Geotechnical Engineering

Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces
Chmoulian

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Geotechnical Engineering 168 February 2015 Issue GE1
Pages 4252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.14.00010
Paper 1400010
Received 04/05/2014
Accepted 11/06/2014
Published online 22/09/2014
Keywords: excavation/geotechnical engineering
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Effect of axial stiffness on soil

nail forces
Alexander Yuri Chmoulian MSc, PhD, CEng, FICE
WorleyParsons, United Arab Emirates

Currently used soil nail design methods normally ignore axial stiffness of soil nails and assume that nailsoil
adhesion fully develops during construction of the soil nail wall, which would allow the use of conventional stability
analysis with peak soil parameters for the newly excavated slopes. Although not fully consistent with the monitoring
results for soil nails in working conditions, the resulting structures are proven by the accumulated practical
experience for conventional geometry and conventional materials used in soil nail construction. This paper considers
the effect of axial stiffness on the forces developing in soil nails, which affects the design of soil nails of lower
stiffness, for example soil nails reinforced with fibre-reinforced polymer tendons, or nails of greater lengths. The use
of fibre-reinforced polymers has considerable advantages in construction due to their light weight, ease of site
preparation and high durability. However, their use is often deterred by their relatively low stiffness and lack of
ductility. The paper discusses the methods by which negative effect of the use of soil nails of lower axial stiffness
and ductility can be overcome in design.
guarantee in the actual (working conditions) state of a newly
excavated SNW.

Notation
L
Z

1.

length of soil nail

depth of soil expansion zone
maximum green-field soil movement along soil nail

Introduction

Soil nail design methods routinely used in todays engineering

practice are not always fully consistent. Soil nail wall (SNW)
stability analysis commonly assumes that, except where limited
by yielding of the tendon, ultimate nailsoil bond develops over
the full area of interface between nails and surrounding soil (the
term soil will be used hereinafter for describing strata in which
soil nails are installed, which could in reality be either soil or
rock), which generates beneficial stressing of the nails and thus
increases slope stabilising forces. The safety of the analysis is
assured by applying partial factors on design strength (for
example on adhesion, tensile strength of the tendon, etc.) and/or
on the overall stability of the SNW.

At the same time it has been shown in experiments (e.g. Pedley,

1990) that soil nail forces may continue increasing past the point
when the peak soil strength conditions are already passed. Thus,
to develop the ultimate nailsoil bond very considerable shear
strains may be necessary, certainly in excess of the peak soil
strength. Therefore, the use of ultimate bond strength may require
strain compatibility analysis to be carried out and the use of soil
strength higher than for the critical conditions might not be safe.
The vast accumulated practical experience shows that SNWs of
conventional dimensions (usual nail length to SNW height ratio
of about 0 .51 .0 (Phear et al., 2005)) work successfully with
steel tendon reinforced nails; however, it may be important to
review the mechanism of development of nail forces in cases
outside the conventional use of SNWs, for example, for longer
nails or for nails of reduced axial stiffness.

Factors that should be noted are outlined below.

First, using the maximum value of ultimate bond effectively

makes soil nails more efficient than, for example, ground
anchors, as for the latter just the actually applied stressing
forces are utilised in assessing the stabilising effect. In other
words, comparing a soil nail and a pre-stressed anchor with
identical geometry it is found that soil nails will provide a
greater stabilising effect in the SNW design.
j Second, it seems to be assumed in the SNW analysis that the
ultimate nailsoil bond develops for all design geometries,
which could be true for failing slopes but is difficult to
j

42

This paper proposes an alternative analysis approach explaining

the development of soil nail pre-stress in serviceability conditions
and demonstrates how soil nail stiffness affects their efficiency in
reinforcing the slopes. Only newly excavated soil nailed slopes
are considered here, as remedial nailed structures have to rely on
large-strain design and post-failure soil conditions.

2.

Basics of the proposed approach

In order to explain the proposed method a simplified model is

first analysed. Consider an infinite elastic uniform half-space. If it
is imagined that the topmost soil layer has been removed, that
would reduce the load on the remaining half-space and cause its

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

rebound, increasing the thickness of the underlying layer A

(Figure 1) by a distance . However, if prior to the excavation,
reinforcing elements similar to soil nails are wished-in-place
into layer A, then such rebound will not freely be possible, as the
reinforcing elements will tension, thus reducing the value by
which the thickness of layer A can increase (Figure 1). A set of
sensitivity analyses was carried out to demonstrate the effect of
axial stiffness on forces developing in soil nails due to such soil
expansion.

50% and 25% of that stiffness. The tension stiffening effect of

concrete was ignored in these analyses for simplicity.

