Jacked-in Pipe Reinforcement of a Deep Excavation in Soft Soil

CHEANG W.L., TAN S.A., YONG K.Y.

Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore ,Singapore

GUE S. S.
Gue & Partners Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia

AW H.T., YU H.T., LIEW Y.L.

Specialist Grouting Engineers Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia

ABSTRACT: Soil nailing is an in-situ ground improvement method which has gained increasing
acceptance in this region, but is not generally recommended for clayey and organic soils. This restriction
is empirically based, and little information exists on the performance of soil nails when the method is
applied in these soil conditions. To address this gap, a deep excavation for the construction of a 3/12
storey deep basement carried out using a novel technique, which combines Contiguous Bored Piles and
Jack-in pipe reinforcements, was instrumented to monitor its performance. This paper will highlight
briefly the instrumentation program, which was set up mainly as a safety control and to monitor the
interaction of this retaining system with the surrounding soft soil. In addition, numerical analyses were
conducted to study the soil-structure interaction of this new construction technique. Data from the field
monitoring and FEM analyses will be presented with regard to the effectiveness this system particularly
the jacked-in pipes in supporting the deep excavation. It follows from this comparison that the field
instrumentation and numerical analyses have proved to be valuable tools in assessing the deformations to
be expected at critical stages of the excavation. The project shows that jacked-in pipe in soft clayey soils
is possible, at least for short term and can be effectively used as temporary support in deep excavation.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Deep basement construction is becoming
increasingly expensive, nullifying the justification
for overconservative designs. One of the ways in
which construction cost can be reduced is by
employing fast and cost-effective deep basement
construction techniques. This paper will highlight
the use of Jacked-in Pipe Reinforcement in support
of Contiguous Bored Pile walls.
The field instrumentation has proven to be a
valuable tool in assessing the validity of the initial
design assumptions The Observational method
(Peck, 1969) was practised whereby field results
obtained from the adequately instrumented soil
nailed retaining system were used in the back
analysis of design parameters. The back calculated
parameters were implemented in the Finite
Element Analyses to predict deformations in the
subsequent construction phases.
Soil nailing is an in-situ soil reinforcement
technique, which in the last three decades has been
successfully used in France, United Kingdom,
United States and Southeast Asia. The origins of
soil nailing partly stems from the Reinforced Earth
techniques, rock bolting and multi-anchorages
systems (Recommendations Clouterre 1993). Soil
nailing has been primarily used for temporary
retaining structures for basement excavation and
permanent cut-slope stabilisation. Jacked-in pipe
retaining system, which is similar to soil nailed
system is not common. This technique has gained
momentum in Malaysia mainly for the ease and
speed of installation and it is also very cost
effective.
However, with the advent of numerous research
programs (Schlosser, 1986; Elias and Juran, 1990),
increase in the state-of-understanding and
experience, both abroad (Schlosser, 1982;Bruce
and Jewell, 1986, Bruce and Jewell 1987, Juran et
al., 1990;) and local (Tan, et al., 1998; Luo et al.,
1998; Tan et al., 1999) will promote the use of this
technique, both as a temporary and permanent
structure.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The condominium project which is located at UEP
Subang Jaya of Malaysia consists of three

1
condominium towers of 33 storey and a single 20
SPT 'N' VS DEPTH ( m ) PLOT
storey office tower. Due to the huge demand for 0 10 20
'N'
30 40 50 60
0

parking space, an approximately three storey deep SPT 'N' GREATER THAN 50

vehicular parking basement will be required. The

deep excavation, through a filled layer of very 10

loose silty sand and soft peaty clay varies from

11m to 13m. The presence of very soft soil

DEPTH ( m )
condition and the fast track requirement of the 20

project, Contiguous Bored Pile (CBP) walls

supported by Jack-in Pipes in six to seven rows
were utilised to stabilise and control the lateral 30

displacement and surface settlement. The

supported face is approximately 6900 m2. 40

BH / DA 7 BH / DA 8 BH / DA 10 BH / DA 6
BH / DA 11 BH / DA 2 BH / DA 3 BH / DA 4
BH / DA 5 BH / DA 9 BH / DA 12 BH / DA 13
BH / DA 14 BH / DA 1

