Information Paper On Acceptance Criteria For Performance Test of Soil Nail (2013)

Information Paper
Acceptance Criteria for Performance Test of Soil Nail
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
March 2013
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 1 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Issue/Revision No. : 1/- CTW/MKL/KWK
First Issue Date : March 2013 Current Issue Date :March 2013
1. Introduction
1.1 Purposes of Pull Out Test and Performance Test of Soil Nail
ArchSD General Specification for Building (GS) requires both pull-out test and
performance test on soil nail construction. The main purpose of pull-out tests is
to verify the ultimate bond resistance between soil and grout used in the design.
The maximum test load shall be either 90% of the yield load of the steel bar of
the test soil nail (Tp)pull-out or the ultimate soil/grout bond load.
On the other hand, in order to check the quality of installed soil nails,
performance tests are required to be carried out on 6% of the total number of
permanent soil nails of the same type grouted in one day. The test load on each
soil nail (Tp)performance is 1.5 times the working load as specified in the drawings,
or not greater than 80% of the yield stress of the steel bar forming the soil nail.
In addition to checking the quality of grout around the soil nail, the performance
test intends to check whether the completed soil nail can safely withstand the
design loads without any excessive movement and to act as a quality control.
1.2 Existing Acceptance Criteria of Performance Test
A soil nail will be considered as failed if before reaching the maximum

allowable test load, it is either pulled out or the soil nail head movement has
exceeded e f in which

e f  (Tp ) performance eb / Tp  pull  out
---------- (1)
where (Tpwhere
) performance = test load in performance test
(Tp ) pull  out = test load in pull-out test
(eb ) pull  out = maximum soil nail head movement in pull-out test
under test load (Tp ) pull  out
For any one failure of performance test, two additional soil nails shall be
selected from the group for further performance tests. If either one of these 2
additional soil nails also fails to reach the test load, the particular group of soil
nails shall be considered as not complying with the specified requirements.
1.3 In Equation (1), the allowable movement ef is related to the maximum soil nail
head movement in pull-out test (eb)pull-out, However, according to the pull-out
test data for the slope stabilization works at Sandy Ridge Cemetery (feature no.
3NW-C/C11,15-19) as shown in Fig. 1, an invalid (eb)pull-out is commonly
obtained in the pull-out test. This is because the pull-out displacement will
increase disproportionately with a small increase of pull-out force when the pull
out force is near the ultimate frictional resistance (i.e. after yielding occurs). The
displacement is then kept increasing without increasing the pull-out resistance
when the ultimate frictional resistance is reached. This is a common
phenomenon for most materials, e.g. steel, when they are subjected to a force
larger than the yield strength and proceeds to the plastic range. The pull-out
displacement obtained after yielding will over-estimate the allowable movement

ef in the performance test by using Equation (1). Another consideration is
whether the displacement measured at pull-out test is similar to that of
performance test if they are tested at the same force. It is noted that the soil nail
is only partially grouted for the pull-out test (i.e. soil nail grouted to required
length, typically 2m in the passive zone) while the installed soil nail in a
performance test is grouted to its full length. With the difference in grouted
length, the displacement should also be different.
Thus, the use of invalid (eb)pull-out and the difference in grouted length between
two tests will result in the acceptance criterion being too loose which is
evidenced by the past test records that the value of ef was seldom exceeded.
The real behaviour of soil nail under pull-out force will therefore be explained
and discussed in this paper.
Sandy Ridge Cemetery (3NW-C/C11,15-19)

Load Displacement Curve of Pull-out Tests
300
250 TN1 TN2

TN3 TN4
TN5 TN6
200 TN7 TN8
TN9 TN10
Load (kN)
TN11 TN12
150 TN13 TN14
TN15 TN16
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Movement (mm)
Fig. 1 Load-displacement curve of pull-out tests at slope stabilization works

at Sandy Ridge Cemetery (Feature no. 3NW-C/C11, 15-19)
1.4 According to Geoguide 7 – Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction
GEO(2008), there is basically no reliable test to assess the performance of soil
nails after their construction, and TDR test cannot be used for acceptance test
though can be used for indicative purpose. It is, however, noted that the US,
Australia and most other countries in the Europe have specified in their national
standards/ specifications requiring a testing to check the quality of completed
soil nails, e.g. “Production Nail Test” in BS EN 14490:2010 (BSI 2010), “Proof
Test” in Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 – Soil Nail Walls published
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the US Department of
Transportation (FHWA 2003), and “Acceptance Test” in QA Specification R64
Soil Nailing published by Road and Maritime Services of New South Wales
Government (RMS 2012). In BS EN 14490, performance test is optional for
slopes with negligible risk to property or lifebut is mandatory for other slopes
with risk to property or life. Hence, the performance test should be retained in
our GS to check whether the completed soil nail can safely withstand the design
loads without any excessive movement or long term creep over its service life
and to check the workmanship and the quality of grout around the soil nail.
Annex A summarizes the various load tests on soil nails stated in the above
national standards/ specifications and all of them require pull-out,
performance and creep tests. It is noted that our GS does not include the creep
test; but it requires that the deformation in the last 10 minutes should not be
larger than 0.05mm which is similar to the creep test requirements. Hence, it is
worth to introduce the creep test requirements as a further acceptance criterion
for the performance test in our GS in order to ensure that the nail design loads
can be safely carried throughout the structure service life.
1.5 With the above background, the purposes of this paper are:-
i) to briefly discuss the theoretical study of the real behaviour of a soil nail
under pull-out force;
ii) to study behaviour of a soil nail under pull-out force using numerical
method, i.e. “Plaxis” – an elasto-plastic finite element computer program;
iii) to compare theoretical studies with actual field test data;
iv) to rationalize the acceptance criteria of the performance test;
v) to introduce the creep test requirements during the performance test; and
vi) to validate the proposed new acceptance criteria with the data retrieved
from previous projects.
2. Theoretical Study of the Behaviour of Soil Nail under Pull-out Force – HY

Wong’s Method
2.1 Dr H.Y. Wong, our ex-SGE/NP, had been consulted, and he drafted a paper
entitled A Theoretical Study of the Load Deformation Characteristics of a Soil
Nail during Performance Test based on Elastic Theories depicting the
behaviour of soil nail during performance test based on elastic theories. In the
paper, Dr Wong considered an elementary length of the soil nail with elastic
deformation under pull-out force and derived an equation for calculating the
maximum soil nail head movement ef that can be allowed in a performance test
as follows:-
e f  esteel  f  esoil  f  2(Tp ) performance L d 2 Esteel  (Tp ) performance DGsoil ------- (2)
where (esteel ) f = maximum elastic lengthening of the soil nail steel

bar that can be allowed under (T p ) performance
(esoil ) f = maximum elastic soil shearing displacement along
the grout/soil interface that can be allowed under
(T p ) performance
(Tpwhere
) performance = maximum tensile pull of 1.5 times working load in
a performance test
L = total length of soil nail
d = diameter of soil nail steel bar
Esteel = elastic modulus of steel bar
D = diameter of soil nail grout hole
Gsoil = elastic soil shear modulus

In Equation (2), the revised ef is affected not only by the soil nail head
movement in the pull-out test but also by other parameters such as D, d, L, Esteel,
Gsoil, (Tp)pull-out and (Tp)performance. To compare the new allowable ef, a study has
been carried out by adopting Equation (2) on the data retrieved from the
previous pull-out and performance tests. Table 1 shows the summary of pull-out
and performance tests retrieved from previous ArchSD’s projects, and the
results of the study is included in Annex B.
2.2 The results show that the allowable maximum soil nail head movement ef during
performance test determined by Equation (2) is smaller than that determined as
per the GS by 5 to 50%. This implies that a stricter acceptance criterion will be
used when Equation (2) is adopted. Though a stricter but more rational
acceptance criterion has been used, only three of the test data out of the 75
performance tests fails, when the revised equation has been applied for soil nails.
Table 1 Summary of pull-out and performance tests retrieved from

previous ArchSD’s projects
Number of test data
Slope Feature No. Location retrieved
Pull-out Performance
3SW-C/C14 Wo Hop Shek Cemetery 14 15
3SW-C/F17 Wo Hop Shek Cemetery 1 2
Lady MacLehose Holiday
8SW-B/C12 Village 3 3
8SW-B/CR11 Village 3 5
Tai Mei Tuk Water Sports
3SE-D/C111 Center 5 5
3SW-C/C24 Wo Hop Shek Cemetery 5 6
3NW-C/C11,15-19 Sandy Ridge Cemetery 16 14
12NW-C/C85* Silverstand Beach 2 2
9SE-B/C102* North Lantau Hospital 4 16
07SW-C/FR114* Central Kwai Chung Park 4 5
Wo Yi Hop Road Recreation
07SW-C/C117* Ground 2 2
Total 59 75
*
denotes that the soil nails were installed with the end grouted in bedrock. For the
remaining slope features, the whole soil nails were installed into soil.
2.3 It is, however, noted that in some data of previous pull-out tests, the calculated
elastic lengthening of the soil nail steel bar (esteel)pull-out is larger than the
maximum soil nail head movement measured in pull-out test (eb)pull-out. The
elastic shear displacement along the nail/soil interface becomes negative and
hence the elastic shear modulus Gsoil cannot be determined. This phenomenon
may be caused by the overgrouting since (esteel)pull-out depends on the bond
length (typically 2m) and unbond length of the steel bar. As recommended by
Dr Wong in his paper, it can be solved by pulling out the complete bond length
at the end of the pull-out test, and this serves to check not only the bond and
unbond length but also the diameter of the soil nail grout hole (D).