As soil strains in the absence of soil nails (the infinity or

boundary conditions) can be calculated from the elastic theory,
the actual reinforcement effect was analysed using a specially
written program based on the method described in Poulos and
Davis (1980). This method is based on equating elastic movements of the soil continuum and those of the pile (in the present
case, the soil nail) at discrete node locations, with application of
slip conditions at the nodes where calculated interface forces
exceed the ultimate adhesion bond.
Where not stated otherwise the following base model is used
throughout this paper

soil

elastic soil modulus 100 MPa

Poisson ratio 0 .2
j soil nails
j external diameter 150 mm
j tendon diameter 25 mm
j length, L 6 m
j grid square 1 .5 3 1 .5 m
j steel E modulus 200 GPa
j concrete strength (C30) 30 MPa
j ultimate nailsoil adhesion 100 kPa.
j
j

No groundwater was considered.

Sensitivity analysis for the case of expansion of a half-space
included the base model soil nail stiffness and also analyses for
Expansion of layer A without reinforcement ( value)

Layer A

Figure 1. Basic analysis of half-space expansion

Figure 2(a) shows distribution of nail pre-stress forces in the base

model for a range of values, which represents soil expansion in
the absence of soil nails. For sufficiently large expansion of layer
A the whole nailsoil interface reaches the ultimate condition
(i.e. the ultimate adhesion develops for the full length of soil
nails). A slight asymmetry of plots is caused by the free soil
surface at the top of the model.
It should be noted that the value does not depend on the soil
nail presence, for example, for the above base model a value of
10 mm corresponds to soil movements of around 8 .28 .8 mm at
the top of layer A, depending on the nail stiffness. This reduction
in the rebound movement is reflective of an increase in compressive soil stresses between the nails. Figure 2(b) shows pre-stress
forces in nails of different stiffness for a value of 12 mm.
Figure 2(c) presents a plot of the ratio (R0 (maximum nail
force)/(ultimate condition nail force)) plotted against value.
Naturally, stiffer nails develop greater pre-stress forces for the
same , but the difference between forces for soil nails of
different stiffness reduces as value increases.
As a part of the above sensitivity analysis the effect of the size of
soil nail group has been checked in terms of the forces developing in the central nail within the groups of from 3 3 3 to 9 3 9
nails. The forces were found to vary within only a few percent
for all analysed grids, and thus pre-stress condition of the central
nail is representative of the analysis for any group, although not
for a single soil nail.

3.

Analysis in case of SNWs

It is assumed in the proposed approach that pre-stress of soil nails

in SNWs develops similarly to the half-space model above; that is,
soil nails become tensioned due to soil expansion during excavation. This effectively means that the following points apply.
Stressing of soil nails is not related to a potential slip surface
and it is generated even prior to any slope failure developing.
Thus soil strains within the slope are sufficiently small to use
peak strength soil behaviour, as assumed in the conventional
SNW design. Therefore, soil nail forces calculated in
pre-failure conditions can be used in a conventional slope
stability analysis in combination with peak strength soil
parameters.
j Soil nail pre-stress up to the ultimate limit of soil adhesion is
not guaranteed prior to slope failure.
j

In the post-failure conditions (i.e. when soil movements are large)

nail forces will reach the ultimate limit but soil parameters used
for slope stability analysis may have to be reduced to values
below the peak strength envelope and potentially down to the
critical or even residual levels, depending on the strain compat43

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

160
Ultimate limit

140
120

Axial force: kN

ibility analysis. This paper only analyses pre-stress of soil nails

due to elastic soil expansion, without slope failure.

1 mm
4 mm
6 mm
10 mm
24 mm

Soil movement distribution in a steep slope of an SNW will be

more complicated than that due to unloading of a half-space.
Figure 3(a) shows the model routinely used to demonstrate how
soil nails develop their pre-stress (Phear et al., 2005) when the
effect of SNW facing is ignored. It is usually assumed that soil
expansion occurs in the active zone (inside the potential critical
slip surface) and nail reaction forces develop in the resistant
zone, where soil remains static.

100
80
60
40
20
0

1
4
5
2
3
Distance from the proximal end of nail: m
(a)

Such a diagram is easy to understand from the common-sense

viewpoint, but it is not in all respects consistent with the
published monitoring results.
j

160
100% stiffness
50% stiffness
25% stiffness

140
Ultimate limit

Axial force: kN

120

Based on the cross-sections of inclinometer readings

Clouterre (1991) indicated that, for sands, depending on the
ratio between soil nail length and the excavation depth, soil
extension zone is situated in the front 04 m of the soil mass,
which would be consistent with Figure 3(a). However, in

100
80
Active zone

Passive zone

60

Axial force
distribution

40
20

Soil nail
0

1
4
5
2
3
Distance from the proximal end of nail: m
(b)

6
Potential critical
slip surface

10

(a)