Fig. 2: SPT ‘N’ Values: Scatter Plot

3.0 GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

The general subsurface soil profile of the site,

shown in Fig.1 consists in the order of succession a
firm clayey SILT, a loose to medium dense SAND
followed by firm to hard clayey SILT. The soils
are inter-layered by thick deposits of very soft dark
peaty CLAY.
The plot of SPT’N’ values, illustrated in Fig.2,
Photo 1: The Retaining System; Contiguous Bored Piled
Walls (CBP) and Jack-in Soil Nails shows significant scattering which is commonly
found in tropical residual soils in the area.
However the trend of the scatter plot shows that the
BH / DA 8
Depth 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
'N'
0
SHEAR STRENGHT 'KPa)
10 20 30 40 50
'N'
SPT ‘N’ values increases with depth. For the
BH / DA7 Depth 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Firm Reddish
0

5
0

Firm Reddish
0

9
underlain soft clayey material, the registered SPT
Brown Yellowish
Final Water
Table 5
clayey SILT 7 Final Water
Table
5
Brown Yellowish
clayey SILT
Loose to Medium
2 ‘N’ values were zero and Vane Shear strength
5.8mbgl 8 5 4

varies from 5 kPa to 20 kPa. For analysis purposes

5 5
5.8mbgl
Dense Grey Fine
Loose to Medium 11
to Coarse SAND 6

Dense Grey Fine

10
to Coarse SAND
0
10

4.8
11.8

10 0
7

the subsoil was simplified into representative

10 10 10

0
6.8
36 Very Soft Dark
Grey Silty CLAY
1

0
layers, namely Granular material and Cohesive
Very Soft Dark 40.5 with Fine Sand

15
Grey Silty CLAY
with Fine Sand 15
0

15
21.5

30.5 15
and decay roots
15
0 material.
0 0
and decay roots 20

31
0 0
31

20
Very Soft Grey
Silty Clayey Fine 20
0

3 20 20
Very Soft Grey
Silty Clayey Fine 20
6

9
4.0 THE JACKED-IN PIPES AND
SAND
Medium Dense
Grey Fine to
18

20
SAND

Medium Dense
15

13
CONTIGUOUS BORED PILE SYSTEM
Coarse Grey Fine to
27 14
25 SAND 25 25 25 Coarse 25
Very Stiff to SAND
Hard Whitish
Grey Brown
29

50
16

38
Jacked-in Pipes Reinforcement
30
Clayey SILT
30
50

50 30 30
Very Stiff to
Hard Whitish 30
47

44
Mild steel pipes which functions as soil nails are
Grey Brown
End of B/H Clayey SILT 37
installed by hydraulic jacking. This method has
39

35 35 35 35
Very Dense
Whitish Grey 35 40 proven to be an efficient and effective technique
Brown Fine
to Coarse SAND
End of Borehole 50
for excavation support, where conventional soil
40 40 40 40 40 nails and ground anchors have little success in such
Typical Subsoil Profile
difficult soft soil conditions. Such conditions are
sandy collapsible soil, high water table and in very
soft clayey soils where there is a lack of short-term
Fig. 1:Typical Subsoil Profile pullout resistance.