2.4 In Equation (2), one of the main assumptions is that the soil shear stress at the
nail/soil interface along the whole soil nail is constant so that the elastic
lengthening of the soil nail steel bar (esteel)f can be assumed to be
2(Tp)performaceL/πd2Esteel during performance tests. However, for soil nails with
the end grouted in bedrock, the elastic shear modulus of rock is much larger
than that of soil. The soil shear stress distribution is therefore no longer being
constant along the soil nail and ef will be wrongly determined according to
Equation (2). Dr Wong in his paper concluded that the validity of this
theoretical analysis mainly depends on the assumed soil shear stress distribution
along the nail/soil interface. This assumption can be verified by measuring the
stress distribution along the steel bar during the performance test by installing
strain gauges at various locations of the steel bar and, in some cases, completely
pull-out soil nail may be required .
2.5 His new method relies on the measurement of pull-out displacement in order to
determine Gsoil and D etc. However, as shown in paragraph 1.3 above, an invalid
pull-out displacement (eb)pull-out is commonly obtained in pull-out tests.
Moreover, it will be discussed in paragraph 3.2 that the pull-out displacement
(eb)pull-out in pull-out tests commonly resulted in over-estimation of the allowable
movement of performance test. As a result, another simplified method is called
for to determine the allowable movement ef and it will be discussed in the later
section of this paper.
3. Theoretical Study of the Behaviour of Soil Nail under Pull-out Force –

Hong’s Method
3.1 Hong (2011) and Hong et al (2012) investigated the behaviour of a soil nail
under a pull-out force mathematically with comparison of laboratory and field
test data. He pointed out that a simple idealized load transfer model introduced
by Misra and Chen (2004) can be adopted to define the relationship between the
shear stress τ and pull-out displacement u of the nail/soil interface with stiffness
factor k as shown in Fig. 2. In the model, the shear stress of the nail/soil
interface varies linearly with shear displacement in the elastic zone until the
ultimate shear stress of the interface is reached at the critical shear (pull-out)
displacement uc. The shear stress then becomes constant with increasing of
shear displacement.

Fig. 2 Load transfer model at the soil-nail interface during pull-out
(Source: modified after Hong 2011)
3.2 As yielding is commonly observed in the pull-out test data retrieved from the
previous projects, this model can be used to represent the pull-out response in
order to further explain why the maximum pull-out displacement obtained from
the pull-out tests may not be appropriate for determining the allowable soil nail
head movement of the performance test if yielding occurs during the pull-out
tests. When yielding occurs, the pull-out displacement keeps increasing at the
same ultimate pull-out force and this “maximum” pull-out displacement
obtained in the pull-out test will then become meaningless. The use of this
“maximum” pull-out displacement in Equation (1) will therefore result in the
over-estimation of the allowable movement of performance test as it is expected
that the soil nail is loaded within the elastic zone during the performance test.
3.3 Using the idealized load transfer model in Fig. 2, Hong (2011) and Hong et al
(2012) further evaluated the pull-out response of a soil nail in the passive zone
of a soil nailing system, that is, the behavior of a soil nail section below the
potential sliding surface by considering a soil nail element under a pull-out
force in a soil mass. The pull-out process is divided into three typical phases: -
(i) initial pure elastic phase - the nail/soil interface follows a linear elastic
stress-displacement relationship;
(ii) elastic-plastic phase - a transition point presents dividing the elastic and
plastic zones; and
(iii) pure plastic phase.
These three phases of a soil nail in a pull-out process inside a slope passive zone
are summarized in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Three transitional phases of a soil nail in a pull-out process inside a
slope passive zone
(Source: Hong 2011)
Following the derivation developed by Misra and Chen (2004) for a pile
subjected to an external load, Hong (2011) and Hong et al (2012) established an
analytical method for investigating the progressive pull-out behavior of a soil
nail in the passive zone on the basis of a simple load transfer model of the
nail/soil interface. His verifications indicated that the calculated soil nail pull-
out resistances are in good agreement with the published test data and his field
test. The following equations are their proposed equations governing the
relationship between pull-out displacement and pull-out force of a soil nail in
different phases. Details of the analytical method can be referred to Hong et al
(2012).
P  coshx 
Pull-out displacement in elastic phase ue x    ---------- (3)
kD sinh l 
Pull-out displacement in elastic-plastic phase
2uc 2
u p l  
2
 
l p  uc l p tanh  l  l p   uc ---(4)
2l 2uc
Pull-out displacement in plastic phase u p   uc ---------- (5)
2
where P = pull-out force
x = distance from the nail tip
l = soil nail length tip in the slope passive zone
k = stiffness factor
λ = scaling factor = kD EA
lp = length of plastic zone
uc = critical shear displacement
D = diameter of soil nail grout hole

3.4 To compare with the analytical method proposed by Hong (2011), the method is
applied for two pull-out test data (TN7 and TN12) for slope stabilization works
at Sandy Ridge Cemetery (feature no. 3NW-C/C11,15-19). As the method only
considers the soil nail behind the passive zone as shown in Fig. 3, the elastic
elongation of steel bar is deducted from the total soil head movement of the
above retrieved pull-out tests for the comparison. The critical shear
displacement uc and shear stiffness factor k (see Fig. 2) are considered to be
3mm and 150kPa/mm respectively for the retrieved data. The comparison
between the data retrieved from pull-out tests and the results obtained by the
analytical method indicates that the calculated results fairly match the retrieved
data as shown in Fig. 4.

Load Displacement Curve of Pull-out Test for TN7
300 E = 47.9GPa, D = 100mm, l = 2m, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm
250
200
Load (kN)
Pull-out test data

150
100
Analytical
method proposed
by Hong (2011)
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Movement (mm)

300 E = 47.9GPa, D = 100mm, l = 2m, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm
250
200
Load (kN)
Pull-out test data

150
100
Analytical
method proposed
by Hong (2011)
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Movement (mm)
Fig. 4 Comparison between the data in Sandy Ridge Cemetery and the
analytical method proposed by Hong (2011)

3.5 To examine the effect of different nail lengths on the pull-out response of a soil
nail, Hong (2011) plotted the relationships of pull-out force of a soil nail with
pull-out displacement for different nail lengths in normalized form. In Fig. 5,
normalized pull-out force P/Pc is plotted against the pull-out displacement ratio
Up of a soil nail with different nail lengths, where Pc is the critical pull-out force
defined by multiplying the shear stress with the contact area between soil and
nail (i.e. Pc = -kucπDl) and Up is defined as follows:
U p 1
1 2 2
2
 
w p  w p tanh 1  w p  ---------- (6)
Dk 4kl 2
where   l  l  and
EA ED
wp  l p l
Fig. 5 Variations of normalized pull-out force with pull-out displacement

ratio of a stiff soil nail at different nail lengths
(Source: Hong 2012)
Instead of normalized curves as shown in Fig. 5, the actual value of pull-out

force is plotted against that of pull-out displacement for easy explanation as
shown in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6, it is observed that a longer soil nail in the passive
zone of a slope can sustain a larger pull-out force compared to a shorter soil nail
when the same pull-out displacement is reached.

500 E = 57.2GPa, D = 100mm, d = 40mm, uc = 2mm, k = 35kPa/mm
450
400
350
Pull-out force, P (kN)
0.5m
300
1m
2m
250
5m
200 10m
20m
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pull-out displacement, u (mm)
Fig. 6 Load-displacement curve of a soil nail at different nail lengths

[modified from the normalized curves by Hong (2011)]
It is mentioned that the grouted length of soil nails is typically 2m long for pull-
out tests; but the permanent soil nails are fully grouted for the performance tests.
To study the effect on pull-out response of a soil nail during pull-out and
performance tests, the load-displacement curve of a fully grouted soil nail (8m
grouted length) is determined by the analytical method with the same design
parameters in Fig. 4 (E = 47.9GPa, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm). By comparing
with the calculated results of the pull-out test (2m grouted length), Fig. 7
indicates that the soil movement of 8m grouted soil nail is smaller than that of
2m grouted soil nail at the same pull-out force within the elastic phase. This
implies that the soil nail movement during performance test is smaller than that
during the pull-out test even at the same pull-out force because of longer
grouted length. For example, the pull-out displacement is about 4mm for the
soil nail with 2m grouted length while the pull-out displacement is about 2mm
for the soil nail with 8m grouted length at the same load of 296kN (80% yield
stress of 32mm diameter steel bar). Therefore, using the maximum soil nail
head movement in the pull-out test to estimate the allowable movement in the
performance test is questionable and the acceptance criteria of the performance
test should be revised.

1200 E = 47.9GPa, D = 100mm, d = 32mm, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm
Normalized pull-out force, P (kN) 1000
800
600
400
200
Grouted length = 2m
Grouted length = 8m
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pull-out displacement, u (mm)
Fig. 7 Load-displacement curve of soil nails with different grouted lengths

using Hong’s method

4. Behaviour of Soil Nail under Pull-out Force – Numerical Method
4.1 The above paragraphs concluded that using the maximum soil nail head
movement in the pull-out test to estimate the allowable movement in the
performance test is questionable, and in this section, the behaviour of a soil nail
(especially the effect of the quality of grout) during a typical performance test
will be studied. In this study, an elasto-plastic finite element computer program
“Plaxis” is adopted to model the load-displacement curve of a pull-out test data
(TN7) for slope stabilization works at Sandy Ridge Cemetery (feature no. 3NW-
C/C11,15-19) and the results are compared with the actual pull-out test data as
shown in Fig. 8.
In Plaxis, there are two parameters Tmax and R required in modelling of soil nail.
Tmax is the maximum frictional resistance that the soil nail interface can sustain,
i.e. a failure criterion used to distinguish between elastic and plastic interface
behavior. For elastic behavior, only small relative displacement can occur
within the interface (between grout body and the soil), and for plastic behavior,
large permanent slippage may occur.
For R factor, it relates to the interface strength between structural elements (e.g.
pile or wall) and the surrounding soil strength (friction angle and cohesion). For
real soil-structure interaction, the interface is weaker and more flexible than the
associated soil layer, which means that the value of R should be less than 1. The
Plaxis User Manual suggests using 2/3 for the R if detailed information is
unavailable.
It is important to note that both Tmax and R are input data, and the Manual
recommends user to calibrate the parameters and compare with the behavior of
field testing result.
Parameters used in the numerical analysis are hence chosen such that the curve
modelled by Plaxis matches with the pull-out test data. As the maximum
friction of the pull-out test is considered to be approximately 280kN, the
ultimate skin resistance between grout and soil Tmax is assumed to be 120kN/m
(equivalent to 318kPa friction between soil and grout) for a 2m grouted soil nail
in the model. Fig. 8 shows a good agreement between the actual pull-out test
data with those by Plaxis model. The small discrepancies between the actual
data and the model may be due to the limitations of the program. For example,
the program cannot include the effect of stress release due to hole drilling and
exclude the effect of overburden pressure.

