Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 July 2012
Received in revised form 12 November 2012
Accepted 6 December 2012
Available online 16 January 2013
Keywords:
Pressure-grouted soil nail
Pullout resistance
Shear strength reduction method
Stability of reinforced slope
3D nite element analysis
a b s t r a c t
Pressure-grouted soil nails have been increasingly used for stabilizing slopes. The pullout resistance of a
soil nail is the main factor for reinforcing the slope stability. In this study, a two-dimensional axisymmetric nite element model is developed to simulate the pullout behavior of a pressure-grouted soil nail. This
model is veried with eld pullout tests result of a pressure-grouted soil nails by comparing with gravitygrouted soil nails. Based on the analysis, a three-dimensional nite element model is proposed for stability analysis of a slope reinforced with pressure-grouted soil nails using the shear strength reduction
method. A series of numerical slope stability analyses for a slope composed of weathered soil are performed to investigate the effects of grouting pressure on the slope stability and the behavior of the soil
nails. Special attention is given to the installation effect of a pressure-grouted soil nails. It is found from
the result of this study that the pressure-grouted soil nails increase the safety factor by fty percent in a
slope by increasing the stiffness of the nailed slope system. Numerical analysis results conrm the fact
that the pullout resistance of a soil nail is the main factor for stabilizing slopes rather than the shear resistance of the soil nail.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Soil nails have been commonly used for slope stabilization by
enhancing the shear resistance of soil and/or the pullout resistance
at the interface between the grout and adjacent soil mass because
of their low construction cost and simple installation procedure
[4,18]. Although most of soil nails are installed without pressure
(gravity-grouted soil nails), pressure-grouted soil nails installed
with a high grouting pressure (3001000 kPa) have been increasingly used to improve slope stability in South Korea and other
places in the world. While pressure-grouted soil nail construction
requires additional equipment (such as a pump to place grout under constant pressure and a packer system to attain the grouting
pressure) and higher construction quality control than conventional soil nails, the pressure-grouted soil nail has many advantages compared with the conventional gravity-grouted soil nail
such as: (1) enhancement of grouting formation in a borehole;
(2) increase in diameter of a soil nail; (3) increase in shear strength
at the interface between the soil nail and the surrounding soil; and
(4) reduction of the number of reinforcing soil nails [19].
The pullout resistance of a pressure-grouted soil nail is the main
factor for designing a slope reinforced with soil nails rather than
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Jeong), woghdjfk@gmail.com (J. Kim).
0266-352X/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.12.003
254
Eeq
Eg Ag Es As
Ag As
where Eeq is the equivalent elastic modulus; Eg and Es are the elastic
modulus of cement grout and deformed steel bar, respectively; Ag
and As are the cross-sectional area of cement grout and deformed
steel bar, respectively.
The interface between the soil nail and the surrounding soil is
described as perfectly rough, thus no relative movement between
the nail and the soil is assumed to take place. While this assumption, which does not allow the interface slippage behavior, may result in overestimating the shear strength of the smooth interface, it
has been widely adopted for simulating the shear behavior of the
rough interface. Therefore, shear failure assumed to occur in the
soil near the soil nail rather than at the interface between grout
and soil. The shear behavior between grout and soil is simulated
by the material behavior of the soil. The nite element mesh of
the soil adjacent the soil nail is dimensioned with thin-layer ele-
Soil
Nail Length(LT)
Nail
LT
Bonded
Length
(LB=2/3LT)
Unbonded
Length
(LU=1/3LT)
255
gravity
nail
remove
nail element
fixed boundary
grouting pressure
soil
(a) Step 1
(b) Step 2
fixed boundary
remove
fixed boundary
add nail element
(d) Step 5
(e) Step 6
(f) Step 7
Fig. 2. Numerical analysis procedure for simulating construction process and pullout test for a pressure-grouted soil nail: (a) step 1, (b) step 2, (c) steps 34, (d) step 5, (e)
step 6, and (f) step 7.
256
250
Gravity-Grouted
Soil Nails
Pressure-Grouted
Soil Nails
Pressure-Grouted
This study(FEM)
Measured(average)
Gravity-Grouted
This study(FEM)
Measured(average)
Unbonded
Length=1m
200
Pullout load, kN
105mm
Length=3m
105mm
Bonded
Length=2m
Steel bar
150
100
50
Weathered Soil
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Vertical displacement, mm
Fig. 4. Comparisons of predicted and measured loaddisplacement relationships
(Pusan case).
Fig. 3. Information about the soil and test soil nails (Pusan case).
Table 1
Equivalent material properties of the soil nail used in numerical analysis.