2
 In view of the close proximity of commercial
buildings to the deep excavation, a very stiff
retaining system is required to ensure minimal
ground movements the retained side of the
excavation. Contiguous Bored Piles which acts as
an earth retaining wall during the excavation works
were installed along the perimeter of the
excavation and supported by Jack-in pipes.
In the initial design of the retaining system,
conventional ground anchors were proposed, but
the jacked-in pipes were accepted as an alternative
to ground anchors due to speed and cost-
effectiveness of the system. Relatively, larger
movements are required to mobilised the tensile
and passive resistance of the jacked-in pipes when
compared to ground anchors. However it was
anticipated that the ground settlement at the
retained side and maximum lateral displacement of
the wall using this system would still be within the
required tolerance after engineering assessment.
INSTALLATION OF SOIL NAILS
TEMPORARY BOLT
CONTIGUOUS BORED PILE WALL
JACKING PLATFORM
SOIL NAIL (1 5 0 m m
D I A M E T E R S T E E L T U B E)
HYDRAULIC JACK
REACTION PLATE
RIG NO.1 RIG NO.2
Fig. 3: Schematic of Jack-in Soil Nails
5.0 SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION
The layout of Contiguous Bored Pile retaining wall
as detailed in Fig. 3 forms the basement wall of the
substructure. The retaining wall system consists of
closely spaced 1000mm diameter bored piles near
the commercial buildings and 800mm diameter for
area away from the commercial buildings. To
facilitate the Top-Down excavation of the deep
basement, roller pipes of 150mm diameter were
jacked in sub-horizontally after each excavation
stage. The phases of the basement construction are
described as follows (currently during the writing
of this paper, construction has only reached the 4th
level of excavation):
Stage 0 Installation of Contiguous Bored Pile
Wall
Stage 1 Excavation 1: Excavation to 2.7m below
ground level
Stage 2 Jacked-in pipe: Level 1 at 1.7m below ground
level.
Stage 3 Excavation 2. Excavation to 4.5m below
ground level.
Stage 4 Jacked-in pipe: Level 2 at 3.5m below ground
level.
Stage 5 Excavation 3: Excavation to 6m below ground
level.
Stage 6 Jacked-in pipe: Level 3 at 5m below ground
level
Stage 7 Excavation 4: Excavation to 7.5m below
ground level
Stage 8 Jacked-in pipe: Level 4 at 6.5m below ground
level
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION
In view of this relatively new excavation support
technique, in-situ soft soil conditions and the close
proximity of the commercial buildings to the deep
excavation, a performance monitoring program
was provided. Firstly, as a safety control. Second,
to refine the numerical analysis using field
measurements obtained at the early stages of
construction and third, to provide an insight into
the possible working mechanisms of the system.
The geotechnical instrumentation program
consists of 18 vertical inclinometer tubes located
strategically along the perimeter of the Contiguous
Bored Pile wall and 30 optical survey makers
(surface settlement points) near the vicinity of the
commercial buildings. This instrumentation would
provide sufficient readings to monitor the
performance of the excavation system.
The locations of these instruments are detailed
in Fig. 4 for the inclinometers and Fig. 5 for the
optical survey points. Vertical inclinometer
readings were taken once weekly and the surface
settlement readings were taken once every two
weeks. However when critical stages were
involved, the frequency of the readings was
increased both as a safety control and to provide
sufficient field data for numerical modelling.
Fig. 6 illustrates the trend of horizontal
displacement of the wall as measured through
inclinometers installed at the site.
3
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1

8
PROPOSED UNDERGROUND CARPARK
18
9
CONTIGUOUS BORED PILE WALLS

17 16 15 10
14
13 11
VERTICAL INCLINOMETERS
12

Fig. 4: Layout of Vertical Inclinometers

30 30 30
30
- INCLINOMETER 2 - - INCLINOMETER 8 - -INCLINOMETER 9- - INCLINOMETER 10 -

25 25 25 25

20 20 20
20
Depth (m)

15
15 15 15

10
10 10 10

5
5 5
5

0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Horizontal Displacement (m) Horizontal Displacement (m)
Horizontal Displacement (m) Horizontal Displacement (m)

30 30 30
30
-INCLINOMETER 11- -INCLINOMETER 12- -INCLINOMETER 15-
INCLINOMETER -16

25 25 25 25

20 20 20 20

15 15 15 15

10 10 10 10

AFTER STAGE
6(NAIL LEVEL
5 3,5m BGL) 5 5 5
AFTER STAGE
5(EXCAVATION
NO.3,6mBGL)
AFTER STAGE
7(EXCAVATION
0 NO 4,7.5mBGL) 0 0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0
Horizontal Displacement (m) Horizontal Displacement (m) Horizontal Displacement (m) Horizontal Displacement (m)

Fig. 6: Measured Horizontal Displacements of Contiguous Bored Pile Walls supported by Jacked-in Soil Nails

4
 COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

7.0 NUMERICAL MODELLING

5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4

3
2
3
2
Design methods recommended at the present time is
3
2
3
2
3
2
RETAINED SIDE
1 1
still based on classical limit equilibrium methods,
1 1 1

EXCAVATED SIDE
which only evaluate the stability of the structure.
ROW E ROW D
However when constructing deep excavations in
ROW C ROW B ROW A

highly urbanise areas, the Serviceability Limit State

CONTIGUOUS BORED PILE SUPPORTED
BY JACK-IN SOIL NAILS
of a retaining system will be the governing factor.
LEGEND

SETTLEMENT POINTS The Contiguous Bored Pile wall supported by

internally stabilising jacked-in pipes is essentially a
OPTICAL SURVEY POINTS FOR SETTLEMENT MONITORING