Sandy Ridge Cemetery 3NW-C/C11,15-19)
300 E = 47.9GPa, l = 2m, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm
250
200 Pull-out test data

Load (kN)
150 Plaxis model
100 Analytical method

proposed by Hong (2011)
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Movement (mm)
Fig. 8 Load-displacement curve of pull-out test data at Sandy Ridge

Cemetery modelled by Plaxis
To further obtain the load-displacement curve of fully grouted soil nail during
performance test, the length of the soil nail is increased from 2m to 8m in the
model by keeping the same design parameters with Tmax = 120kN/m. The
models with different skin resistances Tmax varying from 120kN/m to 10kN/m
and corresponding reduction factor R are then performed in order to simulate
the fully grouted soil nail with different quality levels as shown in Fig. 9. For
example, the soil nail under the curve with Tmax = 30kN/m and R = 0.25
achieves only 25% of the quality for a perfectly grouted soil nail with Tmax =
120kN/m and R = 1.0.
Load Displacement Curve by Plaxis (8m grouted length)

1000 Perfectly grouted
soil nail
900
800
700
Tmax=120kN/m R=1.0
600
Tmax= 90kN/m R=0.75
Load (kN)
500 Tmax= 60kN/m R=0.50

Tmax= 30kN/m R=0.25
400 Tmax= 10kN/m R=0.083
80% yield stress of steel bar (296kN) Performance Test (D11)
300
Performance Test (E15)
200
100
0
0.93
1.78
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Movement (mm)
Fig. 9 Load-displacement curve with different Tmax simulating the quality

level of soil nails modelled by Plaxis

4.2 The shear stress distribution along an 8m soil nail grouted into homogenous soil
is also studied by using Plaxis. The results, as shown in Fig. 10, indicate that the
distribution for different levels of pull-out force, i.e. the friction may be in the
elastic, elastic-plastic or fully plastic, as described in Hong’s model discussed in
Section 3.3. When the pull-out force is 200kN, the shear stress varies along the
nail length and tends to drop from the nail head and reduces to zero at nearly
half of the soil nail (i.e. 4m away from the nail head). When the pull-out force
increases to 800kN, the shear stress keeps constant at its ultimate limit near the
nail head and then drops to zero at about 6m away from the nail head. These
shear stress distributions imply that the pull-out force may be fully resisted by
the soil within the first few metres of the nail near the nail head during the
performance test in which the test load is generally below 200kN.
400
Pull-out Force, T = 200kN
350 Pull-out Force, T = 800kN
300
Shear Stress (kN/m 2)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Pull-out 0 2 4 6 8 10
force, T Distance along soil nail (m)
Fig. 10 Shear stress distribution along an 8m soil nail grouted into

homogenous soil obtained by Plaxis
As it is expected that the soil near the slope surface is relatively weaker than the
soil at nail tip which is tested during the pull-out test, the actual nail movement
during performance test should be larger than the nail movement estimated by
Plaxis.
4.3 Two performance test data (D11 & E15) retrieved from the same slope feature
no. 3NW-C/C11,15-19 are fitted into the curves modelled by Plaxis as shown in
Fig. 9.
If the soil nails are perfectly grouted and installed completely in the strong soil
as in the pull-out test, the movement should be less than 0.5mm under the test
force of 120kN. It is found that the test data of performance tests fall within the
curve of the soil nail with Tmax = 10kN/m and R = 0.083 as shown in Fig. 9.
Theoretically, it may imply that these two soil nails can only achieve 8.3% of
the overall quality of an 8m perfectly grouted soil nail.
However, as discussed in Section 4.2, the soil near the surface may have
sustained all the pull-out force. Since the soil near the slope surface is relatively
weaker than the soil at the tip, the actual nail movement during performance test
would be larger than the nail movement estimated for the soil at the tip.

Fig. 11 shows the nail movement estimated by both Plaxis and Hong’s (2011)
method when a weaker soil mass surrounding soil nail is assumed (i.e. to reduce
the c,  and Tmax in Plaxis and soil stiffness k in Hong’s method). For strong soil
at tip, Tmax=120kN/m (equivalent to 318kPa friction between soil and grout) is
assumed, whereas the soil at surface, Tmax=40kN/m (equivalent to 106kPa
friction) is assumed. Typical range of friction between grout and soil obtained
from Armour et al (2000) in FHWA Report- Micropile Design and Construction
Guidelines is shown in Table 2 for reference. The actual nail movement during
performance test matches with the weak soil model under this low pull-out force.
Table 2 Typical range of friction between grout and soil

Typical range of grout to ground
Soil Description
nominal strength (kPa)
Silt & Clay (some sand)
35-70
(soft, medium plastic)
Silt & Clay (some sand)
50-120
(stiff, dense to very dense)
Sand (some silt)
70-145
(fine, loose-medium dense)
Sand (some silt, gravel) 90-215
Gravel (some sand)
95-265
(medium-very dense, cemented)
(Source: Armour et al 2000)
Load Displacement Curve (8m grouted length)

900 By Plaxis (c=17kPa, ø=38˚, Tmax=120kN/m, R=1.0)
By Plaxis (c=5kPa, ø=32˚, Tmax=40kN/m, R=1.0)
800 By Hong's formula (uc=2mm, k=160kPa/mm)
By Hong's formula (uc=2mm, k=60kPa/mm)
700
Performance Test (D11)
Performance Test (E15)
600
Load (kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Movement (mm)
Fig. 11 Load-displacement curve modelled by both Plaxis and Hong’s (2011)

method with weaker soil parameters
In addition to above factor, this under-estimation of soil nail quality may be

explained by the measurement error of the instruments set up for low
displacement range or the quality of grout for the whole length of 8m is not as
good as the 2m long in pull-out test and the limitations of the computer program
Plaxis as mentioned in Section 4.1. Despite these limitations, the discrepancy is
insignificant in the consideration of acceptance criterion for performance tests.
5. Proposed Revision to Acceptance Criterion of Performance Test
5.1 Dr Wong in his paper has developed a revised analytical equation for the
acceptance criteria of the performance test based on the elastic theories, which
is a more logical assessment for the current performance test. However, there
are still limitations to his equation (especially that his equation relies on the
pull-out displacement from the pull-out tests). Therefore, a simple equation will
be derived to determine the allowable maximum soil nail head movement ef as
the acceptance criterion for performance test, which aims to verify the quality of
grout during the installation works. Though such derived equation may not
accurately represent the stress distribution along a soil nail, it is more rational
than the existing acceptance criteria and hence, can serve as a better quality
control of the installed soil nails. Project officer should always pay attention to
any sign of abnormalities during the grouting operations, e.g. excessive grouting
loss or abnormal grouting durations. The performance test can only act as
another quality control of the installed soil nails in addition to good site
supervision which is always important for ensuring quality works.
5.2 Proposed new acceptance criterion
5.2.1 The main purpose of the performance test is to check the quality of the installed
soil nails, but not to assess the real behaviour of the soil nail, and thus it is
recommended that a proposed new acceptance criterion can be adopted similar
to the one used for tension piles as in the Code of Practice for Foundations (the
“Foundation Code”) issued by Buildings Department (BD 2004). The criterion
for the tension pile testing in the Foundation Code is similar to that developed
by Davisson (1972). The code defines that a pile is deemed to have failed if the
total extension exceeds the allowable total extension calculated by Equation (7)
during the loading test.
2WL D
Allowable total extension =   4mm ---------- (7)
EA 120
where D = least lateral dimension of pile in mm
W = design pile capacity under working load
L = nett length of pile
A = cross sectional area of pile
E = Young's modulus of pile
In Equation (7), the allowable total extension consists of elastic deformation of

pile and the term of “D/120+4mm”. According to Davisson(1972), the term of
“D/120mm” is assumed to be the displacement required to mobilize the toe
resistance of the pile and 4mm is assumed to be the further displacement
required to reach the ultimate load. It also uses the full length of the pile for
elastic deformation ignoring the effect of shaft skin friction. Obviously, this is
not the real behaviour of a pile but as an acceptance criterion for ultimate
capacity of pile using Davisson method generally accepted in Hong Kong and
the US. This “D/120” is generally in line with those required to fully mobilize
the skin friction as shown in Fig 12 and 13.

Figure 12 Relationship of shear resistance with shear displacement at pile-
soil interface
(Source: modified from Frizzi and Meyer 2000)
Fig 13a Normalized side load Fig 13b Normalized side load
transfer for drilled shaft in cohesive transfer for drilled shaft in
soil cohesionless soil
(Source: O'Neill and Reese 1999) (Source: O'Neill and Reese 1999)
Similarly, as an acceptance criterion for the performance test of soil nails, it is

also assumed that all resistance/ slip occurs at the tip of the soil nail and there is
no frictional resistance along the body of the soil nail during the performance
test. Again, this is not the real behaviour of a soil nail, and it is used only as the
acceptance criterion for the upper bound pull-out displacement of a performance
test.
In the proposed new acceptance criterion, like the concept of Dr Wong, the
equation determining maximum soil nail head movement ef is therefore the sum
of maximum elastic elongation of the soil nail (enail)f and maximum elastic soil
movement (esoil)f under test load in performance test (Tp)performance. The

following paragraphs will discuss the computation of the terms (enail)f and
(esoil)f.
5.2.2 Maximum elastic elongation of the soil nail (enail)f