08
06

Soil movement

R0 maximum axial force/ultimate force

04
100% stiffness
50% stiffness
25% stiffness

02
0
0

10

20

30
40
values: mm
(c)

50

60

Figure 2. Soil nail forces due to expansion of half-space:

(a) distribution of nail forces plotted against depth for a range of
values; (b) distribution of forces in nails of different stiffness for
value of 12 mm; (c) maximum tensile forces in soil nails plotted
against value

44

Diagram (1)
Diagram (1a)
Diagram (2)
Diagram (3)
Diagram (3a)

0
Z
Dimension of movement zone in direction parallel to the nails
(b)

Figure 3. Soil movements due to expansion of SNW:

(a) conventional model; (b) soil movement diagrams used in this
paper

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

clays, the expansion zone during excavation was stated to

extend to the back of the soil nails, contrary to the
conventional model.
j Inclinometer movements monitored in Galer (1987), showed
that even in sands soil expansion during construction extends
beyond the back of the SNW (this refers to the readings prior
to application of surcharge).
j It has been shown in a number of case study publications
(e.g. Banerjee et al., 1998; Pedley and Pugh, 1995; Sakr and
Kimmerling, 1995) that there is little sign of soil nail forces
tailing off towards the distal end of monitored nails, even for
very low tiers of soil nails. Indeed, forces were in some
instances increasing towards the lower tiers and towards the
distal end of soil nails, that is, where the effect of soil
movement in the active zone is potentially small.
j Similarly, the common approach indicates that, owing to the
use of ultimate conditions for the groutsoil interface, nail
forces are likely to reduce with time (e.g. Phear et al., 2005),
which is often inconsistent with the conclusions of published
case studies.

Elastic (pre-failure) soil deformations in the direction transverse

to the soil nail axis are ignored here because soil nail stiffness is
much lower in this direction and nail forces developing due to
such movements are significantly smaller than those caused by
co-axial deformations.

The above inconsistencies are not likely to affect the conventional

SNW designs, for which a sufficient body of practical experience
de facto supports the design rules. However, it is important to
consider the above inconsistencies in designs using alternative
SNW geometries or materials.
The proposed approach assumes that green-field soil movements
develop in a soil block somewhat similar in its shape to a twopart wedge failure zone (e.g. Galer, 1987; Phear et al., 2005).
The dimension (referred to hereinafter as depth) of soil movement zone in the direction parallel to the nails, Z, is not related to
soil nails (as this represents green-field movements) and it can be
smaller, equal to, or greater than the soil nail length.
Within this block soil deformations in the direction along the soil
nail axis are assumed for the purposes of this paper to follow one
of the diagrams shown in Figure 3(b)
linear distribution (1)
linear distribution truncated at the proximal end of soil nail
(representing some deformation developing prior to the
installation of the nail) (1a)
j a parabola with maximum gradient at the back of the
movement block (2)
j a parabola with maximum gradient at the front of the
movement block (3)
j a parabola similar to (3) but truncated at the proximal end of
the soil nail (3a).
j

The above green-field movements are dependent on the changes

in soil stresses and thus they will be subject to long-term effects
due to soil consolidation and creep. Thus green-field movements
are likely to increase with time.
Long-term changes in soil nail forces will depend on the changes
in soil movements, changes in nailsoil adhesion and on the
concrete creep-related stiffness reduction of soil nails themselves.
Because of insufficiency of 3D deformation monitoring data and
because precise calculation of soil deflections is not straightforward (BSI, 2011) this paper only intends to demonstrate that the
proposed approach is capable of enveloping published nail force
measurements obtained in situ and to analyse the effect of SNW
geometry and stiffness on nail forces.

4.

Axial stiffness of drilled-and-grouted soil

nails

As pre-stress forces developing in soil nails due to soil unloading

depend on the nail stiffness, it becomes unjustifiably conservative
to ignore the tension stiffening effect of concrete grout for
drilled-and-grouted nails.
The stiffening effect represents stress sharing between grout and
tendon, which exists even after the grout starts cracking. There
are a number of methods for analysing tension stiffening, which
all give comparable results. For the purposes of this paper
Bransons method is used, as set out in ACI (1992b).
Figure 4 shows a forcestrain plot for the base model conditions.
Concrete parameters were adopted in this paper from Table 3.1 of
BSI (2004), as E modulus of 33 GPa (before creep) and tensile
strength of 2 .9 MPa.

Creep effect in concrete was analysed as a long-term reduction in

its axial stiffness. Creep strains were checked here in accordance
with ACI (1992a) (which is broadly consistent with BSI (2004)).
Assuming that soil nail stressing starts (i.e. excavation below the
soil nail level begins) circa 515 d after grouting, the long-term E
modulus of 15 GPa was used here for 30 MPa concrete.

