taking account of bending and shearing, in fact, as shown in the
multicriteria principle, the value of the force at failure in pure tension RIJ can be significantly
higher than the component at failure tension TIJ that results from the combination of tension
and shearing. However, in methods based on yield design theories, taking bending and
shearing into account, would always be beneficial.
One must be careful, given present knowledge, to consider that the "simplified" calculation
provides systematically a conservative approach of conditions of stability.
3.2.5.2. Conditions of use
The methods that account for nails working in tension are only applicable to structures
where tension is largely predominant when compared with the shear forces and bending
moment, and which fulfills the following conditions:
Small inertia of the nails.

Only slight inclination of bars on the horizontal (never exceeding 20 0 ).
Any deformation in the structure result primarily from a lateral soil unloading.
No heavy surcharge on top of the structure.
With certain nailing techniques, these conditions are fairly well met.
3.3. Safety considerations
3.3.1. Practical rules
Each parameter is directly included in the fundamental formula (see paragraph 3.1.1.1.) with
its "calculation value."
• The calculation value of the actions is the product of the characteristic value defined in
paragraph 3.1.2.2. by a load factor r, which varies depending on the actions and on the
considered combination of actions, as shown in table III.
• The calculation value of the resistances of the soil and the nails is the quotient of the
characteristic value given in paragraph 3.1.3.2. by a partial safety factor that varies
depending on the material and the combination of actions involved. See table IV.
140
The calculation method used for design (method of slices, perturbation method, etc.) is
ascribed a factor r S3 , the so-called method factor, which appears in the fundamental formula
and has its minimum values:
r S3 1.125 in fundamental combination
r S3 = 1.0 in accidental combination
In theory, this method factor should vary depending on how realistic is the chosen failure
mechanism and how well results compare with reality. The more simple the type of failure
surface, a plane, for example, the more the method factor would have to be raised; but at the
present time and in the absence of any in-depth study about this matter, the minimum values
given above, provided steps are taken to carefully examine as many circular surfaces as
possible (c1assicallimit equilibrium methods) or as many logarithmic spirals as possible
(approach based on yield design theory). The distinction between short-, medium-, and long-
term structures (see chapter 6) is taken into account during the design by calculating the
extra thickness of steel needed to compensate for the corrosion of the steel present at the end
of the service life of the structure. Details of this procedure are given in chapter 6.
3.3.2. Illustration
In appendix 3, the calculation at ultimate limit state of a wedge held by a nail is presented.
This was done to familiarize the reader with the use of load factors r and partial safety
factors r m in calculations at ultimate limit state. Equivalences become apparent between these
factors and the traditional global safety factor.
4. JUSTIFYING THE FACING
4.1. The mechanical role of the facing - Modelling for the calculations
The facing has several functions.
a) It provides a lateral confinement for the soil by ensuring equilibrium between the local
pressure p of the soil (assumed in the calculations to be uniform) and the tension To at the
head of the nails:
To
p
In practice, however, the local pressure p of the soil between the nails is not uniform. It
depends on the deformability and the local displacement of the facing. There is a
tendency for arching effects to develop between the nails, which concentrates pressures
locally in the vicinity of the nails.
141
b) It can support certain exterior loads, such as facing panels or vehicle barriers. This
paragraph will not deal with this type of loads.
The facing is designed at ultimate limit states. The tensions To at the head of the nails and the
pressures resulting from the soil on the facing are therefore considered as permanent and
external forces on the facing. Also remember that calculations of the stability of the soil
nailed mass at ultimate limit state are made without account taken of the facing's resistance
at the point where, what is regarded as the potential failure surface, intercepts the facing.
This is justified by the fact that during the construction of the structure, the lowest point of
the most critical potential failure surface generally intersects the excavation phase.
Designing the facing involves the following steps.
1) Determine the forces at the head of the nails and of the ground pressure on the facing,
and
2) Check the facing resistance.
4.2. Determining the forces applied on facing
In an attempt to simplify matters, it is generally assumed that the system of forces at the nail
facing connection is reduced to the tensile force To and that the ground pressure p is uniform.
Two approaches are possible. One can either deduce p by calculating the tension To on the
assumption of the maximum tensions that can be mobilized in the nails, or one can calculate
p as a local earth pressure using an appropriate failure mechanism and then deduce To' In
the absence of any reliable data on the way earth pressure is distributed along the facing, it is
recommended that the first approach described above be used. The value of To is deduced
from the value of the maximum tension force T max' which can be mobilized by considering a
single value for the ratio To / T max in the wall.
An assessment of T max in a row of nails is made by taking the minimum value of either the
tensile strength or the pull-out resistance of the nails as calculated on an anchorage length La
defined in figure 3.16, and weighed by the relevant partial safety factor whereby:
. 1t DL
[q s an R]
T = mIn -----
max r
m, q,
' rm, cr,
where D = Dc for a grouted nail,

D = Da for a driven nail,
La = length of anchoring (figure 16).
In reality, the experimental results from in-service structures generally show To / T max ratios
lower than those observed in Reinforced Earth walls. This is understandable if one
remembers that the soil is unloaded during the construction of a soil nailed wall. The values
142
of To / T max depend on a certain number of parameters (the stiffness of the soil, rigidity of the
facing, rigidity of the nails, depth and spacing of nails). The most important of these is the
spacing between the nails. Bearing in mind the results available from experiments conducted
to date, it is strongly recommended to adopt the maximum value of the ratio To / T max given
by the following empirical formula:
5 - 05
= 0.5 + . when 1 ::; 5 ::; 3 m
5
To / Tmax = 0.6 when 5 ::; 1 m
To / T
max
= 1 when 5 ~ 3 m
where 5 = max of (5 v and 5il ), expressed in meters.
This formula is derived from an analysis of measurements of the distribution of tensions in
walls where the nails were set out on a rectangular grid where 5v ::; 5il •
In the other case, the formula will need to be adapted conservatively.
Except in special circumstances, the facing will be designed using Tmax values that correspond
to the final structure phase, and no design of the facing will be done during the excavation
phases.
4.3. Design of the facing
The facing is in equilibrium under the effect of its weight, the tensions To at the head of the
nails, the pressures and the shear stresses exerted by the soil. It is during the very first
phases of excavation that the vertical equilibrium of the facing can be most critical (chapter 5,
paragraph 2.3.2.3, figure 10). During the subsequent phases, the skin friction mobilized at the
interface ensures equilibrium. When designing the facing of a finished structure, one does not
usually take into account neither the weight of the facing of the shear stresses in the soil or
the shear forces at the head of the nails.
Figure 26. Different models for designing the facing.
143
It is assumed that pressure is distributed uniformly on the tributary area of each nail. This is
conservative when compared with actual conditions when calculating bending in the facing.
The calculation model for the facing is similar to a slab loaded perpendicularly and
supporting concentrated loads at the heads of the nails (figure 26).
Depending on how the facing is built, the following schematic models apply.
1) Facing built with continuity of reinforcing bars (and standard overlapping lengths)
a) Short term wall (duration of service less than or equal to 18 months): Here the facing
is calculated as a continuous slab in both directions, ignoring any cracks that might
occur. The construction conditions (installation of reinforcing bars and shotcrete) will
need to take into account the actual continuity of the facing (figure 26, la).
b) Medium-term wall (from 18 months to 30 years) or long-term wall (more than 30

years). When making the calculations, take into account the fragile nature of the
concrete zone between the construction phases by introducing hinges into the model
(figure 26, Ib)
2) Facing built without continuity of reinforcing bars or with minimum construction continuity.
Here the facing is discontinuous and considered as cut by horizontal bands. Each band is
then calculated as a slab that is independent of its neighbors. Sometimes they can be reduced
to a one dimensional model and each horizontal band calculated as a beam (figure 26-2).
4.4. Justifications of the resistance
Justification of the facing takes two forms:
Justification under bending.

Justification against punching of the facing around the nail head.
All the justifications are carried out in accordance with the current regulations for reinforced
concrete (BAEL 83). The most essential points are highlighted below.
4.4.1. Justification under bending
The forces used when making calculations for the facing are detailed in paragraph 4.2 and
are ultimate limit state forces.
The forces are those resulting from the calculations defined in the previous paragraph 4.3.
a) Facing for a short-term soil nailed wall
144
Calculations for the reinforced concrete used in facing sections are made exclusively at
ultimate limit states. The following factors apply:
permanent loads r G = 1.35 to be applied to the tensile forces To at the head of the nails
concrete: r m,b = 1.50
steel: r m,s = l.15
b) Facing for a medium- or long-term soil nailed wall
The reinforced concrete calculations for the sections of facing are made at both ultimate limit
and serviceability limit states. The calculation at ultimate limit states is performed in exactly
the same way as for a short-term soil nailed wall. The calculations at serviceability limit
states are done when cracking is taken into account. In this event, the permanent forces in
the nails at the facing will have To values as defined in paragraph 4.2. and are not weighted.
The forces thus obtained are examined according to the specifications of Article A.4.5 of
BAEL 83.
4.4.2. Justification of a punching mode of failure around the nail head
In order to account for the concentrations of earth pressure p on the facing around the nails
when justifying a punching mode of failure of the facing, it is recommended to adopt To
values such that To / Tmax = 1, whatever the layout arrangement.
To forces and p pressures will be treated as Qu loads in the sense of Article A.5.2.4 of BAEL
83.
In addition to the articles referred to above, the rest of the BAEL regulations will need to be
equally respected, particularly those relating to nonfragility and minimum percentages.
145
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANTHOINE, A. (1990). Une methode pour Ie dimensionnement a la rupture des ouvrages

en sols renforces. Revue Fran<;aise de Geotechnique No.50, p.5-17.
A method for designing at failure reinforced soil structures.
BANGRATZ, J.L., and GIGAN, J.P. (1984). Methode rapide de calcul des massifs doues. Proc.
of International Colloquium on In Situ Reinforcement of Soils and Rocks, ENPC Press,
Paris, p.293-299.
Rapid calculation method of nailed structures.
BLONDEAU, F., CHRISTIANSEN, M., GUILLOUX, A., and SCHLOSSER, F. (1984).

TALREN, methode de calcul des ouvrages en terre renforcee, Proc. of International
Colloquium on the In Situ Reinforcement of Soils and Rocks, ENPC Press, Paris,
p.219-224.
TALREN, Calculation method of reinforced soil structures.
DE BUHAN, P., and SALEN\=ON, J. (1987). Analyse de la stabilite des ouvrages en sols
renforces par une methode d'homogeneisation. Revue Fran<;aise de Geotechnique NoA1,
p.29-43.
Analysis of the stability of reinforced soil structures by a homogenization method.
DE BUHAN, P., MARIGIAVACCHI, R, NOVA, R, PELLEGRINI, G., and SALEN\=ON, J.

(1989). Field design of Reinforced Earth Walls by a homogenization method.
Geotechnique No.39,2, p.189-201.
. DELMAS, Ph., BERCHE, J.C, CARTIER, G., and ABDELHEDI, A. (1986). Une nouvelle
methode de dimensionnement du douage des pentes: programme PROSPER Bulletin de
Liaison des laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees No.141, Janvier-Fevrier 1986.
A new method for designing slope nailing: PROSPER program.
FAU, D. (1987). Le douage des sols, application au soutenement de fouille, etude

experimentale et dimensionnement. Doctoral thesis, ENPC
Soil nailing, application to excavation retaining structures, experimental study and design.
GASSLER, G., and GUDEHUS, G. (1981). Soil Nailing, some aspects of a new technique. Proc.
10th ICSMFE, Stockholm (3) pp.665-670.
GASSLER, G., and GUDEHUS, G. (1983). Soil Nailing. Statistical Design. Proc. 8th ECSMFE,
Helsinki (2) ppA01-494.
GIGAN, J.P. (1986). Application du clouage en soutenement: parametres de conception et de

dimensionnement des ouvrages. Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et
Chaussees No.143, Mai-Juin.
Application of soil nailing for retaining structures: conception and design parameters for
structures.
146
GIGAN, J.P., and DELMAS, P. (1987). Mobilisation des efforts dans les ouvrages cloues.
Etude comparative des differentes methodes de calcul. Bulletin de Liaison deslaboratoires
des Ponts et Chaussees No.144.
Mobilization of loads in soil nailed structures. Comparative study of different design methods.
GUILLOUX, A., and SCHLOSSER, F. (1982). Soil nailing: practical applications. Proc. of
Symposium on soil and rock improvement techniques, including geotextiles, Reinforced
Earth and modern piling methods, Bangkok, November-December.
JURAN, 1., BAUDRAND, G., FARRAG, K., and ELIAS, V. (1990). Kinematical limit analysis
for design of soil nailed structures. Journal of Geotech. Div. ASCE, vol. 116, Janvier 90,
pp.54-72.
RAJOT, J.P. (1983). Introduction du clouage dans une methode globale de calcul de stabilite
des pentes. Travail de fin d'etudes, Ecole nationale des Travaux Publics de p. l'Etat, 177.
Introduction of nailing in a global slope stability analysis method.
SCHLOSSER, F. (1982). Behavior and design of soil nailing. Proc. of Symposium on soil and
rock improvement techniques, including geotextiles, Reinforced Earth and modern piling
methods, Bangkok, November-December 1982.
SCHLOSSER, F. (1982). Le clouage des sols: comportement et dimensionnement. Stage sur Ie

renforcement des sols. Formation continue ENPC.
Nailing of Soils: behavior and design.
SCHLOSSER, F. (1983). Analogies et differences dans Ie comportement et Ie calcul des

ouvrages de soutenement en Terre Armee et par clouage du sol. ITBTP Journal, No.418,
p.8-23, Oct.
Anologies and differences in the behavior and the design of Reinforced Earth and soil nailing.
SCHLOSSER, F. (1989). Le Projet National CLOUTERRE. ITBTP Journal, No.473, Mars-Avril.

The National Project CLOUTERRE.
SCHLOSSER, F., and LONG, N.T. (1972). Comportement de la Terre Armee dans les
ouvrages de soutenement. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Volume I, p.299-306, Madrid.
Behavior of Reinforced Earth in Retaining Structures.
Instruction technique sur les directives communes de 1979 relatives au calcul des
constructions (DC 79). Bulletin officiel du ministere de l'Environnement et du Cadre de
Vie et du ministere des Transports. Fasc. special 79-12 bis, circulaire No.79-25 du 13 mars
1979.
Technical Instruction on Community Directives (1979) relating to calculations of buildings
(DC79).
BUREAU SECURITAS (1986). Recommandations concernant la conception, Ie calcul,

l'execution et Ie contr6le des tirants d'ancrage (TA86), Ed. Eyrolles.
147
Recommendations regarding the design, calculation, implementation, and inspection of ground

anchors (TA 86).
Regles techniques de conception et de calcul des ouvrages et constructions en beton arme

suivant la methode des etats-limites BAEL 83. Bulletin officiel fasc. special No.83-45 bis,
fasc No.62 titre 1er, section 1.
Technical regulations on the design and calculations for structures made of reinforced concrete
using the BAEL 83 limit-states method.
Regles techniques de conception et de calcul des foundations des ouvrages de genie civil.
Facs 62-titre 5 (document provisoire).
Technical regulations on the design and calculations offoundations for civil engineering works.
Eurocode 7, Geotechnics - Preliminary draft for the European Communities.
148
APPENDIX1
CHARTS GIVING THE UNIT SKIN FRICTION qs FOR

PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE NAILS
1. DATA BANK
As part of the French National Project CLOUTERRE, the CEBTP was charged with the
collection of the results from pull-out tests carried out on nails installed by several members
of the project, either on construction sites or on experimental sites.
These tests, some 450 in all, were distributed throughout 36 different construction sites
(figure 1). However, if we consider a project as one site, one type of soil or one single
construction technique, then the tests were performed on 87 different sites.
,
:) 0
\ 00 0
\. "t 0
\_~/:
,'.
,/"
,' ....
o
,
.
,
o
... - ........
.........
";"'\"'<9
"'Q.
Figure 1. Location of test sites in France.
149
The results of the tests now constitute a data bank (French National Project CLOUTERRE,
CEBTP, January and March 1989) and for test purposes the following information was
retained:
The owner.
The site.
The soil characteristics.
The nail characteristics.
The test results.
The total number of tests for various soil types is shown in figure 2.
Sands.
Gravel and debris.
Marls and Chalks.
Clays and Silts.
Weathered rocks.
Numbers of tests '" .

[2]
:..:::.:.;.
.... Sands
....,
120
~
.... :", " Grovel and debris
~ Marls and chalky soils
~
~
100 ~ Cloy and silt
l:'7l
~ Weathered rocks
80
60
40
20
Figure 2. Distribution of tests as function of soil types; all nail types being put together.
As far as the installation methods were concerned, gravity injection was the most used
technique (60 percent of cases as opposed to 30 percent for the driving method and 10
percent for low pressure injection).
150
On the various sites where nail pull-out tests were performed, the soil data were obtained
from:
Pressuremeter tests (and laboratory tests) 86%

Laboratory tests 9%
Unreported data 5%
The pull-out tests were conducted in accordance with two installation modes:
The majority of the tests were performed under controlled force (creep steps) similar to
regular pull-out tests on ground anchors, but somewhat simplified.
The rest of the tests were performed under controlled displacement (at constant speed).
From all the tests carried out, 27 percent were not taken up to pull-out failure for two
reasons:
1) The test objective was to verify the service load of the nail.
2) The elastic limit of the reinforcing bar was lower than the failure load of the anchoring
grout.
2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN CHARTS
By establishing a data bank, we are now able to suggest preliminary design charts that (as
for piles and prestressed ground anchors) give a correlation between the pressure limit PI as
measured with the pressuremeter and the unit skin friction qs' As with piles and prestressed
ground anchors, the scattering of the test results is fairly wide (French National Project
CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, January and March 1989, Bel Hadj Amor, 1990).
The use of the preliminary design charts does not alleviate the user from performing routine
tests (see chapter 4): conformity tests prior to construction, and inspection tests during
construction.
The charts have been drawn for five types of soil for which we have a significant number of
test results:
Sand,
Gravel,
Clay and silt,
Marl-chalk,
Weathered rock.
Two construction techniques were retained: nails drilled and grouted under gravity, and nails
directly driven into the soil. Another chart has been prepared for nails grouted with low
151
pressure into gravel (injection pressure at the nail head is generally between 0.2 and 0.5
MPa).
Some adjustments have been made using hyperbolic relationships given by the results of
shear tests conducted by the Institute of Mechanics in Grenoble (Boulon et al. 1986). The
results have shown a good agreement for this type of curve, particularly where granular soils
are involved.
3. DESIGN METHOD
For a nail grouted along a given length La' the limit pull-out force computed for a given skin
friction, is equal to:
where: D = Dc: borehole diameter for grouted nails,

D = D s : equivalent diameter for driven nails (usually steel angles).
The unit skin frictions qs values are taken from the following table and reported in figures 3
to 7.
Correspondence between the charts, the soils, and the construction techniques.
SOILS CORRESPONDING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES

CHARTS
Gravity Low pressure

Grouting Grouting Drivin
g
Sand Figure 3 SI S3
Gravel Figure 4 Gl G2 G3
Clay/Silt Figure 5 Al
Marl
Marl-Chalk
Weathered to Figure 6 Ml
fragmented chalk
Weathered
Rock Figure 7 Rl
152
qs (MPa)
0.3 I
SAND
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
~ \---
-
I
~ --- i-\
$1
i--
~
- -
~ $3
0.05
V
v
.......
~
...
Pe (MPa)
o 2 3
1
Figure 3. Chart to estimate the unit skin friction qs for sand.
qs (MPa)
0.3 I I
CLAY
0.25
0.2
0.15
I-
~ ~ I--
0.1 ~
/
V
/'
V
0.05
o I Pe(MPa)1
o 1 2 3 4
Figure 4. Chart to estimate the unit skin friction qs for clay.
153
qs (MPo)
0.7
GRAVEL
0.6
/
v
0.5
/
0.4
V
G2 -
~
,/
0.3
V 1
G ""
0.2
0.1
V.... .... - 1--- '--- I~-
v G3
....
:,....
~.- 1 - ' -
1-.- .- .- .L ' - Pe(MPo) I
o
2 3 4 5
Figure 5. Chart to estimate the unit skin friction qs for gravel.
qs(MPa)
0.5
MARL-CHALK
0,4
0.3
0.2
-- -- - - I--
0.1 ~
~
-- f-- ~
P~ (MPa) I
o
o 2 3 4 --
Figure 6. Chart to estimate the unit skin friction qs for marl-chalk
154
qs (MPo )
0.6
WEATHERED ROCK
0.5
V
0.4
/
/'
0.3
/"
/
V
/
/
0.2
V
0.1
Pe (MPo)
o
2 3 4 5
Figure 7. Chart to estimate the unit skin friction qs for weathered rock.
155
156
APPENDIX 2
STABILITY CHARTS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF

SOIL NAILED WALLS
1. NAILING DENSITY
The nailing density d is expressed by the following nondimensional expression:
where: t(kN/m) skin friction force per unit length of nail,

y(kN/m 3) soil unit weight,
Sv and Sh (m) : vertical and horizontal spacings between nails.
This parameter characterizes the reinforcement force developed by the soil nail skin friction
interaction as a function of a unit volume of the soil.
The value of this parameter shows the amount of reinforcement in the soil and has been
evaluated for a large number of structures. Depending on the soil types, the values vary from
0.5 to 1.5 in structures with grouted nails.
157
2. DESIGN CHARTS
Characterization of the soil reinforcement by a single parameter can be useful for the
preparation of the design charts for homogeneous soils (Bangratz and Gigan, 1984).
The principle is illustrated in figure 9, chapter 3.
For a given geometry of a structure defined by the ratio L I H (nail length over wall height),
the stability charts are given for different values of nailing densities, d. The charts are drawn
in a coordinate system: n = ely H versus tamp, where q> and e are the strength soil
parameters.
Linearity of the relationship between the different parameters leads to a chart of the global
safety coefficient, such as F = OMIOA, M being the representative soil point.
Inversely, for a predetermined global safety coefficient F, the charts give the nailing density,
and thus the nail spacing can be deduced.
The facing, with height H, is vertical and the soil surface at the top of the wall is horizontal
and without any surcharge.
Two nail distributions have been studied:
a) nails having a constant length L I H: 0.6 - 0.8 - 1.0 - 1.2

b) nails with decreasing length linearly with depth, such as the lengths located beyond the
sliding block (inclined to 1t + ! on the horizontal) are constant.
4 2
The lengths midway up the facing are such that:
L I H = 0.6 - 0.8 - 1.0 - 1.2
The charts (figures I and 2) have been prepared for nails with a constant length and for nails
inclined below the horizontal e = 20 0 • The results can be corrected for other inclinations by
using the charts in figure 3.
The nailing density varies from d = 0.1 to d = 1.0.
3. USING THE CHARTS
1) Choose the chart in accordance with the ratio L I H and the geometry involved (constant
nail length or decreasing length).
2) Locate point M representing the soil in the coordinates system (N = e I yH versus tanq»
158
3) Calculate the nailing density:
where: 't = P qs
P perimeter of the nail section,
qs : unit skin friction.
4) The straight line OM intersects the stability curve corresponding to the value of d at point
A. The global safety coefficient is therefore equal to the ratio OM/OA.
159
N =o-f.-
yH 03 -----;:::===~;:::::===;---I-----:--;::~~-I
I" TL L / H 0.6 =0
d= - - ' = - - -
yShSv L L
~
l;J
H
A / /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
c
N=o- 0.3
yH L/H =0 0.8
~
H
C=O I
-~~
1 2
tan l..f
Figure 1. Design chart for preliminary design of soil nailed walls with L / H = 0.6 and 0.8 (8 = 20°).
160
c
N=-
yH 0 . 3 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - 1
L /H = 1
2
ton 'f
N=~
yH 0 . 3 . - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - 1
L/H = 1.2
O.II---\-\\r\----J..-~ __---+----:::::,.....,~------____j
2
ian
Figure 2. Stability charts for preliminary design of soil nailed walls for L / H = 1.0 and 1.2 (e = 20°).
161
F Itan,\, FIN I L=O.6 H I F/tan'f FIN

I L =H r
tan'f=O
---1,-----:-_ __ _ 1--
Ion 'f =0
4 ----l----T----~----~ 4 ~ -!I I - --
I I I I . . . . -. -. I i
g.1 1N/tan'f
-ra. 3
3 I I I I
3 1---....-::-----;.1- -. I
I---tl_---t----+--_ 10.3l
2 1---;---;---+----!' 0.1 N Iton'f 2 I I I
,
,0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
0'------1-----'-----'-----'--__ o
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
Inclination 0( (0) Inclination <X (0)
Figure 3. Corrections for the charts for inclinations other than 20°.
4. SAFETY VERIFICATIONS
4.1. Traditional method
The value of qs is taken to be equal to the allowable value of the unit skin friction. The global
safety factor of the soil nailed wall is F = OM/OA.
4.2. Calculating at ultimate limit state
The coordinates of point M are in this case equal to (tamp / r m,<jl, C / r m,e)' where r m,<jl and r m,e
are the partial safety coefficients for the internal friction angle and the soil cohesion.
The nailing density is calculated as:
t
d
r m, qs yr s
5J V
Sh
The straight line OM intersects the corresponding design curve for a value of d at point A,
which then gives:
r S3 ~ OM/OA
162
APPENDIX 3
STABILITY OF A WEDGE OF SOIL REINFORCED BY