Dr Wong in his paper stated the maximum elastic elongation of soil nail
depends on the validity of the assumed soil shear stress distribution along the
nail/soil interface. Table 3 shows some typical examples of shear stress
distribution along the soil nail.
Table 3 Typical examples of shear stress distribution along the soil nail
Type Description Shear stress profile (enail)f
(i) Shear stress linearly (T p ) performance L

decreases from the (Tp)performance
soil nail head to zero 3EA
at the tip.
(ii) Shear stress remains (T p ) performance L

constant along the (Tp)performance
soil nail. 2 EA
(iii) Shear stress linearly 2(T p ) performance L

increases from zero (Tp)performance
at the soil nail head 3EA
to the tip.
(iv) Shear stress only (T p ) performance L

contributes at the soil (Tp)performance ~
nail tip. EA
where L is the length of soil nail and EA is the rigidity of the soil nail
Similar to the shear stress distribution obtained by Plaxis in Fig. 10, it is

considered that either Type (i) or (ii) may be adopted to truly represent the shear
stress distribution along the soil nail when the soil is assumed to be
homogeneous along the soil nail. However, in real situation it is expected that
the soil near the nail head is relatively weaker within the active zone. The
location of maximum shear stress developed may shift towards the tip of soil
nail when the pull-out force increases. This change of distribution profile may
result in the under-estimation of (enail)f and failure in performance test. For the
purpose of acceptance of installed soil nails as said earlier, it can be assumed
that all pull-out forces are resisted by the tip of the soil nail and there is no
frictional resistance along the body of the soil nail, and hence Type (iv) with
full elastic elongation of soil nail is adopted in the revised acceptance criterion.
Obviously, it is an assumption that is generous for the acceptance criteria of
performance test.
Apart from the shear stress distribution, the determination of (enail)f depends on
the rigidity EA of the soil nail. Dr Wong adopted EA of steel bar to calculate the
elastic elongation of the soil nail. However, in the analytical method proposed

by Hong (2011), equivalent EA was adopted and obtained by the following
equation:-
EAequivalent  Egrout Agrout  Esteel Asteel  ---------- (8)

where E grout = elastic modulus of cement grout
Esteel = elastic modulus of steel bar
where=
Agrout cross area of cement grout
Asteel = cross area of steel bar
Because of this inconsistency, a study on the effect of EA has been carried out
by adopting the revised equation with these two different EA. The results will be
presented and discussed in the later section.
5.2.3 Maximum elastic soil shearing displacement along the grout/soil interface (esoil)f
In the equation developed by Dr Wong, (esoil)f is calculated by the elastic soil
shear modulus Gsoil which is obtained from the results of pull-out test. However,
Dr Wong concluded that Gsoil can vary very considerably from site to site as a
result of the variation in ground conditions as well as drilling methods and
equipment. Even within the same site, the ground conditions and groundwater
table condition can also vary from location to location. In addition, the value of
Gsoil may not be easily determined without further verification during the pull-
out test as discussed in the previous section.
Similar to the term of “D/120+4mm” in the acceptance criterion for loading test
of tension piles, a predetermined value of (esoil)f is therefore proposed to
determine the upper bound pull-out displacement of a performance test. As it is
expected that the soil nail is loaded mainly within the elastic zone during the
performance test, Fig. 2 illustrates that (esoil)f shall be considered to be smaller
than the critical shear displacement uc. Luo et al (2000) summarized test results
as shown in Fig. 14by Cartier and Gigan (1983), Lim and Tan (1983), Murray
et al. (1980), Billam (1972), Chang et al (1977) and Taylor (1948) , and his
summary indicated that uc lies between 0.8mm and 5.6mm, where 2.5 – 5.6mm
as the most common value. uc varying from 2mm to 8mm was also adopted by
Hong (2011) for comparison between his analytical calculations and test data.
Furthermore, according to the previous pull-out test data as shown in Annex C,
the results indicate that 46 out of 47 estimated uc are less than 5mm. In order to
provide an acceptance criterion that is not too stringent and yet serves the
purpose of quality control, it is recommended that (esoil)f is assumed to be the
value of “D/120+4mm”, i.e. 5mm, in the calculation of the soil nail movement
ef during the performance test.

Fig. 14 Frequency versus critical shear displacement
(Source: Luo et al 2000)
5.3 Validation of revised acceptance criterion of the performance test

Based on the above studies, the equation determining the allowable maximum
soil nail head movement during performance test is proposed as follows:-
e f  enail  f  esoil  f  (Tp ) performance L EA  5mm ---------- (9)
A study has been carried out by adopting Equation (9) on the data retrieved
from the previous pull-out and performance tests as shown in Table 1. The
results are included in Annex D. The results show that none of the performance
tests fails when the revised equation is adopted with EA of the steel bar. It is
obvious that the allowable soil nail movement ef becomes smaller and a stricter
acceptance criterion is attained when the equivalent EA is applied. However, it
is found that there are only two of test data out of total 75 performance tests
being failed when the equivalent EA is adopted. As the EA of the soil nail is one
of the main factors affecting the allowable movement ef of the performance test,
further discussion was held in the SE Meeting in December 2012. It was
considered that grout may have cracked under tension during the performance
test, and therefore it was concluded to adopt a more generous approach that only
the steel bar is used. This is in line with the method specified in the Foundation
Code for tension pile testing.
5.4 Introduction of creep test requirements

As mentioned above, our current GS does not include the creep test; but
requires that the deformation in the last 10 minutes should not be larger than
0.05mm which is similar to the creep test requirements as per other national
standards/ specifications. On the other hand, creep test to 2 times the working
load following other national standards/ specifications has been specified for
pull-out tests.
According to Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 – Soil Nail Walls
published by FHWA, acceptance criteria requires that creep movement between
the 1- and 10-minute readings, at maximum test load, must be less than 1 mm.
Should the measured creep movement exceed 1mm, the creep movement
between the 6- and 60-minute readings must be less than 2 mm at maximum test

load. In order to study the feasibility of introduction of creep test, the previous
performance test records as shown in Table 1 have been checked against the
creep test requirements of FHWA. As there is no movement record at 1 minute
in the previous data, the movement between 0 minute and 10 minutes has been
adopted in the study and it is considered that this movement is more
conservative. The results in Annex E show that all previous records (except
slope 9SE-B/C102 due to no detail movement recorded) can satisfy the
acceptance criterion as specified in FHWA. Therefore, it is recommended that
the acceptance criterion of creep test as specified in FHWA should be
introduced in our GS to ensure that the nail design loads can be safely carried
throughout the structure service life.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Existing acceptance criteria of performance tests using the maximum movement
obtained in pull-out tests is considered inappropriate.
6.2 The maximum allowable soil nail head movement is proposed to be revised as
follows:
e f  enail  f  esoil  f  (Tp ) performance L EA  5mm
6.3 The revised equation provides a rational acceptance criterion that serves to
ensure completed soil nail can safely withstand the design loads without any
excessive movement and to check the workmanship and the quality of grout
around the soil nail.
6.4 It is recommended that the acceptance criterion of creep test as specified in
FHWA should be introduced in our GS to ensure that the nail design loads can
be safely carried throughout the structure service life.
7. Decision of SE Meeting
The conclusion and recommendations of Section 6 have been tabled and

endorsed in SE Meeting of 6.2.2013.

Acknowledgment
Structural Engineering Branch would like to record thanks to Dr H.Y. WONG, our
ex-SGE/NP, for his help in offering valuable comments on the manuscripts.
References
Armour, T., Groneck, P., Keeley, J. and Sharma S. (2000). Publication No. FHWA-SA-97-070:
Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Billam, J. (1972). “Some aspects of the behavior of granular materials at high pressure”,
Proceedings of the Roscoe Memorial Symposium, Cambridge University, 29-31 March 1971,
70-80.
BD (2004). Code of Practice for Foundations, Buildings Department, The Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
BSI (2010). BS EN 14490:2010: Execution of special geotechnical works – Soil nailing, BSI,
London.
Cartier, G. and Gigan, J.P. (1983). “Experiments and observations on soil nailing structures”,
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Helsinki, 23-26 May 1983, 473-476.
Chang, J.C., Hannon, J.B. and Forsyth, R.A. (1977). Report No. 640: Pull Resistance and
Interaction of Earthwork Reinforcement and Soil, Transportation Research Board Record,
California, Dept. of Transportation.
Davisson, M.T. (1972), “High Capacity Piles”, Proceedings of Lecture Series on Innovations in
Foundation. Construction, American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, Illinois Section,
Chicago, 22 March 1972, 81-112.
FHWA (2003). Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 - Soil Nail Walls, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Frizzi, R P and Meyer, M E (2000). “Augercast Piles: South Florida Experience”, Proceedings
of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, 5-8 August 2000, Denver, Colorado, 382-396.
GEO (2008). Geoguide 7 - Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction, Geotechnical
Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department, The Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Hong, C.Y. (2011). Study on the Pullout Resistance of Cement Grouted Soil Nails, Ph.D. Thesis,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Hong, C.Y., Yin J.H., Zhou, W.H., and Pei, H.F.. (2012). “Analytical Study on Progressive
Pullout Behavior of a Soil Nail”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 138(4), 500-507.
Luo S.Q., Tan S.A. and Yong K.Y. (2000). “Pull-out Resistance Mechanism of a Soil Nail
Reinforcement in Dilative Soils”, Soils and Foundations, 40(1), 47-56.
Misra, A., and Chen, C.H. (2004). “Analytical solution for micropile design under tension and
compression.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 22(2), 199-255.
Murray, R.T., Inst, H.E., Carder, D.R. and Krawczyk, J.V. (1980). Supplementary Report 583:
Pull-out Tests on Reinforcements Embedded in Uniformly Graded and Subject to Vibration,
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Dep. of the Environment, Dept. of Transport, UK.

O'Neill, M.W., and Reese, L.C. (1999). Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-025: Drilled Shafts:
Construction Procedures and Design Methods, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
RMS (2012). QA Specification R64 Soil Nailing, Road and Maritime Services (RMS), New
South Wales Government.
Su, L.J., Chan C.F., Yin, J.H., Shiu, Y.K. and Chiu, S.L. (2008). “Influence of overburden
pressure on soil-nail pullout resistance in a compacted fill”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 134(9), 1339-1347.
Taylor, D.W. (1948). Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Yin, J.H. Zhou, W.H., and Hong C.Y. (2010). “Pullout resistance of a soil nail in a completely
decomposed granite soil under different overburden stresses and grouting pressures”, 63rd
Canadian Geotechnical conference and 6th Canadian Permafrost Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 12-16 September 2010.
Zhou, W.H., Yin, J.H. and Hong C.Y. (2011). “Finite element modelling of pullout testing on a
soil nail in a pullout box under different overburden and grouting pressures”, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 48(4), 557-567.