5.
In the absence of a consistent body of three-dimensional (3D)
soil movement monitoring data the above set covers the majority
of substantially different reasonable assumptions. The effect of
choosing one of the above five diagram shapes is discussed
further in this paper.

Comparison with a case study

Most published case studies concentrate on the ultimate capacity

of soil nails, with those related to working conditions mostly
containing gaps of information and some data inconsistency. This
paper compares the proposed approach with test data presented in
Pedley and Pugh (1995).
45

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

300

Tension force: kN

250
200
150
100

Uncracked grout
Cracked grout
Steel bar only

50
0

200 103
400 103
300 103
500 103
100 103
Strain

Figure 4. Forcestrain diagram for soil nail, including the effect of

tension stiffening
j

The comparative analysis included the following simplifications

and assumptions.
j

46

The published results were limited and had little statistical

redundancy, which would help to address tolerances, random
deviations and possible measurement errata. Therefore, the
data were used as published and the aim of the analysis was
to envelope the published measurements by using a consistent
set of parameters rather than to fit curves to the results.
The case study presented monitoring results for a single
SNW cross-section circa 10 m high, including three straingauged soil nails and inclinometer readings. Only monitoring
results for soil nails A9 (top row of soil nails, approximately
1 .5 m below the slope crest) and E7 (approximately 2 .5 m
above the toe) were analysed, which were installed in
consistent soil layers, respectively in Tunbridge Wells Sand
and Wadhurst Clay. The third monitored nail (D7) was
ignored here, as the effect of its crossing a sandstone marker
horizon would increase inconsistency of results and thus
reduce objectiveness of the analysis.
All soil nails were installed as 127 mm grouted diameter with
25 mm steel tendon and 1 .5 m vertical spacing. Nail A9 was
within a group of 6 m long nails with 1 .5 m horizontal
spacing and nail E7 was within a group of 7 m long nails
with 1 .75 m horizontal spacing.
Because of considerable fluctuation of the case study
measurements (especially the inclinometer readings) only the
monitoring sets at the end-of-construction (EOC) stage and
7 months after completion (7-month stage) were analysed
here, as these sets were less likely to be biased by the ongoing excavation. Measured tendon forces at the 7-month
stage were always greater than at the EOC.
Properties of steel and concrete were used as set out above
here for the base model. Assuming that the EOC stage was
set 1030 d after completion of soil nails, depending on the
row of the nails, concrete E modulus of 20 GPa was used in
the EOC stage analysis.

Soil movements were back-analysed from the inclinometer

readings. The proposed approach uses values, namely, the
boundary movement condition in the absence of soil nails;
thus the analysis was carried out to converge the calculated
movements at the location of the inclinometer to the actual
readings. The inclinometer in the case study was installed just
behind the crest of the excavated slope, so it was assumed
that it was located 11 .5 m behind the face of the slope at A9
and the equivalent distance was 33 .5 m at E7. As the exact
location of the inclinometer borehole is not known and it
would in any case vary between the rows of soil nails (due to
changes in soil nail spacing and installation tolerances) it was
further assumed that the inclinometer was equidistant from
the nearest soil nails, which gave the lowest estimated
value. For larger values the enveloping would be similar
and such assumption should not affect the analysis approach.
Nailsoil adhesion was estimated from the measured tendon
forces. It was observed that maximum rates of force increase
against length were measured at the EOC stage at the distal
end of soil nails A9 and E7. These readings were converted
from tendon force into the total soil nail tensile force using
Bransons method and it was presumed that the minimum
adhesion should be equal to or greater than the value of that
force distributed over the length of the soil nail beyond the
distal gauges.
j For nail A9 the measured tendon force was estimated as
21 kN, which was converted into a total nail force of
56 kN and an average minimum adhesion of 140 kPa.
j For nail E7 the measured tendon force was estimated as
29 kN, which was converted into a total nail force of
63 kN and an average minimum adhesion of 130 kPa.
Tendon forces and lengths were scaled from the
published figures and are approximate. For the purposes
of this analysis a spread of adhesion values of 100
150 kPa was used. These values may potentially be less
than the actual ultimate adhesion.
There was a concern that strain gauges could have potentially
caused additional cracking at their locations and thus have
biased the results. However, it has been checked through
sensitivity analysis that concrete section reduction due the
presence of gauges of normal dimensions would only affect
the calculated tendon forces by a few percent and thus this
effect was ignored.
As the distal end gauges measured tendon forces greater than
the proximal ones no effect of facing was considered in the
analysis.
Pedley and Pugh (1995) state that no bending of soil nails
was observed, which confirms the assumption that soil
movements transverse to the nails could be ignored.
In the absence of published data on soil elastic properties at
the case study site the sets of parameters as listed in Table 1
were used for enveloping the test results.