ONE NAIL
Calculating the stability of a soil nailed mass resting on an inclined potential failure plane is
presented for academic purposes. This type of calculation is not recommended in practice, as
already stated in paragraph 3.2.3.
The assumptions and notations are shown in figure 1. The forces acting on the sliding wedge
are given in the sketch.
eto H
~fO
Figure I. Equilibrium of a wedge reinforced upported by one nail. Notations and acting forces on the wedge.
In the event of a plane potential failure surface, the equilibrium condition to be verified is:
163
where: T projection of the resulting forces on the sliding plane,

T max shear resistance along this plane,
r S3 method coefficient.
The equilibrium equations yield:

T = Wsina - Tn cos X
Tmax (Wcosa + Tn sin X) tamp + cH / sina
where: a inclination of the potential failure plane on the horizontal,

X inclination of the nail with respect to the potential failure plane.
The basic formula, using the calculation values, can be rewritten as:
r S3 (Wsina - Tn COSX) ~ (Wcosa + Tn sin X) tamp + cH/sina
Using the load factors r and the partial safety coefficients r m' we obtain:
r S3 [rSI ·
Wsma r m,R
- - - cos X <
- J r SI wcosa tamp
- - +
-Tn- sm tamp
. X- -
cH
+ --
.
sma
r m,R r m,~
r m,R r m,~
r m, C
It is observed as discussed in paragraph 3.4.1., that the nail forces playa role both as active
forces (with the projection TIl cos X of the effort Tn ) and as resisting forces (with the increase
of resisting force induced by the normal component Tn sinx tan <p).
Comments: Relationship between the load factors, the partial safety factors and the traditional safety
factor F.
In a traditional calculation, the safety factors are taken into account in the various nail failure
criteria (they can be expressed by FR ) and then on the global stability when the structure
slides (global safety factor F).
For this example of a sliding nailed wedge, the global safety factor F is expressed as:
Wcosa tan<p (T/FR ) sin X tan<p + cH/sina

+
F
Wsina - (T/F cos X R
)
If we put these two formulae together we can illustrate the following equivalences, which are
not equal:
164
TRADITIONAL SAFETY (FACTOR) LOAD FACTORS AND PARTIAL SAFETY

FACTORS
FR rSl . rm,R
F on tamp r S3 · rm,<p
F on c r S3 · r Sl • rm,c
165
166
CHAPTER 4
INVESTIGATION AND TESTS
1. GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
The aim of the geotechnical study is to supply data relating to the behavior of the soil; this
will be needed for the design and construction stages of soil nailed walls and should also
allow for the monitoring of the interaction between the walls and existing structures.
1.1. Preliminary investigation
The owner will prepare a report giving complete details of the site, showing site topography,
access roads, the locations of adjacent wall structures and their foundations, and all roads
and utilities. The plans, along with cross sections and elevations, will show all structures and
facilities on the site, as well, as a perimeter area extending around the soil nailed structure at
least 1.5 times the depth of the excavation. All documents will specify the service life of the
supporting structure.
A preliminary site visit and a review of geological maps will allow the engineer to predict
the nature of the soil to be nailed (see chapter I, paragraph 2.4.).
In all classes of soils (difficult or not), the field site report must recommend a geotechnical
investigation program.
1.2. Soil Investigation
From the geotechnical investigation program, the subsurface stratigraphy will be developed
for every 200 to 600 m 2 of soil nailed wall. Depending on the complexity and project size or
for any significant changes found in the site geology, the stratigraphy for a cross section will
cover a distance from the face equal to one and a half times the height of the wall. It will
also extend at least two meters below its base, unless it can be demonstrated that the soil at
the deeper levels has at least the same quality (Figure la). In sloping ground, the distance
from the wall face will be taken as three times the height of the wall (Figure Ib).
167
The exploratory borings and the soil sampling (disturbed and undisturbed samples) should
be carried out in accordance with current French standards.
L ~ 1,5H
.. I---------------------=~
L> 3H S
n
-
ISj I
I I
H
I
I H
I, I
I
2m I; 2m
II
I
®
Figure 1. Area of investigation.
For large sites, the soil stratigraphy can be confirmed with destructive production drilling
techniques with appropriate data recordings. These drilling parameters will be calibrated
with the conventional geotechnical boring advancement techniques used at the site.
The development of the stratigraphy with .conventional methods may be supplemented with
pressuremeter tests and/ or cone penetrometer tests. The use of dynamic penetrometer tests
will enable the penetration of any intermediate compact soil layers and the foundation
stratum to be found. It will also provide data on the possibilities of installing metal nails
using the percussion method.
1.3. Laboratory and in situ tests
The objectives of these tests are:
1) To identify the soil.
2) To determine the soil strength parameters <p and c (which are necessary whatever the
design method used).
168
Chapter 4: Investigations and Tests
3) To assess the unit skin friction qs based on pressuremeter tests.
1.3.1. Cohesionless soils
1) The identification will consist of performing a sieve analysis, including the fines fraction
and determining the natural water content.
2) In determining the strength parameters, <p and c, it is important to remember that the
method of building a soil nailed wall requires a small amount of cohesion. This is often
difficult to measure in cohesionless soils because of its small value.
If no regional experience is available, a triaxial test, rather than a shear box test, will be used
to determine the <p and c values.
If undisturbed samples cannot be obtained, phicometer tests can be used, but the value
obtained for the cohesion c should be used very carefully.
The standard penetration test (SPT), or cone penetrometer tests (CPT), may be used with the
usual correlations to estimate the value of the internal friction angle <po
1.3.2. Cohesive soils
1) The identification will consist of determining the Atterberg limits, the total unit weight,
the natural water content w, and the dry unit weight Yd'
2) For parameters <p and c, it is recommended to measure them for both short- and long-
term conditions in order to check the stability of the soil nailed wall both during and
after construction, irrespective of whether the wall is a medium- or long-term structure.
• Short-term strength parameters of saturated soil
The parameters <Pll and Cll will be determined for the soil nailed mass, checking <Pll = 0 since
the soil is fine-grained and saturated.
• Long-term strength parameters of saturated soil
One will determine the intrinsic parameters <p' and c' of the soils, which are very different in
the case of fine soils from the apparent short-term values <Pll and Cll' A triaxial test rather than
a shear box test will be used.
NOTE: For a fine, nonsaturated soil, remote from saturation, the short- and long-term
characteristics are almost equal and the angle of internal friction is close to <p'. However, as a
result of capillarity effects, the cohesion is higher than c' .
169
1.3.3. Characteristic values of strength parameters
The geotechnical engineer is responsible for providing the most probable values, based on in
situ and laboratory tests performed on a sufficient number of samples.
The characteristic value of the unit skin friction qs is given either by charts (see the appendix
to this chapter) or based on the results of in situ tests (see paragraph 2.8.).
1.4. Determination of the soil corrosion potential
Chapter 6 - Durability of the structures - gives a global corrosion index. This index
depends on the soil's resistivity and pH level.
1.5. Hydrogeological study
In order to find the water table and follow its variations, a system must be installed to
measure the site hydraulic regime. Depending on the type of soil, the frequency of
measurements of the water table variations will need to be increased. Generally, standpipe
piezometers will be used.
If one or more water tables is present, the permeability of each layer of soil that intersects the
excavations needs to be determined.
2. NAIL TESTS
2.1. Tests objective
Since the stability of a soil nailed wall is studied at its ultimate limit state, the main objective
of nail tests is to determine the unit skin friction qs. However, it is recommended that during
the test, steps be taken to measure all the unit skin friction curves as a function of the
relative nail! soil displacement.
2.2. Different types of tests
Depending on the objectives of the tests and at what stage of the building schedule they are
performed, one can distinguish among:
Preliminary tests at the planning stage, even before construction works have started.
Conformity tests when work begins on the site.
Inspection tests during the construction.
All the tests are identical and attempt to prove the quality of the soil nail friction. This is
done by applying a static tension at the head of a nail until movement by lack of friction
170
occurs. The selection of the cross section is chosen to avoid breakage of the nail in tension.
None of the nails used in these three types of test can be reused or incorporated into the
structure.
2.3. Objectives of the different tests
2.3.1. Preliminary tests
In principle, preliminary tests are reserved for soils outside the normal range of applications
defined in chapter 1, for validating a new nailing technique, for an important construction
site, or if demanded by the owner.
They can be carried out by a company other than the one in charge of the construction.
The objective is to determine a maximum tension. Preliminary tests are, of course, carried out
several weeks in advance of any service nails being installed. The preliminary tests are
performed on specific nails installed in test plots.
The minimum number of preliminary tests to be conducted account for the wide dispersion
observed on real sites. Table I gives the minimum number of tests specified for each type of
soil, depending on the facing area that concerns that soil type (figure 2).
TABLE I.
m 2 of facing No m 2 of facing No
Up to 800 6 4 000 to 8 000 15
800 to 2 000 9 8 000 to 16 000 18
2 000 to 4 000 12 16 000 to 40 000 25
171
100m
I- ~I
1000 m 2 of facing
N° 1 N=9 10 m
400 m2 of facing
4m
N=6
Figure 2. Example showing the number of tests to be carried out for each different type of soil encountered.
2.3.2. Conformity tests at the beginning of the construction
The objective of these tests is to check the validity of the assumptions on the soil nail unit
skin friction value qs taken at the planning stage.
The conformity tests are conducted for each different soil layer once the appropriate
excavation depth is reached. The wall facing may be used as a reaction block. In that case,
one should check that the facing will not be damaged when applying the maximum pull-out
force.
If no preliminary tests are carried out, the conformity tests are compulsory for all soil nailed
walls. Table 11 gives the minimum number of conformity tests specified for each type of soil,
depending on the facing area concerned with that soil type.
It is important to distribute the total number of tests evenly throughout the whole structure.
TABLE II.
m 2 of facing No m 2 of facing No
Up to 800 6 4 000 to 8 000 15
800 to 2 000 9 8 000 to 16 000 18
2 000 to 4 000 12 6 000 to 40 000 25
172
If the company conducting the preliminary tests is not in charge of the construction,
conformity tests will still have to be carried out at the beginning of construction. However, if
the same nailing technique is used with the same installation procedure, the number of tests
could be divided by 2.
If the company conducting the preliminary tests is in charge of the construction, no

conformity test is required.
2.3.3. Inspection tests during construction
Inspection tests are carried out on nails chosen in advance and for which the cross section
has been dimensioned so that failure by pull-out will be reached without causing the nail to
rupture.
Inspection tests are compulsory for all sites. For each soil layer encountered a minimum
number N is fixed as five tests up to 1 000 m 2, with a minimum of one test for each
excavation stage. Over 1 000 m 2, the number of tests will be increased by one for each
additional 200 m 2• The total number of tests should be distributed evenly throughout the
whole structure.
2.4. Contractor's duties
If the owner believes the contractor can be exempted from the preliminary tests as defined in
paragraph 2.2.1., the reasons for exemption will be specified in the technical documents.
The contractor is responsible for the execution and interpretation of the preliminary,
conformity, and inspection tests. The results are given to the owner or his representative who
should give agreement before any work can be carried out or continued.
2.5. Nail tests and reaction forms
2.5.1. Nail tests location
The nails to be used in the preliminary tests will be installed in the ground and grouted in
the soil layer for which the interaction between the soil and nail is to be measured.
The nails used in conformity tests will be installed in the concrete facing when work begins
on the soil nailed wall. Tests will be conducted on each soil type or where soil differences
occur.
The nails to be used in the inspection tests will be installed between the service nails in the
soil nailed wall.
173
2.5.2. Reaction forms
• Preliminary tests: Special reaction forms will be built for test nails and the design should
prevent any appreciable rotation of the support.
• Conformity tests: The facing will be used as the reaction form and special attention
must be given to the design of the facing to ensure no damage occurs during the tests.
2.5.3. Nail installation for the three types of tests
The procedure for placing the nail (inclination, drilling, installation, and grouting, in the case
of a grouted nail) should follow exactly the same procedure as the one planned for the
construction work. However, the reinforcing bar can have a higher tensile resistance, such
that the nail can fail through lack of adhesion rather than breakage of the nail. The grouted
or driven length will be equal to either the actual length of the nails used in the structure, or
5 meters. A minimum free length of 1 meter will be available in order to avoid boundary
effects when the supporting plate bears directly on the soil around the nail head (see
figure 5).
Test nails
Soil nO 1
I
Soil nO 2
Figure 3. Layout arrangement of nails used in preliminary tests.
If no free length has been reserved, the stresses induced by the jacking system should be
transferred far away from the nail with a whaler-type device.
The steel section of the reinforcing bar will be designed so that the maximum tension
remains less than O.9Tc .
The free length can be much longer for preliminary tests in order to simulate the real
overburden conditions of the structure (figure 3).
174
2.6. Nail tests procedure
The testing procedures for the three types of tests (preliminary, conformity, and inspection)
are identical.
2.6.1. Choice of the procedure
Based on results of research and studies conducted as part of the Project CLOUTERRE
(French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, June 1988 and December 1989; French
National Project CLOUTERRE, CERMES, December 1989), the standard pull-out test used is
the controlled displacement test (constant speed) with additional controlled force tests (creep
steps).
With the controlled displacement pull-out test, it is possible to determine the maximum pull-
out force Tu the residual force, as well as the value of the initial slope of the force
displacement curve (figure 4). The maximum unit skin friction, the residual unit skin friction
and the initial slope of the skin friction mobilization curve can be determined from the force
displacement curve (see appendix 1 to this chapter).
Force at head
I To
Peak
------_.~--~
~ Residual
Displacement at head Yo
-
Figure 4. Determination of the maximum pull-out force.
175
With controlled force test, the critical creep tension Tc and eventually the limit tensile force T L
can be measured. Results from a wide number of controlled force tests conducted within the
National Project CLOUTERRE or supplied by members of the Project (French National Project
CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, June 1988, March 1989, December 1989) have allowed the development
of correlations between the limit tensile force T L and the critical creep tension Tc • These ratios
are summarized in table III, which shows the order of magnitude of k = TLIT(I as a function
of the type of soil and the installation method used.
TABLE III.
k = TIITc
GRAVITY Sands 1.2
INJECTION Clays 1.3
Marls and Chalks 1.3
DRIVING Sands 1.4
For preliminary and conformity tests, irrespective of the type of soil found, an equal number
of controlled displacement pull-out tests and controlled force pull-out tests will be conducted.
Inspection tests will include controlled displacement pull-out tests for noncreeping soils
(Ip < 20) and an equal number of controlled displacement and controlled force pull-out tests
for creeping soils (Ip 2 20) (see table IV).
TABLE IV. Inspection tests.
Soil All types of structure
Ip < 20 100% controlled displacement pull-out tests
Ip 220 50% controlled displacement pull-out tests

50% controlled force pull-out tests
2.6.2. Choice of the maximum load capacity for the nail tests
For all three types of tests, the real unit skin friction value qs will be determined for each type
of soil and nail to check the unit skin friction value estimated on the basis of the
pressuremeter test results or some other method by the construction company or the
176
consulting engineer. Where the unit skin friction value measured is higher than the estimated
value, tests will be performed until the nail has been extracted fully.
The reinforcing bar will be designed such that:
TG elastic limit of the bar used in the test,
T\E nail's pull-out tension estimated on the basis of geotechnical data or the contractor's
experience.
2.6.3. Materials and equipment used during the tests
The equipment used comprises (figure 5) an adjusting wedge to apply the tensile force along
the bar axis, a ring-shaped jack and its pump, and a load cell. The load cell ring should
indicate the forces with an accuracy of at least 1 percent of the maximum force.
It must be possible to reproduce every measurement, particularly those taken during the
controlled force tests (creep stages), with an error less than 0.1 percent of the maximum force
during each creep stage, independently of the temperature variations.
The displacement at the head of the nail should be measured in relation to a fixed point, a
system embedded in the ground (figure 5) or any other device that ensures a very stable
base.
Using this type of equipment, which is simple and quickly installed on a construction site, a
sufficiently large supporting plate will be fixed to the nail so that the tip of the sensor
capable of measuring to 1/100 mm remains permanently in contact throughout the duration
of the test.
.. ' . '<1
. ' ... c·~ ; Pacemeter (1mm/mn)
" . . :", '. ~c
Support rod
Figure 5. Pull-out test set up for a nail.
177
2.7. Controlled displacement pull-out tests (constant speed)
2.7.1. Test procedure
Before putting the nail into tension the following points need to be verified:
The free length of the nail must be protected by a tube and sufficient space provided
between the tube and the supporting plate to avoid any contact throughout the total
duration of the test.
Where a free length does not exist, jack forces will be taken by a whaler system
supporting the loads at a distance of 1 meter away from the nail axis.
The system, which comprises the supporting plate, jack, and load cell must be set up in
such a way that the bar will not bend prior to testing, thus providing a reliable load-
displacement curve.
The nail will be put into tension at a speed of 1 mm/min, preferably using a manual
pump. The margin of error on the speed must be ± 10 percent. This speed can be
controlled, for instance, using a pacemeter and a dial graduated every 1/100 mm. The
stem should allow minimum travel of 50 mm.
The test will be stopped once the tension force has either passed a maximum or has
stabilized. It is recommended to plot the force displacement curve. Readings of loads will be
made every 1/10 mm (or every 6 seconds) up to 5 mm, thereafter every 1/2 mm (or every 30
seconds) up to the residual load. If no residual load appears, the test will be continued until
the tensile force at the head of the nail varies less than 1 percent for a 1 mm displacement.
To
TL
-------------
.6F
F
-<
-------;,----
~
F
y y y
Figure 6. Failure criteria used in pull-out tests.
178
During unloading, force versus displacement readings will be made at each tenth of the
maximum force.
The maximum pull-out force T L will be the maximum force value reached during the test.
This value, Tu will correspond on the force-displacement curve to either the peak value, the
residual value, or the value such that the variation in force per 1 mm is less than 1 percent,
or the value for a maximum displacement of 30 mm.
2.7.2. Interpretation of test result
If during the test only the forces are measured, the result obtained will be the maximum
pull-out TL •
If during the course of the test, both the forces and the displacements at the head of the nail
are measured, then not only can the maximum pull-out force be obtained (useful for
calculating the ultimate limit state) but also the law which describes the soil nail interaction.
This is useful for estimating the displacements in the soil nailed wall, and will be vital for
future calculations at serviceability limit state.
The interpretation of the results can be based on the skin friction mobilization law presented
in figure 7. Eventually, the strength of the grout may be taken into account in the
calculations (French National Project CLOUTERRE, CEBTP, June 1988).
The calculations of the displacements along the nail during a pull-out test are developed in
the appendix of this chapter. The following significant results will be helpful for the
interpretation of the test. Distinction will be made between two cases. The behavior of a nail
in a soil nailed wall under service conditions far away from the failure and the behavior of a
nail at ultimate limit state, i.e., at failure.
I
qs k,G /5 I
2 I
I
I y
Figure 7. Skin friction mobilization law (Frank and Zhao, 1982).
179
2.7.2.1. Generalities
If a tensile force To is applied at the nail head, the nail moves with respect to the soil and
mobilizes the skin friction, which balances the force To'
Mobilization of the skin friction is made gradually from the nail head toward the nail tip, the
shorter the nail the more rapidly the mobilization occurs (figures 8a, 8b, and 8c).
15(X)
\
\
,,
\
,,
\
\
\
\",,{ Ultimate limit state (failure)
\
\
1000 \
\
\
\
\
" ....
" ",
\
Service state
c =£1 + £2
2
500 £,
:_-----11
--1.....
1.:=2 12 m .I
5(X) I(XX)
a) Distribution of the deformations along a nail measured from tests.
Figure 8. Experimental and theoretical distributions of tension forces and deformations along a nail.
180
100 '- '-

'- Ultimate limit state (failure)
'-",-f
.....
..... Service state
'-
'-
50
--I I
I.. 3 m .1
50 100 150 200 250
b) Theoretical distribution of tension forces along a 3-m-long nail.
To (kN)
400
Ultimate' limit state (failure)
300
Service state
200
~'-_ _----II
I... /2 m .1
100
L (em)
o
000
c) Theoretical distribution of tension forces along a 12-m nail.
Figure 8. Experimental and theoretical distributions of tension forces and deformations along a nail.
181
When the To force is increased, the skin friction begins to fully mobilize at the head ('t = qs),
and full mobilization progresses from the head toward the tip (figures 9a and 9b).
2.7.2.2. Behavior of nail under service conditions (To < TL)
The skin friction is still in the course of being mobilized (figures 8 and 9). The tip of a short
nail will have a displacement similar to that of the head, while for a long nail, the tip
displacement will be negligible compared to that at the head (figure 10).
Experiments and modelling of the behavior have established that the displacement of the nail
head Yo is proportional to the head force To, as long as the Yo displacement does not exceed
the Yl value corresponding to the first bend of the skin friction mobilization law (figure 7).
With this condition Yo < Yl' the following relationships can be demonstrated and are
developed in the appendix:
To
To
displacement at nail head,

displacement at nail tip,
force at nail head,
length (in contact with the soil).
with P perimeter of the nail,

k~ initial slope on the skin friction mobilization curve.
When the displacement of the nail head Yo exceeds Yl' the Yo displacement does not remain
proportional to the To head force, although the skin friction is not fully mobilized along the
nail and the nail is still a long way from failure (figure 11).
182
? (kPa)
---------- ~
Ultimate limit state
(failure)
-- ---
state
----
=_1....-----1
1_ 3m .. I
--------------
10
L (em)
O'-------.----r-----.----.--------.----r-~
250 300
a. Short nail.
7' (kPa)
Ultimate limit state
60 ---- 1- - - - - - - - - -
(failure)
50
40
30
2
12 m .. I
10
L (em)
500 1000
b. Long nail.
Figure 9. Distribution of shear stress along a nail.
183
To (kN)
Displacement of the tip

Displacement of the head
E
- --
La=4m
c::::::r- <l>
<l>
u
0:;
--
<l>
0
r.n ilic:::b-
y ~
<l>
0
E
0
r.n
'- ;!::
<l> :::)
(f)
5 10
Displacement y (mm)
To (kN)
Load at the head of
the nail
~~----------------
",.,."""'"
400 ""..-
/'
/ ~ Displacement
I of the tip
Displacement of the head
300
---
(l)
o
( /)
-
200
(l)
---
(l) o
0
( /)
I
L=12 m
'
J---.. -
E
Jr
I
100
E
(l)
u
>
1-
(l)
Cf)
o
5 10 15 20 25
Displacement y (mm)
Figure 10. Force/displacement curves at the head and tip of both a short and a long nail.
184
To (kN)
L = 12m
250 L= 12 m l
~;r
,,
x
,X
l
x
200
,,x.
,x
" -x--x--x- ~ Calculation of
-+-+-T-? curve
the force-displacement
at the head of the nail
,
,X assuming that the nail tip is fixed
150 and T'= constant
,,
'i
• • \ Calculation of the force-displacement
f
-0- o-? curve at the head of the nail ta king
into accunt the unit skin friction
100 mobilization low
50 L=2m
---- ---
I ~---~
I -------- I
: --
0 I
/1 I
/ :, I
Displacement of the head of nail
I I I
5 K) y 15 2b Yo (mm) ...
2
Figure 11. Theoretical comparison of force-displacement curves at
the nail head (based on two different sets of assumptions).
2.7.2.3. Behavior of nail at failure To =T L
Skin friction is fully mobilized (figures 8 and 9).
At failure, the theoretical displacements at the head and tip of the nail will be equal to:
where Yo displacement of the nail head at failure,

YLs displacement of the nail tip at failure,
185
p nail perimeter,
qs unit skin friction,
ES nail stiffness,
Ls length in contact with the soil.
The experimental measurements are in agreement with the theoretical calculations (see
appendix to this chapter).
At failure, every nail has a displacement at its tip YLS equal to the value Yz of the soil nail
interaction law.
2.7.2.4. Calculations of the unit skin friction qs
The objective of a pull-out test is to find the maximum pull-out force TL in order to
determine the unit skin friction qs' The unit skin friction qs will be calculated using the TL
value given in paragraph 2.7.1. and figure 6.
where p nail perimeter,