Fig. 5: Layout of Settlement Markers 3-D numerical problem. This can be seen from the
results of the instrumentation as indicated in Fig. 6
where deformations are restrained at the corners due
to edge effect (inclinometer 8) and the maximum
occurring approximately at the centre of the wall
(Inclinometer 9 & 10).
Due to the complex soil-pipe, soil-wall and pipe-
wall interaction, a global soil arch will be formed
(Schlosser et al., 1997;Benhamida et al, 1997). In
addition to this, local arching will develop between
the pipes, and therefore creating concentration of
stresses. With good engineering judgement and
SURFACE SETTLEMENT OF RETAINED GROUND
A. 3-DIMENSIONAL PLOT & B.CONTOUR PLOT

Fig. 7: Variation of vertical settlement from field practise a 3-D problem can still be effectively
performance modelled as a 2-D plane strain problem. The
PLANE STRAIN ANALYSIS CONDITION
numerical analyses were performed using “Plaxis”
(Brinkgreve and Vermeer, 1998) a Finite Element
Method computer program under plain strain
condition (Fig. 8). The Contiguous Bored Pile wall
and hollow steel pipes were modelled using a linear
elastic model and its material properties converted
to the equivalent 2D parameters through area ratio
factors (Al-Hussaini & Johnson, 1978). The model
pipes were elastic and pinned to the Contiguous
Bored Pile wall. An elastic -perfectly plastic model
Fig. 8: Plane Strain Analysis (Plaxis V 7.11) was used to model the behaviour of the soil-pipe
Stiffness G vs Working Strain interface. The model, which uses the Coulomb
criteria, distinguishes between the elastic behaviour,
where small displacements can occur within the
TYPICAL STRAIN RANGES

interface, and plastic interface behaviour (slip).

RETAINING WALLS

It is well established that the subsoil stiffness is

Stiffness G

FOUNDATIONS

not a constant value and is dependent on strain

levels. Mair (1993) reported the changes of soil TUNNELS

stiffness with different working strain levels for

various geostructural systems as detailed in Fig. 9.
0.0001 0.001
The typical working range of retaining walls is in
0.01

Shear Strain %
0.1 1 10

the order of 0.01-0.1%.It highlighted the inadequacy

Fig. 9: Typical Shear Modulus and working shear strains of conventional laboratory tests in evaluating the in-
for different geostructures (after Mair, 1993) situ soil stiffness and the soil

5
 stiffness obtained from these tests is several
magnitudes lower than the in-situ soil stiffness.
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT : NUMERICAL MODELLING
AND MEASURED The undrained soil modulus for the Soft Peaty
Excavation Lvl 3
Clays were assumed to be Eu = 700 Su (Gue,
105 1997(b); Gue, 1998) for all stages of excavation.
The soil modulus for the fill soils (Sands) were
Lo?se Sandy SILT
Excavation Lvl 1
100
assumed to be E’ = 3500N based on Stroud and
Excavation Lvl 2 Butler (1975), where the N Standard Penetration
Excavation Lvl 3 95
Loose Silty
SAND
Test Value. For the Clayey Silt, Eu = 700 Su and Su
Dark Soft 90 = 5.5N was adopted. In addition to this, the soil is
DEPTH (m)

Peaty Final Excavation Level

CLAY
undergoing unloading and therefore the in-situ soil
85
stiffness will be a few magnitudes higher compared
Medium Dense
Grey Fine -
to loading condition.
Coarse SAND 80
Fig. 10a and 10b presents comparisons between
Very Stiff-Hard Brownish SILT
75 the FEM analysis and field performance for 6m and
7.5m deep excavation respectively. The results show
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02
70
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
that the Young’s modulus for the various soil layers
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT ( m) were very close to the assumed values and were
Inclinometer 8/6/99 Excavate 3 Nailing Lvl 2
used in the subsequent deformation predictions and
parametric studies.
The predicted deflections of the wall at the 3rd
and 4th stage of excavation show approximately a
very similar deflection profile to the measured field
Fig. 10 a
profile. The wall is behaving in a fashion very
similar to a cantilevered wall and the pipes seemed
to be restraining the deflection at the upper section
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT : NUMERICAL MODELLING of the wall. Generally, most of the measured field
AND MEASURED
Nailing Lvl 3 & Excavation Lvl 4
performance displays such a restraint cantilever
profile as shown in Fig. 6. However, the prediction
105
for all stages particularly the 4th stage was slightly
100
over-predicted. There are few possibilities that may
Loose Sandy

SILT
Excavate Lvl 1

Excavate Lvl 2
have influenced the predicted deformation profile,
Exacavte Lvl 3
Excavate Lvl 4
95
notably small strain behaviour, where at very small
Loose Silty SAND