Depth of soil movement, Z, was selected to provide the best

envelope.

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Soil
nail

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

Z: m,
for diagrams

Inclinometer
Soil E
modulus: movement:
mm
MPa

Stage

(1) and
(1a)
A9
E7

EOC
7 months
EOC
7 months

4075
3050
75140
60110

5
7 .5
1 .5
2

(2)

9 .5
7
9 .5
7
6 .757 66 .25
6 .757 66 .25

Table 1. Parameters used in the back-analysis

All five soil movement diagrams (Figure 3(b)) have been

analysed. However, diagrams (3) and (3a) were found to provide
force distribution plots completely inconsistent in shape with the
case study measurements, so these were ignored for the purposes
of this paper.

forces. Tendon strength was assumed to be sufficient for them not

to yield under the maximum calculated forces. The base model
parameters were used in the analysis, except the varied factors
where stated.
The effect of tendon stiffness was checked by comparing forces
developing in soil nails reinforced by steel or by fibre-reinforced
polymer (FRP) tendons. Generally FRP materials may have E
modulus values in the range of 30580 GPa (ACI, 2006). A value
of 70 GPa was used here as recommended by Bluey Technologies
(in a private communication) for their newest Powerthread-K60
glass-reinforced polymer soil nail system.
A comparison between calculated nail forces for soil movement
diagrams (1), (1a) and (2) was carried out for a range of soil
expansion zone depths and values, but is not presented in the
paper due to the space constraints. The following findings were
made.
The difference between nail forces for diagrams (1) and (1a)
does not exceed a few percent and can be ignored here.
j For small values soil movement diagram (2) generates
greater maximum nail forces compared with diagram (1) (by
up to 30%). For larger values the difference becomes
negligible.
j For small values diagram (2) causes significantly greater
bias of soil nail forces towards the distal end of nails than
diagram (1). For greater values the difference is
insignificant.
j

Figure 5 shows sets of measured and back-analysis results both

for the soil nail tendons (as measured) and for the soil nails as a
whole, with tension stiffening for the latter interpreted using
Bransons method. The back-analysis results are only presented
for the best-fit soil movement diagrams.
Measurement results used in the back-analysis of soil adhesion
are marked in Figures 5(b) and 5(d) as point A.
Figure 5 shows that there was a significant bias of best envelope
forces towards the distal end of soil nails immediately after
construction (EOC stage for soil nail E7); this bias then gradually
reduced with time (EOC stage for soil nail A9, which was
installed much earlier during the project) to a virtually non-biased
diagram (7-month stage for both A9 and E7), which was likely to
be caused by gradual consolidation of soil.
Back-analysed values, depending on the soil movement diagram, are listed in Table 2.

6.

Sensitivity analysis

A limited sensitivity analysis was carried out here to assess the

effect of soil nail stiffness and of soil movement depth on the nail
Soil
nail

A9
A9
E7
E7

Input inclinometer
movement:
mm

Movement on the
surface between
adjacent nails: mm

value: mm

5 .26 .2
7 .78 .9
1 .83 .1
2 .84 .1

6 .57 .5
10 .011 .1
2 .93 .9
3 .85 .2

5
7 .5
1 .5
2

Table 2. Back-analysed values

For the purposes of this paper the rest of the sensitivity analysis
is presented for diagram (1) only, but summary results also
include diagram (2).
Figure 6(a) compares forces calculated for the base model with
either steel or FRP tendon of the same diameter, Z 6 m and a
range of values. It shows that, for small values, nail forces
depend little on the tendon material, as nail stiffness is governed
by concrete encapsulating the tendon. As value increases,
concrete cracks and nail stiffness become increasingly dependent
on the tendon; that is, forces in FRP reinforced nails are smaller
than in those with steel tendon. For the investigated range of
values the difference between maximum forces for FRP and steel
tendon was up to 25%.
The relative effect of tendon stiffness on soil nail forces also
increases for Z 4 m compared with Z 6 m (see Figure 6(b)),
with the maximum reduction of soil nail efficiency for FRP as
opposed to steel tendon of 22% for 6 mm.
Figure 6(c) shows calculated nail forces for the base model and
soil nail length of 6 m or 9 m, and for a range of Z values and
values. It can be seen that for the smaller values the maximum
soil nail force depends little on the nail length. However, for
greater values, long soil nails develop greater maximum forces,
47

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

Total (upper bound diagram 1a)

Tendon (upper bound diagram 1a)
Measured in case study
Total (lower bound diagram 1a)
Tendon (lower bound diagram 1a)
Total (Branson's method)

90
80

100
90
80

70

70

Force: kN

Force: kN

60
50
40

50
40
30

20

20

10

10
0

Point A

60

30

Total (upper bound diagram 1)