Ls length in contact with the soil.
NOTE: Even as a first approximation, the comparison of the real force-displacement curve
with the theoretical one based on the following two assumptions: The nail tip is fixed and the
shear stress is constant along the nail, whatever the pulling force, is wrong. The real force-
displacement curve can be well-approximated using the skin friction mobilization law. Figure
11 shows simulations for both models and clearly indicates that the first approach is
inappropriate, Le., the shorter the nail, the greater the degree of inaccuracy.
186
Yo (mm)
Cumulated displacements
0.9 T
max
4
3l-_------------- 0 .8 T max
L----------------=-:~-- 0.7 T
max
0 6 max
2l--l - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.5. TTmax
~--------------0.4 TmlJ.(
~==============
max
I- 0.3 T
0.2 Tma<.
10 60 100 Log t (mi n )
Figure 12. Creep curves of a pull-out test.
2.8. Controlled force tests (creep steps)
In tests carried out under rigorous experimental conditions on a same type of soil not
susceptible to creep, both controlled force pull-out tests and controlled displacement pull-out
tests have shown the same maximum pull-out force Tu
2.8.1. Procedure for controlled force tests
The preparatory work will be the same as for the controlled displacement pull-out test, but
the rate of movement will not be measured.
Before carrying out a controlled force test, it will be necessary to estimate the limit pull-out
force Tw which is used for the determination of the step values.
Usually the limit pull-out force TLE is assessed from the controlled displacement pull-out tests
(which are always carried out first).
The nail is gradually subjected to a pull-out force, which increases up to the estimated limit
pull-out force Tw and which must be lower than 0.6 TG so as to limit creep in the steel.
Successive loading steps are maintained during 60 minutes, except the 0.7 T LE step, which is
maintained during 3 hours. The first loading step is applied at 0.2 TLE •
187
The first displacement reading is taken at 0.1 T w during a continuous loading between 0 to
0.2 T LE • The following steps are applied every 0.1 T LE • At each load step, the creep
displacement measurement is performed as follows:
The tensile force imposed on the nail is measured using a load cell. The level of this force
is kept rigorously constant throughout each loading step, however, a variation in the
force value of up to 0.1 percent of the estimated limit pull-out force TLE is acceptable. The
importance of carrying out real creep tests (at constant force) is emphasized. If this is not
done, variations in the levels of force applied to the nail during the course of the loading
steps can mask creep phenomena, especially during the first loading steps. During the
first steps, the creep should not exceed 1 to 2 tenths of a millimeter.
The start of time to is taken at the instant when the load level of the corresponding step is
reached.
Displacement measurements are taken at each loading step and performed at the
following time intervals, to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 45, 60 minutes, and then
every 15 minutes for the 0.7 TLE loading step, which is then maintained for 3 hours.
If necessary, the jack pressure can be adjusted to maintain the force at the required
loading step value.
Temperature measurements are made at the beginning and the end of each step.
If the soil-grout bond does not fail at the estimated limit pull-out force Tw it will be possible
to continue the test in 0.1 TLE increments until the 15th step (not exceeding 0.9 Tc )'
After the last step, unloading will be carried out and reading of displacements will be taken
every tenth of the limit pull-out force reached during the test.
2.8.2. Interpretation of the controlled force pull-out test results
2.8.2.1. Drawing of the creep curves
For each creep step, the x axis will be the time (decimal logarithmic scale) between to + 1 min
and to + 60 min (or t1 + 180 min for the 0.7 TLE loading step) and the a axis will be -
arithmetical scale - the displacement (figure 12).
For each loading step, the creep curve is characterized by the slope of the tangent to this
curve at to + 60 min (or to + 180 min for the 0.7 TLE step). Generally, for the first loading
steps, the creep curves are straight lines; at higher loads the creep curves are no longer
straight, but in some cases, even for loading steps close to the limit pull-out force, the creep
will be represented by straight lines.
188
Slope ex
(mm /cycle of log t (min))
100
50
T/Tmox
o
0.5
Figure 13. Determination of the critical creep tension.
2.8.2.2. Determination of the critical creep tension
The slopes a are reported in graph form using arithmetical co-ordinates where:
x axis: the tension values T corresponding to each loading step

y axis: the slope a.
The critical creep tension Tc is obtained from the plot of the a values (figure 13).
The first part of this plot is nearly linear and the second part is concave upward.
The critical creep tension Tc corresponds to the last loading step before the curve bends. One
can also define a value Tc', as the intersection of the two straight lines.
Numerous tests have shown that:

Tc '" 0.9 T/c
189
2.8.2.3. Drawing of the force-displacement curve
The force-displacement curve will be plotted taking account of any creep displacement
observed at each loading step. The limit pull-out force is generally reached when it becomes
necessary to continually activate the jack to maintain the load constant.
2.9. Determination of the characteristic limit pull-out force
The unit skin friction value qs used in soil nailed wall design will be determined based on the
limit pull-out force TL • The minimum number of tests to be carried out is six (see paragraph
2.2) and the most representative average value from the controlled displacement pull-out
tests and controlled force pull-out tests will be retained as T L.
The parameter qs value is given by the following formula:

TL
qs =
P Ls
where p nail perimeter,

Ls length of the nail in contact with the soil.
A characteristic unit skin friction value qs can then be deduced from the qs values.
The surface of the nail is calculated on the basis of the theoretical length in contact with the
soil, Le., by subtracting a possible free length.
When controlled force pull-out tests do not allow determination of the pull-out limit force Tu
then this value can be estimated from the critical creep tension Te, using the ratio
shown in table III of this chapter.
190
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Internal Reports of French National Project CLOUTERRE
CEBTP (1988). Essais de traction en vraie grandeur de differents types de dous dans du sable
de Fontainebleau. Juin 1988.
Full size pull-out tests using different types of nails in Fontainebleau sand.
CEBTP (1988). Rapport final interaction sol-dou. Juin 1988.

Final report on soil-nail interaction.
CEBTP (1989). Banque de donnees des essais d'arrachement de clous et autres indusions
rigides (comparaison avec DTU 13.2 et SETRA 1985, doc No.3 bis), Mars 1989.
Data base of pull-out tests on nails and other rigid inclusions (comparison with DTU 13.2 and
SETRA 1985, doc. No.3).
CERMES (1989). Interaction sol-dou. Etude en laboratoire. Decembre 1989.

Soil-nail interaction. Laboratory study.
CEBTP (1989). Determination du mode operatoire de l'essai de traction sur dou. Test sur
deux types de dous suivant un essai a vitesse constante et un essai par palier de fluage.
Decembre 1989.
Determining the operational procedure for pull-out tests on nails. Pull-out tests carried out on two
types of nails using a controlled displacement and a controlled force test.
PUBLICATIONS

l'execution et Ie contraIe des tirants d'ancrage (TA 86). Ed. Eyrolles.
Recommendations for designing, calculating, contracting, and controlling ground anchors.
PLUMELLE, C. (1979). Etude experimentale du comportement des tirants d'ancrage. These de

Docteur-Ingenieur, Universite P. et M. Curie, 1979.
Experimental study of ground anchors.
GASNIER and PLUMELLE, C. (1984). Etude experimentale en vraie grandeur de tirants

d'ancrage. c.R. Colloque international renforcement en place des sols et des roches.
Presses ENPC, Paris.
Full-scale experimental studies of ground anchors.
191
Chapter 4: Investigation and Tests
192
APPENDIX
CALCULATIONS OF NAIL DISPLACEMENTS
1. GENERALITIES
Contrary to the notations used in mechanics, the conventions traditionally used in soil
mechanics will be adopted when calculating displacements for such inclusions as piles,
micropiles, anchors, nails, etc.
The displacement y and the coordinate x will be taken positive from the head toward the tip
of the nail.
If a force To is applied at the nail head, the nail moves with respect to the soil and mobilizes
the skin friction that balances the force To in accordance with the skin friction mobilization
law shown in figure 1. If the nail was perfectly rigid, compared with the soil, the
displacements at both the head and the tip would be identical. Conversely, if the nail was
infinitely extensible, compared with the soil, the displacement at the tip would be zero. The
real behavior is generally in between, depending, in particular, on the length of the nail,
which is generally short in pull-out tests.
1:(kPo)
90 -------------------------------~------
45 I
I
LI ikp = 25kFb/mm
y (mm)
Figure 1. Skin friction mobilization law. (Frank and Zhao, 1982.)
193
Accurate calculations of the displacements in the nail versus the applied force at the head of
the nail depend on:
Nail elasticity - Hooke's law.

Skin friction mobilization law defined in figure 1.
Length of the nail.
The most general case must take into account the progressive skin friction mobilization along
the nail as a function of the pull-out force applied at the nail head (figure 2).
4 5
5
Yz Y
• Yo: displacement of head Initial position
A Ye: displacement of tip Position of nail under

a force To
Figure 2. Gradual mobilization of shear stress at both head and tip of the nail as To increases.
1: Yo < Yl The displacements at the head and tip of the nail are located on the
first linear part of the curve.
The displacement at the head is located on the

second linear part while the displacement at the tip is located on the
first part.
194
Yo> Y2 The displacement at the head is on the residual part of the curve, the
0< Yl < Yl skin friction at the head is fully mobilized, the displacement at the tip is
located on the first linear section.
3: Yl < Yo < Y2 The displacements at both head and tip are located on the second linear
Yl < Yl < Y2 part of the curve.
4: Yo> Y2 The displacement at the head is on the residual part of the curve; the
Yl < Yz < Y2 skin friction at the head is fully mobilized and the displacement at the
base is located on the second linear part.
5: The displacement at the head is already on the residual part and the
displacement at the tip has reached the residual part. The limit pull-out
force is reached, but the nail fails through lack of friction.
2. CALCULATION OF DISPLACEMENTS
Among all the phases of mobilization of the skin friction along the nail, two are of particular
interest. The first is the stage at which the displacement at the head is still lower than Yl' This
can be regarded as the "elastic" phase. The second is the limit pull-out force, which is reached
when the nail tip reaches Y2'
2.1. First phase (Yo < Yt)
Assumption: Small displacements and small strains are considered. The reference state will
be the initial state.
The example is based on a nail driven so that the effects of the grout will not be considered.
195
e(x) = dy small strains

dx
cr(x) = E e(x) Hooke's elasticity law of the bar
T(x) = E e(x) ·5
dy T 5: Section of bar
dx 5 E
2
d y dT 1
2 dx 5 E E: Young's modulus of bar
dx
dT - 't P dx
p: Perimeter of bar in friction
't - k~ Y
2
d y P
2 k~ Y
dx 5 E
~
k
Using the parameter a = __~ as homogeneous to t 1, we can express y(x) and T(x):
5 E
y = M 1 ch(a x) + N 1 shea x)
T = a E 5 [M1 shea x) + N1 ch(a x)]

The boundary conditions are: x=O
x =1
The displacements and the forces can be computed at any point x in the function of the pull-
out force To and the soil and bar characteristics:
196
To ch (a (L - x))
Y
E 5 a shea I)
To sh (a (L - x))
T
shea l)
displacement at the head (under the conventions adopted, Yo is negative).
To
E 5 a thea I)
- displacement at the tip:
To
E 5 a shea l)
The modelling shows that, in theory, there is some displacement at the tip when a force is
applied to the head; this corresponds well with the results of tests performed on inclusion of
different lengths (from 2 to 12 m). However, the displacement at the tip of a short nail starts
to occur at the beginning of the pull-out test (figure lOa of this chapter), whereas in a long
nail, the displacement of the tip can only be measured when the force is close to the limit
pull-out force (figure lIb of this chapter).
It should be noticed that if only the "elastic" phase 0 < Yo < Yl is to be used, there is an
anchor limit length beyond which the nail does not transmit any force to the soil.
If Yo = Yl is considered as the limit of the "elastic domain"
where, th(2) = 0.964 # 1 then:
a I I = 2 II = 2/a
I "2
I
J E S
P k~
II increases with the stiffness E 5 of the bar and decreases with the stiffness of the soil k~. It
represents the length of transfer of the tension force from the nail to the soil.
197
NOTE: The present simulation has been done for a test conducted up to failure, therefore
there is no reason to limit the pull-out capacity of the nail to its "elastic" phase. There is
equilibrium as long as the displacement at the tip of the nail does not reach the residual part
of the skin friction mobilization curve.
2.2. Second phase: at failure
This phase is reached when displacement at the tip is equal to Y2:
At this stage the unit skin friction value becomes constant along the whole length of the nail
and is equal to qs:
't = qs
T=T a - P qs x and Ta p qs 1
dy T
dx 5 E
(according to the conventions adopted, y is negative)
Taking y at its absolute value:
198
In the first equation, the expression Tal /2 E 5 represents the lengthening of the nail, for
which the tip is clamped, and the unit skin friction is mobilized and constant along the nail.
The value Yl' representing the displacement at its tip, must be added to obtain the exact
displacement at the nail head.
For the same type of nail and the same type of soil, at failure, the tip displacement is
obviously the same whatever the nail length. On the other hand, the lengthening of the nail
corresponding to the difference between the head and tip displacements is proportional to
the square of the length.
The theoretical results have been verified by full-scale tests conducted with 2 to 12 m long
nails (Deguillaume 1981, Plumelle 1984). The results shown in figure 3 give the theoretical
and experimental displacements at the head and tip of the nail at the critical creep tension Te •
2.3. Example of a full calculation
Accurate calculations at each phase of mobilization were made using a steel angle of cross
section 70 mm x 70 mm x 7 mm. The mobilization of the skin friction was studied without
taking into account the possible yielding of the steel above the elastic limit.
The skin friction mobilization law is shown in figure 4.
Results from theoretical calculations are given for two lengths - 2 m and 12 m - in figures
5 and 6.
For each phase, the respective positions of the displacements that occurred at the head and
the tip of the nail are shown on the force versus displacement curves.
199
Nail displacement
(mm)
10
Yo theoretical displacement
of nail head
•
5
•
e:theoretical displacement
Y
• { of nail tip
0--0'--0---_ _
o ----0
o 2 3 4 6 9 12 Length of nail (m)
• Experimental displacement at head of nail

o Experimental displacement at tip of nail
Figure 3. Comparisons between the experimental and theoretical displacements of

both the head and the tip of 2- to 12-m long nails at the
critical creep tension Te .
The rigid behavior of the short (2 m) steel angle will be evident in comparison to the more
"elastic" behavior of the long steel angle (12 m).
200
To (kN)
280
Experimental Curve
240
7; (kPo)
200
160
k,t3=25kPo/mm
120
8 1,8 10,8 Y (mm)

Yf Y2
60
Linear part SKIN FRICTION MOBILIZATION CURVE
of curve
Displacement at head of nail

5 10 15 20 Y (mm)
o
Figure 4. Theoretical force versus displacement curve at the head of the nail.
In both cases the "elastic" phase is clearly limited to a 1.8 mm soil-nail relative displacement,
relative to the value of Yl'
For instance, a straight line has been plotted on each graph that corresponds to a simulated
head displacement where the tip is deemed to be fixed and a unit skin friction fully
mobilized and constant along the nail. Comparisons with the exact curves clearly show that it
is wrong and dangerous to try to use this type of simulation.
201
Load at head
150 .-------------------,
1 Steel angle nails : 70mm x 70mm x 7rrrn