Annex A
Summary of Load Tests on Soil Nail required by National Standards/ Specifications

Standard/ General Specification for Building 2012 (G.S.) BS EN 14490:2010 Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 - Soil Nail Walls QA Specification R64 Soil Nailing
Specification Architectural Services Department (Section 9.3 & Annex C) The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department Road and Maritime Services, New South Wales Government
(Clause 26.34 - 26.46) of Transportation (Section 8.5 & Appendix E) (Clause 5)
Test type Pull-out Test Performance Test Sacrificial Nail Test Production Nail Test Verification Test Proof Test Suitability Test Acceptance Test
(with creep test) (with creep test) (with creep test)
Purpose of test To verify the ultimate To check the quality of To verify the ultimate soil To demonstrate To verify the compliance with To ascertain that the contractor’s To confirm that the bond strength To act as a measure of quality
bond resistance between installed soil nails. nail to ground bond satisfactory soil nail pullout capacity and bond construction methods and/or soil is achieved and that the control.
soil and grout used in the resistance used in the performance at a load strengths used in design and conditions have not changed and reinforcement will perform as
design. design: designated by the resulting from the contractor’s that the production soil nails can designed prior to permanent soil
(1) the bond in the passive designer. The test is installation methods. safely withstand design loads nail installation.
zone; performed on the entire without excessive movement or
(2) the bond in the active length of the nail. long-term creep over the service
zone; life.
(3) the bond along the
entire length of the nail.
When tested Prior to the installation of After installation of Before, during or after During or on completion Prior to construction. During construction. Prior to the installation of Prior to the application of concrete
permanent soil nails. permanent soil nails. production works. of production works. permanent nails facing to the exposed ground.
Type of nail Soil nails subjected to pull- Permanent soil nails Sacrificial Production Sacrificial nails Production nails Additional nails to the permanent Permanent nails
used out tests shall not form nails.
part of the permanent
works.
Comments (i) Soil nail shall be Do not carry out the If necessary at each Caution should be Verification test nails shall have Production proof test nails shall The nails must have a minimum Provide a minimum debonded
grouted over the length as performance test until the different soil layer. exercised when testing both bonded and unbonded have both bonded and temporary bond length of 3m unless zone of 1 metre length of soil nail
specified in the drawings grout has reached a cube production nails not to lengths. Along the unbonded unbonded lengths. The temporary otherwise shown on the Drawings. immediately behind the facing in
or as directed by the SO. strength of 21 MPa. overstress the nail to grout length, the nail bar is not grouted. unbonded length of the test nail Provide a minimum debonded order to prevent influence on the
(typically 2m as per bond or cause damage to The unbonded length of the test shall be at least 1 m (3 ft). The zone of 1 metre length of soil nail test result from the load test
Drawing No. C2106/1 in corrosion protection. nails shall be at least 1 m (3 ft). bonded length of the soil nail immediately behind the facing in reaction system. This debonded
Appendix 4 of G.S. When a structural facing is The bonded length of the soil nail during proof production tests, order to prevent influence on the length requirement may be waived
Section 26) used the test nail should be during verification tests, LBVT, LBPT, shall be the least of 3 m (10 test result from the load test if the load test reaction system
(ii) Do not carry out the debonded within the zone shall be at least 3 m (10 ft) but not ft) and a maximum length, reaction system. This debonded will not exert any pressure on the
pull-out test until the grout of influence of the facing. longer than a maximum length, LBPTmax, such that the nail load length requirement may be waived slope surface within a metre radius
has reached a cube LBVTmax, such that the nail load does nor exceed 90 percent of an if the load test reaction system from the circumference of the test
strength of 21 MPa. does nor exceed 90 percent of the allowable value of the nail bar will not exert any pressure on the nail drill hole.
nail bar tensile allowable load tensile load during the proof slope surface within a metre radius
during the verification test. production test. The maximum from the circumference of the test
bonded length shall be based on nail drill hole.
production nail maximum bar
grade. Production proof test nails
shorter than 4 m (12 ft) in length
may be constructed with less than
the minimum 3-m (10-ft) bond
length.
Summary of Soil Nail Testing Page 1 of 4

Suggested The number of pull-out Each group of soil nails of Geotechnical Category 1 Geotechnical Category 1 The number of verification load 5 percent of the production soil Greater of: A total of 3% of permanent nails.
frequency of tests shall be as shown on the same type and those (negligible risk to (negligible risk to tests will vary depending on the nails in each nail row or a - the number specified in the Of these, half must be in the top
soil nail load the drawings or as grouted in one day shall be property or life): property or life): size of the project and the number minimum of 1 per row. The Drawings, or row, a quarter in the middle row
tests instructed by the SO. tested. The number of Optional Optional of major different ground types in Engineer shall determine the - 1% of the permanent nails but and a quarter in the bottom row.
performance tests to be which nails will be installed. As a locations and number of proof not less than 2.
GEOGUIDE 7 carried out shall be 6% of Geotechnical Category 2 Geotechnical Category 2 minimum, two verification tests tests prior to nail installation in
(Cl. 6.3.2) the total number of (no abnormal risk to (no abnormal risk to should be conducted in each soil each row.
It is common practice to permanent soil nails (in property or life): property or life): strata that is encountered.
If no comparable 2 %, min. three tests.
set the number of pullout any case at least one) in
experience of soil type, a
tests as 2 % of the total the group.
number of working soil minimum of three
nails subject to a sacrificial nails with at
minimum of two. least one sacrificial nail
per soil type. Where direct
However, designers
should exercise experience exists then
engineering judgement to sacrificial nail tests are
ensure that the number of optional.
pullout tests is sufficient Geotechnical Category 3 Geotechnical Category 3
and representative to meet (all other structures not (all other structures not
the test objectives. in Category 1 or 2): in Category 1 or 2):
A minimum of five 3 %, min. five tests.
sacrificial nails with at
least two sacrificial nails
per soil type.
Estimation of The maximum test load The test load (Tp) shall be The value of Ptest shall be The value of Ppr shall be As a minimum, verification test 150 percent of the Design Test Test the soil nails subject to 150% of working load and not
maximum test shall be either 90% of the as given by the SO, but in based on the value of based on either the design loading must be carried out to a Load (DTL) and not exceed 90 Suitability Test to pull-out failure greater than 80% of the ultimate
load yield load of the steel bar any event it shall be not design bond resistence Td bond resistance Td or the load defined by the pullout factor percent of an allowable value of or to 200% of the design working tensile strength of the soil nail bar.
of the test soil nail (Tp) or less than 1.5 times the (or working bond Tw), the working unit bond of safety times the design the nail bar tensile load. load, whichever is lower.
the ultimate soil/grout working load as specified partial factor γd (normally resistance Tw multiplied allowable pullout capacity. If the Adjust the reinforced bar diameter
bond load (Tult)unless in the drawings, and not in the range 1.5 to 2.0) and by a proof factor k, which factor of safety for pullout is 2.0, or strength grade, if necessary, at
directed otherwise by the greater than 80% of the an appropriate value for normally lies in the range then the test load must verify 200 your cost to ensure that the test
SO. yield stress of the steel bar the factor ξγ. 1.1 to 1.5. The value k percent of the allowable pullout load does not exceed 80% of the
forming the soil nail. should never exceed the capacity. Test loads in excess of UTS of the soil nail bar.
esign partial factor γd to this minimum, and preferably to
minimize the risk of failure, are recommended as they
overstressing the soil nail provide considerably more
bond, or causing damage information and may lead to more
to the corrosion protection economical drilling installation
system. methods.

Load cycles and Load the test nail in Apply an initial load (Ta) A minimum of two cycles A single cycle is normally Perform verification tests by Perform proof tests by The rate of load application must The above stages constitute one
load increments stages: from the initial equal to 20% of Tp. Then is recommended with the satisfactory. The minimum incrementally loading the incrementally loading the proof be in the range of 3 to 5 full cycle of testing.
load (Ta) via two load the soil nail up to Tp, bond resistance in the first number of load increments verification test nails to failure or test nail to 150 percent of the DTL kN/minute. At each load cycle, The rate of load application must
intermediate test loads and take measurements of cycle not exceeding Td. is 5. a maximum test load of 200 in accordance with the following hold the load at the peak test load be in the range of 3 to 5
(TDL1 and TDL2) to the the deformation with the The maximum increment percent of the Design Test Load loading schedule. Record the soil for the period of observation as kN/minute. At each load
maximum test load. TDL1 load held constant at 2 size should be sufficient to (DTL) in accordance with the nail movements at each load specified in table below. Record increment, hold the load at the test
and TDL2 are the loads that minute intervals for at define the shape of the following loading schedule. increment. the head movement at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, load for the period of observation
result in the bonded zone least 20 minutes until the load displacement graph Record the soil nail movements at 10, 20, 30, 50, 60, 90, 120, 150 as specified in table below.
tested to the design deformation in the last 10 and should not normally each load increment. and 180 minutes. Record the displacement at the
working bond strength and minutes is less than exceed 20% of the beginning and the end of the
2 times the working bond 0.05mm, or for a longer maximum cycle load. observation period. For the creep
strength respectively. An period as required by the portion of the test, record
initial load (Ta) equal to SO. Reduce the load to Ta The alignment load (AL) should movements at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20,
and the extension be the minimum load required to 30, 50, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180
5% of Tp or TDL1,
recorded. Then unload the align the testing apparatus and minutes.
whichever is smaller shall
soil nail as well as that of should not exceed 5 percent of the
be applied. All loadings
the bearing plate. The alignment load (AL) should DTL. Dial gauges should be set to
including Ta, TDL1, TDL2
be the minimum load required to “zero” after the alignment load has
and Tp shall be specified align the testing apparatus and been applied.
in the drawings or as should not exceed 5 percent of the
directed by the SO. DTL. Dial gauges should be set to The creep period shall start as
During the first two “zero” after the alignment load has soon as the maximum test load
loading cycles, maintain been applied. Following the (1.50 DTL) is applied and the nail
the intermediate loads, application of the maximum load movement shall be measured and
TDL1 and TDL2 for 60 (2.0 DTL), reduce the load to the recorded at 1 minute, 2, 3, 5, 6,
minutes for deformation alignment load (0.05 DTL and 10 minutes. Where the nail
measurement. After the maximum) and record the movement between 1 minute and
measurement has been permanent set. 10 minutes exceeds 1 mm (0.04
completed, the load shall in.), maintain the maximum test
be reduced to Ta and the The creep period shall start as load for an additional 50 minutes
residual deformation shall soon as the maximum test load and record movements at 20
be recorded. In the last (1.50 DTL) is applied and the nail minutes, 30, 50, and 60 minutes.
cycle, the test load shall be movement shall be measured and Maintain all load increments
increased gradually from recorded at 1 minute, 2, 3, 5, 6, within 5 percent of the intended
Ta straight to maximum and 10 minutes. Where the nail load.
test load and then movement between 1 minute and
maintained for 10 minutes exceeds 1 mm (0.04
deformation measurement. in.), maintain the maximum test
The measurement at each load for an additional 50 minutes
of the cycles shall be taken and record movements at 20
at time intervals of 1, 3, 6, minutes, 30, 50, and 60 minutes.
10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 Maintain all load increments
minutes. within 5 percent of the intended
load.