Tendon (upper bound diagram 1)
Measured in case study
Total (lower bound diagram 1)
Tendon (lower bound diagram 1)
Total (Branson's method)

Distance from proximal end of nail: m

(a)

90

80

80

70

70

60
50
40

20

10

10
4
5
2
3
6
Distance from proximal end of nail: m
(c)

Point A

40
30

50

20

60

30

Total (upper bound diagram 1)

Tendon (upper bound diagram 1)
Measured in case study
Total (lower bound diagram 1)
Tendon (lower bound diagram 1)
Total (Branson's method)

100

Force: kN

Force: kN

90

Distance from proximal end of nail: m

(b)

Total (upper bound diagram 2)

Tendon (upper bound diagram 2)
Measured in case study
Total (lower bound diagram 2)
Tendon (lower bound diagram 2)
Total (Branson's method)

100

4
5
2
3
6
Distance from proximal end of nail: m
(d)

Figure 5. Back-analysis of total forces in the soil nails (including

tension stiffening) and tendon forces for the case study: (a) soil
nail A9 for the EOC stage; (b) soil nail A9 for the 7 months stage;

(c) soil nail E7 for the EOC stage; (d) soil nail E7 for the 7 months
stage

as pre-stress in shorter soil nails reaches the ultimate condition.

Also longer soil nails are less efficient in pre-stressing at the
distal end for smaller depths of the soil deformation zone.

small values, but the tension forces are relatively small due
to the smaller surface and thus smaller ultimate adhesion.
j For smaller values, the forces developing in drilled-andgrouted soil nails depend little on the length of soil nail or
stiffness of the tendon. For greater values the pre-stressing
efficiency is greater for longer soil nails and for steel
tendons.
j The maximum difference between calculated pre-stress forces
in soil nails with steel tendons and FRP tendons for the same
nail geometry and values is around 35%.

Figure 7(a) presents summary plots of maximum calculated nail

forces against the value for design cases including steel and
FRP tendons and a range of nail lengths and Z values. The plot
also shows the results for 6-m- and 9-m-long driven steel soil
nails of 25 mm diameter, subject to the same ultimate soilnail
adhesion, for comparison.
The following findings can be observed.
j

48

Driven soil nails reach ultimate adhesion condition at very

To compare, the back-analysed case study yielded values of 3

5 mm for the lower tier of monitored nails and 711 mm for the

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Steel tendon ( 2 mm)

FRP tendon ( 2 mm)
Steel tendon ( 4 mm)
160

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

FRP tendon ( 4 mm)

Steel tendon ( 10 mm)
FRP tendon ( 10 mm)

upper tier, which is below the values needed to develop the

ultimate condition in the sensitivity analysis.

80

Figure 7(b) presents summary plots of maximum calculated soil

nail forces against Z value for design cases including steel and
FRP tendons, and a range of nail lengths and values. It should
be noted that Z value is a function of green-field conditions and
is not controlled by the presence of soil nails.

40

The following findings can be observed.

Soil nail force: kN

Ultimate limit
120

As Z increases, the maximum pre-stress force initially

increases and then gradually decreases. Maximum forces
develop for Z/L ratios of around 0 .50 .7.
j For the smaller values and lower nail stiffness, maximum
forces may not reach the ultimate adhesion condition. For the
greater value, the ultimate force peaks over a limited range
of Z values but then still decreases.
j The maximum difference between calculated pre-stress forces
in soil nails with steel tendons and FRP tendons for the same
nail geometry and values was around 2535%.
j

1
4
5
2
3
Distance from proximal end of nail: m
(a)

Steel tendon ( 1 mm)

FRP tendon ( 1 mm)
Steel tendon ( 2 mm)
160

FRP tendon ( 2 mm)

Steel tendon ( 6 mm)
FRP tendon ( 6 mm)

Soil nail force: kN

Ultimate limit
120

80

7.

40

240

Soil nail force: kN

200

1
4
5
2
3
Distance from proximal end of nail: m
(b)
L 6 m, Z 6 m ( 6 mm)
L 6 m, Z 9 m ( 6 mm)
L 9 m, Z 6 m ( 6 mm)
L 9 m, Z 9 m ( 6 mm)
L 6 m, Z 6 m ( 15 mm)
L 6 m, Z 9 m ( 15 mm)
L 9 m, Z 6 m ( 15 mm)
L 9 m, Z 9 m ( 15 mm)

The advantage of mild steel tendons, which are conventionally

used in SNWs, is in the fact that if the yield strength of such
tendon is exceeded it starts plastic extension, which will reduce
its stiffness and thus reduce the soil nail force. In a simple
situation of locally stronger soil mass the excess load is then
redistributed onto the adjacent nails. If yield condition develops
in the majority of soil nails, then all nail forces reduce, because
of nail stiffness reduction, until the strain balance is restored or
the slope fails. In the latter case the use of soil strength below the
peak values should be considered but nailsoil adhesion may
reach the ultimate condition.