L=2m
100
DisPlacements at head yo and tip YC

of the nail are about equal
50
~~~-:----
\
Displacement y ( mm )
O~--+----'-----r----------,----l------.--------
5 15
Figure 5. Comparison between two simulated force versus displacement curves for both the
head and foot of a short nail.
To (kN)
Load at head
1 To
Yo = z'Es-' e ~ ,x 00-0--0
I
'/ ."..0 ............
250
/.
,;0
/,;.
'/
1/
j'k==y
I
I
2
/
/ cf )'' " I
/ 1 I
/ I- I
/0 ./ I
/ I I
150 o 1 I
I
/
/ f
1
o Steel angle nails: 70mm x 70mm x 7 mm
"
1
10 I/ ;:.
o 1 -0---0- Displacement Ye at tip of nail
I
1
Displacement yo at head of nail
Displacement y (mm)
o 5 101 15 20 25
1
I
YZ 18.8
Figure 6. Comparison between two simulated force versus displacement curves for both head and tip of a long nail.
202
C HAP T E R 5 _
WALL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1. General Aspects - Principle governing the construction of the structures
The construction of a soil nailed structure appears as a succession of earthworks, between

which operations for inserting reinforcement bars in the in situ soil and installing a
reinforced concrete facing - generally shotcrete - takes place.
With current technology, the inclusions are generally made of metal and installed by driving
straight into the ground or inside a borehole. In the latter case, they are always sealed to the
ground by means of cement grout or mortar.
Earthworks operations are carried out in phases (generally horizontally) of sufficiently low
height to ensure general and local stability of the soil mass in conditions acceptable for the
structure itself and for its environment (figure 1).
The need for permanently ensuring local stability, especially after each earthworks phase,
means that the use of the technique is, in principle, only applicable to soils with sufficient
cohesion - at least in the short-term - and without the presence of a water table
(eventually after lowering the water table, if possible).
Attention must be drawn to the fact that the soil nailing technique discussed here is passive
nailing, even if, for various reasons (to ensure the stability of the facing before starting
earthworks, for example), the inclusions can be pressed against the facing with some tension.
The association of prestressed anchors with soil nailing is not excluded and is a commonly
used technique, especially when environmental constraints impose a fairly strict limit on the
displacements of the structure. However, the installation of this type of anchor, which is
extensively described in the Recornrnandations TA 86 on ground anchors, will not be discussed
below.
203
Part of structure
completed
Adjoining excavation /
/
/
Genera I excavation
/
/
./
/
----
Figure 1. Excavation and stability.
1.2. Earthworks
As work progresses, it is imperative that the conditions of construction of the structures, as

set up and taken into account in the justifications by the consulting engineer, be strictly
observed. It is essential that good coordination exists during construction; this coordination
must also apply to general earthwork operations, or at least part of them, since they can
influence structural stability. It is therefore recommended that earthwork operations,
including a certain part of the general earthworks, while not carried out by the company
responsible for the construction of the nailed structure, must be under its direct control and
guidance.
204
Chapter 5: Wall Structures Construction
1.3. Choice of an installation method for the inclusions
The techniques most generally used for installing the inclusions in the ground are driving
and drilling. There are, however, some special methods that have not yet been widely
developed, but in any case, the rate at which nailing techniques are being developed does not
exclude possible improvements to existing techniques, even the introduction of new methods
in this field.
Generally, the selection of the method of installation is practically one of design data.
Frequently, this selection is imposed by certain constraints linked to the nature and
characteristics of the ground or to certain requirements relating to the structure itself
(geometric characteristics, short-, medium- or long-term nature of the structure and
length/characteristics of the inclusions). In other cases it is not uncommon for the design of
the structure to be the result of the selection of the technique beforehand.
• Driving
Normally, when driving is used to install the inclusions, the latter are not secured by grout
injection, the pull-out strength of the inclusions being obtained by adhesion of the inclusions
to the ground. However, some special techniques do allow the sealing of an inclusion
installed by driving to be carried out with cement, grout, or mortar.
Driving is a technique that can be particularly effective when used in loose, noncohesive soil
that contains neither hard obstacles nor too many large blocks.
Theoretically, driving is best adapted to small- or medium-sized inclusions (not exceeding

approximately 8 meters) mainly because of the space taken up by the equipment when the
metal device is in one piece, as often is the case, and because of the power of the driving
equipment with regard to the rigidity of the inclusions. In any case, it is recommended that
the latter be correctly guided during driving.
The main disadvantage of driving exists in its limited uses. Its advantages, when used
judicially, are speed of installation, flexibility of use, and, especially, that the efficiency of the
inclusion is immediate when pull-out strength is obtained directly from adhesion of the
inclusion to the ground (no securing with grout is required), as is often the case.
• Drilling
When the inclusions are installed in a borehole, they are always sealed to the ground,
generally by means of a cement grout or mortar.
The main advantages of drilling are the wide field of use of the technique, which covers
practically any type of ground as long as the means used are well-adapted. The possibility of
always obtaining the required length and, very often, of obtaining the pull-out resistance
sought, using, if necessary, sealing injection under pressure.
205
Among the disadvantages of the technique are the necessity of very often having to adapt the
drilling technique as a function of variation in the nature and characteristics of the ground,
and the fact that this can make the technique somewhat cumbersome.
The pull-out strength of the inclusions sealed with cement grout can be fully mobilized only
when the grout has reached a certain strength. This can be awkward, particularly in fairly
loose soils or for small sites (slowing down the rate of progress of the earthworks). Special
sealing conditions can partially remedy this disadvantage.
Because of construction requirements (drilling and injection of the sealing grout), inclusions
installed in a borehole are inclined on the horizontal (toward the bottom). As a general rule,
this inclination must not be smaller than approximately 100. If the inclination of the bars is
smaller than this value, particular care must be taken when carrying out sealing operations.
1.4. Selection of the method to be used to lay the concrete of the facing
As a general rule, facings of soil nailed structures are made of reinforced concrete: The
concrete can be cast-in-place or it can be sprayed with a gun (shotcrete). In some cases,
precast concrete or metal elements have been used, but they are very special applications that
have not been really developed.
Cast-in-place concrete can be suitable when no short-term stability problems exist (ground of
sufficient cohesion or the previous placing of a shotcrete protective curtain, for example).
This placing technique is adapted when a large amount of reinforcement is used or when the
facing must look like shuttered concrete. Generally, this technique is carried out using
excavations in slots.
Shotcrete is well-adapted to the nailing technique; it is flexible and permits rapid "protection"
of the facing built by earthworks. Initially, only dry spraying was recommended for direct
application in situ (see AFTES Recommandations). Recent experience has shown that wet
shotcrete can be equally effective. However, dry shotcrete is more flexible to use; it allows
more immediate use when it is needed, for instance, when local collapse of the ground is
likely to evolve rapidly.
1.5. Resources used - Equipment
One of the main conditions for the successful construction of soil nailed structures is the
ability of the construction company to respond quickly to eventual adaptations of the design
caused by risks linked to construction conditions of the structures in ground where the
heterogeneity has not always been recognized.
This means the use of qualified and experienced staff, who are capable of evaluating certain
foreseeable risks and of reacting promptly and efficiently in case of need. It also means the
use of well-adapted equipment capable of intervening rapidly (partial refilling, rapid
spraying of concrete, pumping) or the possibility of eventually adapting working conditions
206
if the need arises, e.g., change in drilling technique or even method of inserting the
inclusions.
For fairly large structures, or in the case of highly heterogeneous ground, it is recommended
that the possibility of changing the technique of installation of the inclusions be allowed
during construction and, in particular, the ability to switch to drilling when driving had been
planned. Such an arrangement must be foreseen from the moment construction work is
planned (see paragraph 1.7. of this chapter) insofar as late improvisation would have serious
consequences, at least on completion time.
1.6. Controls - Monitoring deformations of the structures
The construction of soil nailed structures - be they short-, medium-, or long-term - is

accompanied by controls that, in practice, concern nearly all construction stages:
Controls are therefore needed before work begins to check that the specifications
concerning materials and products have been respected.
Control of the conformity of the methods and conditions of construction decided upon to
obtain the required results, specially for grout, concrete, and pull-out strength of the
inclusions.
Controls during construction address the nature and characteristics of the ground
encountered (earthworks, drilling or driving investigations), the quality of the grout and
concrete applied, pull-out strength of the inclusions, and respect of tolerances.
The behavior of soil nailed walls is also controlled in all cases during construction and
service (particularly the monitoring of the displacements and deformations of the wall and,
eventually, of the tension in some of the inclusions).
The nature of these controls, their consistency and the frequency with which they must be
carried out, are defined in chapters 4 and 7. However, it is necessary to recall that provisions
relating to these controls must be defined before work begins and stated in the specifications
or in quality assurance plans.
1.7. Program for the construction of the structures
For the reasons already mentioned, and because of the special constraints imposed by the
conditions of laying the materials used in the structures to structural stability during
construction, the design and installation of the latter are closely linked. It is therefore
important for conditions of construction to be set up in close cooperation with the consulting
engineer at the same time as the construction drawings are prepared.
207
For short-, medium-, and long-term structures, it is important to establish a program and
method statement for the work before the installation begins. Precise data should be given
on:
The location and the conditions of installation of the inclusions for preliminary tests or
conformity tests and technology of these inclusions.
The selection of the method(s) of installing the inclusions as a function of the nature and
characteristics of the ground concerned.
General conditions of construction of the structure and, in particular, different phases of

earthworks and the succession of operations carried out at each of these phases.
Particular conditions of installation (reinforcement, concrete, phases planned, special

zones) and methods envisioned as a function of the constructional provisions appearing
on the plans showing the conduct of the work.
Controls (resistance of inclusions, sealing grout, concrete), special recordings and

measurements (monitoring of the movements of the wall), their frequencies, construction
techniques, and names of the people (and eventually organizations) responsible for these
different tasks (see paragraph 1.6. of this chapter).
Names and qualifications of the managerial staff and construction staff allocated to these
different tasks, and the means planned for the execution of the work.
2. CONDUCT OF THE WORK
2.1. Earthworks
.It is imperative to strictly observe the conditions laid out for the conduct of the earthworks
(phasing, height of earthworks at each phase, length of sections, possible delay before the
start of new earthworks phase), and the way in which they were planned and taken into
account in the justifications provided by the consulting engineer. They should only be
modified with the agreement of the consulting engineer who will ensure beforehand their
relevance to the stability of the structure and define, if necessary, the provisions to be
adopted to ensure that this stability fulfills the normal conditions of safety.
Experience has shown that these provisions concern both earthworks contiguous to the
structure and general earthworks, the influence of which on the stability of the mass often
appears less obvious.
2.1.1. Height of earthworks
Earthworks contiguous to the structure are carried out in phases. The selection of the
maximum height of earthworks at each phase is dependent on the justifications during the
208
phases of the work and on the evaluation of the local stability of the ground. It depends on
many factors, especially on the nature and characteristics of the ground, on the more or less
thorough knowledge of the latter, on the eventual presence of water (preliminary site
investigations, similar work already completed on site or in the vicinity in the same type of
formation, previous general earthworks) on environmental conditions, and on the inclination
of the facing.
At present there exists no general rule for evaluating the maximum height of earthworks. As
an example is the soil nailed wall of the CEBTP experiment No.1 (French National Project
CLOUTERRE 1986) where earthworks/1m high, in Fontainebleau sand, were stable with an
apparent cohesion in the order of 4 kPa. Height must be adapted as a function of the risks of
local collapse (figure 2). Thus, in terrain subject to collapse (loose granular soil without
apparent cohesion), it could be necessary to use another technique. However, some particular
provisions can limit these risks of local collapse (see below).
It is recommended that the height of the initial phases of earthworks be reduced (in
particular of the first) if eventual difficulties have not been properly evaluated at the
beginning of the work, as it is often difficult to react to them quickly.
It is also recommended to lay at least one row of inclusions during each works phase.
Height of excavation
Loca Iized failurG _ and its possible development over time
Figure 2. Height of earthworks and local stability.
209
2.1.2. Special provisions
Certain special provisions can offer a solution to problems of stability of the mass or local
stability:
• Construction of the structure in small continuous or alternate slots (photograph of

figure 3).
Such provision, more especially adapted to the solution of structural stability problems
during construction, is generally decided upon before work begins, but it is constraining as it
does not allow a rapid rate of progress and necessitates very good organization of the site.
However, in good quality ground, it makes it possible to plan greater height of earthworks
(figure 3).
Figure 3. Building a soil nailed wall by alternating excavation sections.
• Installation of the inclusions before earthworks operations (a berm must be reserved)
The inclusions can be either inclusions already decided upon or additional inclusions,
generally of shorter length. Such an arrangement enables the local behavior of the soil to be
strengthened and reduces the time between earthworks and the placing of concrete. It can
only prove really effective if the inclusions are placed sufficiently close to each other, and it
appears better adapted and easier to install if the inclusions are driven directly into the soil
(figure 4).
210
• Spreading a thin protective concrete layer immediately after earthworks are completed
The goal is mainly to limit the risks of local collapse by reducing decompaction and
weathering of the ground, which is at the origin of this collapse (figure 4).
Protective
berm
Protective shotcrete 1f"";;;;~~~~~;;;;;;;;;;::,.
ski n -----<l..,..'1
--
Figure 4. Examples of construction provisions to limit local failures.
When the wall is comprised of angles, the latter are generally built during the same phase
when they are "reentrant" and, for reasons of stability, in two phases when they are salient
(figure 5).
When the already-constructed part of a wall is comprised of prestressed ground anchors, as

is often the case in the vicinity of existing structures, there is reason to examine whether
special provisions must be made to prevent the action of these anchors - notably that of the
vertical forces they induce - from having a harmful influence during the construction of the
underlying parts of the structure.
2.1.3. Construction time
It is imperative to respect the time specified between the end of construction of one part of
the structure and the succeeding earthworks phase. Indeed, the aim at this time is to enable
the parts of the structure already built (facing, inclusions) to reach the strength taken into
account in the justifications relating to the earthworks phase.
This provision concerns more particularly the concrete of the facing (strength of facing and of
the inclusion/ facing bond). When it applies to the sealing ground of the inclusions, (pull-out
strength of the reinforcement in its grout), it is necessary to have determined beforehand -
by means of conformity tests and controls during construction - that both concrete and
grout will be able to reach the strength required at this phase of construction.
211
• • • •
• • • •
• • •
1\ Re-entrant" angle
Figure 5. Construction of angles areas.
As a general rule, it is necessary to allow a minimum of 24 hours at least for a grout, mortar,
or concrete to reach a certain strength.
Even if the overall stability of the mass is assured, it is not recommended that a new phase
of earthworks adjacent to the facing be started if the corresponding part of the structure
cannot be completed in the same day (installation of the inclusions, reinforcement and
concreting of the facing). The aim of such a provision is to prevent a local collapse. In the
event of local collapse, if remedial measures are not taken rapidly, the development of far
more serious disorders, such as collapse behind the overlying concrete layer, can occur.
212
2.1.4. Anomalies - Incidents
In case of an anomaly, notably if the nature or characteristics of the ground are significantly
different from those envisioned as affecting structural design, or if conditions of construction
have to be modified, the consulting engineer must be warned so that new provisions to be
adopted are determined. In case of incidents (abnormal displacement of the wall or collapse),
it is essential to take immediate measures to prevent disorders from getting worse.
2.2. Protection against percolation water
As a general rule, earthworks must not be carried out below the level of a water table
discovered during preliminary site investigation or during construction unless the water table
has been efficiently lowered beforehand by pumping wells or deep drains.
Figure 6. Installation of weepholes.
213
It is also advisable to protect the soil mass against runoff water that can migrate toward the
facing and infiltrate along the latter. This water can be collected and drained by gutters
beyond the zones concerned.
However, in spite of such provisions and even in the absence of a recognized watertable, the
ground can be subject to water percolation (seepage water) sometimes inherent to building
construction methods, such as wet drilling. In these cases, it is necessary to ensure the
protection of the "slopes" against water percolation. Protection consists, generally, of
positioning subhorizontal drains to collect and drain this water. To prevent eventual pressure
from being applied to the still fresh concrete of the facing, it is also necessary to plan the
installation of weepholes (figure 6).
This arrangement can be completed with the laying of additional drainage systems at the
ground/concrete interface. However, it is necessary to ensure that the presence of these
systems does not harm the quality of the facing concrete, even if they are correctly fixed in
the ground. In any case, it is recommended that these systems, if they are planned, should
consist of discontinuous strips or elements.
2.3. Installation of inclusions
They are generally positioned after the corresponding earthworks phase. However, the order
in which these operations are being carried out can be modified (see paragraph 2.1.2. of this
chapter). When this is the case, it is imperative that the final earthwork phase (trimming of
the slope or face) be carried out manually in the vicinity of the inclusions to prevent any
damage.
Generally, the procedure of the different operations necessary for the installation of the
inclusions is determined at the end of the reference tests (preliminary or conformity tests),
which are carried out before the beginning of the work or at the very beginning of the work.
During the course of construction, any change in these conditions that can affect the behavior
of the inclusions (in particular, their pull-out resistance) will make it necessary to carry out
additional tests to evaluate the influence of these modifications on the behavior of the
inclusions and, if necessary, to determine the new provisions to be adopted.
NOTE: Many types of inclusion exist that differ in character and/or installation method. The
most commonly used are inclusions directly driven into the soil, including a steel member
and inclusions installed in a borehole and sealed in the ground by means of cement grout or
mortar, incorporating a high-adhesion reinforcement as used in reinforced concrete or metal
tubes.
The following provisions concern only these two types. If inclusions differ in nature and
characteristics from their constitutive materials (glassfiber, for example), their technology
(protective sheaths, separators, injection tubes), or their mode of installation (method of
inserting the inclusion in the soil, sealing method), it will be necessary to refer to the rules
governing them or to define these rules before work starts in agreement with the consulting
214
engineer and control organizations. In the latter case, preliminary and conformity tests are
essential.
2.3.1. Inclusions directly driven into the soil
2.3.1.1. Constitution of the inclusions
Generally, metal inclusions are made in one piece. If they are not, provisions for joining the
separate elements are defined by the consulting engineer and are carried out according to
accepted practice. These provisions must ensure the mechanical and geometric continuity
(straightness among other things) of the inclusions and must not affect the adhesion to the
soil.
Inclusions driven directly into the soil, must be sufficiently rigid with regard to their length,
the nature and state of compaction of the soil and the power of the driving tools used to
avoid buckling. The risk of deviation must be limited to allow the inclusion a good
penetration capacity.
2.3.1.2. Installation (figure 7)
The inclusions are guided while being driven, which ensures more efficient driving while
limiting risks of deviation or buckling of the inclusions.
It is recommended that the driving time for each inclusion be recorded, as a sudden drop in
time could indicate the presence of zones with weaker characteristics than anticipated. If such
an anomaly occurs (which can show itself by insufficient adhesion between inclusion and
soil) and is very localized, it is generally possible to apply a simple remedy, for example,
driving an additional inclusion in the immediate vicinity of the one whose pull-out resistance
is presumed to be insufficient. If the anomaly concerns a large zone, the pull-out strength of
the inclusions must be checked and, if an insufficient value is obtained, new provisions
should be adopted but must be determined jointly with the consulting engineer (the simplest
provision being to increase the density of the inclusions, i.e., their number).
The same step can be taken in case of premature driving resistance (impossibility of driving
the inclusions or deviation of the latter on hard obstacles) due, for example, to the presence
of hard natural or added obstacles or to the presence of soil with a very high state of
compaction. However, if the anomaly occurs over a very large area, it might be necessary to
adopt a different method for the installation of the inclusions.
In any case, one must strongly advise against pulling out an already driven inclusion. It is
recommended to completely fill with grout or mortar an inclusion consisting of a tube with
an open or obturated base.
215
Figure 7. Placing a driven inclusion.
2.3.1.3. Blocking the inclusion against (or in) the facing
The provisions adopted to ensure that the inclusions, consisting generally of steel members,
are attached to the facing (or in the facing), are closely linked to the type of section used.
These provisions must be correctly designed, justified, and carried out in strict observance of
accepted practice. Furthermore, they must not hinder the correct placing of the concrete
facing (risk of shadow effect if shotcrete is used; see paragraph 2.5. of this chapter).
2.3.2. Inclusion secured in a borehole
2.3.2.1. Characteristic of the inclusions
Inclusions consist generally of high-adhesion bars for reinforced concrete (sometimes steel
tubes) secured in the ground by cement grout or mortar.
As a general rule, except for special provisions that must be justified, the fastening of the
reinforcement to the facing is carried out with a nut screwed at the extremity of the nail and
tightened against a metal support plate.
If necessary, the nail sections are joined end to end by means of coupling sleeves; the
mechanical and geometric (straightness) continuity of the reinforcement must be ensured.
216
The inclusions placed in a borehole must be equipped with centralizers equally spaced (at
least one every 3 meters) and preferably nonmetallic for permanent structures and in
sufficient numbers to ensure a uniform sealing.
In the case of small diameter reinforcements not equipped with centralizers, the quality of
the installation of the nails will have to be justified by additional pull-out tests, the number
to be determined by the engineer.
The nail can also be equipped with a device allowing injection "at the source," Le., injection at
the tip of the borehole, generally carried out by means of a small tube attached to the bar
when the cement grout or mortar is injected after positioning the nail in its borehole.
2.3.2.2. Installation
The installation of a nail sealed in a borehole necessitates the following operations:
Drilling of the hole.

Positioning of the nail.
Securing the nail in the borehole.
As a general rule, nailing, as opposed to the installation of prestressed ground anchors,

requires only subhorizontal boreholes of modest dimensions (length rarely exceeding 15 to 18
m and diameter normally between 60 and 120 mm) carried out where there is no water table
(at least at the head of the borehole). The nail is generally simply secured in the ground
using a gravity grout technique. However, in spite of the apparent simplicity of the
installation of securing reinforcement in a borehole, this installation remains a delicate
operation requiring qualified and experienced staff.
The choice of the drilling methods and equipment to be used is mostly conditioned by the
nature and characteristics of the ground in which drilling is carried out. It is also conditioned
by the dimensions of the boreholes, by the rate of progress determined beforehand and by:
Ensuring the satisfactory behavior of the hole until the bar is sealed.
Limiting disturbances in the wall of the borehole.
Creating no disruption in the ground in the vicinity of the structure or in the structure
itself.
The methods and equipment used must fulfill these requirements for all formations
encountered.
Drilling can be carried out by rotation, percussion, or rotopercussion. Rotary drilling can be
executed with:
• A continuous drill auger (figure 8) in fine soil with low compaction containing no blocks
and for short drilling lengths.
217
• A disintegration device (tricone, device fitted with blades, chisel-type tool) fixed at the
end of a rod, when there is no risk of collapse of the wall of the borehole.
• An open tube, when the risk of collapse or narrowing of the wall of the borehole makes it
necessary to hold up the wall and in the absence of blocks.
Figure 8. Drilling using a continuous auger.
• A tube or casing (figure 9) and a rod fitted with a tricone or chisel-type tool to destroy
hard elements in the ground.
In most cases, drilling is carried out using a drilling fluid (air, water, mud, cement grout, or
foam) and the aim is to raise the sediments and, sometimes, ensure that the wall of the
borehole is held up. The choice of drilling fluid is important insofar as the complementary
requirements mentioned above depend greatly on this choice. As a general rule, however,
and except in specific cases (rocky ground or collapse), wet drilling should be avoided.
Percussion drilling alone is used, in principle, to drive casings with lost tips, in coarse
ground of low compaction. In practice, it is hardly used but, it can prove extremely well-
adapted in the (rare) cases where the nature and characteristics of the ground allow it to be
used.
Rotary percussion enables rotation or percussion to be used separately or to be combined, if

necessary. It is the method most often used and best adapted to heterogeneous or varied
ground because it is so versatile.
218
Figure 9. Drilling using a casing.
Once the borehole has been completed, the nail is positioned in it and grout or mortar is
injected or poured, depending on the provisions established initially.
These provisions make it possible to ensure the satisfactory behavior of the wall of the
borehole and the continuous coating of the nail. When the nail is introduced after the grout
has been poured, it must be lowered sufficiently slowly to prevent soil collapsing from the
wall of the borehole (especially by the piston effect).
In all cases, the grout or sealing mortar is injected "at the source," that is to say at the tip of
the borehole, either using the stand of the drill pipe (or casing) or using a small tube (fitted
to the nail before it is inserted into the borehole).
The grout sealing the nail is generally cement based stabilized with a small quantity of
bentonite and having, as a rule, a cement/water ratio, C/E between 1.7 and 2.4.
The mortar sealing the nail is generally a fluid mortar without sedimentation (containing
fine, poorly graded sand) with a cement/water ratio, C/E, generally between 1.7 and 2.4.
In some cases, special grout or mortar can be used to comply with some particular
characteristics of the ground (grout with additives or quick setting grout in open ground, for
example). However, attention is drawn to the fact that it may be preferable to treat ground of
that type with injection beforehand.
219
The need for meeting requirements that are sometimes contradictory, such as having a grout