Material properties
Steel bar
Grout
Soil nail
Diameter D (m)
Area, A (m2)
Original property
0.029
0.00066
77.0
210,000
0.2
0.008
Equivalent property
0.076
24.0
28
23,000
37,250
0.3
0.29
Poissons ratio, m
Table 2
Material properties of the weathered soil and soil nail (Pusan case).
Material properties
Weathered soil
Poissons ratio, m
Friction angle, / ()
Dilatancy angle, w ()
Cohesion, c (kPa)
33.32
0.34
31
10.5
15.88
16.66
257
250
Unbonded
Length=1m
105mm
200
Pullout load, kN
Unbonded
Length=1m
Pressure-Grouted
Soil Nails
Bonded
Length=3m
Bonded
Length=2m
105mm
Weathered Soil
150
100
50
Nail Length=3m
This study(FEM)
Measured
0
0
10
Nail Length=4m
This study(FEM)
Measured
15
20
Vertical displacement, mm
Fig. 6. Comparisons of predicted and measured loaddisplacement relationships
(Gyeonggi case).
PNG 1
PNG 2
Fig. 5. Information about the soil and test soil nails (Gyeonggi case).
c0trial
1
F
trial
c0
2
tan /0
u0trial arctan
A 3D FE model to simulate the slope stability analysis for a reinforced slope reinforced with pressure-grouted soil nails using ABAQUS is developed in this study. The 3D FE mesh used in analysis is
shown in Fig. 7. The slope composed of weathered soil has an angle
of 60 to the horizontal plane, a slope height of 10 m, and a slope
width of 3 m. The soil nails installed vertically to the slope surface
has a diameter of 105 mm and a total length of 12 m with an unb-
where c0 and /0 are real shear strength parameters and Ftrial is a trial
safety factor.
The essence of the nite element method with shear strength
reduction method is the reduction of the soil shear strength
parameters until the slope fails. Usually, initial Ftrial is set to be sufciently small so as to guarantee that the system is stable. Then the
value of Ftrial is increased by Finc values until the slope fails. After
F trial
Table 3
Material properties of the weathered soil and soil nail (Gyeonggi case).
Material properties
Weathered soil
Poissons ratio, m
Friction angle, / ()
Dilatancy angle, w ()
Cohesion, c (kPa)
34.37
0.30
42
6.0
17.67
258
20m
Plate
20m
25m
Unbonded
Length=3m
15m
Bonded
Length=9m
Soil Nail
Soil Nail
Table 4
Material properties for the 3D FE model for slope stability analysis.
Material properties
Weathered soil
Poissons ratio, m
Friction angle, / ()
Dilatancy angle, w ()
Cohesion, c (kPa)
100
0.30
25
20.0
20.0
the slope fails, the Fstart is replaced by the previous Flow and Finc is
reduced by 1/5. Then the same procedure is repeated until the Finc
259
Step 2: The natural slope is modeled by removing the plate elements and by using soil properties for the soil nail elements. All
boundaries of the model are xed against displacements. Initial
ground stresses are applied to the 3D FE model (Fig. 9b).
Step 3: The elements for the soil nails are removed to simulate
the drilling process, then grouting pressures are applied at the
boundaries of the boreholes for the bonded zone while the
boundaries of boreholes for the unbounded zone are xed
against displacements (Fig. 9c).
Step 4: The boundaries of the borehole for the bonded zone are
xed against displacements after nishing the pressure grouting process (Fig. 9d).
Step 5: The elements for the plates and the soil nails are added
with their material properties while the displacement boundaries for the shafts of the soil nails remain xed (Fig. 9e).
Step 6: The displacement boundaries for the shafts of the soil
nails are removed to release and transmit the locked-in stresses
and displacement in the surrounding soil to the soil nail elements (Fig. 9f).
Step 7: The slope stability analysis is performed by applying the
gravity forces with unxed boundaries for the upper sides of
the model (Fig. 9g).
On the other hand, same analysis procedure except the steps for
the pressure grouting is used for the stability analysis of a slope
reinforced with gravity-grouted soil nails.
3.4. Reinforcing effects of pressure-grouted soils on slope stability
In order to investigate the reinforcing effects of the pressuregrouted soil nails, numerical slope stability analyses for a slope
are performed under three different conditions: (1) natural slope
without any reinforcement; (2) reinforced slope with gravity-grouted soil nails; and (3) reinforced slope with pressure-grouted soil
nails. Fig. 10 shows results of stability analyses for a slope under
these three different reinforcement conditions. Safety factors for
the natural slope, the gravity-grouted soil nail reinforced slope
and the pressure-grouted soil nail reinforced slope are 1.15, 1.55
and 1.72 respectively. Based on the analysis results, using pressure-grouted soil nails exhibits obvious reinforcing effect for the
slope stability with increasing the safety factor by around fty
and eleven percent compared with safety factors for natural slope
and gravity-grouted reinforced slope, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows developed slope failure surfaces for the gravitygrouted and pressure-grouted soil nails from the maximum plastic
strain distribution plots. The slope reinforced with pressure-grouted soil nails exhibits expanded failure surface from the slope surface compared with that for the gravity-grouted reinforced slope.