Dark Soft Peaty 90

strains the soil exhibits a much higher soil modulus
DEPTH (m)

CLAY
Final Excavation Level (Jardine et al 1985; Burland, 1989) and therefore the
85 soil tends to deform less.
Medium Dense
Grey Fine -
80
Coarse SAND
An analysis was performed without the nail
Very Stiff-Hard Brownish SILT
75
inclusions, where the retaining wall was modelled as
a cantilever wall. Fig. 11 compares the deflection
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02
70
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
profile between the cantilevered wall and
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT ( m)
‘improved’ wall at 7.5m deep of excavation. It
Inclinometer 21/6/99 Excavate-4 Nail-3 shows a distinct restraint offered by the jacked-in
pipe inclusions. The influences of pipe bending on
the reinforcement mechanism and has been a subject
of great debating (Bridle & Barr, 1990; Jewell &
Pedley; 1990; Schlosser, 1991; Jewell & Pedley,
Fig. 10b 1991). Fig. 12 compares the deflection profile of
retaining wall where the jacked-in pipes were
Fig. 10: Measured Field Performance and Finite modelled using;
Element Analysis for; a) Nail Level 2 & Excavation
Level 3, b) Nail Level 3 & Excavation Level 4

6
 (geotextile element in Plaxis) with only the axial
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT OF CONTIGUOUS BORED
stiffness. Fig. 12 shows that bending stiffness has an
PILE WALL WITH AND WITHOUT SOIL NAIL INCLUSIONS influence in the reinforcement mechanism, where
105
jacked-in pipes modelled using the beam elements
show a smaller displacement compared to the
100
geotextile elements in all of the numerical stages. A
large-scale experimentation in soft clays conducted
95
by Oral et al (1998) has indicated that due to lack of
nail-pullout, nail bending played a major role in the
90
reinforcement mechanism. A similar behaviour was
DEPTH (m)

observed in this project where the initial nail pullout

was extremely low and increases through time. This
85
reinforced the idea that additional analyses of
different failure mechanisms should be addressed in
80
different soil types particularly in soft soils.
The numerical surface settlement was found to
75
be less compared to the measured field surface
settlement. This may be due to the fact that the
70
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 jacked-in pipes were modelled as beam elements
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT ( m)
which are essentially plate elements ‘smeared’
Inclinometer 21/6/99 across a unit width in the plain strain analysis. This
Excavate-4 will restrain the soil from ‘flowing’ around the nails.
CANTILEVER-WITHOUT SOIL NAILS However this assumptions is valid if the horizontal
spacing of the pipes is closely spaced. The other
Fig. 11:Parametric: Contiguous Bored Pile wall possible reason could be the increase in effective
with and without Soil Nail Inclusions overburden pressure when water table has dropped
after excavation.
The Influence of Bending Stiffness in the Reinforcement
SURFACE SETTLEMENT
Mechanism)
DISTANCE FROM WALL (RETAINED SIDE)
105
0
Settlement (m)

-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
Finite Element Analysis
100 Measured -0.04
-0.05
-45 -35 -25 -15 -5
Distance from Wall (Retained Side) m
95
Fig. 13: Surface Settlement: Measured Field
Performance and Prediction from Finite Element
Depth of wall (m)