Interpretation The test nail shall be A soil nail shall be A sacrificial test result is A production test result is A test nail shall be considered A test nail shall be considered The suitability test will be The acceptance test will be
of results considered to be able to considered as failed if acceptable provided that at acceptable provided that: acceptable when all of the acceptable when all of the considered successful if all the considered successful if all of the
sustain the test load if the before the maximum the maximum test load Ptest at the maximum proof load following criteria are met: following criteria are met: following are satisfied: following are satisfied:
difference of nail allowable test load above the creep rate is less than 2 Ppr the creep rate is less 1. The total creep movement is 1. The total creep movement is (a) A total creep movement of less (a) A total creep movement of less
movements at 6 and 60 is reached, mm per log cycle of time, than 2 mm per log cycle of less than 2 mm (0.08 in.) between less than 1 mm (0.04 in.) during than 2 mm between the 6 and 60 than 2mm between the 6 and 60
minutes does not exceed (i) It is pulled out, or i.e. (s2−s1)/log(t2/t1) < 2 time, i.e. (s2−s1)/log(t2/t1) the 6- and 60-minute readings and the 10-minute readings or the total minutes readings is measured minutes readings is measured in
2mm or 0.1% of the (ii) The soil nail head mm < 2 mm the creep rate is linear or creep movement is less than 2 mm during Cycle 4, and Creep Test hold period and
grouted length of the test movement has exceeded ef where s1 and s2 are the where s1 and s2 are the decreasing throughout the creep (0.08 in.) during the 60-minute (b) A total creep movement of less (b) A total creep movement of less
nail. In this case, the test in which measured nail measured nail test load hold period. readings and the creep rate is than 1mm between the 60 and 180 than 1mm between the 60 and 180
shall proceed to the next ef = (Tp)performance displacements at time t1 displacements at time t1 2. The total measured movement linear or decreasing throughout minutes readings is measured in minutes readings is measured in
loading cycle or be [eb/Tp]pull-out and time t2, respectively. and time t2, respectively. at the maximum test load exceeds the creep test load hold period. Cycle 4, and Creep Test hold period and
terminated if the test nail And 80 percent of the theoretical 2. The total measured movement (c) The creep rate is linear or (c) The creep rate is linear or
The measured extension at The measured extension at
is subject to Tp. If the (Tp)performance = Test load in elastic elongation of the test nail at the maximum test load exceeds decreasing, when plotted against decreasing, when plotted against
the head of the nail is not the head of the nail is not
deformation in the last 10 performance test unbonded length. 80 percent of the theoretical the logarithm of time throughout the logarithm of time throughout
less than the theoretical less than the theoretical
minutes is larger than (Tp)pull-out = Test load in 3. A pullout failure does not occur elastic elongation of the test nail Cycle 4. Creep Test hold period.
extension of any debonded extension of any debonded
0.05mm, the load shall be at 2.0 DTL under verification unbonded length.
pull-out test length of the test nail Ldb. length of the test nail Ldb.
held longer as directed by testing and 1.5 DTL test load 3. A pullout failure does not occur
(eb)pull-out = Maximum soil
the SO. under proof testing. Pullout failure at 2.0 DTL under verification
nail head movement in
is defined as the inability to testing and 1.5 DTL test load
pull-out test under test
further increase the test load while under proof testing. Pullout failure
load (Tp)pull-out
there is continued pullout is defined as the inability to
movement of the test nail. Record further increase the test load while
the pullout failure load as part of there is continued pullout
the test data. movement of the test nail. Record
the pullout failure load as part of
the test data.
Action taken in If the nail fails to sustain For any one failure of Review soil nail Consult designer for action The Engineer will evaluate the The Engineer may require the Repeat the Suitability Test on a Where a test nail does not meet
case of non- the test load TDL1, TDL2 or performance test, select installation method and/or to be taken and approval results of each verification test. Contractor to replace some or all replacement test nail. Any the acceptance criteria, test an
compliant test Tp, terminate the test and two additional soil nails consider alternative soil to continue. Installation methods that do not of the installed production nails modifications of construction additional 2 soil nails in the
result record the nail movement from the group and carry nail length and satisfy the nail testing between a failed proof test nail procedures, replacement nails and vicinity of the non-conforming
against residual load with out further performance layout. requirements shall be rejected. and the adjacent passing proof test associated tests must be at your soil nail. If any soil nail fails an
time. The measurements tests. If either one of these The Contractor shall propose nail. Alternatively, the Engineer cost. Acceptance Test, abandon the soil
shall be taken at time 2 additional soil nails also alternative methods and install may require the installation and nail and completely remove it
intervals of 1, 3, 6, 10 and fails to reach the test load, replacement verification test nails. testing of additional proof test from the drillhole by a method
every 10 minutes the particular group of soil Replacement test nails shall be nails to verify that adjacent acceptable to the Principal. Unless
thereafter over a period for nails shall be considered installed and tested at no previously installed production otherwise instructed by the
at least two hours. Where as not complying with the additional cost. nails have sufficient load carrying Principal, fill the drillhole by
required the measurements specified requirements. capacity. Installation and testing grouting. If the failed soil nail
shall be continued and at of additional proof test nails or cannot be pulled out within 80%
intervals as directed by the installation of additional or of the UTS of the soil nail bar, cut-
SO. modified nails as a result of proof off the bar flush with the finishing
test nail failure(s) will be at no ground and grout the remaining
additional cost. part of the drillhole. Install
another soil nail adjacent to the
abandoned one for additional test
at your cost.

Annex B
Results of Using Revised Equation proposed by Dr H. Y. Wong for Past Test Data
Results of Using Revised Equation proposed by Wong (2012) for Past Test Data
Soil stratum L d D Egrout Esteel (Tp)performance (ef)performance ef (mm)

Feature No. Nail No.
soil (m) rock (m) m mm mm kN/mm2 kN/mm2 kN mm GS Wong (2012)
A6 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 140 4.07 9.12 5.72
B5 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 120 1.44 7.82 4.90
C2 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 100 1.29 6.51 4.09
C12 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 100 0.93 6.51 4.09
D7 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 80 1.86 5.21 3.27
E13 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 160 1.38 30.22 26.34
E27 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 160 5.63 30.22 26.34
3SW-C/C14 E36 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 160 3.87 48.96 45.08
F29 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 150 10.79 37.03 33.39
G7 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 80 2.00 6.78 4.84
G32 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 140 4.80 31.02 27.62
H11 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 120 2.38 4.83 N/A
H22 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 140 4.72 20.06 16.67
L4 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 120 3.08 13.49 10.58
I7 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 80 1.02 38.58 36.63
A2 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 110 2.77 18.11 15.44
3SW-C/F17
B8 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 90 1.48 14.82 12.64
Row 1-5 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 67.5 0.28 3.16 1.93
8SW-B/C12 Row 1-14 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 67.5 0.28 3.16 1.93
Row 2-10 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 80.5 0.26 3.77 2.31
9 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.50 4.69 2.87
10 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 2.05 4.69 2.87
8SW-B/CR11 14 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.67 4.69 2.87
16 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.93 4.69 2.87
11 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 54 1.92 2.53 1.55
A3 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 200 2.32 16.46 11.61
B12 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 180 7.53 10.92 6.56
3SE-D/C111 C5 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 180 6.82 12.83 8.46
D9 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 150 2.58 9.10 5.46
E3 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 150 4.03 6.96 N/A
A16 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 90 4.55 7.09 4.36
B15 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 135 9.36 17.45 13.36
C6 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 180 7.27 23.27 17.81
3SW-C/C24
C24A 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 135 3.05 9.64 5.55
E3 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 90 2.95 11.67 8.94
E11 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 90 7.85 11.67 8.94
A15 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.90 6.19 4.37
A35 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 150 2.48 28.28 25.56
A41 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 150 2.32 6.24 N/A
A62 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.66 27.48 26.27
B7 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 0.86 6.19 5.19
B18 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.16 5.74 4.74
B27 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.31 7.11 5.90
3NW-C/C15~19
B46 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 180 1.95 7.75 5.93
B64 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 180 2.08 11.06 9.24
B92 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 0.70 15.16 13.95
c21 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 150 1.76 9.21 7.70
D11 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.78 17.03 15.82
E15 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 0.93 14.19 13.18
F6 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.82 15.16 13.95
B4 6 2 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.86 5.14 2.95
12NW-C/C85
D5 6 2 8 32 100 30 205 100 2.07 4.28 2.46
A3 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 0.00 9.74 N/A
A14 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 0.79 9.74 N/A
A25 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 1.61 9.74 N/A
A34 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 1.43 9.74 N/A
B10 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 1.55 8.52 N/A
B19 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 2.31 8.52 N/A
B31 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 0.59 8.52 N/A
D25 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 0.34 6.29 N/A
9SE-B/C102
C34 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 1.17 8.52 N/A
C25 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 0.79 8.52 N/A
C15 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 1.80 8.52 N/A
C2 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 4.46 8.52 N/A
E28 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 91.5 2.01 11.08 N/A
E15 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 91.5 1.93 11.08 N/A
D8 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 3.35 6.29 N/A
E2 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 91.5 0.24 11.08 N/A
D4 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 80 0.26 6.49 N/A
A13 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 180 0.40 6.34 N/A
07SW-C/FR114 B4 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 140 0.42 9.41 N/A
A1 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 180 0.52 12.10 N/A
C11 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 150 1.21 11.05 N/A
C7 5 4 9 32 100 30 205 120 1.32 7.26 4.72
07SW-C/C117
D2 5 4 9 32 100 30 205 80 2.34 4.84 3.14
FAIL denotes test failure
"N/A" denotes that the calculated elastic lengthening of the soil nail steel bar is larger than the maximum soil nail head movement in pull-out test, and therefore e f cannot be
determined.
Annex C
Estimation of Critical Shear Displacement, uc