This expanded failure surface was also observed in the laboratory
load tests on the model soil nail reinforced retaining wall performed by Kim et al. [13]. It was found from their tests that the failure surface expanded toward the backll as the stiffness of the wall
increased. Therefore, it is presumed that the grouting pressure may
increase the stiffness of the reinforced slope system.
3.5. Behavior of a pressure-grouted soil nail installed in the reinforced
slope
The axial and shear loads developed along the soil nails are obtained from the previous analysis results to investigate the reinforcing effects of soil nails for slope stability. Fig. 12 illustrates
the distributions of axial loads and shear loads developed along
the lower soil nails for both gravity-grouted and pressure-grouted
soil nail reinforced slopes at the limit state. It is noted that higher
axial loads distribution is observed for the pressure-grouted soil
nail than the gravity-grouted soil nail, whereas the shear loads
260
(b) Step 2
(a) Step 1
fixed boundaies
grouting pressure
remove soil nail elements
fixed boundaries
(c) Step 3
add plate elements
(e) Step 5
(d) Step 4
fixed boundaries
(f) Step 6
gravity
(g) Step 7
Fig. 9. Numerical procedure of slope stability analysis for a slope reinforced with pressuregrouted soil nails: (a) step 1, (b) step 2, (c) step 3, (d) step 4, (e) step 5, (f) step 6, and
(g) step 7.
261
140
Type of Reinforcement
Natural Slope
Gravity-Grouted Soil Nails
Pressure-Grouted Soil Nails
2.5
FS=1.72
120
Maximum axial load=113kN
100
Axial load, kN
2
FS=1.55
1.5
80
60
1
40
FS=1.15
0.5
20
0
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
10
12
14
Safety factor
Fig. 10. Safety factors for a slope under three different reinforcement conditions.
0.12
0.1
Shear load, kN
developed along both types of soil nails are very low and can be
ignored.
Basically, the axial loads may develop at the soilgrout interface
in the form of shear stresses around the soil nail perimeter. These
shear stresses are represented by the axial loads within the soil
nail. Since the shear stresses act along the circumferential area of
the soil nail, the axial loads at the ends of the soil nails must be
zero. And the maximum axial loads were developed at the upper
part of soil nail (24 m from the soil nail head) where shear stresses at the soilgrout interface reverse directions. The location of
maximum axial loads may coincide with the divide between the
active soil wedge and the stationary soil mass. However, the actual
magnitude and location of maximum axial loads varies with the
soil deformation pattern, construction sequence, and required
reinforcement [2].
Additional slope stability analyses are performed for three different slope angles of 45, 60 and 80 to investigate the effects
of slope angle on the behavior of soil nails. Fig. 13 shows the distributions of axial and shear loads developed along the soil nails with
different slope angles. The distribution of axial resistance increases
with increase in the slope angle. Changes in the distributions of
shear loads with different slope angles are negligible and the overall values of shear loads are very low and can be ignored. Therefore,
as shown in Figs. 12 and 13, it is shown that the pullout resistance
of a soil nails is the main factor for reinforcing the slope stability
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
10
12
14
Failure Surface
(Gravity-Grouted
Soil Nail)
Failure Surface
(Gravity-Grouted
Soil Nail)
Failure Surface
(Pressure-Grouted
Soil Nail)
Soil Nail
Effect of grouting preesure
Fig. 11. Failure surfaces for a reinforced slope with (a) gravity-grouted soil nails and (b) pressure-grouted soil nails from the maximum plastic strain distribution plots.
262
140
120
Slope=80
Slope=60
Slope=45
Axial load, kN
100
80
60
40
20
10
12
14
Acknowledgments
Shear load, kN
-0.2
References
-0.4
-0.6
Slope=80
Slope=60
Slope=45
-0.8
10
12
14
4. Conclusions
In this study, a 2D axisymmetric FE model is developed to simulate the pullout behavior of a pressure-grouted soil nails. The simulation of the pressure grouting process is included in the FE
model. This numerical model and analysis result is favorably veried by eld pullout test results. Based on the analysis, a 3D FE
model for stability analysis of a slope reinforced with pressure-grouted soil nails is proposed implementing the numerical analysis
technique used in the 2D FE model using the shear strength reduction method. A series of numerical slope stability analyses are performed for three different types of slopes to investigate the effects
of grouting pressure on the slope stability and the behavior of the
soil nails at the limit state. Based on the ndings of this study, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Based on the analysis results from the soil nail pullout simulations, a reasonably good agreement of loaddisplacement relationships is obtained between the numerical analysis results
and eld pullout test results for both gravity-grouted and pres-
[1] ABAQUS. Theoretical users manual version 6.10. Pawtucket: Hibbit, Karlsson &
Sorensen; 2010.
