Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 167 Issue GE2 Geotechnical Engineering 167 April 2014 Issue GE2
Pages 205–216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.13.00040
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane Paper 1300040
Airport Link project, Australia Received 01/04/2013 Accepted 12/11/2013
Published online 03/02/2014
Bridges and Gudgin Keywords: excavation/geotechnical engineering/temporary works

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

A soil-nailed excavation for the

Brisbane Airport Link project,
Australia
j
1 Chris Bridges MSc, PhD, CEng, FICE, MHKIE, RPEQ j
2 James Gudgin MEng, CEng, MICE, RPEQ
Senior Principal, Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd, Brisbane,
Australia

j
1 j
2

The Airport Link project in Brisbane, Australia, involved 15 km of tunnelling including 5.7 km of twin road tunnels,
busway tunnels and connecting ramps. The Kedron area is the location of a number of entry and exit ramps which
join the tunnel. The construction site consisted of a number of tunnels crossing each other and formed using a
number of techniques. Access was required to a maximum of 18 m below ground level to allow for the construction
of a pile-supported capping slab, which would act as a roof slab for a mined tunnel passing east to west. This paper
presents details of the design and construction of the soil-nailed walls which provided support to three sides of this
excavation. The excavation also provided access for commencement of a mined tunnel using canopy tubes heading
eastward through one of the soil-nailed walls. The project constraints meant that the solution required close
coordination between the contractor and the designers of the temporary and permanent works. The excavation was
constructed successfully and has now been decommissioned. Design risks were managed throughout construction
through continuous on-site observation and a comprehensive monitoring programme.

Notation 15 km of tunnelling owing to the twin boring technique adopted

c9 characteristic effective cohesion and a total of 25 new bridges for interchanges. The project links
E elastic modulus Brisbane airport with the central business district (CBD), with
H height of soil-nailed wall access portals at several densely populated suburbs.
K constant
K0 earth pressure coefficient The project was constructed within and beneath busy urban and
qu unconfined compressive strength suburban areas, just north of the Brisbane CBD. At the tunnel
Su undrained shear strength portals, cut-and-cover techniques were utilised to transition from
ªb bulk unit weight the mined tunnels onto the surface roads. It was in these areas
 Poisson ratio where the biggest interface with the public and Brisbane’s busy
 v9 effective vertical stress at centre of length of soil nail road network occurred.
beyond calculated failure surface
ave average ultimate bond stress This paper presents a case study of a temporary excavation that
9 characteristic effective friction angle enabled construction of a mined tunnel in the Kedron area of the
project. The near-vertical excavation was up to 18 m deep and
1. Introduction was formed using soil nails.
The Brisbane Airport Link project was a complex A$4.2 billion
road tunnel project, which has provided over 7 km of, mostly 2. Project brief
underground, new road. It was delivered using the public–private The Kedron Park Hotel tunnel (KPHT) site is located within the
partnership (PPP) model by the special project vehicle (SPV) suburb of Kedron, approximately 8 km from Brisbane CBD and
‘Brisconnections’ for the Queensland government. The works 10 km from Brisbane airport. The construction site was within
were designed and constructed by a Thiess–John Holland joint the complex Kedron portal area of the Airport Link project,
venture (TJH) and completed in July 2012. The project required where the southbound and westbound tunnels cross over.

205
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE2
The project requirement was to allow construction of the westbound
exit ramp from the southbound tunnel. The ground conditions were
such that traditional tunnelling methods were not considered to be
viable; therefore, a cut-and-cover solution was preferred. Figure 1
shows the complex interaction of the tunnels in this area; of
particular relevance to this paper is the interaction between the exit
ramp from the main southbound tunnel (10) and the entry ramp
onto the main southbound tunnel which underlies it (11).
3. Site conditions
3.1 Geotechnical conditions
This particular area of Brisbane has complex geological conditions.
The excavation extended primarily through a relatively thick
sequence of deeply laterised, Late Triassic aged, Aspley/Tingalpa
formation which can be found within the top few metres of the
current ground surface. Its lithology is typically recorded as a grey/
brown stiff to hard silty clay/gravelly clay, with standard penetra-
tion test (SPT) N values ranging from the low 30s to refusal.
Underlying the soil strength material, and just below the base of
the excavation, the extremely weathered to slightly weathered
formation is characterised by very low- to low-strength inter-
bedded sandstone and siltstones, with occasional weathered clay
seams. The Aspley/Tingalpa formation overlays the Late Triassic
aged Brisbane Tuff formation. The highly weathered Brisbane
Tuff generally has been recorded as having low to medium
strength increasing to high/very high strength as the effects of
weathering decrease. Distinctly weathered and altered tuffs have
8
1. Kedron Park Hotel
2. Car park
3. Moreton Bay fig tree
4. Church hall
5. Church
6. Lutwyche Road
7. Construction loading
8. Deep excavations
9. Tunnel through wall
10. East–west tunnel
(exit ramp main
southbound tunnel)
11. North–south tunnel 6 5
(entry ramp main
southbound tunnel)
Figure 1. Location of the Kedron site and key constraints
206
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin
variable strength and can be gritty and friable, due to the high
quartz content of the rock.
Key geological risks identified included the possibility of sand
lenses within the upper residual soils, clay seams within the
Aspley and Tingalpa formations and the possibility of weak ash
zones within the tuff. These could lead to planes of weakness or
instability and groundwater flow paths.
Based on the boreholes undertaken within the vicinity of the
excavation, the anticipated ground conditions were
j up to 5 m of stiff clay, residual soil, overlying
j up to 15 m of hard clay, residual soil, overlying
j extremely weathered to highly weathered siltstone, expected
to be encountered at the base of the excavation.
The depth to the weathered siltstone varied across the excavation,
being shallower to the west, expected to outcrop in the walls, and
deeper to the east.
Groundwater levels were taken from standpipe readings, which
were commenced prior to award of the project. These showed a
fairly consistent depth to the groundwater table of around 10 m
below ground level.
3.2 Site constraints
The site was located within a densely populated urban environ-
ment, adjacent to Brisbane’s key north–south arterial road. There
2
3
7
9
10
4
11
Geotechnical Engineering A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Volume 167 Issue GE2 Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin

were a number of key constraints (Figures 1 and 2), given below,
which follow the numbering on Figure 1.
(a) The Kedron Park Hotel and car park (1 and 2) is a large
building to the north of the excavation; it is a pub housed in a
historic building of local significance.
(b) A mature Moreton Bay fig tree (3), which was protected and
could not be disturbed, is adjacent to the north wall.
(c) A church hall (4) and church (5) are adjacent to the south
wall.
(d ) A major arterial road (Lutwyche Road) lies to the west of the
excavation (6).
(e) Deep excavations (8) surround the site to the north, west and
beneath.
( f ) A mined tunnel (10) was to be constructed from east
to west immediately at the base of the excavation, with
the tunnel also cutting through the east wall of the
excavation (9).
(g) A tunnel (11) runs north to south going underneath the east–
west tunnel was to be constructed simultaneously with the
excavation and mined tunnel.
As the design and construction process continued, a number of
additional issues arose with regard to construction loading and
processes
j proposed blasting of the mined tunnel underneath the
structure
j tower crane immediately behind the wall (1 m offset)
j other construction loads at minimal distance behind the wall
owing to the constrained site.
4. Design
4.1 Design options and concepts
The original design concept was to construct a cut-and-cover
tunnel at this location with contiguous piled external walls and
using top-down construction to form temporary and permanent
propping. The total excavation was to be 30 m deep with the
tunnel roof constructed at 20 m below ground level. The contrac-
tor explored alternative solutions, particularly focusing on soil
nailing due to perceived cost and programme benefits.
The concept design focused on initially reviewing the feasibility of
a soil-nailed excavation for the full depth of 30 m. Owing to site
constraints and constructability concerns, the excavation would
need to have near-vertical walls (.858), with absolute vertical
walls at the south-east corner, near the church hall, and at least part
of the east face where the westbound tunnel would penetrate the
wall. Stability analyses were undertaken to determine a proposed
nailing pattern for preparation of a cost–benefit assessment.

Hotel

Inclinometer
5

Tunnel nel
Piled wall ed tun
advance ed min
supported Propos
excavation through
Soil-nailed excavation wall
(cut-and-cover)

Church
Pr tun

hall
op ne

Inclinometer
os l u

Church
ed n

3
m der
Ma

in

A
ed

Tower crane
jor

pile supported
a
rte
ria
l ro
ad

Figure 2. Site layout

207
Geotechnical Engineering A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Volume 167 Issue GE2 Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin

The adopted solution consisted of a soil-nailed excavation to the
tunnel roof at approximately 20 m below current ground level
(design by the temporary works designer), below which a
temporary anchored, piled retention system would be installed
(design by the permanent works designer). This was developed in
response to concerns from the tunnelling team regarding the out-
of-balance forces that would be exerted on the north–south
tunnel, which passed less than 5 m below the base of the full
excavation. The 1.2 m dia. piles, spaced at 1.3 m centres, would
be propped by a temporary arched capping slab and two or three
rows of ground anchors. The maximum soil-nailed excavation
depth was now 18 m in order to reach a platform level for
installation of the piles. The pile-supported excavation extended
an additional 10 m below the soil-nail wall, allowing for con-
struction of the elliptical tunnelling (Figure 3).
After installation of the piles, an arched roof would bridge
between the piles of the north and south walls. A tunnel would
then be mined beneath the arch and a permanent lining installed
between the piled walls.
The adoption of this temporary works scheme led to major
changes in the permanent works over the original tender design.
A smooth interface between the two design teams was, therefore,
crucial and a series of meetings were held between the two teams
of designers and the contractor to develop the design (temporary
and permanent) for this section of the works. These meetings
Construction sequence:
1. Top heading of southbound
tunnel constructed.
2. Soil-nailed excavation
completed. Church hall
3. Bored piles installed and roof
slab formed. ails
ng soil n
4. Pilot tunnel of westbound 15 m lo
tunnel constructed with
completion of
ground anchors installed as
mined tunnel
excavation proceeded. Southbound
tunnel completed.
5. Westbound tunnel completed.
Temporary
excavation level
Mined tunnel
(westbound)
3
1 Permanent
Southbound structure
mined tunnel
4
were also important in overcoming the concern of some indivi-
duals in the construction team with respect to the height and
inclination of the soil-nail wall. This was due to the lack of
experience of soil nailing within the construction team and the
perception that significant deformations would result.
4.2 Detailed design
The Australian standard on earth retaining structures (AS 4678-
2002 (Standards Australia, 2002)) includes the design of soil-
nailed walls as an informative appendix only. The complexity of
this wall as well as its height, however, specifically moves it
outside the limitations of this standard. Various international
guides and standards were available at the time of design,
including BS 8006:1995 (BSI, 1995), Ciria C637 (Phear et al.,
2005), Geoguide 7 (GEO, 2008) and Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 7 (Lazarte et al., 2003). The authors had previous
knowledge of Ciria C637 and this guide was adopted. The design
also had to comply with the various project specifications and the
project deed, which incorporated client-specific requirements that
fell outside the specifications.
Ciria C637 uses the limit state design methodology of Eurocode
7 (BSI, 2004), where partial factors are applied to the soil
strengths and to the actions affecting the wall. The partial factors
used were as detailed in Table 8.2 of Ciria C637 and are
reproduced in Table 1.
Excavation
backfilled on
Residual soil
stiff clay
2
roof
3
Residual soil
very stiff to
4
hard clay
Extremely weathered silts
tone
4
5
3 Very low-strength
siltstone
Medium-strength
siltstone

Figure 3. Construction sequence (section A)

208
Geotechnical Engineering A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Volume 167 Issue GE2 Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin

Parameter Design approach 1, Design approach 1,

combination 1 (DA1-1) combination 2 (DA1-2)

Actions (A), multiply action by partial factor given below

Permanent unfavourable 1.35 1.0

Permanent favourable 1.00 1.0
Variable unfavourable 1.50 1.3
Variable favourable zero zero

Materials (M), divide material strength by partial factor given below

tan 9 1.0 1.25

c9 1.0 1.25
Su 1.0 1.40
qu 1.0 1.40
Bulk density 1.0 1.00

Resistance (R)

Overall stability 1.0 1.0

Bearing capacity 1.0 1.0
Sliding 1.0 1.0

Table 1. Partial factors used in analyses

A summary of the geotechnical parameters adopted in the
analyses is presented in Table 2. The geotechnical parameters
were derived from the available site investigation data, including
limited laboratory testing. These parameters were agreed by the
teams designing the temporary and permanent works.
The design was carried out using limit state design and a limit
equilibrium method of analysis. Two software packages were
utilised for design work, namely
j Slope/W, limit equilibrium slope stability analysis program
developed by Geostudio
j Snailz, soil reinforcement program developed by Roadway
Geotechnical Engineering, California Department of
Transportation.
Snailz was primarily used to determine the soil nail length required
based on the design nail spacing, borehole diameter, soil properties
and facing strength. This analysis was then checked using Slope/W.
The two programs assess soil nails differently, with Snailz allowing
for different bond stresses for each soil type and including the
effect of the soil nail head in the analysis. Slope/W, however, allows
for a different bond stress for each nail and a more complex
geometry can be analysed. On this project Snailz generally gave
higher factors of safety than Slope/W, most likely owing to Snailz
considering the contribution of the nail head in the analyses. A
typical section analysed is shown in Figure 4.
The characteristc bond or skin friction (ave ) was initially
estimated using Equation 1 based on equation 8.4 of Ciria report
C637

Geological unit Description ªb : kN/m3 c9: kPa 9: degrees E: MPa ave : kPa  K0

Residual soil Stiff clay 21 5 25 40 75 0.3 0.6

Residual soil Hard clay 21 5 28 80 125 0.3 0.6
Siltstone Very low–low 22 22.5 30 90 125 0.3 1.0
strength

Note: ªb , bulk unit weight; c9, effective cohesion; 9, effective friction angle; E, elastic modulus; ave , average ultimate bond stress; , Poisson
ratio; K0 , earth pressure coefficient.

Table 2. Characteristic material properties used in analyses

209
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE2
RL 22·2
Residual soil – stiff clay
GWL (RL12)
Residual soil – hard clay
Very low–low-strength siltstone
Figure 4. Typical section
1: tave ¼ (K v9 tan 9 þ c9) (kPa)
where,  v9 is the effective vertical stress at the centre of the length
of a soil nail beyond the calculated failure surface (kPa), 9 is
the effective friction angle (degrees), c9 is the effective cohesion
(kPa) and K is a constant taken as 1.
The results of the assessment of the characteristic bond were
compared to typical values of bond stress typically experienced
for this material in South-East Queensland and appropriate values
of characteristic bond were adopted for each material. This was
confirmed during the design phase by the execution of an
ultimate load test.
In order to determine the maximum working loads on each row
of soil nails, analysis of each stage of construction of the soil-
nailed walls was carried out using a global factor of safety
approach (unfactored soil parameters) within Snailz, whereas
overall stability was checked using partial factors.
The two-dimensional finite-element analysis software, Plaxis, was
used to predict ground movements, particularly in the vicinity of
the church hall and church at the crest of the south wall. The
construction sequence considered in the Plaxis modelling consid-
ered the construction of the temporary and permanent works.
Models were generated by both the temporary works and
permanent works design teams and compared and agreed before
construction began. The construction sequence adopted was as
follows (Figure 3).
(a) Construct southbound top heading.
(b) Staged soil nail excavation to the base of excavation.
210
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin
Soil nails:
Top row – 0·5 m below crest
Spacing – 1·2 m V: 1·5 m H
Ten 15 m nails
Four 12 m nails
Inclination 10° below horizontal
Sub-horizontal drains:
Top row – 5 m long
Bottom row – 10 m long
Spacing – 5 m H
Inclination 10° above horizontal
RL 5
Base of soil–nailed wall
(c) Install contiguous piles from base of excavation.
(d ) Construct roof slab.
(e) Construct westbound pilot tunnel.
( f ) Excavate and complete southbound tunnel.
(g) Finish westbound tunnel.
In the Plaxis analysis, characteristic values were adopted and the
predicted and actual ground movements (measured by inclin-
ometers) at two sections on achieving final excavation level are
given in Figure 5.
As a requirement of the project deed, a minimum surcharge of
20 kPa had to be adopted in all significant temporary works
designs. In addition, specific surcharges from construction plant
including mobile cranes and concrete trucks at the crest of the
walls also had to be considered. Proposed equipment was
discussed with the construction team during the early stages of
design development.
Soil nails of 32 mm dia. with a steel grade of 500 MPa were
nominated. These were installed in 150 mm dia. holes at an angle
of 108 below the horizontal in 40 MPa grout. The nail lengths
varied from 10 m to 15 m due to the change in excavation height,
varying load conditions around the excavation and improving
ground conditions with depth.
The soil nails were installed with a vertical spacing of 1.2 m and
a horizontal spacing of 1.5 m centre to centre (Figure 4). The soil
nail heads consisted of a 200 mm 3 200 mm 3 20 mm thick
plate placed on top of the shotcrete surface and held in place by a
nut. The shotcrete was nominally 100 mm thick with a minimum
strength of 40 MPa at 28 days and had a single layer of mesh
Geotechnical Engineering A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Volume 167 Issue GE2 Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin

Inclinometer 3 Inclinometer 5
20 20
20
Residual soil –
18 stiff clay Residual
soil – stiff
16 15 15 clay

Reduced level: m AHD

Reduced level: m AHD

Reduced level: m AHD

14
Residual soil –
12 hard clay
Residual
10 10 10 soil – hard
Base depth Base depth clay Base depth
8 (RL 6·8) (RL 6·8)
(RL 6·8)
6
5 Moderately 5
4 weathered siltstone
Moderately
2 Actual weathered Actual
Predicted siltstone Predicted
0 0 0
0 50 100 ⫺5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 ⫺5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
SPT N: blows Horizontal displacement: mm Horizontal displacement: mm

Figure 5. Comparison of predicted against actual lateral wall

movement

(SL82) placed centrally throughout, with an additional layer of
mesh (1 m2 ) at the soil nail heads.
The structure was nominated as being required for 2 years;
however, the project deed stipulated a design life of 5 years for
the tensile elements. Given the short duration, durability was
considered through sacrificial thicknesses of steel elements.
Sheathing of the soil nails, as required for permanent soil nails,
was not undertaken.
The detailed design took account of the site constraints as
detailed in Section 3.2. The location of the Moreton Bay fig tree
immediately at the crest of the north wall, for example, meant
that the upper row of soil nails beneath the tree could not be
installed. The project arborist recommended that the cut face was
protected by plastic sheeting beneath the shotcrete so that the soil
adjacent to the tree would not dry out. The shotcrete was,
therefore, thickened and heavily reinforced over this zone with
the next row of soil nails designed to take the additional load.
The most significant effect on the design, however, was the
location of the future tunnel portal on the eastern face of the
excavation (Figure 6). Here, the steel nails were replaced by
glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) nails to enable the bars to be
ripped up during tunnelling. The GRP nails were 40 mm dia.
installed in 150 mm grout holes. Unlike steel bars, which can
behave plastically and creep after their tensile capacity has
been reached, the GRP nails require greater deformation to
achieve their ultimate capacity, after which they fail in a brittle
manner. The GRP nails adopted had a ‘break load’ capacity of
860 kN.
Given that the excavation was to remain in place for 24 months,

The location of the tower crane led to the position of the soil
nails being amended to avoid the supporting piles. Similarly, the
soil nails were also located to avoid the inclinometers behind the
wall facing.

The interaction between the wall and the proposed tower crane
was considered in detail. This included finite-element modelling
to assess the soil–structure interaction within the system. It was
critical to design the tower crane foundation within the rotation
tolerance of the crane. The relative movement of the soil-nailed
wall and the tower crane piles led to additional down-drag, or
negative skin friction, in the foundation. As a result, design loads Figure 6. East wall during construction showing canopy tubes
in the piles were estimated to be greater than that from the static set out
load of the crane itself.

211
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE2
the design called for specific drainage measures to be installed.
This included 150 mm wide geocomposite strip drains which
were installed between the soil nails and beneath the shotcrete at
a 2.5 m horizontal spacing. In addition, the ground investigation
had identified the possibility of a perched water table within the
upper stiff clay layer. Two rows of sub-horizontal drains were,
therefore, installed: one at the bottom of the stiff clay layer and
another at the bottom of the excavation. Both rows of sub-
horizontal drains were placed at a 5 m horizontal spacing.
The project team was concerned about the impact of ground
movements on the church hall and church. Although the excava-
tion would generate some ground movement, additional move-
ments were anticipated owing to the two tunnels beneath the
excavation, as well as the general dewatering of the area due to
nearby cavern construction. A monitoring programme for the
church and church hall was implemented in addition to the
monitoring already in place around the excavation. This included
multiple targets and settlement plates, and staged trigger levels
based on the status of construction.
5. Construction
Soil-nailed wall construction is a top-down technique which
requires a staged approach to construction. The following
construction sequence was nominated.
(a) Excavate to 0.5 m below the upper row of soil nails.
(b) Drill, install and grout first row of nails.
(c) Place strip drains and mesh on excavated face and shotcrete.
(d ) Attach head plate and nut.
(e) Excavate to 0.5 m below the next row of soil nails.
( f ) Repeat steps (b) to (e).
(g) Repeat to bottom of excavation, ensuring that ‘horizontal’
drains are installed as the excavation proceeds.
The construction was complicated by the need initially to
maintain an access ramp from the south wall and into the
excavation for as long as possible, until full access could be
provided from the cut-and-cover tunnel to the west of the
excavation to service the works. This meant that the nails on the
south wall could not be installed until a majority of the nails on
the north and east walls were complete. Figure 7 shows the
varying excavation depths across the structure while the access
ramp was in operation. This required close coordination between
the site and design team to ensure that an adequate width of ramp
was left in place to provide stability to the wall.
Full-time observation of the works was undertaken by a represen-
tative of the temporary works designer owing to the high level of
risk associated with this excavation. Their responsibilities in-
cluded
j mapping of the excavation to confirm that the geotechnical
conditions were consistent with design
j nomination of test nails and observation of nail testing
212
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin
Figure 7. Access ramp into excavation
j raising ‘non-conformance reports’ as necessary
j responding to ‘requests for information’ from the
construction team
j providing design direction to allow construction to proceed
without undue delay
j reviewing the daily monitoring results.
Acceptance testing to assess workmanship was specified on
production nails at a rate of six tests per 100 nails in accordance
with Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
standard MRTS03 (TMR, 2010), with the test nails nominated by
the designer. This required the nails to be subjected to loads of
1.5 times the working load for three cycles with a maximum
deflection of the soil nail not exceeding 0.1% of its length.
Ultimate load testing to confirm design parameters was also
specified and six tests on short bond lengths were undertaken at
different levels within the excavation. It was decided that the
ultimate load tests were to be carried out within the excavation
rather than in the excavation face, which enabled the nails to be
exhumed and examined after testing as a measure of construc-
tion quality control. Figure 8 is a photograph showing one of
the exhumed nails. The exhumed soil nails showed that the
grout column around the nail remained intact after failure, with
some nails showing a clean break in the grout at the end of the
nail. This indicated that the soil nail and grout failed as one
element as it was pulled out of the excavated face. All testing
was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of
Ciria C637.
All the soil nails passed the acceptance tests; however, there were
issues with poor-quality centralisers being used, which collapsed
under the weight of the steel bars. This product was quickly
replaced with one of acceptable quality. The ultimate load tests
confirmed the design parameters used with calculated ultimate
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE2
Figure 8. Exhumed nail following ultimate load testing
bond stresses up to 250 kPa in the hard residual clay. Some tests
were cut short as failure had not occurred when the load had
reached 80% of the ultimate tensile capacity of the nail, beyond
which it was not safe to continue the test.
On completion of the excavation, the permanent works began
with piles being installed along the toes of the north and south
walls and part of the east wall. In addition, 114 mm dia.
canopy tubes, 12 m to 15 m long, were installed in the east
wall in preparation for the mined tunnel. Once the piles were
installed, fill was placed inside the excavation in order to
provide a form for the tunnel’s arched roof. The reinforced
concrete roof arch was cast (Figures 9 and 10). The tunnel was
then mined and permanent lining was placed beneath the arch.
Upon completion of tunnelling, the excavation was backfilled
with flowable fill.
During construction the issue of rock blasting within the tunnels
during mining was raised. An independent specialist assessed the
effect of blasting on the soil nailing and concluded that there
would be no effect. The design team reviewed this assessment
and reanalysed selected wall sections in Snailz using unfactored
parameters and a horizontal coeffiecient of acceleration of 0.2,
while targeting a factor of safety of greater than 1.
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin
Figure 9. Reinforcement for arch capping slab
Figure 10. Aerial photograph during arch construction
6. Performance
Wall movements were monitored by reflector survey prisms
which were fixed to the shotcrete wall at two levels as the
excavation proceeded. In addition, lateral movements were also
monitored by inclinometers which were located around the
excavation, along with ground settlement monitoring markers to
measure vertical deformations. Trigger levels were established for
all monitoring points and the results of all monitoring were
distributed around the design and construction teams. The wall-
monitoring system, with the exception of the reflector survey
prisms, was unchanged from that planned for the original piled
wall.
Two monitored sections of the excavation are presented in Figure
213
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE2
5, which shows the predicted and actual lateral ground movement
at completion of the full depth of excavation. The encountered
ground conditions at inclinometer 3 comprised approximately
4 m of stiff residual clay over 8 m of hard residual clay, overlying
moderately weathered siltstone. At this location the measured
lateral ground movements towards the excavation reached 31 mm
at completion of the excavation, against a predicted movement of
40 mm. The prisms were installed as the excavation proceeded
and could only measure deflections from the time of installation.
They would not, therefore, show the total movements of the wall,
but would be indicative of the deformations that were occurring
and could be checked against the inclinometers, which were
approximately 2 m back from the wall face. At completion of the
excavation the prisms at this section had moved 28 mm at 18.2 m
AHD (Australian height datum) and 12 mm at 13.4 m AHD, 2 m
and 6.8 m below the wall crest, respectively. The upper prism
compared well to the inclinometer data, but the lower prism
showed much less movement, which may be indicative of the
delay in placing the prism after excavation.
At inclinometer 5, the ground conditions comprised approxi-
mately 4 m of stiff residual clay over 10 m of hard residual clay,
overlying moderately weathered siltstone. At this location the
measured ground movements towards the excavation at the
inclinometer reached 15 mm at completion of the excavation
against a predicted movement of 50 mm. The prism on this
section showed movements of 16 mm at 17.3 m AHD (1.6 m
below the wall crest) and appears to be in agreement with the
inclinometer. The ground surface movements were approximately
11 mm at 2 m behind the wall crest, reducing to 6 mm at 8 m
from the wall face and 0 mm at 13 m.
The ground movements at the church hall and church were less
than 10 mm at the completion of the excavation and no signs of
damage or distress were noted. Similarly, at the hotel measured
ground movements were less than 5 mm and again no damage
was noted.
The ground conditions encountered were generally consistent
with the design model. It is considered that the inclinometers
measured less movement than predicted as the surcharges consid-
ered in the analyses were never fully achieved on site. In addition,
the determination of deformations in Plaxis relies upon soil shear
strength and soil stiffness parameters. As no direct measurement
of stiffness was undertaken during the investigation and testing
programme, the stiffness was derived from a conservative estima-
tion based on undrained shear strength using empirical calcula-
tions and local experience. This adoption of conservative values,
which was due to the concern of impact on adjacent structures,
may have led to an underestimation of soil stiffness and, hence,
less movement than anticipated. This effect is noted more in the
results of inclinometer 5, which has the greater soil thickness.
The greater movement at inclinometer 3 can, to some degree, be
explained by the presence of a laydown area at the crest of wall,
214
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin
which would have added a surcharge throughout the construction
period on this section of the wall. In addition, the wall at
inclinometer 3 was higher than that at inclinometer 5.
The following is a general summary of the wall behaviour.
j Horizontal wall movements were approximately 0.2% of the
wall height.
j Vertical wall movements were between 70% and 100% of the
horizontal movements.
j The measured wall movements were consistent with case
histories (Figure 11).
j The inclinometers identified lateral movement at the residual
clay–siltstone boundary.
j Measured wall movements were less than those estimated by
Plaxis.
j There was no visual evidence of significant wall movement.
j There was no identifiable damage to the church and church
hall.
7. Summary and conclusion
The authors believe that this is one of the deepest soil-nailed
excavations to date in Australia. During the design stage, there-
fore, there was concern by the main contractor regarding the
feasibility of the soil-nailed solution. The reasons for this concern
were many and included
j lack of experience of the construction and verification teams
and general lack of Australian experience with soil nailing
j the large depth of excavation
j a perception of greater ground deformation resulting from the
use of soil nails
j proximity of adjacent structures
j complicated construction sequence involving two tunnels to
be constructed beneath the final excavation.
The temporary works designers were able to demonstrate to key
personnel within the construction and verification teams the
feasibility of the solution, and early involvement of the temporary
works design team with both the contractor and permanent works
design team enabled a smooth interface between the two compo-
nents of the work. The agreement of the design approach and
parameters to be used in design was particularly important and
allowed for alignment of the permanent and temporary analytical
models. This led to an agreed set of monitoring trigger levels for
each monitoring point around the excavation.
The temporary works team remained fully involved with the
construction team throughout the excavation and installation of
the soil nails, including having full-time representation on site.
This was crucial as the authors have seen many occurrences of
over-excavation and subsequent wall movement during soil-nailed
wall construction, due to contractors’ inexperience. This also
ensured that quality issues such as the use of inappropriate
centralisers were identified and corrected quickly. The contrac-
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE2
0·140
0·120
Lateral wall movement, δh: m
0·100
0·080
0·060
0·040
0·020
0
0 5 10 15
Wall height, H: m
Figure 11. Lateral wall movement plotted against wall height (comparison with case histories (see Bruce and Jewell, 1986; Clough and
O’Rourke, 1990; Durgunoglu et al., 2007a, 2007b; Ho et al., 1989; Shen et al., 1981; Stocker and Riedinger, 1990; Thompson and
Miller, 1990)
tors’ respect for the risks involved with this element of the works
was the key to its success.
Locating the instrumentation within a metre of the wall face
required the use of an experienced survey team, which enabled
the soil nails to be placed such that they did not impact on the
inclinometers or crane piled foundations. The results of the
monitoring indicate that the movement of the wall was within
those typically expected (Figure 11).
Ultimately, over 1500 soil nails, steel and GRP were installed in
this excavation. Ground movements were less than anticipated,
with no damage occurring to adjacent structures, and the soil-
nailing option reduced the programme time by 3 months, com-
pared with the original piled wall scheme.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Thiess and John
Holland joint venture for their support in the preparation of this
paper.
REFERENCES
Bruce DA and Jewell RA (1986) Soil nailing: application and
practice – Part 1. Ground Engineering 19(8): 10–15.
Bruce DA and Jewell RA (1987) Soil nailing: application and
practice – Part 2. Ground Engineering 20(1): 21–33.
BSI (1995) BS 8006:1995: Code of practice for strengthened/
reinforced soils and other fills. BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2004) BS EN 1997-1:2004: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
– Part 1: General rules. BSI, London, UK.
Clough GW and O’Rourke TD (1990) Construction induced
movements of in situ walls. Proceedings of the Conference on
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin
Bruce and Jewell (1986, 1987)
Durgunoglu et al. (2007a, 2007b)
Clough and O’Rourke (1990)
Thompson and Miller (1990)
Stocker and Riedinger (1990)
Ho et al. (1989)
Shen et al. (1981)
Airport link project
δh /H ⫽ 0·5%
δh /H ⫽ 0·4%
δh /H ⫽ 0·2%
δh /H ⫽ 0·1%
20 25 30 35
the Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures,
Connell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, pp. 439–470.
Durgunoglu HT, Keskin HB, Kulac HF, Ikiz S and Karadayilar T
(2007a) Performance of soil nailed walls based on case
studies. Proceedings of the XIV European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp.
559–564.
Durgunoglu HT, Keskin HB, Kulac HF, Ikiz S and Karadayilar T
(2007b) Performance of very deep temporary soil nailed
walls in Istanbul. Proceedings of the TC17 Ground
Improvement Workshop, XIV Conference of the International
Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Madrid, Spain.
GEO (2008) Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction.
(Geoguide 7). Government of the Hong Kong Special
Admininstrative Region, Hong Kong.
Ho CL, Ludwig HP, Fragaszy RJ and Chapman KR (1989) Field
performance of a soil nail system in loess. Proceedings of
Foundation Engineering: Current Principles and Practices,
Evanston, IL, USA, pp. 1281–1292.
Lazarte CA, Elias V, Espinoza D and Sabatini PJ (2003)
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7: Soil Nail Walls.
Federal Highway Administration, US Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, USA.
Phear A, Dew C, Ozsoy B et al. (2005) Soil Nailing – Best
Practice Guidance. Ciria, London, UK, Ciria C637.
Shen CK, Bang S, Romstad KM, Kulchin L and Denatale JS (1981)
Field measurements of an earth support system. Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers – Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division 107(12): 1625–1642.
Standards Australia (2002) AS4678-2002: Australian standard –
Earth-retaining structures. Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.
215
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE2
Stocker MF and Riedinger G (1990) Bearing behaviour of nailed
retaining structures. Proceedings of a Conference on the
Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, pp. 612–628.
Thompson SR and Miller IR (1990) Design, construction and
performance of a soil nailed wall in Seattle, Washington.
216
A soil-nailed excavation for the Brisbane
Airport Link project, Australia
Bridges and Gudgin
Proceedings of a Conference on the Design and
Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, USA, pp. 629–643.
TMR (2010) Drainage, Retaining Structures and Protective
Treatments. Queensland Government, Brisbane, Australia,
MRTS03.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.