90 Analysis

85
8.0 CONCLUSION

Instrumentation has an important role in

80
geotechnical engineering, specifically when the
state-of-practice of a particular geosystem is ahead
75
of the state-of-art.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
The performance
Horizontal Displacement (m) monitoring program
Axial Resistance Alone ( Excavation Level 4)
Axial and Bending Stiffness (Excavation Level 4)
implemented in this project was not solely used as a
Axial Resistance Alone ( Excavation Level 3)
Axial and Bending Resistance (Excavation Level 3)
safety control, but as well as to gain an insight into
the possible working mechanisms. Back calculated
design parameters were used in the prediction of
Fig. 12: Parametric Analysis, Influence of Bending
Stiffness on the Reinforcement Mechanism deformations in the subsequent construction phases
and this has greatly reduced the risks, which comes
a) beam elements with an axial stiffness and a from the implementation of the new retaining
flexural rigidity, and b) flexible elastic elements system. This project shows that jacked-in pipes in
7
soft clayey soils is possible at least for short term 13. Jewell, R.A, Pedley, M.J, (1990), Soil Nailing
and can be effectively used as a temporary support Design: The Role of Bending Stiffness, Ground
in deep excavation. Engineering, March, pp.30-36.
14. Jewell, R.A, Pedley, M.J, (1991), Discussion to
F.Schlosser, Ground Engineering, Nov, pp.34-
9.0 REFERENCE 39.
1. Benhamida, B., Schlosser, F., Unterreiner, P., 15. Luo,S.Q,Tan,S.A,Yong,K.Y,(1998),
(1997), Finite Element Modelling of Soil Nailed Stabilisation of Basement Excavation with Soil
Wall: Earth Pressures and Arching Effects, Nails and Ground Anchors, 2nd International
Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Balkema, Conference on Ground Improvement techniques:
pp.245-250. 8-9 October ,Singapore pp.327 –336
2. Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Vermeer, P.A., (1998), 16. Mair,R.J,(1993) Developments in Geotechnical
PLAXIS-Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Engineering Research: Application to Tunnels
Analyses-Version 7.A.A.Balkema. and Deep Excavations, Unwin Memorial Lecture
3. Bruce, D.A, Jewell, R.A, (1986) Soil Nailing 1992,Proc.of.the.Inst.of Civil Engineers-Civil
Application and Practice-Part 1,Ground Engineering.pp.27-41.
Engineering, Vol.19, No.8, pp.10-15. 17. Oral,T,Sheahan,T.C.,(1998)The Use of Soil
4. Bruce, D.A, Jewell, R.A, (1987) Soil Nailing Nails in Soft Clays, Design and Construction of
Application and Practice-Part 2, Ground Earth Retaining Systems,Proc. Of Sessions of
Engineering, Vol. 20, pp.21-33. geo-Congress 1998,pp. 26 –40.
5. Bridle, RJ, (1989) Soil Nailing-Analysis and 18. Peck,R.B,(1969),Advantages and Limitations of
Design, Ground Engineering, Sep 1989,pp.52- the Observational Method in Applied Soil
56. Mechanics,Geotechnique,Vol.19,No.2pp.171-
6. Bridle, R.J., Barr, BIG, (1990) Soil Nailing, 187
Ground Engineering, July/August, pp.30-33. 19. Schlosser, F., (1982), Behaviour and Design of
7. Burland, J.B., (1989) Small is Beautiful-The Soil Nailing, Proc. Intl. Symp, Asian Institute of
Stiffness of Soil at Small Strains, Ninth Laurits Technology, Bangkok, 29Nov-3 Dec,
Bjerrum Memorial Lecture, Canadian 1982,pp399-419.
Geotechnical Journal, Vol.26, pp.499-516. 20. Schlosser,F,(1991), The Multi-criteria Theory in
8. Elias, V., Juran, I., (1991) Soil Nailing for Soil Nailing,Ground Engineering,Nov.,pp.30-
Stabilisation of Highway Slopes and 33.
Excavations” United States Federal Highway 21. Tan, S.A, Luo, S.Q, Yong, K.Y, (1998),A Pull-
Administration, Publication No. FHWA-RD-89- out Test of Soil Nail in Singapore Marine
193, June. Clay,2nd International Conference on Ground
9. French National Research Project Improvement techniques: 8-9 October
CLOUTERRE (1993), Recommendations ,Singapore pp.499-504.
Clouterre 1991-Soil Nailing Recommendations, 22. Tan, S.A, Luo, S.Q, Yong, K.Y, (1999)
Presses de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Analysis of Soil Lateral Interaction for Design,
Claussees. Journal of the Institution of Engineers
10. Gue, S.S, (1997a), Interpretation of Laboratory Singapore,vol. 39,No.2, pp.43-50.
and Field Test Results for Designs Paper 2,Short 23. Unterreiner,P., Benhamida,B., Schlosser, F.,
Corse on Site Investigation Practice, The (1997),Finite Element Modelling of the
Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, Kuala Construction of A Full-Scale Experimental Soil-
Lumpur. Nailed Wall. French National Research project
11. Gue,S.S, (1998),Selection of geotechnical CLOUTERRE, Ground Improvement,,pp.1-8.
Parameters for design,Short Course on 24. Smith, I.M.,Su,N.,(1997) Three Dimensional
geotechnical Engineering, The Institution of FE Analysis of A Soil Nailed wall Curved in
Engineers,Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur. Plan.International Journal for Numerical and
12. Jardine, R.J, Symes, M.J., Burland, J.B., The Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,Vol.21,pp.
Measurement of Soil Stiffness in the Triaxial 583-597.
Apparatus, Geotechnique, 34(3), pp.323-340.