sufficiently fluid to correctly coat the reinforcement and sufficiently stiff to prevent important
losses (which could prove harmful as regards securing and coating of the reinforcement) can
lead to the adoption of special provisions. Thus, in very open rocks (such as rock with large
fractures, caving of slopes, or karst terrain), correct sealing of the nail can prove extremely
difficult, even impossible, under normal conditions. One of the techniques sometimes used to
remedy this situation is to position a very flexible sheath around the bar before inserting it in
the borehole.
Recall that, generally speaking, all the requirements for carrying out the different operations
needed for installing the inclusions are defined before work starts (at the end of the
preliminary tests or, eventually, when work starts). In case of modification in the procedure
of the work, or if anomalies are observed during drilling (significant variations in some
drilling parameters, important losses of drilling fluid) or during the placing of the grout, tests
will have to be conducted to control the behavior of the inclusion. If that behavior is not
acceptable, special provisions will have to be adopted in agreement with the consulting
engineer.
2.3.2.3. Attaching the inclusion against the facing
The provisions adopted to ensure the attaching of the inclusion against the facing (or in the
facing) must be correctly designed, justified, and carried out with strict observance of
accepted practice; but they must not hinder the correct installation of the facing concrete.
Generally, except for special provisions, the device for blocking the inclusions consists simply
of a nut screwed at the extremity of the nails resting on a metal plate. This plate must bear
perfectly on the concrete facing. When shotcrete is used, it cannot be placed under the
support plate in the presence of the latter (shadow effect).
If partial tension of the inclusion is being considered (if only to ensure that the facing is in
contact with the ground), it is essential that the sealing grout and the facing concrete have
the required strengths (see paragraph 2.1.3. of this chapter) and that provision be made to
allow the separation of the facing reinforcement and the ground for the desired length. The
most common provision consists of placing a watertight sheath closed at its base around the
reinforcement (figure 10).
2.4. Installation of facing reinforcing bars
In all cases, it is recommended to reinforce the concrete facing, even if the facing is only
subject to low stresses and if the nails are closely placed.
The reinforcement consists of round reinforcing bars or wire mesh generally positioned in
layers parallel to the average plane of the facing.
The general provisions relating to the reinforcement of reinforced concrete structures

(regulation provisions and accepted practice) are applicable and completed or modified by
the special provisions defined below.
220
--- ---
--- --
---
-----
--- --
Risk of the separation ==t>- Increase density of the nai Is

of facing from the soil
(driven nails)
-- _ ~ \\\~h
Protective sheath
-- bars
Partial pretensioning Free leng til of the ba r
Figure 10. Blocking the nails against the facing
When shotcrete is used, any provision liable to cause a shadow effect and thus promote the
formation of voids behind the reinforcement during spreading is to be avoided. The distance
between two parallel bars must be equal to or greater than 10 cm and, as far as possible, one
must avoid the installation of the bars in bunches. If two layers of reinforcements are
planned, it is advisable to install them one after the other, the outer layer being placed only
after the inner layer has been completely covered with concrete. The plates supporting the
inclusions, as well as any other obstacle, must be positioned only after shotcrete has been
spread (see paragraph 2.3. of this chapter).
The bars must be held by sufficient packing and wedging to help keep the concrete in
position when the latter is being spread without being susceptible to displacements or
deformations exceeding the allowed tolerances.
To this effect, the reinforcement is held together with tie wires or cross welding in principle
at all crossing points. The elements thus formed are fixed rigidly both to the adjoining parts
of the facing already built, which allows for some reinforcement to be left exposed in those
221
parts, and to the wall of the excavation, which allows for a sufficient number of fixing
systems.
These fixing systems can consist of rigid sections of bar (round reinforcing bars or small
metal sections) fixed beforehand on the wall of the excavation (by driving, for example).
They can also consist of the metal bar of the inclusions, subject, however, to the fact that no
tension, even partial, has been planned. In principle, such provision is therefore only possible
when the inclusions are closely spaced metal inclusions.
For long-term structures, the minimum cover of the reinforcement is 3 cm. The thickness is 2
cm when the outer wall of the facing is shuttered.
2.5. Placing the concrete of the facing
The concrete of the facing can be cast-in-place behind a shutter (cast-in-place concrete) or
shotcrete can be used. The selection of one of these techniques depends on many factors (see
paragraph 1.4. of this chapter) and especially on the building conditions decided upon, on
the thickness and reinforcement of the facing, and on the final appearance sought. In
principle, this selection is made when plans for the execution of the work are set up as it can
be closely linked with the building provisions planned. Shotcrete is the most commonly used
solution for the installation of facings, mainly because of the flexibility of this technique.
Concrete must be placed as quickly as possible after the ground has been laid bare. If these
two operations cannot be completed in a single day, they should be postponed. Where no
other solution is possible, and when the ground and environmental conditions allow, the
placing of the concrete can be deferred as long as protection of the exposed face is ensured,
for example, with a thin shotcrete layer. As a general rule, this protective layer is not taken
into account in the strength of the facing.
In all cases, the general rules of concreting relating to the technique adopted will have to be
respected, in particular as they regard cold weather concreting, curing of concrete, and
resumption of concreting. Regarding resumption, note that it will be generally very difficult,
and very often impossible, to ensure real resumption of concreting (mechanical continuity of
the facing) at the level of the longitudinal and transverse joints between the different phases
or sections because the surfaces become dirty and it is impossible to treat them correctly, Le.,
to clean and make them rough (photograph in figure 11).
2.5.1. Cast-in-place concrete
Because of the impossibility of subjecting concrete to vibration, it is recommended to give the

latter sufficient workability to allow correct placing and satisfactory coating of the
reinforcement.
Furthermore, it is recommended that concreting openings (areas where the concrete is

inserted by the shutter) be provided in sufficient number to allow a slight load of the
concrete being placed against the hardened concrete of the upper part of the facing already
built.
222
Figure 11. Resumption of concreting in successive phases.
2.5.2. Shotcrete
General specifications for shotcrete are defined in the documents referenced in paragraph 1.1.
of this chapter. Some essential rules are quoted below giving, where needed, some specific
guidelines for the use of shotcrete in the construction of facings for soil nailed structures.
• Qualification of the staff
One condition essential to the satisfactory conduct of the work is the use of qualified and
experienced staff.
• Conformity tests
As a general rule, controls must be carried out before work begins to ensure that the qualities
required will be obtained under the building conditions set up (concrete mix design,
shotcrete technique, equipment, spreading method). This is the object of the conformity tests
(see paragraph 1.5.1.3., chapter 7). For long-term structures, particularly when conditions of
work are difficult (great thickness, large amount of reinforcement), it is recommended to set
up real test sections.
• Installation of concrete
As a general rule, the spray lance is held perpendicular to the surface to be treated. However,
slight inclinations can facilitate better coating of the reinforcement, particularly when the steel
reinforcement is quite sizeable.
223
In principle, the thickness required is obtained in several layers, the spraying of a new layer
taking place before the end of the setting of the previous layer. No preparation for
resumption is then needed as long as the previous layer has not become dirty.
When spraying takes place after the setting of the previous layer, it is only necessary to
sprinkle the latter with water if its strength is not taken into account in the strength of the
facing (a protective membrane, for example), but, if this is not the case, it must be treated to
ensure good resumption of the concreting.
At each layer, the progression of concrete takes place from bottom to top to limit the risks of
the concrete being subject to slump.
Concrete that has been dropped must not be reused.
2.6. Stability of the facing
It is necessary to make provisions to avoid any risk of vertical displacement of the overlying
facing already built when starting on the following earthworks phase (figure 10).
The seriousness of this risk depends mainly on some design factors (inclination of the facing,
its thickness, type and number of inclusions) and construction factors (length of section,
reinforcement, and overlapping of the reinforcement with that of the neighboring sections),
on the characteristics of the ground in contact with the facing, and on the strength of the
concrete of the facing when underlying earthworks start.
With current technology, this risk is far less acute with inclusions directly driven into the
ground, generally densely placed, with thinner facing than with drilled inclusions, which are
much more widely spaced and require a thicker facing.
Certain constructional provisions can limit this risk. In particular one could:
Improve the adhesion of the facing to the ground, for example, by adding some short
metal elements driven beforehand in the ground.
Improve the "hooking up" of the facing element to adjoining elements by providing in the
latter some reinforcement left exposed.
Build the structure in "primary-secondary" slots.
Build an additional horizontal one meter wide facing at the top of the wall.
Partial pretensioning of the nails.
The last of these provisions, well-adapted to drilled inclusions, demands that both concrete
and grout have sufficient strength to stand the stresses applied and that the nails have a
certain free length at their heads (see paragraph 2.3.2.).
224
REFERENCES
TA Recommandations 86.
Ground Anchors Specifications 86.
Recommandations AFTES, publiees dans Ie numero special d'avril1981 de la revue de l'AFTES

Tunnels et ouvrages souterrains.
Recommendations of Earthquake Engineering concerning tunnels and underground structures.
Recommandations STRRES et AFB (September 1985).

STRRES and AFB specifications.
Fascicule 65 du CCTC (execution des ouvrages de genie civil en beton pre-constraint).

Construction of Civil Engineering structure using reinforced or prestressed concrete.
225
226
C HAP T E R 6 _
DURABILITY OF STRUCTURES
1. INTRODUCTION AND AREA OF APPLICATION
The aim of this chapter is to explain the design and design rules that must be applied to soil
nailed structures insofar as they affect the aging process of the materials used, Le.,
reinforcement (bar and grout) and facing.
These recommendations only apply, of course, to structures whose service life and the
environment in which they are situated are such that the phenomena of aging will have time
to develop fully.
Distinctions should also be made among:
Short-term structures, whose service life is less than or equal to 18 months.

Medium-term structures, whose service life is between 18 months and 30 years.
Long-term structures, whose service life is between 30 and 100 years.
These recommendations only apply to medium- or long-term structures since obviously the
aging phenomena over an 18-month period will, in reality, be negligible, and short-term
structures only need protection in particularly aggressive sites (see paragraph 4). However,
where structures have been built using nails with prestressing steel strands for the nail
reinforcement, the standards for ground anchors (in France, Recommandations TA 86) should
be used for corrosion protection.
Because the majority of soil nailed walls have been built using nonalloyed steel nails and a
concrete facing, these recommendations apply principally to these two types of materials.
It should also be noted that an experimental wall using fiberglass nails was built as part of
the Project CLOUTERRE, but the studies concentrated mainly on questions of soil nail
friction and not on the structure's durability (French National Project CLOUTERRE,
Scetauroute-SAPRR March 1988).
Generally speaking, the aging process in the materials used can be taken into account in one
of the following three ways:
227
• Protection by providing additional thickness (passive)
Here the phenomenon of aging is left to take its natural course. Sizing of the structure's nails
is based on the estimated residual nail cross section at the end of the structure's service life.
• Protection by coating the nail
Here attempts are made to slow the aging process by protecting the nail against attack from
aggressive substances by coating them (galvanization, paint, etc.). This has the effect of
delaying the aging process, although it is not able to fully overcome it. The nail's residual
resistance will again be taken into account (this can be higher than the level provided by the
previous case, although lower than for noncorroded materials).
• Protection by sleeve (active)
The attempt here is to eliminate totally the aging process by surrounding the reinforcing
material with other materials that play practically no mechanical role, but perform the role of
barrier. The long-term resistance is the same as that of the original material, without
reduction.
NOTE: Cathodic protection has been excluded on technical grounds and because its
installation is not compatible with soil nailing techniques.
2. CLASSIFYING STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR PLANNED USE
With permanent structures, the purpose for which the structure is planned and the
consequences of failure will influence the designer's choice of safety factor (will it be
subjected to surcharges or harsh environmental conditions, such as water laden with de-icing
salts, etc.).
In practice, an index C is defined, and this is used to classify the structure. This classification
will be the basis for designing protective measures (see paragraph 4.2.1. of this chapter).
There are two main types of structure:
• Critical structures: Soil nailed walls that show at least one of the following features:
Very high (~ 10 m).
Structure supporting heavy surcharges: graffic, railways, concentrated loads (pylons, etc.).
Aggressive environments: polluted aquifer, structures under roadways treated with

de-icing salts.
Structures where excessive deformations or failure might lead to wide-scale damage:

sensitive buildings and service networks nearby (located at a horizontal distance less than
228
Chapter 6: Durability of Structures
three times the height of the soil nailed structure; this distance includes a margin of
safety), excavations running alongside heavily used traffic routes (freeways, major roads
and railways).
One chooses C ~ 2 for critical structures (2 is the minimum recommended value; the owner
or client can use a higher value, but this will need to be shown in the construction
specifications).
• Standard structures: These are soil nailed walls that do not have any of the previously
mentioned characteristics.
One chooses C = 0 for standard structures.
3. CLASSIFYING SOILS ACCORDING TO THEIR AGGRESSIVITY
3.1. Objective and area of application
This section seeks to describe a method for assessing the likelihood of corrosion in soil nailed
structures using nonalloyed steel bars that come into direct contact with the soil or that are
likely to do so if the cement grouting should crack.
The likelihood of these elements corroding not only depends on the properties of the metal
materials used and the corrosive factors of the soil in question but also on the heterogeneity
of the ground through which one single nail passes, plus external electrical influences.
Given the wide range of factors influencing the corrosion phenomena, this document tries to
present an appreciation of the probability of corrosion occurring, although where doubt
exists, the matter should be referred to a specialist. This chapter also applies to structures
built on soil sites, whether or not there is pure or brackish water present.
3.2. General principles
Steel reinforcements in nails can, should they come into contact with soil and water, suffer
two different types of corrosion.
Uniform corrosion results in an average reduction in the thickness of the nails.
Localized corrosion at specific points: this takes the form of pitting, sometimes deep,
sometimes not, which can be altogether more severe than uniform corrosion.
229
3.3. Evaluating the corrosiveness of the soil
3.3.1. Overall corrosiveness index
The table given below specifies the weighing ascribed to each of the four main assessment
parameters used to evaluate the corrosiveness of soils. It was compiled on the findings from
an analysis of buried metal culverts (reference CEFRACOR).
TABLE I. Overall corrosiveness index.
Criterion Features Weight A of

Criterion
Type of Soil • Texture
- heavy, plastic, sticky impermeable
- clayey-sand 2
- light, permeable, sandy, cohesionless soils 1
• Peat and bog/marshlands 0

• Industrial waste
- clinker, cinders, coal 8
- builders' waste (plaster, bricks)
8
• Polluted liquids 4
- waste water, industrial
- water containing de-icing salts
6
8
Resistivity p < 1000 Q cm 5
1 000 < P < 2 000 3
2000<p<5000 2
5000<p 0
Moisture Content Water table - brackish water
(variable or permanent) 8
Water table - pure water
(variable or permanent) 4
Above water table moist soil
(water content> 20%) 2
Above water table - dry soil
(water content < 20%) 0
pH <4 4
4il5 3
5il6 2
>6 0
Global index Sum of
above: LA
230
The value of the weight of criterion "A" chosen in "Types of Soil," for example, would be the
maximum value applicable to that soil from the subgroups "Texture," "Peat," "Industrial
Waste," or "Polluted Liquids." The maximum weight for each of the four criteria is less or
equal to eight.
The corrosiveness of the soil is shown as a global index LA, which is obtained from adding
together the weighing values set for each of the four evaluation criteria.
3.3.2. Electrolytic effect of electric currents: "stray" currents
Some electric currents, direct or alternating with very low frequencies (16.67 Hz = 50/3),
circulate in the soil. These may come from industrial installations, neighboring cathodic
protection installations, etc., and can result in corrosion caused by electrolytic action. This
risk must be evaluated in a special study.
3.4. Determining which characteristics will be used when assessing the

corrosiveness of soils
3.4.1. Type of soil
This is first looked at from the point of view of the local geology. Examination will be limited
to distinguishing between fine soils, typified by a high percentage of clay present (plastic,
heavy, sticky or impermeable soils), and primarily granular soils that have few colloids and
have weak cohesion, and are permeable and friable.
As a first breakdown, "heavy" textured soils are fine grained soils classified by the LPC as
having more than 50 percent by weight of the particles smaller than 80 rtm). "Light" textured
or granular soils are those with less than 50 percent by weight of the particles smaller than
80 rtm.
If no identification tests have been carried out, one simple method for assessing the texture of
a soil and its level of compaction is to manually form a sample of slightly damp soil into a
small ball: Heavy textured soil will form a cohesive ball.
3.4.2. Resistivity
Resistivity measurements use the classical methods for measuring the global resistivity of the
soil through a depth more or less equivalent to the distance between the electrodes (see
appendix of this chapter). The inspection depth should correspond to the height of the soil
nailed wall.
Other measuring methods can also be used (for example, penetration using a probe, the
magneto-acid method, etc.).
231
3.5. Phreatic water table
The presence of a permanent or variable phreatic water table affects the corrosion process
because of its effect on the permeability to air, resistivity, etc. Geotechnical investigations (see
chapter 4) will generally identify their presence. In addition, during the soil sampling
operation, it will usually be possible to observe water infiltration into the boring after 10 or
more minutes.
If there is no water table, the water content in the soil will be measured from the sample
taken.
The water content in a soil sample is found using the standard methods:
Either in a laboratory using the oven dried moisture content test.

Or, on site using alcohol drying.
3.6. pH
The pH level in most natural soils is between 5 and 9. Natural soils, where the pH is lower
than 6, will only be found in peats or siliceous soils from primary geological formation
stages. Highly acid or highly alkaline pHs values are usually an indication of pollution
originating from industrial processes (cinders, slag, clinker, industrial tipping, and
miscellaneous waste, etc.).
The pH measurement will be found in accordance with the test procedure shown in the
appendix.
3.7. Interpreting the results
On the basis of the overall corrosiveness index LA obtained from table I, soils can be
classified as follows:
TABLE II.
Index Soil Features Classification

LA
> 13 Highly corrosive I
9 to 12 Corrosive II
5 to 8 Average corrosiveness III
<4 Slightly corrosive IV
232
4. PROTECTION FOR METALLIC REINFORCEMENTS
4.1. Generalities
The phenomena of corrosion, and thus the protective devices required to counter these, differ
depending on the type of steel used ("standards," those with a high elastic limit, alloys, or
steels that can be made passive).
Nails are either installed by driving or by laying them inside a borehole and then anchoring
them into the earth using a cement grout. This cement grout will be subjected to tensile
stresses, so it is likely that some fine and regular cracking will occur. Since it is impossible to
assess with any degree of accuracy the width of this cracking, and even though it might only
be slight (in the order of tenths of millimeters), it cannot be proved absolutely that the
cement grout will form a watertight barrier between the reinforcing bar and the soil. If
cracking does occur, the reinforcing nail can come into contact with the electrolyte carried by
the moisture in the soil.
Concentration of the electrolyte should not, however, be feared, and by the same token, the
cracking in the cement grout would not be able to generate any more severe corrosion
phenomena than those resulting from the reinforcement coming into direct contact with the
soil.
The cracking of the cement grout does not, therefore, necessarily constitute an aggravating
factor in terms of its triggering or encouraging corrosion phenomena. In conclusion, whatever
the technological method used, the hypothesis will be formulated that any reinforcement that
is not protected by some sort of covering will be in direct contact with the soil.
4.2. Standard steels (elastic limit O"e :::; SOD MPa)
Generally speaking, any metal part manufactured from standard steel that comes into contact
with the soil corrodes in a more or less homogeneous manner. This manifests itself through a
gradual and relatively uniform reduction in thickness of any exposed steel surface. The
dissolved steel is replaced by the compact and more expansive ferric hydroxide.
The tradition of using standard steel for elements to be installed in soil of any kind is
widespread and dates back many years (piles, culverts and cables, sheet-piling, etc.).
Laboratory studies, together with observations made on actual structures, have given us a
good understanding of the corrosion phenomena that can affect these steels.
It is therefore possible nowadays to make relatively reliable predictions for the behavior of
such steels when they are buried in soil, if we know the degree of aggressivity of the
surrounding environment, the length of time they will be exposed, and what type of
protection is being planned. Generally speaking, such predictions must deal with a loss of
thickness equivalent to the thickness neutralized through corrosion. In fact, because these
losses in thickness are nonuniform, the ratio "relative loss of resistance/relative loss of
233
thickness" is higher than 1. In practice, this coefficient is directly integrated into the loss of
thickness values given below (which also include the average "geometric" loss of thickness
and the effect of it being nonuniform).
Protective systems can be classified into four categories:
Thickness sacrificed to corrosion.

Protection from plastic or steel sheathing.
Galvanization.
Nonmetallic protective coating.
The first two methods are currently in use, but there has been little practical experience with
the other two in soil nailing.
4.2.1. Thickness sacrificed to corrosion
This is the most simple and most widely used system of protection. The products of
corrosion that appear over time form a protective coating between the steel and its
immediate surroundings. This coating does not form a barrier around the steel in the
mechanical sense; instead, by modifying the environment immediately surrounding the
reinforcing bar, it changes the kinetics of the chemical reactions, which in turn manifests itself
through a slowing down in the rate of corrosion.
To determine the thickness of steel to be sacrificed to corrosion, the following steps will need
to be followed:
1) Find the index C, which typifies the class of structure (see paragraph 2.).
2) Find the global corrosiveness index LA of the soil (see paragraph 3.).
3) In the light of the overall index I = LA + C, use the table below to find the additional
thickness needed when sizing nonprotected steel in accordance with the required service
life (total reduction of diameter or thickness, including both sides).
TABLE III.
Overall Index I Short-term Medium-term Long-term

I Classification ::::; 18 months 1.5 to ::::; 30 years 30 to ::::; 100 years
::::; 4/IV 0 2mm 4mm
5 to 8/III 0 4mm 8mm
9 to 12/II 2mm 8mm plastic sheath*
~ 13/1 Protective plastic sheath must be provided*
•A metal casing is not recommended unless there are special reasons for using it.
234
4.2.2. Protection using plastic sheath
This system involves the installation of a casing made of some corrugated plastic material
(polypropylene, polyethylene or similar, or, more rarely, steel). The annular space between
the casing and the reinforcing bar is filled with cement grout or some other kind of sealant,
which is nonaggressive to either the steel or the casing. This system is not recommended for
driven nails because of the risks of damage when they are installed.
This system, then, is used to prevent any contact between the soil and the reinforcement. The
steel from which the reinforcement is made will not, therefore, be able to deteriorate. In order
for this system to be fully efficient, it is important for the casing to be absolutely watertight
and totally sealed at the base and up to the facing.
Moreover, the casings should be capable of resisting the stresses to which they will be
subjected. Corrugated plastic casings are generally used to make sure that the tensile stress to
which the bar (steel) is subjected can be transferred. For further information see
Recommandations sur les tirants d'ancrage - TA 86, (French recommendations on Ground
Anchors).
With this plastic sheath, which is strongly recommended for "corrosive" soils (class II), and
vital for "highly corrosive" soils (class I), no thickness to be sacrificed to corrosion will be
taken into account.
NOTE: If metallic casings are used they must be at least equivalent to half the additional
thickness shown in table III. This is to ensure they will fulfill their protective role during the
whole of the structure's life.
4.2.3 Galvanization
This type of protection is currently in low demand in soil nailed structures. The principle is
as follows: In the case of galvanized steel, the corrosion by-products of zinc (zinc hydroxides
in particular) initially form a protective screen. The zinc coating initially delays the
appearance of any corrosion in the steel and, subsequently, slows its development once the
zinc has been transformed to dry oxide.
Zinc is more highly electronegative than steel. If steel is unprotected in places (as a result of
accidental damage during handling or because of deterioration caused by corrosion), it forms
an electrochemical battery and any adjacent zinc is "sacrificed" in order to protect the iron. As
a result of the phenomenon of spontaneous cathodic protection, the zinc also assures some
uniformity of corrosion.
The thickness of the zinc must be sufficient (80 11m minimum) to guarantee efficient
protection, but not too thick because it must adhere to the steel properly. Whatever the
circumstances, the zinc coating must conform to French Standard NFA 91121 - Hot
Galvanizing (Galvanization a chaud).
235
However, zinc protection, albeit readily valid in principle, has not yet had the benefit of
being widely used in the area of soil nailing. Also, it requires that the same type of steel be
used throughout the structure, particularly when it comes to anchorage heads and connecting
sleeves (thread). There is also serious risk of damage during installation, particularly for
driven nails.
As a result, given our present level of understanding and technology, the same additional
thicknesses used for bare steel will be used here (see paragraph 4.2.1.).
4.2.4. Protection with nonmetallic coating
This involves a coating of paint, such as thick bituminous paints, traditional tar, or tar
improved with resins, epoxy-resins, etc. These coatings form a screen that will give some
protection to the steel but only for a limited period, generally about 10 years or so.
Unlike galvanization, the by-products of the coatings, when breaking down, form no
protective barrier likely to alter its electrolytic nature upon coming into contact with the
reinforcing steel.
Furthermore, this type of coating poses problems of adhesion and the threat of damage when
the nails are installed. For all these reasons, current thinking is that where long-term
structures are concerned, the efficiency of a painted coating will be nil (in practice, therefore,
the same additional thickness values will be used as for bare steel - see paragraph 4.2.1. of
this chapter).
4.3. High strength steels with a high elastic limit (a e > 500 MPa)
This type of steel is characterized by its strong susceptibility to stress corrosion when put
into tension. This mainly applies to steels whose elastic limit is higher than 900 MPa, and
even at low working stress levels.
In order to ensure the steel is kept free from this sort of problem in long-term structures, the
only effective solution is to prevent any contact between the steel and the electrolyte.
Therefore, protective casings are systematically used - see Recommandations TA 86 for the
precautions to be taken.
4.4. Alloyed materials and passive steels
Here we are concerned with metals such as stainless steel or aluminum alloys. When they
come into contact with their environment, these materials become coated with a protective
layer of oxides that prevent any attack on the base metal. However, when this protective
