Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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.
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
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.
300
TN11 TN12
150 TN13 TN14
TN15 TN16
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Movement (mm)
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.
e f esteel f esoil f 2(Tp ) performance L d 2 Esteel (Tp ) performance DGsoil ------- (2)
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).
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.
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 coshx
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 = kD EA
lp = length of plastic zone
uc = critical shear displacement
D = diameter of soil nail grout hole
250
200
Load (kN)
100
Analytical
method proposed
by Hong (2011)
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Movement (mm)
250
200
Load (kN)
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)
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
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)
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.
800
600
400
200
Grouted length = 2m
Grouted length = 8m
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pull-out displacement, u (mm)
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.
250
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Movement (mm)
800
700
Tmax=120kN/m R=1.0
600
Tmax= 90kN/m R=0.75
Load (kN)
100
0
0.93
1.78
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Movement (mm)
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)
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.
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Movement (mm)
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
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)
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
Table 3 Typical examples of shear stress distribution along the soil nail
Type Description Shear stress profile (enail)f
where L is the length of soil nail and EA is the rigidity of the soil nail
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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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