Ultimate limit
(9 m nails)

160
120
80
40
0

3
6
Distance from proximal end of nail: m
(c)

Ductility

Ductility is an important load control factor in SNWs. Naturally,

soil nail tendons are designed not to fail. However, their
structural design comprises a continuation of the adhesion check
on the nailsoil interface, which is traditionally done conservatively. The degree of conservatism depends on the designer and
thus the structural strength of tendon can be exceeded in some
designs, depending on the values and soil E modulus. No
routine design is carried out for the conservative maximum
adhesion.

Figure 6. Nail force distribution plotted against depth from the

sensitivity analysis: (a) comparison of forces for steel and for FRP
tendons for base model and Z 6 m; (b) comparison of forces for
steel and for FRP tendons for base model and Z 4 m;
(c) comparison of forces for steel and for FRP tendons for base
model, soil nail length of 6 or 9 m and soil movement depth of 6
or 9 m

In case of non-ductile tendons, namely high-yield steel or FRP,

the design has to ensure that failure occurs through the nailsoil
interface in the worst design conditions; that is, for the highest
adhesion estimate. Because of very considerable strength of these
materials such design should not normally present a problem.
If tendons are designed first to fail on the nailsoil interface, thus
not allowing the tendon to yield, no loss of pre-stress force occurs
due to reduction in nail stiffness, which is beneficial for the
SNW.
49

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

250

Maximum soil nail force: kN

200

150

100

Steel L 6 m, Z 6 m
Steel L 9 m, Z 9 m
FRP L 9 m, Z 6 m
Driven L 6 m, Z 6 m

Steel L 9 m, Z 6 m
FRP L 6 m, Z 6 m
FRP L 9 m, Z 9 m
Driven L 9 m, Z 9 m

50

0
25

50

75

: mm
(a)
250

Maximum soil nail force: kN

200

150

100

50

Steel, L 6 m ( 15 mm)

Steel, L 6 m ( 35 mm)

Steel, L 9 m ( 15 mm)

Stee,l L 9 m ( 35 mm)

FRP, L 6 m ( 15 mm)

FRP, L 6 m ( 35 mm)

FRP, L 9 m ( 15 mm)

FRP, L 9 m ( 35 mm)

0
0

5
10
Dimension of movement zone in direction parallel to nails, Z: m
(b)

15

Figure 7. Summary of the sensitivity analysis: (a) maximum nail

forces plotted against value; (b) maximum nail forces plotted
against Z value

8.

Enhancing soil nail efficiency

The analysis approach discussed in this paper depends on the

ability to predict green-field soil movements, which comprise the
vital input. However, it has already been mentioned here that
precise estimate of soil movements may be difficult.
The author is also aware that in a minor number of design
environments numerical analysis is sometimes treated as a
50

method rather than a tool and the results of such analyses may
be used without due scrutiny. Such results may not always be
absolutely clear and without comprehensive in situ research into
the 3D soil movement an interpretation of such analyses may not
be easy. As an example, Lima et al. (2004) demonstrated that,
depending on the geometry of the model, the numerical analysis
due to elastic unloading may even calculate soil movements
developing in the direction away from the excavation, which

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

K60-32, drilled diameter 150 mm, concrete C30

K60-38, drilled diameter 150 mm, concrete C45
K60-32, drilled diameter 175 mm, concrete C30

Thus three options are available for a routine design using the
proposed approach.
(a) To carry out an advanced analysis capable of predicting the
green-field movements, for example a numerical analysis,
which can be validated against the available monitoring data
and then to use the outcome of that analysis in the SNW
design.
(b) To use the observational approach and to use in the design
an assumed or analysed soil movement diagram and then
prove during the construction that it provides conservative
results. The proof of the design conservatism may for
example comprise monitoring of soil movement between the
soil nails and then back-analysis of the results, similarly to
the analysis carried out in this paper for the Pedley and Pugh
(1995) results.
(c) To carry out a sensitivity analysis for a variety of soil
movement diagrams and to demonstrate that for any soil
movements nail forces in the alternative SNW design are not
lower than those in the conventional design.
The author suggests that in the absence of further research into
the soil movement distribution around SNWs it may be more
practical for the designer to match the stiffness response of an
alternative solution to that designed in accordance with a recognised standard. In simple terms, if the stiffness of the proposed
soil nails is matched to the conventional design then it is possible
to ensure that forces will not be less than those in the latter.
Figure 8 shows the effect of different stiffness enhancement
options compared to a reference design, plotted as (R1 (maximum force)/(maximum force for the base model)) against
value.
The obvious option of just matching or increasing the tendon
stiffness is not included here, although such an option has been
proven, in past experience, not always to be possible or practical.
The following options for enhancing SNWs can be considered.
SNW can be designed with tendons of lesser stiffness but an
additional safety factor should be applied. Figure 8 shows
that a Powerthread-K60-32 (effective cross-section area of
580 mm2, which is just slightly greater than a 25 mm solid
circular section) can be used with an additional factor of
circa 1 .21 .25 on the soil nail forces (line 1).
j Larger size tendons can be used, possibly combined with
greater strength concrete grout, which may still require the
use of an additional factor (line 2).
j The drilled diameter of soil nail can be increased, which
might be the most efficient option (line 3 the soil nail
diameter is increased from 150 mm to 175 mm).
j