layer is locally destroyed (either mechanically or chemically), an electrochemical battery is
formed where the layer of oxide plays the role of the cathode and the base metal that of the
anode (reverse phenomenon to that produced in the case of galvanized steel).
236
This battery then becomes the subject of intense current corrosion that, beginning at a one
single pin size perforation, results in the rapid destruction of the base metal. If certain
chemicals are present in the soil, particularly chlorides, the probability of this sort of damage
occurring is heightened. The phenomenon of corrosion in these materials is difficult to
forecast, therefore, it is impossible to keep it in check.
These materials should not, therefore, be used unless they are 100 percent insulated from the
electrolyte. In fact, lack of experience in the use of this type of material in soil nailed sites
means that, for the moment, they have to be rejected altogether.
5. REINFORCEMENT PROTECTION USING "SYNTHETIC MATERIALS"
Based on our current level of knowledge, several types of material are now being proposed
as reinforcements for soil nailing:
Fiberglass.
Carbon fiber.
Plastic materials.
Kevlar (aramid).
Generally speaking, lack of experience in the use of these materials means that greater care
must be exercised. Given our current level of knowledge, we suggest they should be reserved
for experiments and standard structures (as defined in paragraph 2 of this chapter).
Under certain conditions, however, there can be situations where protection of the nails will
be provided by plastic materials. The stipulations of the British Standard BSI DD 81-1982
allow for the use of plastic materials (polypropylene and polyethylene) for the protection of
long-term ground anchors, provided the protective measures are carried out in the factory,
and the use of UV-sensitive plastic, provided it includes carbon black.
6. DURABILITY OF THE FACING
In long-term structures, the facing forms an integral part of the soil nailing process and its
durability must be taken into account just as for the nail itself.
6.1. Concrete facing
• Shotcrete: see the recommendations on the application of shotcrete to underground

structures, published in the AFTES Review (July 1982), as well as the technical regulations
contained in BAEL 83.
237
In particular:
The cements used must comply with AFNOR Standards NFP 15-300 to 305 - 311 - 350. It
should be noted that pure Portland cements (CPA) are not appropriate for aggressive
soils.
Potential additives (particularly accelerated setting agents) must be compatible with the
cement used, be free of chlorides and must not corrode the reinforcing bars.
The position of the reinforcements (usually welded mesh) in the layer of shotcrete, as well
as the subsequent cover of the reinforcements, must correspond to the recommendations
and regulations referred to above. The minimum cover is 30 mm.
• Cast-in-place concrete - please see the standard regulations regarding reinforced concrete
for the concrete itself as well as any reinforcings. In particular, the cement used should
correspond to the same criteria as for shotcrete. A minimum cover of
20 mm will be provided.
Attention is also drawn, however, to the problem of cold joints in the concrete which are
always difficult to achieve correctly (see chapter 5) and where fissuring often occurs. This can
encourage corrosion of the concrete reinforcements. The problem can be dealt with if special
care is taken when these joints are matched (injection of finishing agent, etc.).
• Prefabricated concrete panels: the same regulations as above apply with the addition of the
following:
Minimum thickness must be respected (50 mm).

Sufficient curing before installation to avoid the risk of splitting and/ or fissuring.
Thermal expansion must be taken into account.
6.2. Facing with steel panels
These panels can be made from standard steel, but provision must be made for the
anticipated loss of thickness due to corrosion in keeping with the service life expected of the
structure and the problems of thermal expansion (when joints are installed).
6.3. Facing with other materials
With regard to durability, plastic materials pose problems with certain soils and
cement-based materials with which the panels come into contact. The additional problem of
aging brought about through atmospheric conditions must be considered with certain plastic
materials used as protective facing or lagging.
Compared to the nails, laggings are subject to less aggressive conditions, especially
mechanical stresses. Therefore, it could be possible to select materials having more common
238
properties (plastic materials, wood, stone, etc.). However, the strength and durability of these
materials must be justified with regard to the service life of the structure.
7. PROTECTING THE NAIL HEADS AND AREAS THAT INTERFACE WITH THE
FACING
7.1. Generalities
The nail head is generally connected to the facing with a bearing plate. This area of the head,
particularly the part located at the ground interface, is the area most exposed to corrosion.
• In addition to the various stresses that have developed as the work progresses, numerous
other stresses of varying intensity might also exist, particularly:
Stresses caused by variations in temperature and that, depending on the circumstances,

can occur in cycles that last from several hours to several months.
Stresses due to variations in the hydrometric conditions in the ground, assisted by

thermic variations, and that cause "breathing" in the soil.
Stresses on the facing caused by temporary hydrostatic pressure following heavy rainfall.
Stresses due to the water in the soil expanding in icy conditions.
• These stresses can cause the concrete around the nail to crack unless it is adequately
reinforced and may break the bond of the anchoring grout in the vicinity of the head.
If this cracking becomes worse, the steel will be subjected to direct attacks of corrosion
because it is being alternately exposed to air and water. This water might even be loaded
with some sort of de-icing salts, fertilizers, industrial waste, etc.
• However, beyond a certain distance from the face, the impact of these forces is reduced,
and standard protective measures of cement grout and/or additional thickness of steel will
allow normal functioning to continue. This distance varies depending on the type of ground;
it can be estimated as 0.30 m to 0.50 m beyond the point where facing and ground interface.
On the other side of this interface, the head of the nail is usually embedded in either
shotcrete or cast-in-place concrete. It is therefore safe from corrosion as long as the thickness
of the covering conforms with the recommended standards.
However, in the case where the head is not embedded (i.e., when using prefabricated facing)
it must be protected using a cap filled with cement grout (C/E = 2.4 to 2.6) or a mortar
containing 500 kg/m3 of cement, or one of the products given in the P2 protection chart
contained in the Recommandations TA 86 (figure 1).
239
7.2. Types of protection
• Protection involves reinforcing the area around the nail heads to prevent cracking that
will otherwise occur from loading conditions previously mentioned. It also involves
preventing the cracks from being in contact with the outside atmosphere. The use of a plastic
or metal "trumpet" around the nail's structural element allows for this protection.
The precautions to be taken for the installation of both the "trumpet" and the support plate
are described in the diagram given in figure 1.
• For nail heads embedded in concrete, the following important points must be followed:
The head must be structurally designed and arranged in the facing so that it transfers
stresses to the concrete but does not cause it to crack either on the soil interface or the
exterior face.
The "trumpet" (0.30 m minimum in length) must fit solidly with the head.
The whole layout - head, "trumpet" and reinforcing of the facing - should be such that
the concreting can be properly carried out (shotcrete or cast-in-place concrete).
Provisions must be made for filler and vent tubes for filling between the "trumpet" and
the nail, as well as between the "trumpet" and the ground; particular attention should be
paid to the area just beyond the "trumpet," which must be fully filled.
240
A Concrete failure must be calculated according

to the BAEL 83 code.
B The connecting zone between the nail head and
the trumpet must be perfectly sealed. A
structural connection between the trumpet and
the nail head is a good method.
C This area becomes a dangerous zone if it is
poorly sealed. It is necessary to make sure the
seal is formed by filling with grout.
o This zone must be filled because it is the
assurance that the area C has been filled.
1 Bearing plate set so that the dimensions hand

e allow for the proper distribution of the
loads without spalling.
2 Nail: Generally a ribbed bar or other steel
section with high adherence to grout.
3 Structural concrete facing : shotcrete or east-
in-place.
4 Steel or plastic trumpet.
5 Grout or mortar filling the trumpet.
6 Grout or mortar filling the boring.
7 Reinforcing steel (mesh).
Figure 1. Important details in the "head-nail-facing" layout.
241
Venting --=-
tube
PERMEABLE GROUND
Injection
tube
ep 16 x 12, split 20cm at its base
a. Protection provided by additional thickness.
Venting
tube
IMPERMEABLE GROUND
in corrugated
%/ 'W//.'
; Device for connecting head with corrugated I
~sheath, welded at the head and filled with mortar
after installation
b. Protection using a plastic sheath.
242
:~!"Sealant (polyurethane foam)mortar

Paper plug
PVC tube ep 75/80
Cap---; ~3~~~==:~~~~~~~~~~~ Cement grout
~~ \/0\\.
Structural plate ----,---r

",'-.•. j
1----
'I
(load distribution) //--_ 1-/ 1/- I
Protective paint Stuck in place ·~~~~i

using epoxy
Anchoring grout
/ resine • Injector
/'.
/ / 0 tube (10/14)
/ /';(L
4~~-·--·J:~:I
Prefabricated plate
c. Prefabricated panels.
Figure 2. Examples of nail head corrosion protection.
If there are any drainage features near the nail heads, the "trumpet" will be sealed into
the ground using a non penetrating product or an insulating system of the injectable
separator type.
The figures shown in 2a, 2b, and 2c, are examples of the various types of protection the nail
heads can be given (embedded or not, shotcrete or cast-in-place, prefabricated panels, etc.).
• Where nail heads are not embedded, the Recommandations TA 86 (P2: Protection) will be
followed with the possibility of filling using cement grout.
243
8. MONITORING OF THE CORROSION PROCESS
The recommendations given in this chapter, have been developed with the clear
understanding that more long-term monitoring is needed. The recommendations apply to
any structure whose service life is anticipated in terms of several tens of years, and
sometimes deal with phenomena whose progress is not always fully understood.
This monitoring entails a periodic inspection of the reinforcing bar samples for corrosion
control at regular intervals. This will be done by sample reinforcing elements, installed
during construction, being extracted at regular intervals to ensure that any subsequent
corrosion does not call into doubt the hypotheses on which its structural design was based.
The practical considerations involved (installation procedures, number, timetable, and tests to
be carried out), concerning these bar samples are described in paragraph 4.2.3.4. of chapter 7.
244
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AFNOR (1990): Corrosion pour les sols. Evaluation de la corrosivite: Canalisations enterrees
en materiaux ferreux non et peu allies. Norme A05250.
Corrosion for soils. Evaluation of corrosivity: buried metal pipes - steel and some alloys.
Evaluation de la corrosivite: Ouvrages en acier enterres (palplanches et pieux). Norme

A05251.
Evaluation of corrosivity: buried steel structures (sheet piles and other pipes).
Acier galvanise ou non mis au contact de materiaux naturels de remblais (sols). Norme
A05252.
Bare or galvanized steel in contact with natural fill materials (soils).

l'execution et Ie contrale des tirants d'ancrage (TA 86), Ed. Eyrolles, 1986.
Recommendations for design, construction, and control of ground anchors.
DARBIN, M., JAILLOUX, J.M., and MONTUELLE, J. (1979). Experiences et recherches

concernant la durabilite des armatures de Terre Armee. Bulletin de Liaison des
Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees No.99, Janvier/Fevrier 1979.
Experiences and research on the durability of Reinforced Earth reinforcements.
LCPC - SETRA (1979). Ouvrages en Terre Armee - Recommandations et Regles de l'art,

Septembre.
Reinforced earth structures, recommendations and state of the art.
NEVEUX, M. (1968). La corrosion des conduites d'eau et de gaz, Ed. Eyrolles.

Corrosion of water and gas pipes.
RAHARINAIVO, A. (1985). La durabilite des materiaux pour Ie renforcement des sols.

Congres europeen de corrosion, Nice, Novembre 1985.
Durability of materials used for soil reinforcement
ROMANOFF, N. (1957). Underground corrosion. National Bureau of Standards, 579

USA/1957.
245
246
APPENDIX
SPECIFIC TEST METHODS

DETERMINING THE pH VALUE OF A SOIL SAMPLE
Mix the soil sample with distilled water in the ratio of one part soil to two parts water (by
weight).
Soils in which the water content is high (> 40%), muds or sludge for example, are analyzed
in the condition in which they are found.
All the soils must have a fluid consistency. Standard equipment is used to determine the pH
level - see the following standards for details of sample taking and measuring:
NF T 01-012: pH metrie - Solutions etalon pour l'etalonnage d'un pH metre.

Measuring pH levels - standard solutions to be used when calibrating a pH.
NF T 01-013: pH metrie - Mesure electrochimique au moyen d'une electrode de verre.

Vocabulaire et methode de mesure.
Measuring pH levels - electrochemical measurements using a glass electrode. Glossary and
measuring methodology.
DETERMINING THE MOISTURE CONTENT OF A SOIL SAMPLE
• In a laboratory
Weigh out about five grams of the soil sample in a porcelain crucible or refractory dish. Heat
in an oven for two hours at 105°C. Leave to cool in a desiccator, then weigh and reheat to
105°C for an hour.
247
Continue the drying process until a constant weight is achieved. The moisture content is
calculated as follows:
p -p
Moisture content = 100 _ 0_
p
Po = weight of sample before drying (g)

P = constant weight after drying (g)
• On site
Weigh out about 100 g of the soil sample, which should be crumbled into a metal receptacle.
Sprinkle the sample with alcohol (about 20 cm3) and ignite the mixture. Reweigh the sample
after the alcohol has burned.
The approximate moisture content is calculated in the same way as in the laboratory test:
P - P
Moisture content = 100 _o-=-_
P
Po = weight of sample before drying (g)

P = constant weight after drying (g)
ON-SITE EVALUATION OF THE RESISTIVITY OF A SOIL
• The Wenner method with four probes (see figure 1)
This measurement is taken from the surface of the soil. Four metal electrodes are arranged in
a straight line at equidistant intervals (length 50 cm, diameter 1 cm). These are then
connected by conductors to a quadripolar resistance bridge (alternating current is used).
- I
a a a
Figure 1. Wenner method of measuring resistivity of the soil.
248
The depth of soil encompassed in the measurement roughly corresponds to the distances
between the electrodes "a". The apparent specific resistance of the soil can be calculated using
the formula:
p =21taR
where R is the resistance measured between the two middle electrodes.
• Cane probe method (see figure 2)
This method involves pushing into the ground a probe fitted with either two or four
electrodes and linked to an alternating current resistance bridge (Kohlrausch, etc.). The
method tests only a small volume of soil in the vicinity of the probe tip. For more details, see
Neveux, 1968.
Sounding probe
Koh Irausch bridge
Ewphone
o
Figure 2. Cane probe for measuring soil resistivity.
DETERMINING THE RESISTIVITY OF A SOIL SAMPLE - ON-SITE TEST
The retrieved soil sample is cleaned of any gravel or stones it might contain. Resistivity is
measured in a specific cell (with two or four electrodes).
The naturally moist soil is densely compacted into the cell to duplicate as closely as possible
the in situ density of the soil.
To determine the minimum potential ground resistivity, water without minerals is added
in volumes of 10, 20, and 30 percent - and mixed with the soil sample. Make sure that
proper homogeneity is achieved and that any soluble salts are put into the solution before
resistivity level is measured.
The minimum resistivity value found after the water has been added will be used when
evaluating absolute corrosiveness levels from tables.
249
This resistivity value will have been corrected to reflect the effects of temperature as shown
in the following ratio:
P (t) p (t) / [1 + x (to - t) ]
where: t = the temperature of the soil (in degrees Celsius) at the time the measurement was
taken.
to = 18°C
x = 0.03 where t < 18°C
x = 0.02 where t > 18°C
250
C HAP T E R 7 _
SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS
1. SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS OF MATERIALS
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Passive soil nailing is often associated with the use of prestressed ground anchors,
particularly on urban sites, so that the magnitude of displacements in the structures can be
limited.
It is important to remember that the difference between passive nails and prestressed ground
anchors is not limited simply to the fact that the latter are put into tension. This is of
particular importance because it is not uncommon, for a variety of reasons, for so-called
passive nails to be tightened against the facing after they have been put into partial tension
(or traction).
The difference between passive nails and prestressed ground anchors extends well beyond
this particular aspect of their installation. The technology involved, the nature and qualities
of the steels used, the durability of the steels and the way corrosion protection is addressed,
the field inspections during construction, and even justification for their use during design
are all differences worthy of discussion.
For prestressed ground anchors, these aspects are dealt with in the Recommandations TA 86
developed by SECURITAS, which should be consulted. Only the recommendations
concerning passive soil nail inclusions are dealt with here.
1.1. Materials used for nail reinforcements
1.1.1. Metal reinforcements
The metal reinforcements must be manufactured from the following types of steel:
High adherence bars made from a steel included on the list of accepted or authorized
bars compiled by the Acceptance and Inspection Committee for Reinforced Concrete
251
(Commission d'agrement et de contrale des armatures pour beton arme); the specified
elastic limit must be lower than or equal to 500 MPa.
Nonalloyed steels that are not the subject of an acceptance procedure (profiles or rolled
merchant bars, rods, extruded bars, etc.) but that conform to the relevant French
standards: "Shades and Qualities," "Dimensions and Tolerances" ("Nuances et Qualites,"
"Dimensions et Tolerances").· The specified elasticity limit must be lower than or equal to
400 MPa.
Nonalloyed "soft" steels used in the oil industry.
The use of high-strength steels (elastic limit higher than 500 MPa) for passive inclusions is
not recommended mainly because of their low resistance to bending.
It must also be remembered that because they are highly prone to stress corrosion, the use of
high strength steels, without exception, requires the same protection as prestressed ground
anchors given in the Recommandations TA 86. The heads of the anchoring devices must be
protected the same as prestressed bars, and the anchoring devices themselves (nuts,
couplings, support plates, etc.) must be made of nonalloyed steel so that no galvanic
corrosion cell is formed.
In all cases, prestressing steel must come from the approved list prepared by the
Inter-Ministerial Commission for Prestressing (Commission Interministerielle de la
Precontrainte).
NOTE: For the reasons explained in chapter 6, passive and alloy steels must not be used in
soil nailing.
1.1.2. Nonmetal bars
As a general rule, bars are made of metal; however, in certain cases where special
requirements need to be met, other materials have sometimes been used. Fiberglass is a case
in point when it was used as a short-term measure to facilitate the subsequent destruction of
the reinforcements.
Materials other than steel are not used except in short-term soil nailed structures or as part of
an experiment. This is because our current level of understanding into the way these
materials work is still not sufficiently advanced, particularly their long-term behavior and
durability.
For the reasons given above, and until such time as we have more sophisticated
understanding of these materials, only metal inclusions (Le., steel) will figure in the
specifications.
252
Chapter 7: Specification and Inspections
1.2. Procedures and materials for protecting nail bars against corrosion
1.2.1. Protection for standard steels
See recommendations contained in chapter 6.
1.2.2. Protection for prestressing steels
Types of protection and the conditions for implementing them must conform with the
Recommandations TA 86 developed by SECURITAS (January 1986).
1.3. Grout used for securing the nails
This paragraph deals only with cement-based grouts, which are the types used in the
majority of cases.
1.3.1. Specifications for grout components
1.3.1.1. Cements
Cements must conform to the stipulations of NFP 15-301 and the NF-VP lists, as issued by
AFNOR.
The type of cement used must be chosen in keeping with the aggressivity of the local
environment (ground water), the type of structure (long-term or short-term) and the duration
of the excavation phases.
In aggressive settings (see chapter 6), the type of cement used must be chosen from the
relevant COPLA lists.
Other criteria might have a bearing on the type of cement chosen, such as its short-term
resistance or how long it takes to set.
If there are plans to use prestressing steel, the specifications contained in the Recommandations
TA 86 relating to chlorine and sulphur levels must be respected:
Total chlorine ~ 0.05% of the weight of the cement

Total sulphurs/sulphides ~ 0.15% of the weight of the cement
1.3.1.2. Water
Water in the grout must conform to standard NFP 18-303.
253
1.3.1.3. Specific ingredients and additives
Any additives used must conform to NFP 18-103 and NFP 18-331 to 338 standards, and be
stamped with a mark signifying that they comply with the relevant French standards,
otherwise they can be chosen from the CaPLA list of approved additives.
In the case of medium-term or long-term soil nailed walls, additives must not contain any
substance that would prove harmful to steel.
A compatibility study must be made if more than one additive is used.
1.3.2. Specifications relating to grout mix design
Grouts are mixtures of cement and water, possibly stabilized by a small quantity of
bentonite.
The cement/water ratio is generally between 1.5 and 2.2. The bentonite dosage should not
exceed 10 to 15 kg/m3 •
Special grouts can be used in fissured, karstic, or very porous ground in order to limit the
quantities needed. These can be:
Grouts with fillers (fine sands, fly ashes, etc.).
Stiff grouts in which the set time is speeded up by the use of additives (sodium silicate is
the most commonly used).
Special grouts, etc.
1.3.3. Checking the quality of the grout
1.3.3.1. Checking that the grout components conform
Care should be taken to ensure that the grout components comply with the stipulations of
paragraph 1.3.1. and to the contract documents.
1.3.3.2. Conformity and control tests
The usual tests check such things as the composition of the grout, uniformity of production,
the conformity to the design, the mechanical resistance of the grout, etc. Some of these tests
are carried out either before work starts on the building site (conformity tests and
preliminary pull-out tests) or during the course of construction.
The following factors are measured:
Density.
Viscosity.
254
- Resistance (simple compression).
In most cases these tests will be the only ones required. However, in special circumstances,
additional tests can be carried out (measuring the time needed for the grout to set,
temperature measurement, test tube settling measurements and spin-drying using a filter
press). It is not anticipated, however, that these additional tests will be systematically carried
out.
• Density Measurements
Measurements are taken using either:
BAROID scales with liquid grout, or

Hydrostatic (submerged) weighing using hardened grout.
These measurements can then be used to check the composition of the grout. Indeed, by
looking at the volumic weights of:
the cement Yc = 29.5kN/m3 (CLK) to 31 kN/m3 (CPA)

the bentonite Yb = 25.5 to 26.5 kN/m3
the water Yw = 10 kN/m3
and the respective proportional weights of the cement (C), the bentonite (B) and the water
(E), the density of the grout, using the weight ratios C/E and B/C, are expressed using the
formula:
C B
1 +- 1 +-
E C
d
C Yw Yw B
1 +- - +-
E Yc Yb C
"- /
• Viscosity Measurements
Viscosity is traditionally measured using a Marsh flow cone with a 5 mm-diameter nozzle.
The viscosity v is expressed in seconds and corresponds to the flow of a grout volume of
946 cm3 (standard API 13B).
The initial viscosity of the grouting is generally regulated, whatever its composition, to
ensure it is stable (only low sweating rate or none at all). Experience demonstrates that this
result is obtained for values of around 50 seconds. In this range of values, the simple-to-use
Marsh cone test is perfectly suitable.
255
However, with high viscosity levels, the values rapidly become meaningless (v > 80 seconds).
Here, the modified Marsh cone - also called the LCPC cone with adjustable nozzle -
should be used.
• Simple compression resistance
At the moment, there is no standardized method for this type of test; the sample sizes are
not standardized.
The method recommended involves putting the grouting sample into hermetically sealed
cylindrical moulds with a cross sectional area of about 12 m 2• The samples should have a
height to width ratio of 2.
However, other sampling modes are also acceptable, particularly cube-shaped samples. The
shape of the samples should then be specified.
Simple compression resistance is measured in grouts that are 7 days and 28 days old, and
wherever possible after 24 or 48 hours.
The need to know the short-term resistance of the grout stems from the fact that the nails are
subjected to tensile stresses from the time of the excavation layer following the one in which
they were installed (often involving a period of less than 24 hours).
Since it is not always possible to carry out short-term compression tests on site, the following
diagrams (figure 1) can be consulted to help with the choice of grouts. These give data on the
way the grouts' resistances develop over time depending on:
The classification and type of cement.

The C/E ratio.
These diagrams reveal the following:
The dispersion of the test results is relatively high for class 55 CPA grouts where the C/E
ratio is equal to 1.5. This high performance cement is not especially recommended in
situations where the grout can become diluted. Temperature also influences the way its
resistance develops.
The dispersion noted when testing CLK cements is explained primarily by differences in
the origin of the cements (their compositions are therefore different).
Where the nails are subjected to tensile stresses within 24 hours, a minimum indicative
resistance of 5 MPa after 24 hours of the mix design is required. A higher resistance can be
achieved using special grouts.
Attention is drawn to the fact that simple compression resistance can show strong
dispersions over fairly short periods of time.
256
Portland cement Portland cement Slag cement (elK 45)

CLASS 45 (MPo) CLASS 55 CL ASS 45
(MPo)
0 C
a.. "[=2
~
40 40 40
w
u
z
e:t ~=2
l- E 30 30
~ C_
(f) .f..=15 ["-1,5
w E I
0:: C
2 'E=I,5 20 20
z
0
(f)
(f)
w 10 10
0::
a..
~
0
u 0 0 0
0 10 20 :y) (d) 0 k) 20 :y) (d) 0 10 ;n 30 (d)
TIME TIME TIME
Figure 1. Simple compression resistance of grout versus time (Document Soletanche).
If the need exists, traction tests on young grouts can be used to verify proper adhesion
between the grout and the reinforcement.
1.3.3.3. Test frequency
Density and viscosity measurements must be taken during conformity tests and inspection
tests, as well as once per work shift.
Simple compression resistance measurements can be taken at the same time as the conformity
tests. However, inspection tests need not be taken systematically since the time-scales needed
for the test results to become available are often incompatible with work schedules.
1.4. Concrete bars for the facing
Facing bars can be made from high-adherence reinforcing bars or welded mesh. The types of
steel used must meet the specifications of NFA 35-015 to NFA 35-022.
Furthermore, the high-adherence reinforcing bars and welded mesh chosen must have been
approved by the Inter-Ministerial Commission on the Approval and Inspection of Reinforced
Bars for Reinforced Concrete (Commission interministerielle d'homologation et de contrale
des armatures pour beton armee).
Certification documents must be supplied before work starts.
257
1.5. Concrete to be used for the facing (shotcrete or cast-in-place)
1.5.1. Shotcrete
At the moment there are two methods for placing shotcrete:
• Dry method
A mixture of small aggregates and cement is transported in a flow of compressed air to the
placement nozzle. Water is added as the mix exits the nozzle and is being placed.
• Wet method
The fresh concrete, having first been blended with the mixing water, is pumped to the
placement nozzle. This can be done either pneumatically (diluted flow), or using a concrete
pump (dense flow).
1.5.1.1. Specifications relating to the concrete mix design
• Small aggregates
The aggregates used for either dry or wet methods must conform with current French
standards NFP 18-301 or NFP 18-302.
The granulometric curves must be well-graded so that rates on the shooting will be achieved.
For guidance the AFTES or AFB Recommendations are reproduced (see figure 2).
a ) Ma x i murn grain size ep 8 mm

(%) 100
Passing
.. w
L.« Y
00
~ K y-
6
°
< ~V
k r'-.: y ,/
~
...« "-.: y'? "
<1'"
4
°
2
..... <S» MAXIMUM GRAIN SIZE
-
° K» I ep 8mm
~
PMODULES 20 123 1 26 129 13O~132133134135136137138139 140141 142 1431 44 I
FIEVE SIZE 0.00 10.16 10.315 10.63 ~ISI~I~121~1~1~1~1 ~18110 112.5)1612°1
ep(mm)
Figure 2. Granulometric curves for shotcrete. Aggregates only (in accordance with AFTES Recommendations).
258
b) Maximum grain size ¢ 12,5mm

(%) 100 r------.---r---r-----,--..---,,----,---r---r---r---,-~..,._~-.~---=----,------,
Passing ---<.-<:'-.'Y-
80 1-----+--l--+--I-+-+--+-+--I-J.-+-l-/--J,..."'<;',,'ky~2Cl_-I__.J_____j
601----j---I---I---I-I-+-I-H~/~(\~",)4..'y_+_l__f-_l__l__l
/<:'."-.:Y
4"
201------l--J---::~"""~,,~
. . .-.;.' ,_v
' -=----+-+-+-f--l-+-+-+MAXIMUM GRAIN SIZE _
~~Y'" I ep 12.5mm
o MODULES 20123 1 26 129 ro\3lI32j33134l35136137 138 39 140 141 142143144 1
sIE~fm;l)zEP.oolo.1610315Io.63~ISI~I~I~I~I~I~I~ :AISIIO 12.5)16120 I
c) Maximum grain size ¢ 16mm

(%) 100
.A<?
Passing
80
--< K»'
K<: \>-v
60
:'-.> tY>
,<-
..< ~ >;. v
..-< .'\. :.>
4
-< "
y
20
./. ~
:..--
....«: ""- .> '"
y
'-
MAXIMUM GRAIN SIZE
I ep 16mm -
k-<~ ~
0
1 MODULES 20 23 I 26 129 /30/31132133134135136137138139 140 141 142143144 1
I SIEVE SIZE
ep (mm)
p.OO 0.16 10.315 10063~ISI~ ~121 ~I ~I ~ I~ I ~ IS 110 le.5 J 16120 1
Figure 2. Granulometric curves for shotcrete. Aggregates only (in accordance with AFTES Recommendations).
The tolerance allowed for the building contractor in relation to the optimum granulometric
curve used by the owner or the quality control engineer following the preliminary or
conformity tests, must be less than ± 10 percent. It is recommended that sand with only a