[2] Banerjee S, Finney A, Wentworth T, Bahiradhan M. Evaluation of design
methodologies for soil-nailed walls: an evaluation of soil-nailing analysis
packages, vol. 3. FHWA Publication no. WA-RD 371.3; 1998.
[3] Boulon M. Basic features of soil structure interface behavior. Comput Geotech
1989;7(2):11531.
[4] Chan RKS. Safe and green slope: the holistic Hong Kong approach. In:
Proceeding of safe and green slopes, HKIE geotechnical division 25th annual
seminar, HKIE-GDC, Hong Kong; 2005. p. 126.
[5] Chang KT, Milligan GWE. Effects of the transition zone in a nailed wall model
test. In: Ochiai, Yasufuku, Omie, editors. Proceeding of earth reinforcement,
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands; 1996. p. 3338.
[6] Chu LM, Yin JH. A laboratory device to test the pull-out behavior of soil nails.
Geotech Test J 2005;28(5):115.
[7] Desai CS, Zaman MM, Lightner JG, Siriwardane HJ. Thin-layer element for
interfaces and joints. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1984;8(1):1943.
[8] Duncan JM, Dunlop P. Slopes in stiff ssured clays and soils. J Soil Mech Found
Div ASCE 1969;95(5):46792.
[9] Franzen G. Soil nailing: a laboratory and eld study of pullout capacity. PhD
dissertation, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden; 1998.
[10] Ghionna VN, Mortara G. An elastoplastic model for sandstructure interface
behaviour. Geotechnique 2002;52(1):4150.
[11] Huang M, Jia CQ. Strength reduction FEM in stability analysis of soil slopes
subjected to transient unsaturated seepage. Comput Geotech 2009;36:93101.
[12] Hong CY, Yin JH, Zhou WH, Pei HF. Analytical study on progressive pullout
behavior of a soil nail. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;138(4):5007.
[13] Kim HT, Kang IK, Kwon YH. Inuence of facing stiffness on global stability of
soil nailing systems. J Kor Geoenviron Soc 2004;5(3):5160 [in Korean].
[14] Junaideen SM, Tham LG, Law KT, Lee CF, Yue ZQ. Laboratory study of soilnail
interaction in loose completely decomposed granite. Can Geotech J
2004;41(2):27486.
[15] Lee CF, Law KT, Yue ZQ, Junaideen SM. Design of a large soil box for studying
soil-nail interaction in loose ll. Soft Soil Eng 2001;4138.
[16] Park HK, Lee SR, Kim NK, Kim TH. A numerical study of the pullout behavior of
grout anchors underreamed by pulse discharge technology. Comput Geotech
2013;47:7890.
[17] Pun WK, Shiu YK. Design practice and technical developments of soil nailing in
Hong Kong. In: Proceeding HKIE geotechnical division 27th annual seminar:
geotechnical advancements in Hong Kong, Hong Kong; 2007. p. 197212.
[18] Schlosser F. Behaviour and design of soil nailing. In: Proceeding of recent
developments in ground improvement techniques, Bangkok, Thailand; 1982.
p. 399413.
263
[27] Won JH, You KH, Jeong SS, Kim SI. Coupled effects in stability analysis of pile
slope systems. Comput Geotech 2005;32:30415.
[28] Yin JH, Su LJ. An innovative laboratory box for testing nail pull-out resistance
in soil. ASTM Geotech Test J 2006;29(6):45161.
[29] Yin JH, Su LJ, Cheung RWM, Shiu YK, Tang C. The inuence of grouting pressure
on the pullout resistance of soil nail in compacted completely decomposed
granite ll. Geotechnique 2008;59(2):10313.
[30] Yin JH, Su LJ. Inuence of grouting pressure and overburden stress on the
interface resistance of a soil nail. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2009;135(9):1198208.
[31] Zhou YD, Cheuk CY, Tham LG. Numerical modeling of soil nails in loose ll
slope under surcharge loading. Comput Geotech 2009;36:83750.
[32] Zienkiewicz OC, Humpheson C, Lewis RW. Associated and non-associated
visco-plasticity
and
plasticity
in
soil
mechanics.
Geotechnique
1975;25(4):67189.
[33] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL, Nithiarasu P. The nite element method. 6th ed.
Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005.