R1 max. force/max. force for base model

would require a substantial common sense check before applying

such results in SNW design.
120
115
110
105

Reference case (R1 1)

100
095
090
085
080

10

15
20
: mm

25

30

35

Figure 8. Comparison of options for enhancing soil nail efficiency

The target tendon stiffness only should be sufficient to satisfy the

conventional design; that is, no allowance for an excess steel area
is needed.

9.

Conclusion

(a) The proposed analysis approach is shown to be consistent

with the reviewed case study data. This approach relates soil
nail forces to green-field expansion of soil slope and thus
justifies the use of peak soil parameters in the conventional
SNW stability analysis. Green-field soil expansion
movements are not dependent on the slope failure or on the
presence of soil nails.
(b) Soil nail forces are strongly dependent on the axial stiffness
of nails and on the relative depth of soil expansion
(deformation) zone, which means that ultimate adhesion may
not develop over the full length of soil nails in the pre-failure
condition of SNW.
(c) Further 3D field studies of soil deformations within SNWs
are needed, as these have a considerable effect on forces
developing in soil nails. Such studies would allow the
development of empirical benchmarks for use in the proposed
analysis approach.
(d ) It is considered that the use of FRP-reinforced soil nails has
advantages of relative ease of installation and high durability;
however, their use is at the moment restricted owing to low
axial stiffness and low ductility of FRPs. To allow extension
of the existing design rules for soil nails with FRP tendons
the following can be suggested
j the use of an additional reduction factor on nail
forces
j increasing tendon cross-section and grout strength
j increasing soil nail diameter.
(e) The lack of ductility in FRP tendons can be overcome by
ensuring that failure only occurs on the nailsoil interface for
the highest conservative adhesion values.
51

Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 168 Issue GE1

Effect of axial stiffness on soil nail forces

Chmoulian

REFERENCES

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA, FHWA-SA93026.

Galer G (1987) Vernagelte Gelandesprunge Tragverhalten und
Standsicherheit. PhD thesis, Universitat Fridericiana in
Karlsruhe, Germany (in German).
Lima AP, Gerscovich DMS and Sayao ASFJ (2004) Considerations
on the soil nailing technique for stabilizing excavated slopes.
In Landslides: Evaluation and Stabilization. (Lacerda WA,
Ehrlich M, Fontoura SAB and Sayao ASF (eds)). Taylor &
Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 16711676.
Pedley MJ (1990) The Performance of Soil Nail Reinforcement in
Bending and Shear. PhD thesis, Wolfson College, University
of Oxford, UK.
Pedley MJ and Pugh RS (1995) Soil nailing in the Hastings beds.
Geological Society London, Engineering Geology Special
Publications 10: 361368.
Phear A, Dew C, Ozsoy B et al. (2005) Soil Nailing Best
Practice Guidance. Ciria, London, UK, C637.
Poulos HG and Davis EH (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
Sakr CT and Kimmerling R (1995) Soil Nailing of a Bridge
Embankment, Report 2: Design and Field Performance
Report. Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA.

ACI (American Concrete Institute) (1992a) ACI 209r-92

(reapproved 1997): Prediction of creep, shrinkage and

temperature effects in concrete structures. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (1992b) ACI 224 .26-92 (reapproved 1997): Cracking of
concrete members in direct tension. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (2006) ACI 440. 1R-06: Guide for the design and
construction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP
bars. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
USA.
Banerjee S, Finney A, Wentwoth T and Bahiradhan M (1998)
Evaluation of Design Methodologies for Soil Nail Walls,
Volume 2: Distribution of Axial Forces in Soil Nails Based on
Interpretation of Measured Strains. Washington State
Transportation Centre, Seattle, WA, USA, WA-RD-371 .2.
BSI (2004) BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004: Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings. BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2011) BS 8006-2: 2011. Code of practice for strengthened/
reinforced soils. Part 2: Soil nail design. BSI, London, UK.
Clouterre (1991) Recommendations Clouterre 1991 (English
Translation): Soil Nailing Recommendations - 1991. Federal

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing papers
should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.
52