low percentage of flat grains be used. The gravel should have a flatness ratio lower than 0.30.
For preference, rounded aggregates should be used rather than crushed ones.
259
When using the dry method, the water content of the aggregates should be homogeneous
and remain low (2 to 4 percent). It is recommended that the aggregates be stored under
cover.
• Cements
All cements should conform with the specifications of standard NFP 15-301 and be included
on the NF-VP lists issued by AFNOR.
If the cement is to be exposed to sea water or to waters with a high sulphate content, the
suitability lists for cements compiled by COPLA and published annually by the relevant
Ministry should be consulted.
If either acidic or very pure water is present, the choice of cement will have to be justified.
CLK and CHF cements can be used.
• Water
The water used must comply with standard NFP 18-303.
• Specific additives and special ingredients
The placing of the shotcrete can be made easier and its in situ quality improved by using the
following products:
Traditional concrete additives, for example, to speed up its set time, plasticizers, etc.,
must meet the specifications contained in standards NFP 18-103 and NFP 18-331 to 338.
They must be stamped with the relevant NF mark authorizing their use or be chosen
from the COPLA list of approved additives.
Stiffening additives complying with NFP 18-103 are defined as being "additives whose
main function is to encourage adherence of the concrete and its being held in place
without slumping after it has been sprayed on to the surface, irrespective of the slope of
that surface."
It is recommended that preliminary or conformity tests be carried out on the building site in
order to assess the amount of additives required, bearing in mind the type of cement used
and the conditions under which it is to be placed.
If more than one additive is to be used, a compatibility study should be carried out before
the conformity test.
The use of calcium chloride and chlorinated adjuvants will only be authorized within the
limits set down in DTU No. 21-4, "Technical prescriptions regarding the use of calcium
chloride and chlorinated additives in the manufacture of grouts, mortars and concretes."
(Prescriptions techniques concernant l'utilisation du chlorure de calcium et des adjuvants
contenant des chlorures dans la confection des coulis, mortiers et betons.)
260
NOTE: The word "additive" is used when these products represent less than 5 percent of the
weight of the cement, and the words "special ingredients" are used when this percentage is
more than 5 percent.
0) Shotcrete (dry method)

(%l 100
Pass ing
80
60
40
....<"(K\.''',I).[>.-P- MAXIMUM GRAIN
~[;»~ SIZE ep 16mm
20
Ol---..,--..L....,-'--r---''----,r----'-r-.......'-r-'-r-'-.......,.-'-..,.....'-r--'-r---'-r--'-;r-'-r--'--r~...__'_r--'-_,
MODULES 20 23 26 29 OO~I 32 33134 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
SIEVE SIZE 0.08 0.16 0.315 063~ 0 l(l (J) q l!1 ~ q q "'! 8 10 12.5 16 20
<p (mm) . 0"':.-''''': (\J (\J r<1 ¢ lCl (J)
b) Shotcrete (either wet or dry method)

(% ) 100
Pass ing
eo
60
k<2',J"'t>>- MAXIMUM GRAIN

I"\I----+--..<+~--",~,,~tv~~!-Y~-I-t-+-+-+ SIZE
4u 8mm ep
20
Ol----..,--..L....,--!-r-''----,r----'-r-'--r',.-'-r-'-,.-'-,-'-,.--'--.-......--'-t--'-Ir----''r-'-,---'-..--''-r--+---,
MODU LES 20 23 26 29 3031 ~ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
SI E:(~;! ZE 0.08 0.16 0.315 0,63 d ~I KJ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 10 12.: 16 20
Figure 3. Granulometric curves for shotcrete. Aggregates - cement mix (in accordance
with AFTES Recommendations).
261
1.5.1.2. Specifications regarding the mix design (composition and proportions) of

fresh concrete
• Composition and grain sizes
The composition of the shotcrete must be defined bearing in mind that in situ concrete has a
cement content higher than its original rate. This is due to the rebounds that modify the
percentage of coarse elements (particularly when using dry method).
Shotcrete must have a proportion of fine elements (< 0.08 mm) higher than or equal to 17
percent of the weight of the mixture (aggregates, cement, and any fines that may have been
used). For guidance, see the granulometric bands given in the AFTES or AFB
Recommendations. These apply to both the dry and wet methods and are included in figure
3.
• Cement proportions
For dry shotcreting the proportion of cement must be at least equal to 300 kg per cubic meter
of sand and gravel.
For wet shotcreting, the proportion of cement is higher and must reflect a minimum of 400
kg per cubic meter of concrete.
• Water/Cement Ratio - W/C
With dry shotcreting, it is recommended that the W IC ratio be between 0.4 and 0.5 so that
the amount of rebound can be reduced and resistance improved.
With wet shotcreting, the W IC ratio depends principally on how easy it is to place with the
site conditions. However, this ratio cannot be too high, otherwise it could result in shotcrete's
shrinkage. A plasticizer can be used to reduce the W IC ratio.
1.5.1.3. Controlling the quality of the shotcrete
• Checking the shotcrete mix design
It is important that the shotcrete's ingredients be verified to ensure they conform with the
specifications of paragraph 1.5.1.1. and with the special provisions of the contract documents.
The main data to be supplied is:
Granulometric curve of the aggregates.

Technical description of the cement.
Water analysis.
Technical description of the additives and special ingredients.
262
• Conformity tests and inspection tests of shotcrete
The usual inspections, which can be carried out either before work starts on site or during
the course of construction, need:
Samples of fresh concrete for laboratory analysis.

Samples of hardened concrete for mechanical tests in a laboratory.
• Samples of fresh concrete
Sampling must be conducted on the concrete facing immediately after the concrete has been
placed.
These samples are used to inspect the granulometric features and actual composition of the
in place concrete.
• Samples of set concrete
Sampling can be carried out:
a) In place on the concrete facing
Samples are taken by coring the concrete once it has hardened. This method, however, has
one drawback; the cores extracted could contain fragments of reinforcement and this is liable
to distort the results of the mechanical tests.
b) In boxes specially manufactured for this purpose
This method is the one most generally used. See AFTES or AFB Recommendations (referred to
below) for the sampling methodology.
The concrete is shot into flat boxes by the identical method proposed during the actual
construction process, i.e., machinery, ingredients, methodology, adjuvants, special
ingredients, etc.
Boxes with wooden bottoms are used, the surface being greater than or equal to 0.25 m 2, and
the width greater than or equal to 0.40 m.
The small side of the box is placed vertically or to a slope of less than 20° from the vertical.
The concrete thickness is around 15 cm so that samples may be cored and cut to produce
cylinders 12 cm high and 6 cm in diameter (2 to 1 ratio). These samples are taken from the
middle area of the box, from inside a circle some 0.3 m in diameter (figure 4).
263
ep 6 em
J==~--I-- Zone of
sampling must
be a minimum of
150mm thickness
Figure 4. Sampling techniques of shotcrete (in accordance with AFTES Recommendations).
The handling and storage of sampling boxes and the samples taken must conform with the
standards currently in force for concrete.
• Laboratory tests on samples of hardened concrete
The most common tests are:
Apparent density.
Simple compression (resistance).
In certain special cases, traction or splitting tests may also be carried out.
• Sampling and testing frequency
a) Conformity tests
Conformity tests should be carried out systematically on all medium- and long-term
structures. As a minimum, these will involve:
3 compression (resistance measurements) tests at 7 days.

Tests are also recommended for short-term structures.
b) Inspection tests during construction
The frequency of sampling, as well as the type and number of tests, must be as defined in
the contract documents.
264
For guidance, it is recommended that tests be carried out for large scale works every 80 m 3,
as a minimum:

1.5.2. Cast-in-place concrete
The facing of the soil nailed wall can be made with cast-in-place concrete using forms.
1.5.2.1. Specifications for the ingredients, composition, and proportions used
These specifications must conform to DTU 2.3.1: "Facings and walls with formed concrete,"
(Parois et murs en beton banche).
The proportion of cement is usually at least equal to 350 kg per cubic meter of concrete.
1.5.2.2. Inspecting the quality of the concrete
• Checking the mix design
This inspection is exactly the same as the one defined for shotcrete (see paragraph 1.5.1.3).
• Inspection tests during construction
This inspection involves conducting simple compression tests on samples taken from the
concrete when it was placed.
The sampling frequency, as well as the type and number of tests, must be as defined in the
contract documents.
As a guide, for large-scale works it is recommended that tests be carried out every 80 m 3 as a
minimum:

1.6. Drainage materials and devices
1.6.1. Purpose of drainage
Drainage must prevent the facing from becoming accidentally overloaded. This is important
since soil nailed walls are not generally designed for hydrostatic pressures.
The drainage devices will have to contend with:
- Seasonal or perched water tables and unanticipated underground flows.
265
- Ingress of rainwater or accidental leaks from water mains.
1.6.2. Drainage devices used
The drainage system can include the following devices:
Weepholes, possibly linked to drainage complexes (minimum density 1/10 m 2 ).
Subhorizontal drains comprising slotted pipes installed by drilling. These drains can be
protected by a geotextile filter.
Vertical drainage elements placed against the soil and behind the concrete facing -
half-pipes, porous panels, grooves, geo-composites, etc.
In addition any sources of running water above the wall must be arrested (gutters,
ditches, trenches, etc.).
1.6.3. Drainage materials
Drainage materials must comply with relevant standards, any recommendations in force, and
with technical descriptions supplied in advance by the manufacturers.
• Perforated drainage pipes
These are PVC or metal pipes that are slotted in the factory. The drainage slots are between
0.5 mm and 2 mm wide. The number and size of the slots is determined from an analysis of
the flow and the likelihood of the slots becoming blocked.
Attention is drawn to the risk of corrosion with steel pipes.
• Ceramics or porous concrete
The manufacturer's technical descriptions must specify the distribution of the grain sizes and
the cement content of these elements, as well as their permeability and drainage capacity.
• Drainage sands and gravels
These comprise nondegradable materials. The amount passing the 80 micrometer (size #200
sieve) should not exceed 3 to 5 percent, and the sand equivalent should be greater than 50.
• Filter Geotextiles
These must conform with the Recommendations issued by the French Committee on
Geotextiles (Comite Fran<;ais des geotextiles).
266
2. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF A SOIL NAILED WALL
2.1. Documents to be produced before work starts
2.1.1. Document specifying the structural design of the soil nailed wall
Plan view, cross sections, and elevations of the soil nailed wall in relation to the soils
profile developed for the site, details of existing buildings and service mains (located
behind the wall within a distance at least equivalent to 1.5 times the height of the
excavations). These should show the bottom of the general excavations and the locations
of excavations for footing blocks, longitudinal beams, elevators, etc.
Size and layout of reinforcing bars used in the facing.
Type of nails - length, diameter, inclination, horizontal and vertical spacing.
Details and steps to be taken to ensure proper linkage between nails and reinforced
concrete facing.
2.1.2. Drainage devices
Description, design, and positioning of drainage devices.

Measures being planned for collecting the waters.
2.1.3. Detailed plan showing the various phases involved in the excavation, nailing,
and construction of the reinforced concrete facing
2.2. Inspections to be carried out during construction
2.2.1. Checking conformity of the ground and its hydrogeology with the geotechnical
data available
Verify, both during excavation phases and when drilling holes in which the nails are to
be located, that the ground corresponds to the description provided by the geotechnical
study: type, thickness, and dips in the various subsurface layers.
Document any fractured zones, pockets of permeable ground, as well as the sources of
water, seeps or oozing, ground, etc.
If any discrepancy is noted between the findings during construction and the hypotheses
on which the project was designed, immediate steps will need to be taken to rectify the
matter.
267
2.2.2. Inspecting to ensure that the work conforms with the construction documents
Displacements around a soil nailed wall largely depend on the way in which it is
constructed. The following points must therefore be very carefully checked:
2.2.2.1. Installation of the nails
• Grouted nails installed in boreholes
Making the boreholes: The drilling method must be adapted to meet the type of ground
encountered.
Conditions under which the sealing or anchoring grout is injected: The anchoring grout
must be injected through the bottom of the drill hole.
If there is loss of grout, corrective steps need to be taken.
Centering the nails: Provision should be made for a sufficient number of centralizers and
for these to be regularly distributed along the nail. In certain cases (small diameter
reinforcing bars), it is important to ensure that the nails have been properly installed (see
chapter 5, paragraph 2.3.).
Each nail installed should be recorded on an individual or collective data sheet according to
the density of the nails described in the client's specifications. The sheets will show the
following details:
Date, foreman's name.
Installation area and number of nails.
Temperature.
Drilling equipment, drilling fluid used.
Length, inclination, and diameter of drilling.
How much sealing or anchorage grout was used; injection pressure.
Length and diameter of the nail reinforcements.
Any incidents noted during the course of the drilling, sealing or installation of the
reinforcements: sources of water, loss of drilling fluid, loss of cement grout, difficulties
installing the reinforcements, etc.
268
• Driven nails
Penetration of the nails into the ground: In the event of difficulty driving them in
(resistant ground and obstructions), it might be necessary to reconsider the choice of
driving equipment, to modify the section of the angle irons, or perhaps even to change
the technique being used to instal the nails.
A data sheet must be compiled for each 8-hour shift. This sheet must give full
information on the installation of all nails using the percussion method:
Date, foreman's name.
Number of nails driven into place, area where nails were installed.
Driving equipment used.
Length, inclination and reinforcement characteristics.
Type of ground at the facing.
Any incidents noted during the course of the driving: Difficulties with penetrating the
ground, deviation, rapid penetration, etc.
2.2.2.2. Planning the various construction phases
If the ground is found to be unstable, steps can be taken to reduce the length and height
of the excavation phases (even to the point of using excavation in slots).
In addition, it is important that the excavations and the placing of the concrete facing be
done on the same day.
A minimum time must be allowed between successive excavation phases so that the nail
sealing or anchorage grout and the concrete of the facing are sufficiently resistant.
2.2.2.3. Placing shotcrete
Certain precautions must be taken to ensure that the shotcrete facing adheres well to poor
ground.
3. PULL-OUT TESTS ON NAILS DURING CONSTRUCTION
As recommended in chapter 4, on-site tests should be carried out on nails (which should not
be reused) to verify the calculations on which the design of the anchoring lengths were
based. Chapter 4 gives details of how many and what testing procedures will be needed.
269
It should be possible to conduct additional tests on any nails that would not be incorporated
into the final wall should any anomalies, local heterogeneity, or difficulties in installing them
be encountered and which might cast doubt on the results from preliminary or earlier tests.
Again, these tests must be carried out as indicated in chapter 4.
4. CHECKING THE BEHAVIOR OF A SOIL NAILED WALL
4.1. Checking the behavior of a soil nailed wall during construction.
4.1.1. The need for inspections
Any soil nailed wall, be it short-, medium-, or long-term, must be inspected during its
construction. Some of these inspections are compulsory, others are recommended and can be
demanded by the client or the engineer.
4.1.2. Defining the inspections
The inspections must be defined in advance of the excavation phases and any soil nailing
operation. Details will be given in the special provisions (Terms and Conditions) set out in
the contract documents and will specify:
The person in charge and the person who will carry out the inspections.
The types of inspections called for and whether these are compulsory.
The frequency of inspection.
The predicted thresholds and permissible thresholds.
Measures to be taken if these thresholds are exceeded.
4.1.3. Types of inspection and their purposes
4.1.3.1. Inspecting for evidence of movements
• Inspecting for horizontal and vertical displacements of the facing
This first inspection is compulsory. It is usually carried out by optical surveys taken between
a fixed base and grouted benchmarks on the facing.
If the excavations are trenches, this inspection may also be made with convergence points
using an extensometer.
• Inspecting for movements in the soil nailed mass
This may be called for under certain special conditions:
- If the site includes an unstable slope.
270
- If structures on (or near) the soil nailed mass are sensitive to movements, etc.
This check is conducted with inclinometers that are lowered into the soil nailed mass inside
grouted tubes to a depth below which no movement will occur (4 to 5 m).
It also may be possible to implant inclinometers at the back of the soil nailed mass.
4.1.3.2. Checking the tension in the nails
In certain special cases, the tension in the nails can be verified using appropriate devices
(load cells, strain gauges, etc.).
4.1.3.3. Visual inspections of the concrete facing, checking the drainage and
piezometric levels
It is compulsory that a detailed record be kept of the sources of any water found in the
immediate area of the concrete facing. This record should address the functioning of the
drainage devices installed and the way they are affected by changes in climatic conditions.
The results of these visual examinations might lead to changes in the drainage system
provided in the construction plans.
In a special case where piezometers are installed behind the concrete facing, it is imperative
that water levels be monitored over a period of time.
4.1.4. Inspection timetables
Inspections should be carried out:
Systematically at each new excavation phase.
After the wall has been completed, periodically until such time as the movements have
stabilized.
In a case where large deformations are recorded, the number of inspections will need to be
increased.
If piezometers have been installed, readings must be taken at least once a week during the
construction phase.
4.2. Checking the behavior of the soil nailed wall when it is in service
4.2.1. The need for inspections
Soil nailed walls must be periodically inspected during their service life. This inspection is
particularly important if the following features are present:
271
A very high soil nailed wall (;:::: 10 m).

Sloping site.
Structures supported by the wall are sensitive to movements.
4.2.2. Defining the inspections
Inspections of a soil nailed wall during its service life must be defined in a document, which
will also give details of:
The organizations charged with performing the inspections.

The type of inspection involved and procedures.
Inspection frequency.
Predicted measurements and warning thresholds.
4.2.3. Type of inspections and procedures
4.2.3.1. Checking for movements
The inspections to be made are identical to those defined in paragraph 4.1.3.1. The checking
for displacements of the facing is compulsory. Inspection checks for displacements within the
soil nailed mass might be necessary under certain special conditions:
Site involving an unstable slope.

The structures supported by the wall are sensitive to displacements.
4.2.3.2. Checking the tensile forces in the nails
The types of measurement that might need to be carried out are identical to those defined in
paragraph 4.1.3.2.
4.2.3.3. Inspecting the drainage facilities and piezometric levels
Any inspection into how the drainage facilities are working must, without fail, address the
following:
Conditions in the facing (moist zones, dripping, etc.).

Flow rates from the drains and weepholes.
Water level in the piezometers.
It is necessary to record any changes noted in the drainage devices used: concretions,
alterations, plugging, corrosion, etc.
4.2.3.4. Inspecting the durability of the nails: bar samples for quality control
In medium- or long-term soil nailed walls, it is compulsory, from time to time, to check the
condition of the reinforcing bars for signs of corrosion.
272
This inspection means that steps must be taken in advance to install bar samples for quality
control during the course of construction of the soil nailed wall. This will involve the use of
bars identical to those used for the nails, although of a shorter length (about 1.0 m to 1.5 m).
If the nails are being grouted, the bar samples are not coated with grout so that any cracking
of this grout over time can be taken into account.
The installation of the bar samples for quality control is performed by pushing or driving
them through holes prepared in the facing.
The bar samples must be designed so that they can be extracted at a later date (with a
threaded head, for example).
The heads of the bar samples must be protected against corrosion (pitch, grout, grease, etc.).
The choice as to where these bar samples should be located must take into account the
corrosiveness of the soils. Chapter 6 gives a corrosiveness table on a scale from I to IV. The
bar samples should be representative of the different degrees of corrosiveness to be found on
the site. However, there is no reason for installing these bar samples in soils where the
structures are being built with nails fitted with a protective sheath.
Before installation, each bar sample must be numbered, weighed and identified on an "as
built" plan held by the client.
Each bar sample must undergo:
Visual examination of the reinforcements in order to verify the extent of the corrosion
and the depth of any pitting.
A test to find the comparative weight of the bar sample after this has been fully cleaned
of rust (by scouring, washing, or brushing).
Mechanical tension tests to determine its residual resistance to failure.
4.2.4. Inspection frequency
4.2.4.1. Inspecting for displacements of the soil nailed wall and for tension in the
nails
These inspections are made at least once a year during the first ten years, thereafter every
five years.
In the event of any anomaly being noted, this frequency must be increased.
273
4.2.4.2. Inspecting the drainage devices
The inspection frequency for the drainage facilities must be adapted to reflect the local
hydraulic conditions surrounding the structure. It can be the same as for the inspections to
check the structure's behavior (see paragraph 4.2.4.1.).
In certain areas, the inspection frequency of the drainage devices should be increased during
both the wet and the dry seasons.
4.2.4.3. Inspecting the durability of the structure
The inspection frequency should be adapted to correspond to the degree of corrosiveness

found in the ground.
In soils that have only low or average levels of corrosiveness, the inspection should be made
at least every 10 years. It is recommended that the first inspection be carried out during the
first five years.
At each inspection, two bar samples (minimum) are extracted for each class of corrosiveness.
These bar samples are not put back in place.
4.2.5. Maintaining the drainage network
Maintenance of the drainage network must, so far as possible, be taken into account when
the soil nailed wall is being designed. Easy access points should be planned.
Maintenance involves cleaning out the drainage pipes, the weepholes, and collectors (using
water or air pressure jets, brushes, etc.).
If the drainage pipes become blocked, and it is impossible to improve their performance by
cleaning, the devices affected will need to be replaced.
274
BIBLIOGRAPHY
RESSE, c., and VENUAT, M. (1981). Projection des mortiers, betons et platres.
Spraying mortars, concretes and plasters.

I'execution et Ie contr6le des tirants d'ancrage (TA 86) - Ed. Eyrolles.
Recommendations for using, designing, constructing, and testing ground anchors.
AFTES Groupe de travail No.6. Texte des recommandations relatives a la technologie et a la

mise en oeuvre du beton projete, Juillet 1982.
Recommendations concerning the technology of shotcreting.
Association Fran<;aise du Beton (AFB). Guide du beton projete, Recommandations pour la

mise en oeuvre.
Guidelines for shotcrete-Recommendations for placing shotcrete.
DTU No.21-4 (1977). Prestations techniques concernant l'utilisation du chlorure de calcium et

des adjuvants contenant des chlorures dans la confection des coulis, mortiers et beton,
Octobre 1977.
Technical prescriptions regarding the use of calcium chloride and chlorinated additives in the
manufacture of grouts, mortars, and concretes.
DTU No.23-1 (1976). Parois et murs en beton banche, Janvier/Fevrier 1976.

Facings and walls with cast-in-place concrete.
275
276
Abbreviations
ABBREVIATION FULL TITLE
A86 Autoroute 86
Freeway 86
AFTES Association Fran<;aise des Travaux en Souterrain

French Association for Underground Works
AFB Association Fran<;aise du Beton

French Concrete Association
AFNOR Association Fran<;aise de Normalisation

French Standard Association
BAEL Beton Arme aux Etats Limites

Reinforced Concrete at Limit States
C/E Ciment/Eau
Cement/Water
B/C Bentonite/Ciment
Bentonite/Cement
CEFRACOR Centre Fran~ais del' Anti-Corrosion

French Center for Protection Against Corrosion
Ciment CPA Ciment Portland Artificial

Artificial Portland Cement
Ciment CLK Ciment Laitier Clinker

Clinker Slag Cement
Ciment CHF Ciment Haut Fourneau

Blast Furnace Cement
COPLA Commission Interministerielle Permanente des Liants

Hydrauliques, des Adjuvants, des Betons, Mortiers et
Coulis
Permanent Inter-Ministerial Commission for Cements,
Additives, Concretes, Mortars and Grouts
277
ELU Etats Limites Ultimes

Ultimate Limit States
ELS Etats Limites de Service

Serviceability Limit States
ENPC Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees

National School of Bridges and Roads
CEBTP Centre Experimental de Recherches et d'Etudes du

Batiment et des Travaux Publics
Experimetal Center for Research and Studies on Building
and Public Works
CERMES Centre d'Enseignement et de Recherche en Mecanique

des Sols
Center for Teaching and Research on Soil Mechanics
DAEI Direction des Affaires Economiques et Internationales

Economic and International Affairs Division
DTU Document Technique Unifie

Unified Technical Document
DDST Direction Departementale des Services Techniques

Departmental Service of Public Works
FNTP Federation Nationale des Travaux Publics

National Union of Public Works
LCPC Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees

Central Laboratory of Bridges and Roads
NF Norme Fran<;aise
French Standard
PVC Poly-Chlorure de Vinyle

Polyvinyl Chlorite
OPN Optimum Proctor Normal

Standard Proctor Optimum
RN Route Nationale
Highway
278
Abbreviations
SETRA Service d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes

Design Service of the Highway and Freeway Administration
STRRES Syndicat National des Entrepreneurs specialises des

Travaux de Reparation et de Renforcement des Structures
National Federation of Contractors Specialized in Reparation
and Reinforcement Works of Structures
Recommandations TA 86 Recommandations Tirants d' Ancrage

TA 86
Recommandations on Ground Anchors
UV Ultra-Violet
Ultraviolet
279
280
Lexicon
LEXICON
The following list of translated terms is included for those who wish to refer to the original
publication, Recommandations CLOUTERRE 1991.
Abaques Charts (or graphs)

Acier passivable Passive steel
Actes du colloque Conference proceedings
Actions Actions (more general term): loads, forces
Adimensionnel Nondimensional
Adjuvant Admixture
Ajouts specifiques Special ingredients
Alluvions Alluvia
Alluvions argilo-graveleuses Clayey gravel alluvia
Altere Altered or weathered
Ancrage precontraint Prestressed ground anchor
(Prestressed tieback)
Angle de dilatance (du sol) Dilatancy angle (of soil)
Angle de flexion Bending angle
Angle rentrant Reentrant angle
Angle saillant Salient angle
Annexe Appendix
Armature Bar
Armature battue Driven bar
Armature nervuree (Terre Armee) Ribbed strip (Reinforced Earth)
Armature vibro-foncee Bar vibrated into the soil
Autoroute Freeway
Banches Forms
Bande Slab element
Barbacane Weephole
Bardage Lagging
Barres ou clous scelles Grouted bars or nails
(when cement grout used, general case.
When resins are used (rock bolting) or the
agent is unknown-anchored is more
generic.
Barre nervuree Deformed bar
281
Barre tE~moin Bar sample for quality control

Batiment sensible Sensitive building
Battage Driving (percussion)
Berlinoise Berlin wall (king piles and lagging)
Beton banche Cast-in-place concrete
Beton projete (arme) (Reinforced) Shotcrete
Brais Pitch
Bureau d'etudes Consulting engineer
Butee laterale Lateral earth pressure
Butons Struts
Cadencemetre Pacemeter
Calcaire Chalk
Cales dynamometriques Load cells
Centreur Centralizer
Ciment de laitier Cement slags
Clou Nail
Clous disposes suivant Nails set out on a rectangular
grid une maille rectangulaire
Clous scelles gravitairement Nails grouted under gravity flow
Coefficient d'applatissement Flakiness index
Coefficients de ponderation Load factors
(ponderateurs) des actions
Coefficient de methode Method factor
Coefficients partiels de securite Partial safety factors
Coefficient de reaction laterale du sol Lateral coefficient of subgrade reaction
Coefficient de securite globale Global safety factor
Combinaison accidentelle Accidental combination
Combinaison d'actions Combination of actions
Combinaison fondamentale Standard combination
Complexe drainant Drainage system
Composition des laitiers Slags composition
Conception, calcul et design Design
dimensionnenment
Confinement Confinement
Corniere Steel angle
Corniere battue Driven steel angle
Contrainte Stress
282
Lexicon
Contrcles de conformite Conformity tests

Ccte Elevation
Couche de fondation (d'une route) SUbgrade
Coulis Grout
Coulis de ciment Cement grout
Coulis de scellement Anchoring grout
Critere(s) Criterion/criteria
Debits d'exhaure Flow rate

Deblais Cut
Deformation Deformation
Deversement Outward titling
Dilatance (angle de) Dilatancy (angle of)
Dilatance empechee Restrained dilatancy
Dimensionnement Design
Disposition des clous Layout of nails
Duree de service Service life
Eau saum~Hre Brackish water

Eau tres pure Pure water
Eaux d'infiltration Subsurface waters or groundwaters
Eaux de ruissellement Surface waters
Eaux souterraines polluees Polluted aquifer
Eboulis Debris (mass of fallen rocks)
Eclatement du beton Spalling of concrete
Ecoulements souterrains aleatoires Random underground water flows
Efforts Forces or stresses
Elevation Elevation
Emprise Easement
Epaufrure Spalling
Essais Tests
Essais de convenance ou conformite Conformity tests
Essais de contrcle (en cOurs de travaux) Inspection tests (during construction)