Estimation of Critical Shear Displacementu c
(T p ) pullout at yield L L unbond L bond E steel D d (e b ) pullout at yield (e steel ) pullout Estimated u c
Feature No. Location Nail No. 2
kN m m m kN/mm mm mm mm mm mm
PT1 127 10 8 2 205 100 32 5.90 6.16 -0.26
PT2 120.4 10 8 2 205 100 32 7.35 5.84 1.51
PT3 123 10 8 2 205 100 32 7.85 5.97 1.88
PT4 101.6 10 8 2 205 100 32 4.33 4.93 -0.60
PT5 127 10 8 2 205 100 32 8.16 6.16 2.00
PT6 180.6 10 8 2 205 100 32 10.50 8.76 1.74
PT7 123 10 8 2 205 100 32 11.88 5.97 5.91
3SW-C/C14 Wo Hop Shek Cemetery
PT8 127 10 8 2 205 100 32 7.13 6.16 0.97
PT9 71 10 8 2 205 100 32 4.83 3.45 1.38
PT10 115.8 10 8 2 205 100 32 6.75 5.62 1.13
PT11 184 10 8 2 205 100 32 9.54 8.93 0.61
PT12 184 10 8 2 205 100 32 6.84 8.93 -2.09
PT13 155.4 10 8 2 205 100 32 8.99 7.54 1.45
PT14 115.4 10 8 2 205 100 32 5.86 5.60 0.26
3SW-C/F17 Wo Hop Shek Cemetery PT1 122.2 10 8 2 205 100 32 6.34 5.93 0.41
T1 170.4 8 6 2 205 100 32 6.75 6.20 0.55
8SW-B/C12 T2 170.6 8 6 2 205 100 32 6.74 6.21 0.53
Village, Sai Kung, N.T.
T3 170.4 8 6 2 205 100 32 6.75 6.20 0.55
T4 169.2 8 6 2 205 100 32 6.68 6.16 0.52
8SW-B/CR11 T5 169.8 8 6 2 205 100 32 6.73 6.18 0.55
Village, Sai Kung, N.T.
T6 170.1 8 6 2 205 100 32 6.76 6.19 0.57
PT1 89.2 10 8 2 205 100 32 5.67 4.33 1.34
PT2 184.1 10 8 2 205 100 32 9.43 8.93 0.50
Tai Mei Tuk Water Sport
3SE-D/C111 PT3 193 10 8 2 205 100 32 12.20 9.36 2.84
Centre
PT4 202.8 10 8 2 205 100 32 10.67 9.84 0.83
PT5 193.2 10 8 2 205 100 32 10.27 9.37 0.90
PT3 71.04 12 10 2 205 100 32 6.58 4.31 2.27
PT4 132.7 12 10 2 205 100 32 9.13 8.05 1.08
3SW-C/C24 Wo Hop Shek Cemetery PT5 187.33 12 10 2 205 100 32 11.50 11.36 0.14
PT6 179.7 12 10 2 205 100 32 8.27 10.90 -2.63
PT7 174.6 12 10 2 205 100 32 9.27 10.59 -1.32
TN1 231.9 8 6 2 205 100 32 9.72 8.44 1.28
TN2 222.7 8 6 2 205 100 32 9.42 8.10 1.32
TN3 165.7 8 6 2 205 100 32 7.39 6.03 1.36
TN4 219.2 8 6 2 205 100 32 10.47 7.98 2.49
TN5 215.6 8 6 2 205 100 32 9.34 7.85 1.49
TN6 208.1 8 6 2 205 100 32 8.82 7.57 1.25
TN7 166.9 8 6 2 205 100 32 7.84 6.07 1.76
TN8 111.1 8 6 2 205 100 32 3.54 4.04 -0.50
3NW-C/C11,15-19 Sandy Ridge Cemetery
TN9 220.4 8 6 2 205 100 32 10.93 8.02 2.91
TN10 209.7 8 6 2 205 100 32 9.87 7.63 2.23
TN11 163.5 8 6 2 205 100 32 8.61 5.95 2.66
TN12 216.4 8 6 2 205 100 32 9.97 7.88 2.09
TN13 217.7 8 6 2 205 100 32 11.08 7.92 3.16
TN14 56.2 8 6 2 205 100 32 3.22 2.05 1.17
TN15 164.8 8 6 2 205 100 32 5.74 6.00 -0.26
TN16 82.7 8 6 2 205 100 32 3.73 3.01 0.72
PT1 187.8 8 6 2 205 100 32 7.56 6.83 0.73
12NW-C/C85# Silverstand Beach
PT2 241.9 8 6 2 205 100 32 9.77 8.80 0.97
TS1 203 15 13 2 205 100 25 24.59 26.23 -1.64 *
TS2 203 15 13 2 205 100 25 15.21 26.23 -11.02 *
9SE-B/C102# North Lantau Hospital
TS3 203 15 13 2 205 100 25 20.58 26.23 -5.65 *
TS4 203 15 13 2 205 100 25 24.56 26.23 -1.67 *
P1 296 15 13 2 205 100 32 21.82 23.34 -1.52 *
P2 296 15 13 2 205 100 32 19.91 23.34 -3.43 *
07SW-C/FR114# Central Kwai Chung Park
P3 296 15 13 2 205 100 32 24.03 23.34 0.69 *
P4 296 15 13 2 205 100 32 10.43 23.34 -12.91 *
Wo Yi Hop Road Recreation P1 224.6 9 7 2 205 100 32 12.92 9.54 3.38
07SW-C/C117#
Ground P2 214.5 9 7 2 205 100 32 12.35 9.11 3.24
*no yielding is observed from pull-out test data
# denotes soil nails with the end grouted in bedrock
Summary Table
Estimated u c Soil Rock
7.00 < 0mm 7 0
0mm - 1.5mm 26 2
6.00 1.5mm - 2.5mm 9 0
2.5mm - 5mm 4 2
> 5mm 1 0
Estimated uc (mm)
5.00
Total 47 4
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Soil nails installed into soil Soil nails with the end grouted in bedrock
Annex D
Results of Using Proposed New Equation for Past Test Data

Results of Using Proposed Equation for Past Test Data
Soil stratum L d D Egrout Esteel (Tp)performance (ef)performance ef (mm)

Feature No. Nail No. 2
soil (m) rock (m) m mm mm kN/mm kN/mm2 kN mm GS (EA)steel (EA)equivalent
A6 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 140 4.07 9.12 13.49 8.72
B5 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 120 1.44 7.82 12.28 8.19
C2 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 100 1.29 6.51 11.07 7.66
C12 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 100 0.93 6.51 11.07 7.66
D7 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 80 1.86 5.21 9.85 7.13
E13 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 160 1.38 30.22 14.70 9.25
E27 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 160 5.63 30.22 14.70 9.25
3SW-C/C14 E36 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 160 3.87 48.96 14.70 9.25
F29 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 150 10.79 37.03 14.10 8.99
G7 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 80 2.00 6.78 9.85 7.13
G32 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 140 4.80 31.02 13.49 8.72
H11 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 120 2.38 4.83 12.28 8.19
H22 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 140 4.72 20.06 13.49 8.72
L4 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 120 3.08 13.49 12.28 8.19
I7 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 80 1.02 38.58 9.85 7.13
A2 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 110 2.77 18.11 11.67 7.92
3SW-C/F17
B8 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 90 1.48 14.82 10.46 7.39
Row 1-5 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 67.5 0.28 3.16 8.28 6.43
8SW-B/C12 Row 1-14 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 67.5 0.28 3.16 8.28 6.43
Row 2-10 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 80.5 0.26 3.77 8.91 6.71
9 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.50 4.69 9.85 7.13
10 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 2.05 4.69 9.85 7.13
8SW-B/CR11 14 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.67 4.69 9.85 7.13
16 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.93 4.69 9.85 7.13
11 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 54 1.92 2.53 7.62 6.15
A3 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 200 2.32 16.46 17.13 10.31
B12 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 180 7.53 10.92 15.92 9.78
3SE-D/C111 C5 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 180 6.82 12.83 15.92 9.78
D9 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 150 2.58 9.10 14.10 8.99
E3 10 0 10 32 100 30 205 150 4.03 6.96 14.10 8.99
A16 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 90 4.55 7.09 11.55 7.87
B15 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 135 9.36 17.45 14.83 9.30
C6 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 180 7.27 23.27 18.10 10.74
3SW-C/C24
C24A 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 135 3.05 9.64 14.83 9.30
E3 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 90 2.95 11.67 11.55 7.87
E11 12 0 12 32 100 30 205 90 7.85 11.67 11.55 7.87
A15 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.90 6.19 9.85 7.13
A35 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 150 2.48 28.28 12.28 8.19
A41 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 150 2.32 6.24 12.28 8.19
A62 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.66 27.48 10.82 7.55
B7 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 0.86 6.19 9.85 7.13
B18 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 1.16 5.74 9.85 7.13
B27 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.31 7.11 10.82 7.55
3NW-C/C15~19
B46 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 180 1.95 7.75 13.73 8.83
B64 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 180 2.08 11.06 13.73 8.83
B92 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 0.70 15.16 10.82 7.55
c21 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 150 1.76 9.21 12.28 8.19
D11 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.78 17.03 10.82 7.55
E15 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 100 0.93 14.19 9.85 7.13
F6 8 0 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.82 15.16 10.82 7.55
B4 6 2 8 32 100 30 205 120 1.86 5.14 10.82 7.55
12NW-C/C85
D5 6 2 8 32 100 30 205 100 2.07 4.28 9.85 7.13
A3 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 0.00 9.74 17.00 8.76
A14 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 0.79 9.74 17.00 8.76
A25 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 1.61 9.74 17.00 8.76
A34 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 80.5 1.43 9.74 17.00 8.76
B10 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 1.55 8.52 17.52 8.92
B19 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 2.31 8.52 17.52 8.92
B31 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 0.59 8.52 17.52 8.92
D25 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 0.34 6.29 17.52 8.92
9SE-B/C102
C34 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 1.17 8.52 17.52 8.92
C25 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 0.79 8.52 17.52 8.92
C15 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 1.80 8.52 17.52 8.92
C2 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 4.46 8.52 17.52 8.92
E28 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 91.5 2.01 11.08 18.64 9.27
E15 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 91.5 1.93 11.08 18.64 9.27
D8 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 84 3.35 6.29 17.52 8.92
E2 9 6 15 25 100 30 205 91.5 0.24 11.08 18.64 9.27
D4 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 80 0.26 6.49 12.28 8.19
A13 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 180 0.40 6.34 21.38 12.17
07SW-C/FR114 B4 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 140 0.42 9.41 17.74 10.58
A1 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 180 0.52 12.10 21.38 12.17
C11 8 7 15 32 100 30 205 150 1.21 11.05 18.65 10.98
C7 5 4 9 32 100 30 205 120 1.32 7.26 11.55 7.87
07SW-C/C117
D2 5 4 9 32 100 30 205 80 2.34 4.84 9.37 6.91
FAIL denotes test failure
Annex E
Checking the Previous Performance Test Data against the Acceptance Criterion of Creep
Test as specified in FHWA
Checking the Previous Performance Test Data against the Acceptance Criterion of Creep Test as specified in FHWA
Previous Performance Test Data Nail movement, e (mm) Acceptance Criteria

FHWA GS 2012
Soil stratum L d D e0 min e10 min e20 min e30 min e40 min (2)-(1) (3)-(2) (4)-(3) (5)-(4)
Feature No. Nail No.
soil (m) rock (m) m mm mm (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) <1mm <0.05mm <0.05mm <0.05mm
A6 10 0 10 32 100 3.92 4.07 4.07 0.15 0.00
B5 10 0 10 32 100 1.44 1.44 1.44 0.00 0.00
C2 10 0 10 32 100 1.29 1.29 1.29 0.00 0.00
C12 10 0 10 32 100 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.00
D7 10 0 10 32 100 1.78 1.86 1.86 0.08 0.00
E13 10 0 10 32 100 1.36 1.38 1.38 0.02 0.00
E27 10 0 10 32 100 5.51 5.60 5.63 0.09 0.03
3SW-C/C14 E36 10 0 10 32 100 3.86 3.86 3.87 0.00 0.01
F29 10 0 10 32 100 10.79 10.79 10.79 0.00 0.00
G7 10 0 10 32 100 1.95 1.97 2.00 0.02 0.03
G32 10 0 10 32 100 4.78 4.80 4.80 0.02 0.00
H11 10 0 10 32 100 2.26 2.32 2.38 0.06 0.06
H22 10 0 10 32 100 4.69 4.71 4.72 0.02 0.01
L4 10 0 10 32 100 3.07 3.08 3.08 0.01 0.00
I7 10 0 10 32 100 0.99 1.01 1.02 0.02 0.01
A2 10 0 10 32 100 2.39 2.56 2.69 2.75 2.77 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.02
3SW-C/F17
B8 10 0 10 32 100 1.41 1.45 1.48 0.04 0.03
Row 1-5 8 0 8 32 100 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.00
8SW-B/C12 Row 1-14 8 0 8 32 100 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.00 0.01
Row 2-10 8 0 8 32 100 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.01 0.00
9 8 0 8 32 100 1.43 1.48 1.49 0.05 0.02
10 8 0 8 32 100 1.93 2.00 2.05 0.08 0.05
8SW-B/CR11 14 8 0 8 32 100 1.40 1.66 1.67 0.26 0.02
16 8 0 8 32 100 1.84 1.90 1.93 0.06 0.03
11 8 0 8 32 100 1.92 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.00
A3 10 0 10 32 100 2.31 2.32 2.32 0.01 0.00
B12 10 0 10 32 100 7.50 7.53 7.53 0.03 0.00
3SE-D/C111 C5 10 0 10 32 100 6.78 6.80 6.82 0.02 0.02
D9 10 0 10 32 100 2.58 2.58 2.58 0.00 0.00
E3 10 0 10 32 100 3.91 4.01 4.03 0.10 0.02
A16 12 0 12 32 100 4.64 4.54 4.55 -0.10 0.01
B15 12 0 12 32 100 9.34 9.34 9.36 0.00 0.02
C6 12 0 12 32 100 7.08 7.26 7.27 0.18 0.01
3SW-C/C24
C24A 12 0 12 32 100 3.03 3.04 3.05 0.01 0.01
E3 12 0 12 32 100 2.95 2.95 2.95 0.00 0.00
E11 12 0 12 32 100 7.85 7.85 7.85 0.00 0.00
A15 8 0 8 32 100 1.83 1.88 1.90 0.05 0.02
A35 8 0 8 32 100 2.45 2.48 2.48 0.03 0.00
A41 8 0 8 32 100 2.25 2.29 2.32 0.04 0.03
A62 8 0 8 32 100 1.61 1.65 1.66 0.04 0.01
B7 8 0 8 32 100 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.00 0.02
B18 8 0 8 32 100 1.14 1.16 1.16 0.02 0.00
B27 8 0 8 32 100 1.30 1.31 1.31 0.01 0.00
3NW-C/C15~19
B46 8 0 8 32 100 1.89 1.94 1.95 0.05 0.01
B64 8 0 8 32 100 2.04 2.07 2.08 0.03 0.01
B92 8 0 8 32 100 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.01 0.00
c21 8 0 8 32 100 1.69 1.75 1.76 0.06 0.01
D11 8 0 8 32 100 1.65 1.77 1.78 0.12 0.01
E15 8 0 8 32 100 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.03 0.01
F6 8 0 8 32 100 1.74 1.82 1.82 0.08 0.00
B4 6 2 8 32 100 1.86 1.86 1.86 0.00 0.00
12NW-C/C85
D5 6 2 8 32 100 2.06 2.07 2.07 0.01 0.00
A3 9 6 15 25 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
B10 9 6 15 25 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
D25 9 6 15 25 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
*9SE-B/C102
C34 9 6 15 25 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
E28 9 6 15 25 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
D8 9 6 15 25 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
D4 8 7 15 32 100 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.02 0.01
A13 8 7 15 32 100 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.00
07SW-C/FR114 B4 8 7 15 32 100 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.00
A1 8 7 15 32 100 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.00
C11 8 7 15 32 100 1.20 1.20 1.21 0.00 0.01
C7 5 4 9 32 100 1.09 1.10 1.10 0.01 0.00
07SW-C/C117
D2 5 4 9 32 100 2.09 2.10 2.10 0.01 0.00
*No detail movement record of 9SE-B/C102 can be retrieved.

Information Paper On Acceptance Criteria For Performance Test of Soil Nail (2013)

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

Information Paper On Acceptance Criteria For Performance Test of Soil Nail (2013)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Information Paper

Acceptance Criteria for Performance Test of Soil Nail

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 1 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

1.2 Existing Acceptance Criteria of Performance Test

A soil nail will be considered as failed if before reaching the maximum

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 2 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Sandy Ridge Cemetery (3NW-C/C11,15-19)

250 TN1 TN2

Fig. 1 Load-displacement curve of pull-out tests at slope stabilization works

2. Theoretical Study of the Behaviour of Soil Nail under Pull-out Force – HY

where (esteel ) f = maximum elastic lengthening of the soil nail steel

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 4 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Table 1 Summary of pull-out and performance tests retrieved from

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 5 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

3. Theoretical Study of the Behaviour of Soil Nail under Pull-out Force –

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 6 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 7 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 8 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Sandy Ridge Cemetery (3NW-C/C11,15-19)

300 E = 47.9GPa, D = 100mm, l = 2m, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm

Pull-out test data

Sandy Ridge Cemetery (3NW-C/C11,15-19)

300 E = 47.9GPa, D = 100mm, l = 2m, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm

Pull-out test data

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 9 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Fig. 5 Variations of normalized pull-out force with pull-out displacement

Instead of normalized curves as shown in Fig. 5, the actual value of pull-out

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 10 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Fig. 6 Load-displacement curve of a soil nail at different nail lengths

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 11 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Normalized pull-out force, P (kN) 1000

Fig. 7 Load-displacement curve of soil nails with different grouted lengths

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 12 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 13 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

300 E = 47.9GPa, l = 2m, uc = 3mm, k = 150kPa/mm

200 Pull-out test data

150 Plaxis model

100 Analytical method

Fig. 8 Load-displacement curve of pull-out test data at Sandy Ridge

Load Displacement Curve by Plaxis (8m grouted length)

500 Tmax= 60kN/m R=0.50

Fig. 9 Load-displacement curve with different Tmax simulating the quality

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 14 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Fig. 10 Shear stress distribution along an 8m soil nail grouted into

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 15 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Table 2 Typical range of friction between grout and soil

Load Displacement Curve (8m grouted length)

Fig. 11 Load-displacement curve modelled by both Plaxis and Hong’s (2011)

In addition to above factor, this under-estimation of soil nail quality may be

In Equation (7), the allowable total extension consists of elastic deformation of

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 17 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

Similarly, as an acceptance criterion for the performance test of soil nails, it is

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 18 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

5.2.2 Maximum elastic elongation of the soil nail (enail)f

(i) Shear stress linearly (T p ) performance L

(ii) Shear stress remains (T p ) performance L

(iii) Shear stress linearly 2(T p ) performance L

(iv) Shear stress only (T p ) performance L

Similar to the shear stress distribution obtained by Plaxis in Fig. 10, it is

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 19 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc

EAequivalent  Egrout Agrout  Esteel Asteel  ---------- (8)

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 20 of 24 File code : TestOnSoilNail.doc