Essai par paliers de chargement Test with incremental loading
Essais prealables Preliminary tests
Etapes geologiques primaires Early geologic formation stages
Etat actuel des connaissances Present state of knowledge
Etat limite de service Serviceability limit state
283
Etat limite ultime Ultimate limit state

Etuve Oven
Evacuateur de crues Overflow spillway
Excavation par plots alternes Excavation in slots
Exemple Example
Extension laterale Lateral extension
Fiche de parement Facing embedment

Fil a couper Ie beurre Wire butter cutter
Filetage Thread
Fluidifiant Super plasticizer /high range water reducer
Fonc;age statique Sinking (static loading)
Fonc;age dynamique Driving (dynamic loading)
Fondation d'une route Subbase (road)
Frettage Restraint
Frottement lateral limite Ultimate skin friction
Frottement lateral unitaire Unit skin friction
Fruit du parement Batter of facing
Galerie Gallery
Gaine Sleeve or sheath
Gelif (sol) Frost susceptible (soil)
Granulats Aggregates
Gres Sandstone
Hypothese Assumption (hypothesis)
Inclinaison (des clous) Angle of installation (of the nails),

inclination
Indice de gel Frost index
Injection gravitaire Gravity injection
Intense Severe
Justifications Design calculations, justifications
Limite elastique (garantie) (Guaranteed) elastic limit

Lineaire de clous Total length of nails
Lit de clous Nail row
284
Lexicon
Loi de mobilisation du frottement lateral Skin friction mobilization curve (law)

Longueur de transfert Transfer length
Maillage Spacing (grid)

Maillage large Widely spaced nails
Maillage rectangulaire Nails set out on a rectangular grid
Maillage serre Nails at close spacing
Maitre d'oeuvre Engineer
Maitre d'ouvrage Owner, Contracting Authorities
Maitre d'ouvrage delegue Project Manager
Manchons de raccordement Connective sleeve
Marne Marl
Marno-ca1caire Marl - limestone complex
MELT Ministry of Public Works
Memoire de presentation Memorandum of presentation
Methode de ca1cul a la rupture (at) Limit equilibrium method
Methode des perturbations Perturbation method
Methode Hurpinoise Method of Hurpin
Metre Meter (preferred spelling by u.s.
Government)
Mise en traction Tensioning
Module(s) Modulus (moduli)
Moment d'inertie Moment of inertia
Moraine Moraine
Mur incline Sloped or battered wall
Multicritere Multicriteria approach
Mur cloue mixte Mixed soil nailed wall
Mur en sol cloue Soil nailed wall
Mur epingle Anchored wall
Notamment Particularly
Objectif Objective, aim

Optimum Proctor Normal (OPN) Optimum water content (Proctor)
Ouvrage courant Standard structure
Ouvrage sensible Sensitive structure
Ouvrage simple Simple structure
Creep stage
285
Palier de fluage
Panneaux d'habillage Facing panels
Par metre de largeur du mur Per meter run of wall
Par profil Per cross section
Parois et murs Facings and walls
Pente Slope
Permanent Long-term
Perspective Perspective
Phases d'execution Construction phases
Phases d'excavation Excavation phases
Pic Peak or maximum
Pied de parement Facing bottom
Pied de dou Nail tip
Piezometre ouvert Stand pipe piezometer
Plancher champignon A slab with concentrated loads
Plaque a rigidite normale imposee Plate with controlled normal stiffness
Plastification Plastification
Plateforme routiere Road pavement
Poids des terres Overburden pressure
Poids volumique Volume unit weight
Poin<;onnement Punching mode of failure
Points delicats Delicate, sensitive, or important points
Poutre filante Whaler beam
Predimensionnement Preliminary design
Pression de fluage Critical creep pressure
Prescriptions Regulations
Procedure d'agrement Approval procedure
Profondeur de fiche du parement Embedment of facing
Projeteur Planner
Projet National Fran<;ais CLOUTERRE French National Project CLOUTERRE
Provisoire Short term
Pulverulent Cohesionless
Pylone Pylon
Quasi-inextensible Quasi-inextensible
Radier de fondation Foundation raft

Rayon de courbure Radius of curvature
286
Lexicon
Reconnaissance des sols Soil investigation

Regissant Controlling
Reglementation Regulation
Regles de l'art Code of practice
Remblais Fill or backfill (backfill implies placement
after construction)
Reprise de betonnage Resumption of concreting
Resistance de butee du sol Passive pressure

Ressuee Sweating
Revetement Coating
Rigidite normale Normal stiffness
Rotule Hinge
Rupture externe External failure
Rupture interne Internal failure
Rupture mixte Mixed failure
Sable greseux Cemented sands (sandstone)

Sable boulant Caving sand
Sable pulverulent Cohesionless sand
Sensible Sensitive (critical)
Schema Sketch
Schematique Schematic
Schematiser Approximate
Schiste Schist
Schistes alteres Altered schists
Situations Situations
Silicate de soude Sodium silicate
Sollicitations Stresses or forces
Sols meubles Soft grounds or soils
Soutenement Earth support system

(more generic than retaining structure)
Souterrain(e) Underground, subsurface
Surcharge Surcharge
Surface de glissement Slip or failure surface
Systeme isolant, type separateur injecteur Injector separator
Cut slope
287
Talus raidis
Talus Slope
Temporaire Medium term
Temoins de durabilite Bar samples for quality control
Teneur en eau determinee Oven-dried water content
selon la methode d'etuvage
Tension de blocage
Lock-off or tie-off tension
Terrassement Excavation, earthwork
Terre-plein Platform
Tete du dou Head of nail
Tirant Ground anchor / tieback
Torseur des forces Forces system
Trace en plan Plan view
Traction critique de fluage Critical creep tension load
Traction limite TL Limit or maximum pull-out tension or
force
Tube 40/49 Structural tubing
(inside/outside size in mm)
Valeur caracteristique Characteristic value

Valeur de calcul Calculation value
Valeur nominale Nominal value
Valeur representative Representative value
Venues d'eaux Water entry
Voies ferrees Rail lines
Voute de decharge Unloaded arch
288
French Standards with Corresponding ISOIASTMIBSUDin
FRENCH STANDARDS WITH CORRESPONDING ISO/ASTM/BSI/DIN
The following Standards can be obtained from AFNOR (Association Fran<;aise de

Normalization). Where English translations are available from AFNOR, the English titles are
listed.
Where available, International (ISO) or European (EU) standards, which are close to the
French standards, are referenced. However, they should be considered as similar rather than
as equivalent standards. The European (EU) standards will eventually supersede National
Standards.
The French standards prefixed "NF" have been homologated. Those not prefixed are either
being homologated or have been cancelled since publication of the Recommandations
CLOUTERRE 1991.
NF A 35-015 Armatures pour beton arme-ronds lisses.

(available in English) Steels for concrete reinforcement. Plain round
bars.
Similar but not equivalent to EU 80, EU 81,

EU 82.
NF A 35-016 Armatures pour beton arme-barres et fil
(available in English) machine a haute adherence.
Steels for concrete reinforcements. High
adherence bars and wirerods.
Similar but not equivalent to EU 80, EU 82.

A 35-017 Armatures a haute adherence pour beton
(cancelled and replaced by A 35-016) arme-prescriptions concernant la forme.
High adherence steels for concrete
reinforcements.
A 35-016 Armatures pour beton arme. Barres et fils
machine a haute adherence.
Steels for concrete reinforcement. High
adherence bars and wirerods.
NF A 35-018 Armatures pour beton arme-aptitude au
(available in English) soudage.
Steels for concrete reinforcement. Weldability.
289
NF A 35-019 Armatures pour beton arme-fils a huate

adherence.
Steels for concrete reinforcement. High
adherence wirerods.
A 35-020 Produits en acier. Armatures a huate
(available in English) adherence pour beton arme. Dispositifs de
raboutage et d'ancrage.
Steel products. High adherence bars for
reinforced concrete. Devices to join and anchor.
A 35-021 Filtres trefiles lisses destines a la fabrication
(cancelled and replaced by A 35-022) des treillis soudes.
Smooth wiredrawing filters for fabrication of
welded meshes.
A 35-022 Armatures pour beton arme-Treillis
(replaces A 35-020, A 35-021, and A 35-022) soudes et elements constitutifs.
Concrete reinforcing bars-Welded wire and
components.
NF A 91-121 Galvanisation par immersion dans Ie zinc
fondu (galvanisation a chaud). Produits
finis en fer, acier, fonte.
Galvanization by immersion in molten zinc
(hot galvanization). Products in iron, steel, and
cast iron.
Equivalent to ISO 1460, ISO 1461.

A 05-250 Corrosion par les sols. Evaluation de la
corrosivite. Canalisations enterrees en
materiaux ferreux non ou peu allies.
Corrosion by soils. Evaluation of corrosivity.
Buried pipes made with steel, slightly or
nonalloyed.
A 05-251 Corrosion par les sols. Evaluation de la
corrosivite. Ouvrages en acier enterres
(palplanches et pieux).
Corrosion by soils. Evaluation of corrosivity.
Buried steel structures (sheet piles or piles).
290
French Standards with Corresponding ISO/ASTM/BSI/Din
A 05-252 Corrosion par les sols. Aciers galvanizes ou

non mis au contact de materiaux naturels
de remblais (sols).
Corrosion by soils. Steels galvanized or not
placed into contact with natural backfill
materials (soils).
NF P 15-300 Liants hydrauliques-verification de la
(available in English) qualite des livraisons, emballage et
marquage.
Hydraulic binders. Verification of supply
quality, packing, and labelling.
NF P 15-301 Liants hydrauliques-definitions,
(available in English) classification et specifications des ciments.
Hydraulic binders: definitions, classification,
and specifications of cements.
P 15-302 Ciments Portland.
(cancelled) Portland cements.
P 15-303 Ciments Portland de fer.
(cancelled) Iron Portland cements.
P 15-304 Ciments de haut fourneau.
(cancelled) Blast furnace cements.
P 15-305 Ciments de laitier ou clinker.
(cancelled) Clinker slag cements.
P 15-311 Ciments metallurgiques mixtes.
Mixed metallurgic cements.
P 15-350 Commentaires generaux communs aux
(cancelled) normes de liants hydrauliques.
General comments common to the standards on
hydraulics.
NF P 18-103 Adjuvants pour beton, mortiers et coulis.
Definitions, classification et marguage.
Admixtures for concrete, mortars, and grout:
definitions, classification, and labeling.
NF P 18-301 Granulats naturels poure betons
(available in English) hydrauliques.
Aggregates: natural aggregates for hydraulic
concrete.
291
NF P 18-302 Granulats. Laitier critalise de

(available in English) haut-foumeau.
Structural concretes crushed. Slag.
NF P 18-303 Beton. Mise en oeuvre. Eau de gachage
(available in English) pour beton de construction.
Concrete preparation: mixing water for
structural concrete.
NF P 18-336 Adjuvants pour betons, mortiers et
(available in English) coulis-reducteur d'eau-plastificants.
Admixtures for concrete, mortar, and grout.
Water reduces plastizers.
NF P 18-337 Adjuvants pour betons, mortiers et coulis.
(available in English) Reducteurs d'cau. Plastifants.
Admixtures for concrete, mortar, and grout. Set
retardants.
NF P 18-338 Adjuvants pour betons, mortiers et coulis.
(available in English) Entraineurs d'air.
Admixtures for concrete, mortar, and grout.
Entraining agents.
NF T 01-012 pH-metrie-solutions etalons pour
l'etalonnage d'un pH-metre.
Measuring pH levels - Standard solutions to
be used when calibrating a pH meter.
NF T 01-013 pH-metrie-Mesure electrometrique du pH
(available in English) au moyen d'une electrode du verre-
vocabulaire et methode de mesure.
pH measurements. Electrometric pH
measurement by a glass electrode. Vocabulary
and measurement method.
292
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface (to the English translation) v

Preface (to the original French document) vii
Introduction ix
List of symbols and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xiii
Table of conversion for SI Units xix
Contents xxi
Chapter 1: THE TECHNIQUE USED FOR SOIL NAILED STRUCTURES:

DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENTS 1
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE 1

1.1. Definition of a soil nailed wall 1
1.2. Building phases 3
2. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT 5

2.1. Origins of soil nailing 5
2.2. Developments in the use of soil nailing for earth support systems 6
2.3. Soil nailing and patents 10
2.4. Advantages and drawbacks 10
3. THE FRENCH NATIONAL PROJECT "CLOUTERRE" 13

3.1. General background 13
3.2. The participants and financing of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. The research program 13
3.4. Full-scale tests on soil nailed walls at the CEBTP 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY 19
Chapter 2: SOIL NAILING IN RETAINING STRUCTURES:

MECHANISMS AND BEHAVIOR 25
1. PRINCIPLE OF STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR 25
2. SOIL/NAIL INTERACTION 29
2.1. Soil/nail friction 29
2.1.1. Similarity between skin friction in a fill and an in situ soil 29
2.1.2. Mobilization of skin friction along a nail 32
2.1.3. Influence of the type of nail 35
2.1.4. Correlations between parameters (k ~' q) and Pi 36
2.1.5. Influence of moisture content on skin friction 37
2.1.6. Mobilization of friction with deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2. Lateral earth pressure of nail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.1. Similarity with piles subjected to horizontal loading 40
293
2.2.2. Shear tests on soil reinforced with rigid nails 42

2.2.3. Influence of the direction of the nails on the mobilization of stresses . . . 43
2.2.4. Mobilization of the tension, shear force, and bending moment . . . . . . . . 46
3. BEHAVIOR OF STRUCTURES 49
3.1. Distribution of tension in nails and line of maximum tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2. Stresses in the soil of a soil nailed structure 50
3.3. Mobilization of the bending resistance of the nails 52
3.4. Deformations and displacements of a soil nailed wall 52
3.4.1. Internal deformations of walls under in-service stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.4.2. Displacements of the facing 55
3.4.3. Behavior of the wall during construction 56
3.5. Behavior of the facing 59
4. TYPES OF FAILURE OF SOIL NAILED WALLS 59

4.1. Failure by breakage of the nails (internal failure) 59
4.2. Failure by lack of adherence (internal failure) 61
4.3. Failure during excavation phases 62
4.3.1. Failure due to excessive height of continuous excavation
(internal failure) 62
4.3.2. Failure by piping of the soil (internal failure) 63
4.4. External failure and mixed failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5. MIXED STRUCTURES 63
5.1. Soil nailed wall with a row of prestressed anchors at the upper part 65
5.2. Nailed Tervoile 65
5.3. Nailed Berlin wall 65
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
Chapter 3: CONCEPTION AND DESIGN 73
1. CONCEPTION OF STRUCTURES - CODE OF PRACTICE 73

1.1. Possibilities and limitations of the technique 73
1.1.1. Constraints linked to the immediate environment 73
1.1.2. Special soil conditions 74
1.1.3. Water tables 75
1.2. Choice of the soil nailing technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
1.3. General geometric layout 76
1.3.1. Facing - elevation and layout plan 76
1.3.2. Length, layout, and angle of installation of the nails 78
1.4. Construction provisions 80
1.4.1. Protection against entry of water 80
1.4.2. Embedment of facing toe 81
1.4.3. Aesthetics of the structures 82
1.5. Mixed structures 82
294
Table of Contents
1.6. Preliminary design 84

1.6.1. Objectives of preliminary design 84
1.6.2. Influence of the technology involved and influence
of the geometric parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
1.6.3. Nailing density parameter 86
1.6.4. Preliminary design charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2. PRINCIPLES USED WHEN CALCULATING THE DESIGN

OF STRUCTURES 91
2.1. Analysis of stability 91
2.1.1. Calculations of deformations 91
2.1.2. Limit equilibrium methods 92
2.1.3. Limit equilibrium methods with relative displacements 93
2.2. Assessing displacements 93
2.3. Experimental justifications 94
2.3.1. Behavior of structures in service and at failure 94
2.3.2. The four failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.3.3. Justifications based on failure in actual structures 96
2.3.4. Simultaneous mobilization of resistances 97
2.4. French and international contexts 98
2.4.1. French context 98
2.4.2. International context 100
2.4.2.1. The German method - Stocker et al., (1979) 100
2.4.2.2. The Shen method, USA (1978) 101
2.4.2.3. Juran design method (1990) 103
3. GENERAL METHOD FOR STUDYING THE STABILITY

OF A SOIL NAILED STRUCTURE 105
3.1. Limit state design - Assumptions and data 105
3.1.1. Principles of limit state design 105
3.1.1.1. Basic formula 105
3.1.1.2. How to account for nails and prestressed ground anchors 106
3.1.2. Actions 107
3.1.2.1. Types of actions 107
3.1.2.2. Characteristic values of these actions 108
3.1.2.3. Combination of actions and calculations 110
3.1.3. Resistances 111
3.1.3.1. Failure criteria of materials 111
3.1.3.2. Characteristic values of strength parameters 113
3.1.3.3. Calculation values of strengths 114
3.1.4. Situations 115
3.2. Calculation methods 117
3.2.1. Stages of calculation 117
3.2.2. Determination of nail forces at failure ("multicriteria" rule) 117
3.2.2.1. Failure criteria and limit equilibrium methods 117
3.2.2.2. Combinations of failure criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.2.2.3. Rule for determining forces 124
295
3.2.3. Calculating the stability of the soil nailed structure 128

3.2.4. Examples of calculations and design 130
3.2.4.1. Example of the Eparris wall 130
3.2.4.2. Example of CEBTP Experiment No.1 133
3.2.4.3. Example of a mixed soil nailed wall with surcharges
and partial drainage in a layer system 136
3.2.5. Simplified methods 136
3.2.5.1. Assumptions 136
3.2.5.2. Conditions of use 140
3.3. Safety considerations 140
3.3.1. Practical rules 140
3.3.2. Illustration 141
4. JUSTIFYING THE FACING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 141

4.1. Mechanical role of the facing - Modelling for the calculations 141
4.2. Determining the forces applied on facing 142
4.3. Design of the facing 143
4.4. Justifications of the resistance 144
4.4.1. Justification under bending 144
4.4.2. Justification of a punching mode of failure around the nail head 145
BIBLIOGRAPHY 146
Appendix 1: CHARTS GIVING THE UNIT SKIN FRICTION Qs

FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE NAILS 149
1. DATA BANK 149
2. PRELIMINARY DESIGN CHARTS 151
3. DESIGN METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 152
Appendix 2: STABILITY CHARTS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN

OF SOIL NAILED WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 157
1. NAILING DENSITY 157
2. STABILITY DESIGN CHARTS FOR PRELIMINARY

DESIGN OF SOIL NAILED WALLS 158
3. USING THE CHARTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158
4. SAFETY VERIFICATIONS 162

4.1. Traditional method 162
4.2. Calculating at ultimate limit state 162
296
Table of Contents
Appendix 3: STABILITY OF A WEDGE OF SOIL REINFORCED

BY ONE NAIL 163
Chapter 4: INVESTIGATION AND TESTS 167
1. GEOTECHNICAL STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167

1.1. Preliminary investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167
1.2. Soil investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
1.3. Laboratory and in situ tests 168
1.3.1. Cohesionless soils 169
1.3.2. Cohesive soils 169
1.3.3. Characteristic values of strength parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 170
1.4. Determination of the soil corrosion potential , 170
1.5. Hydrogeological study 170
2. NAIL TESTS 170

2.1. Tests objective 170
2.2. Different types of tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 170
2.3. Objectives of the different tests 171
2.3.1. Preliminary tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171
2.3.2. Conformity tests at the beginning of the construction 172
2.3.3. Inspection tests during construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 173
2.4. Contractor's duties 173
2.5. Nail tests and reaction forms 173
2.5.1. Nail tests location 173
2.5.2. Reaction forms 174
2.5.3. Nail installation for the three types of tests 174
2.6. Nail tests procedure 175
2.6.1. Choice of the procedure 175
2.6.2. Choice of the maximum load capacity for the nail tests 176
2.6.3. Materials and equipment used during tests 177
2.7. Controlled displacement pull-out tests (constant speed) 178
2.7.1. Test procedure 178
2.7.2. Interpretation of test result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 179
2.7.2.1. Generalities 180
2.7.2.2. Behavior of nail under service conditions (To < T L) • • • • • • • •• 182
2.7.2.3. Behavior of nail at failure To = T L • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 185
2.7.2.4. Calculations of the unit skin friction qs 186
2.8 Controlled force tests (creep steps) 187
2.8.1. Procedure for controlled force tests 187
2.8.2. Interpretation of the results of the controlled pull-out test . . . . . . . . .. 188
2.8.2.1. Drawing of the creep curves 188
2.8.2.2. Determination of the critical creep tension 189
2.8.2.3. Drawing of the force-displacement curve 190
2.9 Determination of the characteristic limit pull-out force 190
297
BIBLIOGRAPHY 191
Appendix: CALCULATIONS OF NAIL DISPLACEMENTS 193
1. GENERALITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193
2. CALCULATIONS OF DISPLACEMENT 195

2.1. First phase (Yo < Yl) 195
2.2. Second phase: at failure 198
2.3. Example of a full calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Chapter 5: WALL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

1.1. General aspects - Principle governing the construction of the structures 203
1.2. Earthworks 204
1.3. Choice of an installation method for the inclusions 205
1.4. Selection of the method to be used to lay the concrete of the facing 206
1.5. Resources used - Equipment 206
1.6. Controls - Monitoring deformations of the structures 207
1.7. Program for the construction of the structures 207
2. CONDUCT OF THE WORK 208

2.1. Earthworks 208
2.1.1. Height of earthworks 208
2.1.2. Special provisions 210
2.1.3. Construction time 211
2.1.4. Anomalies - Incidents 213
2.2. Protection against percolation water 213
2.3. Installation of inclusions 214
2.3.1. Inclusions directly driven into the soil 215
2.3.1.1. Constitution of the inclusions 215
2.3.1.2. Installation (figure 7) 215
2.3.1.3. Blocking the inclusion against (or in) the facing 216
2.3.2. Inclusion secured in a borehole 216
2.3.2.1. Characteristics of the inclusions 216
2.3.2.2. Installation 217
2.3.2.3. Attaching the inclusion against the facing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 220
2.4. Installation of facing reinforcing bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 220
2.5. Placing the concrete of the facing 222
2.5.1. Cast-in-place concrete 222
2.5.2. Shotcrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 223
2.6. Stability of the facing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 224
REFERENCES 225
298
Table of Contents
Chapter 6: DURABILITY OF STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
1. INTRODUCTION AND AREA OF APPLICATION 227
2. CLASSIFYING STRUCTURES ACCORDING TO THEIR PLANNED USE. . . . . . . . . 228
3. CLASSIFYING SOILS ACCORDING TO THEIR AGGRESSIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

3.1. Objective and area of application 229
3.2. General principles 229
3.3. Evaluating the corrosiveness of the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
3.3.1. Overall corrosiveness index 230
3.3.2. Electrolytic effect of electric currents: "stray" currents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
3.4. Determining which characteristics will be used when assessing the
the corrosiveness of soils 231
3.4.1. Type of soil 231
3.4.2. Resistivity 231
3.5. Phreatic water table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
3.6. pH 232
3.7. Interpreting the results 232
4. PROTECTION FOR METALLIC REINFORCEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

4.1. Generalities 233
4.2. Standard steels (elastic limit cre ~ 500 MPa) 233
4.2.1. Thickness sacrificed to corrosion 234
4.2.2. Protection using plastic sheath 235
4.2.3. Galvanization.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
4.2.4. Protection with nonmetallic coating 236
4.3. High strength steels with a high elastic limit (cre > 500 MPa) 236
4.4. Alloyed materials and passive steels 236
5. REINFORCEMENT PROTECTION USING "SYNTHETIC MATERIALS" 237
6. DURABILITY OF THE FACING 237

6.1. Concrete facing 237
6.2. Facing with steel panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
6.3. Facing with other materials 238
7. PROTECTING THE NAIL HEADS AND AREAS THAT INTERFACE

WITH THE FACING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 239
7.1. Generalities 239
7.2. Types of protection 240
8. MONITORING OF THE CORROSION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245
Appendix: SPECIFIC TEST METHODS 247
299
Chapter 7: SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS 251
1. SPECIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF MATERIALS 251

1.1. Materials used for nail reinforcements 251
1.1.1. Metal reinforcements 251
1.1.2. Nonmetal bars 252
1.2. Procedures and materials for protecting nail bars against corrosion 253
1.2.1. Protection for standard steels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
1.2.2 Protection for prestressing steels 253
1.3. Grout used for securing the nails 253
1.3.1. Specifications for grout components 253
1.3.1.1. Cements 253
1.3.1.2. Water 253
1.3.1.3. Specific ingredients and additives 254
1.3.2. Specifications relating to grout mix design 254
1.3.3. Checking the quality of the grout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
1.3.3.1. Checking that the grout components conform 254
1.3.3.2. Conformity and control tests 254
1.3.3.3. Test frequency 257
1.4. Concrete bars for the facing 257
1.5. Concrete to be used for the facing (shotcrete or cast-in-place) 258
1.5.1. Shotcrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
1.5.1.1. Specifications relating to the concrete mix design 258
1.5.1.2. Specifications regarding the mix design (composition
and proportions) of fresh concrete 262
1.5.1.3. Controlling the quality of the shotcrete 262
1.5.2. Cast-in-place concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
1.5.2.1. Specifications for the ingredients, composition,
and proportions used 265
1.5.2.2. Inspecting the quality of the concrete 265
1.6. Drainage materials and devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
1.6.1. Purpose of drainage 265
1.6.2. Drainage devices used 266
1.6.3. Drainage materials 266
2. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF A SOIL NAILED WALL 267

2.1. Documents to be produced before work starts 267
2.1.1. Document specifying the structural design of the
soil nailed wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
2.1.2. Drainage devices 267
2.1.3. Detailed plan showing the various phases involved in the
excavation, nailing, and construction
of the reinforced concrete facing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 267
2.2. Inspections to be carried out during construction 267
2.2.1. Checking conformity of the ground and its hydrogeology with the
geotechnical data available 267
300
Table of Contents
2.2.2. Inspecting to ensure that the work conforms with the construction
documents 268
2.2.2.1. Installation of the nails 268
2.2.2.2. Planning the various construction phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
2.2.2.3. Placing shotcrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
3. PULL-OUT TESTS ON NAILS DURING CONSTRUCTION 269
4. CHECKING THE BEHAVIOR OF A SOIL NAILED WALL 270

4.1. Checking the behavior of a soil nailed wall during construction 270
4.1.1. The need for inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
4.1.2 Defining the inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
4.1.3. Types of inspection and their purposes 270
4.1.3.1. Inspecting for evidence of movements 270
4.1.3.2. Checking the tension in the nails 271
4.1.3.3. Visual inspections of the concrete facing,
checking the drainage and piezometric levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
4.1.4. Inspection timetables 271
4.2. Checking the behavior of the soil nailed wall when it is in service 271
4.2.1. The need for inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
4.2.2. Defining the inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
4.2.3. Type of inspections and procedures 272
4.2.3.1. Checking for movements 272
4.2.3.2. Checking the tensile forces on the nails 272
4.2.3.3. Inspecting the drainage facilities and piezometric levels . . . . . 272
4.2.3.4. Inspecting the durability of the nails: bar samples
for quality control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
4.2.4. Inspection frequency 273
4.2.4.1. Inspecting for displacements of the soil nailed wall
and for tension in the nails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
4.2.4.2. Inspecting the drainage devices 274
4.2.4.3. Inspecting the durability of the structure 274
4.2.5. Maintaining the drainage network 274
BIBLIOGRAPHY 275
ABBREVIATIONS 277
LEXICON 281
FRENCH STANDARDS WITH CORRESPONDING ISO/ASTM/BSI/DIN 289
301
Table of Contents
302

Clouterre 1991 Recommendations Clouterre English Translation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Clouterre 1991 Recommendations Clouterre English Translation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FRENCH NATIONAL RESEARCH 1111111111111111111111111111111

PROJECT CLOUTERRE PB94-109980

PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT

Original Document: Recommandations CLOUTERRE -1991

English Language Translation: Soil Nailing Recommendations - 1991

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

Bachy, Ballot, Bouygues, CEBTP, ENPC-CERMES, Cofiroute and Socaso, DDE de la

with the support of the DAE!.

Scientific Committee of the French National Project CLOUTERRE

M. Boucherie (Socotec) J.R. Brulois (Bachy)

Members of the Editing Committee

D. Allagnat (Scetauroute) M. Besson (Intrafor)

M. Boucherie (Socotec) J.-P. Gigan (LREP)

J. P. Magnan (LCPC) C. Plumelle (CEBTP)

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS

Symbols Unit Definition

Symbol Unit Definition

Symbol Unit Definition

AXIS, DISPLACEMENTS, DEFORMATIONS

Symbol Unit Definition

Symbol Unit Definition

Symbol Unit Definition

Symbol Unit Definition

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOIL AND OF THE NAILS

Symbol Unit Definition

GROUT PASTE CHARACTERISTICS

Symbol Unit Definition

Symbol Unit Definition

Symbol Unit Definition

Forces Tn Positive in tension

Preface (to the English Translation) v

Preface (to the original French Document) vii

List of symbols and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xiii

Chapter 1: THE TECHNIQUE USED FOR SOIL NAILED STRUCTURES:

Chapter 2: SOIL NAILING IN RETAINING STRUCTURES:

Chapter 3: CONCEPTION AND DESIGN 73

Chapter 4: INVESTIGATION AND TESTS 167

Chapter 5: WALL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION 203

Chapter 6: DURABILITY OF STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Chapter 7: SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS 251

FRENCH STANDARDS WITH CORRESPONDING ISO/ ASTM/BSI/DIN . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

TABLE OF CONTENTS 293

THE TECHNIQUE USED FOR SOIL NAILED

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE

1.1. Definition of a soil nailed wall

10 Clusaz (1981) 10 Plagne (1988)

A30 Freeway Knutangg,J 1987) Lyon subway t 1986)

Figure 1. Examples of soil nailed walls.

1.2. Building phases

1) Excavation, generally limited to 1 or 2 meters deep and possibly limited in length

2) The introduction of subhorizontal or inclined nails into the in situ soil.

1_ Excavation 2 _ Installing the nails

3 _ Reinforced shotcrete 4 _ Excavation

Figure 2. Construction phases of a soil nailed wall.

Nails can be installed in two principal ways:

Fontainebleau sand ('f =38 0

a- Stable b _ At stability limit C- Failure

Figure 3. Stability of excavation phases in CEBTP NO.2 experimental wall

2. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT