Wall Nail Retaining

FINITE ELEMENT BASED DESIGN PROCEDURES
FOR MSE/SOIL-NAIL HYBRID RETAINING

WALL SYSTEMS
by
ABDULRAHMAN ALHABSHI, M.S.C.E.
A DISSERTATION
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Priyantha W. Jayawickrama
Chairperson of the Committee
Andrew Budek
Sanjaya Senadheera
Charles D. Newhouse
Accepted
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
December, 2006
Copyright 2006, Abdulrahman Alhabshi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported by a grant from the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT), Project 0-5205 Design Procedures for MSE/Soil Nail Hybrid Retaining Wall
Systems. This support is very appreciated.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Priyantha Jayawickrama for
giving me the opportunity to pursue this degree under his guidance and supervision. His
timely appreciation of my work was a great source of encouragement. I am very honored
to know Dr. Jayawickrama and I will always treasure my association with him.
I would also like to thank Dr. Andrew Budek for giving me the opportunity to
participate in this project and for his valuable advice and useful suggestion during the
course of my dissertation.
My sincere appreciation goes to Drs. Sanjaya Senadheera and Charles Newhouse
for accepting to serve in my committee.
I would also like to thank my wife Ranyah who patiently reviewed this thesis and
help me put it together.
Finally, to my parents who have been a continuous and never ending support.
Their limitless love, care and advice are much appreciated.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................xvi
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Objective and Scope of Research ................................................................................. 6
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Soil Nail Walls............................................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Historical Background ......................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Mechanism and Behavior of Soil-nailed Structures ............................................ 11
2.2.2.1 Nail Tension...................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1.2 Shear Stress and Bending Stiffness in the Nails ............................................... 13
2.2.3 Modes of Failure of Soil-nailed Structures.......................................................... 18
2.2.3.1 Internal Failure Modes...................................................................................... 20
2.2.3.2 External Failure Modes..................................................................................... 21
2.2.4 Deformation of Soil Nail Walls ........................................................................... 22
2.2.4.1 Deformation Analysis of Soil Nail Walls ......................................................... 23
2.2.5 Comparison of Behavior between Soil Nail Walls and MSE Walls.................... 24
2.2.6 Design Methods for Soil Nail Walls.................................................................... 25
2.2.6.1 German Gravity Wall Method .......................................................................... 26
2.2.6.2 French Multicriteria Analysis ........................................................................... 28
2.2.6.2.1 Shear Resistance of the Nail .......................................................................... 29
2.2.6.2.2 Skin Friction of the Nail ................................................................................ 29
iii
2.2.6.2.3 Normal Interaction between the Soil and the Nails ....................................... 29
2.2.6.2.4 Strength of the Nail........................................................................................ 30
2.2.6.3 Kinematical Limit Analysis (FHWA 1991)...................................................... 32
2.2.6.4 FHWA 1996 Design Method............................................................................ 34
2.2.6.5 FHWA 2003 Design Method............................................................................ 36
2.2.7 Computer Design Programs for Soil Nail Walls ................................................. 36
2.2.7.1 GOLDNAIL...................................................................................................... 39
2.2.7.2 SNAIL............................................................................................................... 41
2.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls (MSE) ............................................. 42
2.3.1 Historical Background of MSE Walls ................................................................. 42
2.3.2 Types of MSE Walls............................................................................................ 42
2.3.3 Mechanism and Behavior .................................................................................... 43
2.3.3.1 Friction Load Transfer ...................................................................................... 44
2.3.3.2 Passive Resistance ............................................................................................ 46
VALIDATION OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS USING PLAXIS ......................... 47
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 47
3.2 Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 49
3.3 Description of PLAXIS............................................................................................... 71
3.3.1 Mesh Elements and Density ................................................................................ 71
3.3.2 Soil Constitutive Models ..................................................................................... 76
3.4 Modeling Issues .......................................................................................................... 83
3.5 The Modeling of Finite Element Analysis Using PLAXIS ........................................ 85
3.5.1 CLOUTERRE CEBTP Wall No.1....................................................................... 85
3.5.1.1 Finite Element Modeling .................................................................................. 85
3.5.1.2 Finite Element Analysis Results:...................................................................... 86
3.5.1.2.1 Prediction of Lateral Wall Displacement....................................................... 87
3.5.1.2.2 Prediction of Nail Tensile Forces .................................................................. 88
3.5.1.3 Comparison of Slope Stability Analysis between FEM and LEM ................... 93
3.5.2 Polyclinic Wall in Seattle, WA............................................................................ 95
3.5.2.1 Finite Element Modeling .................................................................................. 95
3.5.2.2 Finite Element Analysis Results ....................................................................... 96
3.5.2.2.1 Prediction of Lateral Wall Displacement....................................................... 97
iv
3.5.2.2.2 Prediction of Nail Forces ............................................................................... 97

3.5.2.3 Comparison of Slope Stability between FEM and LEM .................................. 98
3.5.3 A-2 Wall in New Braunfels, Comal County...................................................... 105
3.5.3.1 Prediction of Wall Behavior ........................................................................... 105
3.5.4 FHWA Wall No.3 .............................................................................................. 111
3.5.4.1 Finite Element Modeling ................................................................................ 111
3.5.4.2 Finite Element Analysis Results ..................................................................... 112
3.5.4.2.1 Prediction of Lateral Wall Displacement..................................................... 112
3.5.4.2.2 Prediction of Nail Forces ............................................................................. 113
3.5.4.3 Comparison of Slope Stability between FEM and LEM ................................ 113
3.5.5 CALTRANs Hayward Wall ............................................................................. 119
3.5.5.1 Prediction of Wall Behavior ........................................................................... 119
3.6 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 127
3.6.1 Lessons Learned ................................................................................................ 128
3.6.1.1 Soil Nail Wall ................................................................................................. 128
3.6.1.2 MSE Wall ....................................................................................................... 129
PARAMETRIC STUDY OF HYBRID WALL SYSTEMS .......................................... 130
4.1 Parametric Study....................................................................................................... 130
4.2 The Baseline Wall..................................................................................................... 130
4.3 Description of Model ................................................................................................ 131
4.3.1 Modeling Sequence............................................................................................ 131
4.3.2 Mesh Description............................................................................................... 137
4.3.3 Modeling Elements ............................................................................................ 137
4.3.4 Material Properties............................................................................................. 137
4.4 Case Studies .............................................................................................................. 139
4.5 Analysis Results........................................................................................................ 142
4.5.1 Soil Nail Wall Height, H.................................................................................... 145
4.5.2 Vertical Spacing of Nails, SV ............................................................................. 151
4.5.3 Length of Soil Nails, L/H ratio .......................................................................... 156
4.5.4 Length of Reinforcement of MSE Wall, l/h Ratio ............................................ 165
4.5.5 Wall Setback, d .................................................................................................. 170
4.5.6 Soil Properties.................................................................................................... 175
v
4.5.7 Surface Slope, Nail Inclination and Bar size ..................................................... 188
4.6 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................... 210
PROPOSED DESIGN METHOD .................................................................................. 213
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 213
5.2 Development of Design Charts................................................................................. 214
5.3 Development of Final Design Charts........................................................................ 225
5.4 Correlation between Lateral and Vertical Displacements ........................................ 225
5.5 Correction Factors..................................................................................................... 234
5.6 Modeling Hybrid Wall in GOLDNAIL .................................................................... 234
5.7 Example Problem...................................................................................................... 238
5.7.1 Design of Hybrid Wall System.......................................................................... 238
5.7.2 Comparison of Results....................................................................................... 243
5.8 Validation of Results for 5205 Method .................................................................... 244
5.8.1 Cases 1 through 3: Soil Nail Wall Examples..................................................... 244
5.8.2 Cases 4 through 6: Hybrid Wall Examples........................................................ 245
5.8.2 Cases 7 through 9: Effect of Varying MSE Wall Reinforcement Length ......... 246
5.9 Results Comparison between 5205-Method and PLAXIS ....................................... 253
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 255
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 255
6.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 256
6.3 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 258
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 261
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
vi
LIST OF TABLES
3.1: Parameters input of CEBTP No.1 Wall .................................................................... 53

3.2: Input parameters for Seattle Wall ............................................................................. 58
3.3: Input parameters for Hayward Wall ......................................................................... 67
3.4: Parameters inputs of FHWA No.3 Wall ................................................................... 69
3.5a: Soil Properties for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 ......................................................... 76
3.5b: Beam data sets parameters...................................................................................... 76
3.6: Soil data sets parameters using the HS model ......................................................... 83
3.7: Soil Properties used in PLAXIS model for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 .................... 94
3.8a: Soil parameters used in PLAXIS model for Seattle wall...................................... 104
3.8b: Beam data sets parameters.................................................................................... 104
3.9a: Soil parameters used in PLAXIS model for A2 wall............................................ 110
3.9b: Beam data sets parameters.................................................................................... 110
3.10a: Soil parameters used in PLAXIS model for Seattle wall.................................... 118
3.10b: Beam data sets parameters.................................................................................. 118
3.10c: Geogrids data sets parameters............................................................................. 118
3.11a: Soil data sets parameters for Hayward wall....................................................... 126
3.11b: Beam data sets parameters................................................................................. 126
3.11c: Geotextile data sets parameters........................................................................... 126
4.1b: Soil data sets parameters for MSE wall ............................................................... 140
4.1c: Beam data sets parameters ................................................................................... 141
4.1d: Geotextile data sets parameters............................................................................ 141
4.2: Analysis Cases for Parametric Study...................................................................... 143
4.2: Analysis Cases for Parametric Study...................................................................... 144
4.3a: Results from parametric Study.............................................................................. 201
4.3a: Results from parametric Study (continue) ............................................................ 201
4.3a: Results from parametric study (with backslope but no MSE) .............................. 203
4.3b: Results from parametric Study ............................................................................. 203
4.3b: Results from parametric Study ............................................................................. 204
4.3b: Results from parametric study (continue)............................................................. 204
vii

4.3b: Results from parametric study (with backslope but no MSE) .............................. 206
4.3c: Results from parametric study .............................................................................. 206
4.3c: Results from parametric study .............................................................................. 207
4.3c: Results from parametric study (continue)............................................................. 208
4.3c: Results from parametric study (continue)............................................................. 209
4.3c: Results from parametric study (with backslope but no MSE) .............................. 209
5.1a: Correction factors.................................................................................................. 235
5.1a: Correction factors (continue) ................................................................................ 236
5.1b: Correction factors for soil nail wall with backslope instead of MSE ................... 236
5.2: Correction factors for different wall parameters..................................................... 241
5.3: Validation of design results for three soil nail walls .............................................. 248
5.4: Validation of design results for three hybrid walls................................................. 250
5.5: Effect of varying MSE reinforcement length of the design of hybrid walls........... 252
5.6: Comparison between results obtained by 5205-Method and PLAXIS predictions 254
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1: Schematic diagram of a cross section in a hybrid wall system................................... 3

1.2: Schematic diagram of a cross section in an SMSE wall system................................. 4
1.3: Schematic diagram of a cross section at the Elbow Slide........................................... 4
1.4: Expected forces imposed by MSE wall on soil nail wall ........................................... 6
2.1: Typical construction sequences in soil nail walls....................................................... 9
2.2: Mechanism of tension mobilization in soil nail wall................................................ 12
2.3: Long nail subjected to combined loading ................................................................. 14
2.4: Elastic analysis for soil-nail interaction.................................................................... 16
2.5: Constant Modulus of lateral subgrade reaction ........................................................ 17
2.6: Principal failure modes in soil nail walls.................................................................. 18
2.7: Mode of failures in soil nail walls ............................................................................ 19
2.8: Internal failure modes ............................................................................................... 20
2.9: Deformation of soil nail walls .................................................................................. 23
2.10a: Comparison of lateral displacements between soil nail wall and MSE wall ........ 24
2.10b: Comparison of locus of maximum tension line between SN wall and MSE wall 25
2.11: German gravity wall method .................................................................................. 27
2.12: German method: Design chart for stability calculations ........................................ 28
2.13: Multicriteria slope stability analysis method .......................................................... 31
2.14: Kinematical limit analysis method: design assumptions ........................................ 33
2.15: Kinematical method: Design charts for perfectly flexible nails, N = 0 .................. 34
2.16: Tensile force distribution diagram for soil nail ...................................................... 35
2.17: Preliminary design chart for soil nail walls ............................................................ 37
2.18: Preliminary design chart for soil nail walls ............................................................ 38
2.19: Nail tension distribution used in GOLDNAIL ....................................................... 40
2.20: Transfer of frictional stress between soil and reinforcement.................................. 45
2.21: Tensile forces variation along the reinforcements .................................................. 46
3.1: Wall geometry of CEBTP Wall No.1 ....................................................................... 50
3.2: Field results from SPT and Pressuremeter tests........................................................ 50
3.3: The wall after failure by saturation of the soil from the top ..................................... 51
3.4: Instrumentation details of the grouted bars............................................................... 51
3.5: Lateral wall deformations during and after construction.......................................... 52
3.7: Tensile forces distribution along the nails ................................................................ 54
ix
3.8: Geometry of the Polyclinic wall in Seattle ............................................................... 55

3.9: Details of instrumented section of the wall .............................................................. 56
3.10: Measured wall deflection and nail loads................................................................. 57
3.11: Cross section view of A-2 wall............................................................................... 59
3.12a: Geometry and instrumentation details of A2 wall ................................................ 60
3.12b: Estimated soil parameters for A-2 wall ................................................................ 61
3.14: Lateral wall deformation at panel 5 ........................................................................ 62
3.14: Wall geometry of Hayward wall............................................................................. 64
3.15: Strain gauge data from section A-A of Hayward wall............................................ 65
3.16: Displacement measurements at section A-A of Hayward wall .............................. 66
3.17: FHWA Wall No. 3 .................................................................................................. 68
3.18: Instrumented vs. predicted data FHWA Wall No. 3............................................ 70
3.19: Examples of typical mesh elements in PLAXIS..................................................... 72
3.20: Comparison of mesh density used to model the CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 ........... 73
3.21: Effect of mesh density on results prediction of CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 ............ 74
3.22: Effect of mesh density on prediction of distribution of nail forces ........................ 75
3.23: Effect of soil model selection on results prediction for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 78
3.24: Effect of soil model selection on prediction of distribution of nail forces ............. 79
3.23: (a) Parameters required for the Mohr-Coulombs model ....................................... 81
(b) Assumed failure contour for MC model in principal stress space .............................. 81
3.24: (a) Parameters required for the Hardening Soil model ........................................... 82
3.24: (b) Assumed failure contour for HS model in principal stress space ..................... 82
3.27: Distribution of principal stresses after initial stress generating.............................. 86
3.28: Mesh model for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1............................................................. 87
3.29: Deformed mesh of the CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 .................................................. 88
3.30: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall displacement............... 89
3.31: Comparison of the location of maximum tensile line............................................. 90
3.32: Comparable trend of maximum nail tensile forces................................................. 91
3.33: Tensile forces distribution along soil nail (predicted vs. measured) ...................... 92
3.34: Failure surface as predicted by LEM...................................................................... 93
3.35: Developed failure surface as predicted by FEM..................................................... 94
3.36: FEM mesh for Seattle Wall .................................................................................... 96
3.37: Deformed mesh of the Seattle wall......................................................................... 97
3.38: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall deformation ................ 99
3.39: Comparable trend of maximum nail loads............................................................ 100
x
3.40: Locus of maximum tensile line............................................................................. 101

3.41: Tensile forces distribution along nails .................................................................. 102
3.42: Failure surface predicted by GSTABL for Seattle Wall....................................... 103
3.43: Predicted failure surface by PLAXIS for Seattle Wall ......................................... 103
3.44: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall deformation .............. 106
3.45: Predicted maximum nail tensile forces................................................................. 107
3.46: Predicted nail force distribution............................................................................ 108
3.47: Failure surface predicted by GSTABL for A2 wall.............................................. 109
3.48: Predicted failure surface by PLAXIS for A2 wall................................................ 109
3.49: Mesh model for FHWA No. 3 wall ...................................................................... 112
3.50: Deformed mesh of the FHWA wall No.3 ............................................................. 113
3.51: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall displacement............. 114
3.52: Maximum reinforcement tensile forces ................................................................ 115
3.53: Reinforcement Tensile force distribution (predicted vs. measured)..................... 116
3.54: Failure surface predicted by GSTABL for FHWA wall No.3.............................. 117
3.55: Predicted failure surface by PLAXIS for FHWA wall No.3 ................................ 117
3.56a: Deformed mesh level backfill .......................................................................... 120
3.56b: Deformed mesh sloped backfill ....................................................................... 120
3.57: Lateral wall deformation before and after backslope ........................................... 121
3.58: Maximum reinforcement tensile forces ................................................................ 122
3.59: Tensile forces distribution along the reinforcements............................................ 123
3.60: Slip surface as predicted by GSTABL for before and after backslope................. 124
3.61: Slip surface as predicted by PLAXIS for before and after backslope .................. 125
4.1a: Modification of the geometry of the baseline hybrid wall to optimize the wall
performance .................................................................................................................... 132
4.1b: Optimization of wall performance using the modified baseline wall in terms of
lateral wall deformations................................................................................................. 133
4.1c: Reduction in tensile forces in reinforcements....................................................... 134
4.1d: Increase in global factor of safety......................................................................... 135
4.2: Geometry of the baseline hybrid wall..................................................................... 136
4.3: Finite element mesh for analysis of the hybrid baseline wall................................. 138
4.4: Variables considered in parametric study............................................................... 143
4.5: Factor of safety for different heights of soil nail wall ............................................ 145
4.6: Lateral wall deformation for different heights of soil nail wall.............................. 146
4.7: Vertical wall displacements for different heights of soil nail wall ......................... 147
xi
4.8: Lateral earth pressure for different heights of soil nail wall................................... 148
4.9: Maximum tensile forces in the nails for different heights of soil nail wall ............ 149
4.10: Effect of soil nail wall heights on overall performance normalized by results
from baseline wall........................................................................................................... 150
4.11: Effect of nail vertical spacing (SV) on factor of safety ......................................... 152
4.12: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on lateral wall deformation........................... 152
4.13: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on vertical displacement at SNW crest......... 153
4.14: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on lateral earth pressure behind wall face..... 153
4.15: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on maximum nail tensile forces.................... 154
4.16: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on overall performance normalized by
results from baseline wall ............................................................................................... 155
4.17: Effect of L/H ratio on factor of safety (Sv = 3.3ft)............................................... 157
4.18: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral wall deformation (Sv = 3.3ft)................................. 157
4.19: Effect of L/H ratio on vertical displacement (Sv = 3.3ft)..................................... 158
4.20: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral earth pressure (Sv = 3.3ft)...................................... 158
4.21: Effect of L/H on maximum nail tensile forces (Sv = 3.3ft).................................. 159
4.22: Effect of L/H ratio on overall performance normalized by results from baseline
wall (Sv = 3.3ft) ............................................................................................................. 160
4.24: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral wall deformation (Sv = 4.5ft)................................. 161
4.25: Effect of L/H ratio on vertical displacement (Sv = 4.5ft)..................................... 162
4.26: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral earth pressure (Sv = 4.5ft)...................................... 162
4.27: Effect of L/H ratio on maximum nail tensile forces (Sv = 4.5ft).......................... 163
4.28: Effect of L/H ratio on overall performance normalized by results from baseline
wall (Sv = 4.5ft) ............................................................................................................. 164
4.29: Effect of l/h ratio on factor of safety .................................................................... 166
4.30: Effect of l/h ratio on lateral wall deformation...................................................... 166
4.31: Effect of l/h ratio on vertical displacement .......................................................... 167
4.32: Effect of l/h ratio on lateral earth pressure ........................................................... 167
4.33: Effect of l/h ratio on maximum nail tensile forces............................................... 168
4.34: Effect of l/h ratio on overall performance normalized by results from baseline
wall.................................................................................................................................. 169
4.35: Effect of wall setback on factor of safety ............................................................. 171
4.36: Effect of wall setback on lateral wall deformation ............................................... 171
4.37: Effect of wall setback on vertical displacement ................................................... 172
xii
4.38: Effect of wall setback on lateral wall pressure ..................................................... 172

4.39: Effect of wall setback on maximum nail tensile forces ........................................ 173
4.40: Effect of wall setback on overall performance normalized by results
4.41: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on factor of safety....................................................... 176
4.42: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on lateral wall deformation ........................................ 176
4.43: Effect of soil cohesion (c) vertical displacements ................................................ 177
4.44: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on lateral wall pressure............................................... 177
4.45: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on maximum nail tensile forces ................................. 178
4.46: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on overall performance normalized by results
4.47: Effect of soil friction () on factor of safety......................................................... 180
4.48: Effect of soil friction () on lateral wall deformation........................................... 180
4.49: Effect of soil friction () on vertical displacements ............................................. 181
4.50: Effect of soil friction () on lateral wall pressure................................................. 181
4.51: Effect of soil friction () on maximum nail tensile forces.................................... 182
4.52: Effect of soil friction () on overall performance normalized by results
4.53: Effect of soil unit weight () on factor of safety................................................... 184
4.54: Effect of soil unit weight () on lateral wall deformation..................................... 184
4.55: Effect of soil unit weight () on vertical displacements ....................................... 185
4.56: Effect of soil unit weight () on lateral earth pressure.......................................... 185
4.57: Effect of soil unit weight () on maximum nail tensile forces.............................. 186
4.58: Effect of soil unit weight () on overall performance normalized by results
4.59: Effect of slope surface on factor of safety ............................................................ 189
4.60: Effect of slope surface on Lateral wall deformation............................................. 189
4.61: Effect of slope surface on vertical displacements................................................. 190
4.62: Effect of slope surface on lateral wall pressure .................................................... 190
4.63: Effect of slope surface on maximum nail tensile forces....................................... 191
4.64: Effect of surface slope on overall performance normalized by results
4.65: Effect of nail inclination on factor of safety ......................................................... 193
4.66: Effect of nail inclination on lateral wall deformation........................................... 193
xiii
4.67: Effect of nail inclination on vertical displacements.............................................. 194

4.68: Effect of nail inclination on lateral wall pressure ................................................. 194
4.69: Effect of nail inclination on maximum nail tensile forces.................................... 195
4.70: Effect of nail inclination on overall performance normalized by results
4.71: Effect of bar size on factor of safety..................................................................... 197
4.72: Effect of bar size on lateral wall deformation....................................................... 197
4.73: Effect of bar size on vertical displacements ......................................................... 198
4.74: Effect of bar size on lateral wall pressure............................................................. 198
4.75: Effect of bar size on maximum nail tensile forces................................................ 199
4.76: Effect of bar size on overall performance normalized by results from baseline wall
......................................................................................................................................... 200
5.4: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 3.3ft (H = 40ft) .......... 218
5.5: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 4.5ft (H = 40ft) .......... 219
5.6: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in short soil nail wall with vertical
spacing of 3.3ft (H = 13.2ft) ........................................................................................... 220
5.7: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in medium tall soil nail wall with vertical
spacing of 3.3ft (H = 26.5ft) ........................................................................................... 221
5.8: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in medium tall soil nail wall with vertical
spacing of 4.5ft (H = 26.5ft) ........................................................................................... 222
5.9: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing
of 3.3ft (H = 40ft) ........................................................................................................... 223
5.10: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing
of 4.5ft (H = 40ft) ........................................................................................................... 224
5.11: Comparison of estimated factor of safety between PLAXIS and GOLDNAIL ... 226
5.12: Design chart for short soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 3.3ft................ 227
5.13: Design chart for medium tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 3.3ft .... 228
5.14: Design chart for medium tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 4.5ft .... 229
5.15: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 3.3ft................... 230
5.16: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 4.5ft................... 231
5.17: Correlation of between lateral and vertical wall displacement............................. 232
5.18: Prediction plot for vertical wall displacement ...................................................... 233
5.19: Effect of modeling MSE wall as vertical surcharge load ..................................... 237
5.20: Design example for hybrid wall system ............................................................... 239
5.21: Calculation of correction factors........................................................................... 241
xiv
5.22: Illustration of design steps for hybrid wall system............................................... 242

5.23: Design examples of three soil nail walls.............................................................. 247
5.24: Design examples of hybrid walls systems ............................................................ 249
5.25: Effect of varying MSE reinforcement length on the design hybrid walls ............ 251
xv
ABSTRACT
In recent years, many departments of transportation are working to keep pace with
population growth by considering major infrastructure improvements to their highways.
The successive expansion of the highway system to meet increasing demand has made
extension of the right-of-way economically prohibitive. The use of earth retaining walls
has allowed highway upgrades to be constructed within existing right-of-ways,
consequently lowering the additional cost of acquiring separate lands.
Texas Department of Transportation and other DOTs construct Hybrid MSE/Soilnail retaining wall systems to replace existing highway embankments that separate two
sections of a roadway. These systems are typically used to allow for widening both sides
of the road by constructing a new lane to each roadway while excluding the need to
acquire additional right-of-way.
The design of such systems, in particular for the soil nail wall, is done using
computer programs such Goldnail and Snail. These computer codes are based on limitequilibrium methods and are typically used as design tools for conventional wall systems
in which some degree of wall deflection is tolerated. They do not however, address large
deflection due to significant surcharge caused by the use of excessive height of MSE
wall. Moreover, these methods do not account for the additional outward thrust expected
to occur at the soil nail/MSE wall interface. As a result, the requirements for designing
hybrid walls systems should not only be based on stability but should also be based on
wall deformation.
The focus of this research study is to examine the adequacy of the current method
recommended by TxDOT and to develop a design procedure for the hybrid wall systems
which will address the shortcomings in the currently used methods in practice. The new
performance method is based on extensive finite element analysis that will address not
only the stability of the structure but also the wall deformations as well as the force
transfer in the reinforcements.
xvi
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In recent years, many departments of transportation have been working to keep
pace with population growth by considering major infrastructure improvements to their
highways. The successive expansion of the highway system to meet increasing demand
has made extension of the right-of-way economically prohibitive. The use of earth
retaining walls has allowed highway upgrades to be constructed within existing right-ofways, consequently lowering the additional cost of acquiring separate lands. The primary
function of earth retaining walls in highway constructions is to retrofit and maximize the
use of existing space and structures. Engineers can use earth retaining walls to provide
steep slopes of reinforced soil to reduce the required width for widening existing traffic
lanes in constricted areas.
Various types of earth retaining structures have been used successfully in the last
two decades. In Texas and throughout the US, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE)
retaining walls and soil nail walls are commonly incorporated into highway construction.
Typical applications of such systems include but are not limited to:
Widening within existing rights-of-way
Adding a lane of traffic
Adding a turn-around lane under a bridge abutment
Repairing failed slopes and retaining structures
Unlike the conventional systems that serve to retain soil behind a vertical cut,
these two techniques are based on the concept of soil reinforcement that use passive
inclusions in the soil mass to create a gravity structure to improve soil stability. In soil
nail walls, the native undisturbed soil, adjacent to the excavation is strengthened so that it
can stand unsupported at larger depths which would normally require installation of sheet
piling or soldier pile bracings. This technique is composed of two major elements: a)
layers of reinforcing members that are placed in predrilled holes and grouted to improve
the bond strength between the nail and the adjacent soil when nail stresses are mobilized
and b) a shotcrete facing typically placed on the soil face which soil nails are attached
into. Construction of soil nail walls is performed in vertical steps, with construction
starting at the top of the excavation and proceeding down. Once an excavated level is
reinforced with soil nails, first temporary and then permanent facings are applied to retain
the soil.
Mechanically stabilized earth walls, on the other hand, are composed of three
major components: a) reinforcements which are placed in the backfill soil in unstressed
condition, b) layers of granular soil backfill with drainage blankets and c) facing elements
which are provided to retain fill material and to prevent slumping and erosion of steep
faces. Unlike soil nail walls, MSE walls are constructed by placing reinforced fill from
the bottom up.
As the use and confidence in MSE and soil nail walls have grown, needs have
emerged to use these structures in arrangements that are more sophisticated. They have
been used in composite and tiered configurations for a variety of reasons such as
aesthetics, stability, and construction constraints. Their use is generally dictated by
severity of the grade change and availability or cost of land within a project site. For
instance, MSE/Soil-nail hybrid retaining walls are now being constructed in which an
MSE wall is placed on top of a soil nail wall as shown in Figure 1.1.
Another possible arrangement of soil nail wall and MSE walls is the Shored MSE
(SMSE). A SMSE consists of a soil nail wall, which is constructed to serve as a shoring
system behind an MSE wall as shown in Figure 1.2 (Morrison, et al., 2006). A
combination of the two systems, hybrid wall and SMSE, were used to stabilize an active
landslide on a road section of US Highway 26-89 known as the Elbow Slide in Wyoming
(Turner and Jensen, 2005). A schematic of hr cross-section of the retaining structure built
at the Elbow Slide is as shown in Figure 1.3.
In addition to the three preceding wall systems, multiple-tiered walls have also
being constructed involving two or several levels of MSE or soil nail walls. An attempt is
3
Figure 1.1: Schematic diagram of a cross section in a hybrid wall system
currently underway at the University of Texas in Austin to evaluate and develop a design
procedure for multi-tiered MSE walls (Wright, 2005).
Figure 1.2: Schematic diagram of a cross section in an SMSE wall system (Morrison et
al., 2006)
Figure 1.3: Schematic diagram of a cross section at the Elbow Slide (Turner and Jensen,
2005)
1.2 Problem Statement

The focus of this research study is to evaluate and develop a design procedure for
the MSE/Soil-nail hybrid retaining wall systems. Hybrid walls are typically used to allow
construction of a new road and widening of an exiting road on the slope of a hill or an
embankment separating two sections of a roadway as illustrated in Figure 1.1. This
system consists of two stages: an excavation to install the soil nail wall and the
subsequent placement of the MSE wall top. Presently, there is no standardized procedure
for designing the hybrid wall. For instance, the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) currently designs both the MSE and soil nail walls to the full combined
anticipated height. TxDOT also implements a design practice in which the soil nail wall
is designed to the full height of the hybrid wall, and the MSE wall is designed as an
independent wall with a minimum bench equivalent to 70% of its design height. Finally,
another approach suggests designing each wall for a minimum L/H = 0.7 1.0 where L
refers to the soil nail length and H refers to the height of the soil nail wall.
Other drawbacks of the current design procedure come from the fact that the
current design is based on the limit-equilibrium (LE) methods using computer codes such
as GOLDNAIL and SNAIL. While LE methods have proved to be economical and
practical design tools for conventional wall systems in which some degree of deflection
at the top of the wall can be tolerated, they do not address large deflection due to
significant surcharge caused by the excessive height of the MSE wall. In GOLDNAIL,
for instance, the MSE wall is currently modeled as a vertical surcharge only; this clearly
does not account for the additional outward thrust as illustrated in Figure 1.4. In a hybrid
wall, these deflections are expected to occur at the soil-nail/MSE wall interface;
therefore, the requirement for designing the hybrid wall should not only be based on
stability but should also be based on wall deformation.
The aforementioned methods for designing hybrid wall systems, while proving to
be reliable and construable, are overly conservative and not cost-effective. Moreover,
these design methods are empirically based and have minimal or no data to support them.
These design procedures do not address the deflections and the specific force transfer
mechanism inherent in the hybrid wall. As a result, there is a need for additional wall
performance data that will allow better understanding of wall mechanisms, force transfer,
and failure modes. The new design tool should be both stability and deflection control
based, and should give predictions of relative deflections and preferably absolute
deflection (Budek, 2004). As more data is collected, a validated design procedure can be
improved, and construction of such wall systems will gain wider acceptance.
Figure 1.4: Expected forces imposed by MSE wall on soil nail wall (Budek, 2004)
1.3 Objective and Scope of Research
The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of the MSE wall surcharge
on the soil nail wall during and after construction. The influence of MSE wall will be
examined in terms of development of soil nail loads in the nails, lateral wall movement of
the soil nail wall and earth pressure behind wall face. A design procedure will be
presented for hybrid wall systems that rationally considers the following salient issues:
1. Global Stability of the hybrid wall
2. Deflection at soil nail wall crest
3. Force transfer between the bottom of the MSE wall and the top of the soil
nail wall
4. Failure modes
5. Effect of construction sequence
A comprehensive design methodology will be proposed, which will allow for the
design of cost effective and safe wall systems. The new design procedure will be
performance-based and it will implicitly incorporate both stability and deflection. The
design charts will rely primarily on data obtained from finite element analysis (FEA)
calibrated using data from field monitored walls. The objective of this research can be
summarized as follows:
Conduct a comprehensive review of pertinent literature
Examine the adequacy of the design method currently used by TxDOT
Build a numerical model in which simulation of field conditions will be

closely matched
Instrument and monitor selected hybrid walls under constructions
Calibrate the numerical model against available field measurements
Perform a parametric study to identify key factors that contribute the most
to the overall behavior of the hybrid wall system
Evaluate and use results from the numerical model to formulate a finite
element based design procedure for hybrid wall systems
Develop recommendations for design and construction methodology for

future hybrid walls
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The concept of in situ soil reinforcement by tensile inclusion is very old. People
in ancient cultures used sticks and branches for reinforcing mud houses and other
religious structures. In recent years, numerous techniques of in situ reinforcement have
been developed such as soil nailing and Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE). These two
techniques are well suited to the needs of highway construction and reconstruction. They
are most useful in applications such as retaining walls and bridge abutments, where they
compete favorably with reinforced concrete. The application of both soil nail walls and
MSE walls has been introduced 30 years ago in Europe and has gained wide acceptance
in the US lately.
Unlike the conventional concrete reinforced systems that serve to retain soil
behind a vertical cut, these two techniques are based on the concept of using soil
reinforcement as passive inclusions in the soil mass to create a gravity structure and
hence improve soil stability. In soil nail walls, the native, undisturbed soil adjacent to the
excavation is strengthened so that it can stand unsupported at depth, which normally
requires installation of sheet piling or soldier pile bracings. This technique is composed
of two major elements:
a. Layers of reinforcing members that are placed in predrilled holes and
grouted to improve the bond strength between the nail and the adjacent
soil when nail stresses are mobilized
b. A shotcrete facing placed on the soil face which soil nails are tied into.
Construction is performed in vertical steps, with construction starting at the top of
the excavation and proceeding down as illustrated in Figure 2.1. Once an excavated step
is reinforced with soil nails, a permanent or temporary facing is then applied to retain the
soil.
Figure 2.1: Typical construction sequences in soil nail walls (Porterfield et al., 1994)
MSE walls, on the other hand, are composed of three major components:
a. Reinforcements which are placed in the soil; these reinforcements are
initially unstressed but reinforcement forces are mobilized by subsequent
deformation of the soil
b. Backfill soil which is usually granular material with drainage blanket and
c. Facing elements which are provided to retain fill material at the face to
prevent slumping and erosion of steep faces
2.2 Soil Nail Walls
2.2.1 Historical Background
Soil nailing originated in Europe in the 1960s with the introduction of the New
Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM). This method emerged from rock bolting that
utilized bonded steel bars and shotcrete to support tunnels. The first reported application
of this technology for permanent support of retaining walls in a cut in soft rock was in
France in 1961. In 1972, the French contractor Bouygues and the specialist contractor
Soletanche constructed the first soil nail wall in France. The wall consisted of an 18-mhigh 70-degree cut slope in Fontainebleau sand, and was constructed as part of a railwaywidening project near Versailles. In the United States, the first documented project was in
Portland, Oregon, where a soil nail wall was used during the construction of an addition
to the Good Samaritan Hospital in 1976 Banerjee et al., 1998.
In Europe, two major research programs to study soil nailing were undertaken;
one in the late 1970s in Germany by the University of Karlsruhe and Bauer Construction,
and the other in the 1980s in France through the CLOUTERRE Program. The French
program consisted of a $5 million study, jointly funded by the French government and
private industry, with the objective of developing a design methodology for soil nail
walls. Results from testing and monitoring of six full-scale structures were used as the
basis for soil nail standards in France. These standards were published in 1991, in so
called the "Recommendations CLOUTERRE ". The primary finding of this research can
summarized as follows (Sotcker and Riedinger, 1990):
10
a. Soil nailed structure behaves as a gravity wall

b. The required length of soil nails for typical application lies within the
range (0.5-0.8) of the height of the wall
c. The vertical and horizontal spacings should be limited to a maximum of
1.5m, where the reinforcement ratio should be kept as 1 nail per 2.25m2
d. The earth pressure behind the wall face may be assumed to be a uniform
rectangular distribution with a magnitude of 0.4 to 0.7 times the active
Coulombs earth pressure
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published its
"Manual for Design and Construction of Soil Nail Walls." This manual summarizes the
work in Germany, France and current U.S. practice, and serves as a guideline for soil nail
design for highway works.
2.2.2 Mechanism and Behavior of Soil-nailed Structures
The fundamental concept of soil nailing relies upon two possible mechanisms,
both of which contributing to improve stability of soil mass: the transfer of tensile forces
generated in the nails through frictional interaction between the ground and the soil nail,
and the development of shear stress and bending stiffness in the nails as a result of
deformation of soil mass. In additions to the aforementioned mechanisms, the soilstructure interaction between the facing and the soil helps to restrain displacement, limit
decompression during and after excavation, and produce nail head load at the connection
between the nail and the facing necessary to develop the force along the nails (Byrne et
al., 1996).
2.2.2.1 Nail Tension
Soil nailing technique results in a composite coherent mass similar to reinforced
soil systems. The line of the maximum tensile forces in the nails, which usually coincide
with the potential slip surface, separates the reinforced soil mass into two zones, an active
zone and a resistance zone, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. The active zone is the reinforced
11
mass close to the facing where the mobilized lateral shear stresses are directed outward.
This out pull action in the reinforcements results in an increase in the tension force in the
nail. The resistant zone is the stable zone where the shear stresses are inward and tend to
restrain the reinforcements from being pulled out.
La
Slip surface (line of maximum tension)
Figure 2.2: Mechanism of tension mobilization in soil nail wall (Byrne et al., 1996)
The nails act to tie the active zone to the resistant zone. In order to achieve
stability, the mobilized tensile force (Tmax) must be balanced by the effective friction
along the soil-nail interface in the resistant zone behind the active block (Elias and Juran,
1991). A sufficient embedment length must also be provided into the resistance zone to
prevent a pullout failure. Moreover, the pullout resistance (Tp) along with the nail head
strength must be adequate to provide the required nail tension at the slip surface. The
value of Tmax can be evaluated as follows:
Tmax
Tp
SF1
Where:
Tp: Pullout resistance of the nail
12
D La F1
SF1
(2.1)
SF1: Factor of safety with respect to pullout resistance (1.75 ~ 2.0)

D: Diameter of drilled hole
La: Embedment length in the resistance zone
F1: The limit interface lateral shear stress obtained from pullout tests
Jewel (1990) suggested the limit lateral shear stress or bond stress can be
mobilized at the contact between the nail surface area and the surrounding soil. This bond
stress is assumed to be directly proportional to the shearing resistance of the soil and is
given by the following relation:
F1 = r f b tan
0.7 r 1
v
(2.2)
where:
fb = Bond coefficient of the soil (skin coefficient)
fb 1 for fully rough soil-grout interface and,
fb (0.2 0.4) for smooth interface
'r = Normal effective stress acting on the circumference of the nail

'v = Effective normal stress
2.2.1.2 Shear Stress and Bending Stiffness in the Nails
When the active block moves relative to the resistance mass, a shear zone is
developed within the soil nail wall where deformation is concentrated. The movement of
the soil mass subjects the soil nails to bending moment and shear forces in addition to
axial tensile forces. This interaction between the nail and the soil is resembling a laterally
loaded pile, in which the movement of the soil mass loads the nails perpendicular to its
long axis as illustrated in Figure 2.3.
13
Formation of hinge
Figure 2.3: Long nail subjected to combined loading (Elias and Juran, 1991)
The effect of bending stiffness can be calculated using the simplified method of
the coefficient of subgrade reaction, which was originally developed by Poulous and
Davis (1980) for laterally loaded piles. The solution derived by the theory of Elasticity
implies that at the failure surface, the bending moment in the nail is zero whereas the
tension and shear forces are maximum. The non-dimensional bending moment, N can
then be defined as:
2
K Dl
N= h 0
H Sh Sv
(2.3)
where:
l0 = 4
4 EI
Kh D
l0 = Transfer length,
E = Youngs Modulus
I = Moment of Inertia
D = Diameter of soil nail
H = Height of the soil nail wall
Sv and Sh = Vertical and horizontal spacing of the nail
Kh = Modulus of lateral subgrade reaction
= unit weight of the soil

14
(2.4)
The transfer length defines the relative rigidity (stiffness) of the nail where the
maximum bending moment is generated at a distance of (/4) l0 from the shear surface as
shown in Figure 2.4. Since the total length of nail (L) is significantly greater than three
times the transfer length l0, it can therefore be considerably long (flexible nail). The
horizontal subgrade reaction can be estimated using charts developed for anchored wall
as shown in Figure 2.5. The bending stiffness number N for most practical structures
varies from 0.1 to 1.5, which suggests behavior more closely associated with flexible
reinforcement.
The maximum tension forces and shear forces mobilized in the nails can be
obtained using the following non-dimensional parameters:
TN =
Tmax
H Sh Sv
(2.5)
TS =
Tc
H Sh Sv
(2.6)
Tc can be evaluated using the following relationship:

2
Tn Tc
+
Rn Rc
(2.7)
where:
TN = Normalized axial force of soil nail
TS = Normalized shear force of soil nail
Tn = Axial (tensile) force acting on soil nail
Tc = Shear force acting on soil nail
Rn = Tensile strength of the nail
Rc = Shear strength of the nail
Figure 2.4 shows the elastic solution described by Schlosser (1983) and Michelle
and Villet (1987) which yields the following relation for estimating the maximum
bending moment in the nail.
M max =
Tc l s
4.9
15
(2.8)
where:
ls = Distance between points of maximum moment
Figure 2.4: Elastic analysis for soil-nail interaction (Schlosser, 1983)

For design purposes, the soil nails are assumed to provide their reinforcing action
almost exclusively through the development of tensile forces associated with shear
stresses mobilized at the interface between the nail and the ground. The FHWA manual
for design of soil nail wall does not consider shear and bending in the nails since their
benefits are still small in comparison with the minimum axial force or the mobilized nailgrout ultimate adhesion.
16
Figure 2.5: Constant Modulus of lateral subgrade reaction (Pfister et al., 1982)
17
2.2.3 Modes of Failure of Soil-nailed Structures

Observations from several building sites and instrumented full-scaled soil nail
walls conducted as part of the CLOUTERRE project identified three types of failure
modes. As shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7, these failure modes include:
1. External modes with potential failure surface passing entirely behind the
reinforced zone
2. Internal modes that involve failure of either the nail bars or the facing or
both
3. Mixed modes that involve internal failure of the reinforced zone that can
extend beyond the reinforced zone of the soil mass
Failure modes will depend primarily on the condition of the wall. For instance,
during construction, the problems may include stability of the excavation, the excessive
weight of the facing, soil variability and the presence of local water. Generally, these
types of failure will mobilize bending stiffness and shear forces as illustrated by Case 2 in
Figure 2.7. After construction, the concerns may include saturation of soil, unexpected
surcharge, corrosion of the nail bars and soil and grout creep. Here there would likely be
some settlement with mobilization of bending stiffness and shear forces along with
development of shearing zone within or behind the reinforced mass (Jones, 1990).
Figure 2.6: Principal failure modes in soil nail walls (Modified after Byrne et al., 1996)
18
EXTERNAL FAILURE MODES
INTERNAL FAILURE MODES
FACING FAILURE MODES
Figure 2.7: Mode of failures in soil nail walls (Lazarte et al., 2003)
19
2.2.3.1 Internal Failure Modes

The internal failure comprises three types of failure as demonstrated in Figure 2.8
and can be described as follows:
Figure 2.8: Internal failure modes (Plumelle et al., 1990)

1- Failure by nail breakage
In this failure mode, the stresses in the nails have reached their maximum capacity
and excessive deformation in the soil mass has occurred.
A slip surface may be
developed because of full mobilization of shear strength of the soil. Consequently, the
nails are subjected not only to tensile forces but also to bending moments and shear
forces. Usually, this type of failure happens suddenly with no warning. A variety of
reasons may contribute and lead to this type of failure:
a. Insufficient nail cross section
b. Corrosion of steel bars
c. Saturation of soil due to water infiltration
d. Excessive surcharge on top of soil nail wall
2- Failure during excavation
If the height of the soil cut is relatively large, failure can occur suddenly due to
local instability and propagation to the top. This instability is caused by continuous flow
of soil behind the wall facing due to successive elimination of arching effect. In order to
prevent such failure, the height of the excavation at each stage should be kept less than
20
the critical height which usually ranges between 1 1.5 m. Another mechanism of failure
in this category includes failure by piping. This failure is similar to the previous one
except that the cause is different and primarily due to presence of pocket of water in the
soil. During excavation, pore water pressure and water seepage; weaken the soil causing
rapid and regressive failures due to soil flow.
3- Failure by pullout
This failure is more frequent and happens because of inadequate shear resistance
between the nail and the surrounding soil. The failure by pullout can be characterized by
the following:
a. Under-estimating the bond stress or pullout capacity of the nail
b. Insufficient embedment length in the resistance zone
c. Decrease in effective shear strength as a result of saturation of cohesive
soils
4- Failure of facing
Failure of the facing usually occurs due to inadequate structural design. There are
three common potential failure modes of the wall facing and face-nail connection as
shown by Cases h through j in Figure 2.7:
a. Flexural failure when bending moment exceed the section capacity of the
facing
b. Punching shear failure of the facing around the nails and
c. Failure of the headed-stud particularly in permanent facing.
2.2.3.2 External Failure Modes
The external stability refers to the overall stability of the soil nail wall. These
stability conditions are same as those associated with the performance of conventional
gravity or cantilever structures. External failure can occur by:
21
a. Sliding along the base or a failure surface, under the influence of the
lateral earth pressure exerted by the ground retained behind the reinforced
zone
b. Bearing capacity failure due to poor quality foundation soils or insufficient
soil nail length. This failure is usually associated with overturning and
global failure, under the compound effect of structure self-weight and
lateral earth pressure
c.
Overall (deep seated) slope failure of the ground in which the soil nail
wall is built
2.2.4 Deformation of Soil Nail Walls

The construction of soil nail walls in urban areas, in many instances, necessitate
controlling wall deformation. The horizontal deformations are caused by shear and
bending of the nails and by a horizontal deformation of the soil below the excavation due
to lateral earth pressure. During construction of a soil nail wall, the reinforced zone tends
to rotate outward about the toe of the wall. Consequently, the maximum horizontal and
vertical movements occur at the top of the wall and decreases gradually toward the toe of
the wall (Byrne et al., 1996). Observation of in-service walls and instrumented walls has
shown that horizontal and vertical displacements at the wall crest tend to be on the same
order of magnitude (CLOUTERRE, 1991). Displacements at the head of the facing
depend on the following factors:
1. Rate of construction
2. Nail spacing and excavation lift height
3. Nail and soil stiffness
4. Global factor of safety
5. L/H ratio
6. Nail inclination
7. Bearing capacity of the foundation soils
8. Magnitude and location of surcharge loading
22
Soil nail walls designed with adequate factor of safety, L/H ratio and negligible
surcharge loading are expected to deform in the order of 0.1% H to 0.4% H. Figure 2.9
presents CLOUTERRE recommendations for estimating wall deformations. The design
parameter can be used to evaluate the length where no deformation is expected.
2.2.4.1 Deformation Analysis of Soil Nail Walls
Currently, there are no rational design procedures for predicting the extent and
magnitude of ground movement both horizontally and vertically. Finite element analysis
conducted by Elias and Juran (1991) showed that a relationship exists between the
horizontal displacement and the global factor of safety. However, no attempt has been
made to use such relationship in designing of soil nail walls.
Figure 2.9: Deformation of soil nail walls (CLOUTERRE, 1991)
23
2.2.5 Comparison of Behavior between Soil Nail Walls and MSE Walls
Although both wall systems use passive inclusions, the difference in their
behaviors is mainly due to the method of construction used (excavation versus filling).
This disparity in construction method produces not only variations in the stresses
generated in the soil mass but also different displacement distribution. Both systems
require a certain amount of movement to mobilize the strength of the reinforcements. In
MSE walls, reinforcement strength is mobilized by compression of the fill. The stresses
continue to increase on the reinforcements in the lowest portion of the wall as each
additional soil lifts are placed and compacted. This places the greatest stress on the lower
reinforcement strips, and results in a tendency for deformation to occur in the lower third
of the wall as shown in Figure 2.9 (b). Since soil nail wall is constructed from the top
down, the first row of nails will be subjected to the greatest stress. As soil is excavated at
the wall face, the strength of the upper nail is mobilized as a result of the decompression
or reduction in confinement of the soil as shown in Figure 2.10. In soil nail walls, the
tension in the reinforcements is greatest at the top of the wall initially, and increases
during excavation of subsequent soil layers (Soil Screw Manual).
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.10a: Comparison of lateral displacements between soil nail wall and MSE wall
(Byrne et al., 1996)
24
(a)
(b)
Soil Nail Wall
MSE Wall
Figure 2.10b: Comparison of locus of maximum tension line between soil nail wall and
MSE wall (Modified after Lazarte et al., 2003 and Christopher et al., 1990)
2.2.6 Design Methods for Soil Nail Walls
The available design methods for soil nail walls may be classified into two main
categories (ISSMGE-TC-17).
Limit-equilibrium design methods or modified slope stability analyses:

These approaches design the reinforced walls under failure conditions.
They involve evaluation of a global safety factor while taking into account
the shearing, tension, or pullout resistance of the nails crossing the
potential failure surface.
Working-stress design methods: These methods try to estimate nail forces,

such as tension, shear forces and bending generated during construction
and under service loading conditions, which are then used to evaluate local
stability at each level of nails.
Most of the methods that are currently used for designing soil nail walls are based
on evaluating global stability of the wall against rotational failure and local stability of
the reinforced soil mass at each reinforcement level. All of These methods have evolved
from limit equilibrium methods (LEM) but use different definitions of safety factors and
different assumptions with regard to the shape of the failure surface, mode of soil25
reinforcement interaction, and the resisting forces in the nails. In all methods, the slip
surface is assumed to separate the reinforced mass into a moving block (active zone) and
a stationary mass (resistance zone). The failure surface is assumed to be either bi-linear,
parabolic, circular or logarithmic spiral. The methods incorporate, to some extent, the
tension resistance and pullout capacity of the nails (Juran et al., 1990).
The current limit-equilibrium design methods provide only a global factor of
safety with respect to soil shear strength, but do not provide means of estimating the
maximum tension and shear forces generated in the nails. The limitations inherent in
these methods do not allow their use for evaluating local stability at each nail level or for
predicting wall deformation.
The following section presents a brief discussion of the different design methods
and their design concepts.
2.2.6.1 German Gravity Wall Method
This method was developed by Stocker et al. (1979) based on limited number of
model tests subjected to substantial surcharge loads. The method uses a force-equilibrium
approach with a bilinear slip surface with consideration of tension forces in the nails.
The soil nail wall is designed as a gravity retaining wall, which acts to retain the soil
behind it. Experimental work by Gassler (1988) showed that bi-linear failure surface is
not consistent with the observed behavior of soil nail walls. His observations would
rather show a failure surface that is more consistent with a circular sliding surface.
However, the bi-linear failure mechanism appears to be applicable for cohesionless soil
subjected to high surcharge loads.
The design concept is based on the definition of an overall factor of safety
described as the ratio of dissipative forces along the slip surface combined with the nail
effects, divided by the external forces the system is subjected to. The general description
of the force equilibrium method for global stability is shown in Figure 2.11. The
minimum factor of safety is obtained by iterative procedure in which the planar angle A
at the toe, measured from the horizontal, is varied while keeping the second planar angle
B at 45 + /2. Figure 2.12 shows a design chart developed based on this bi-linear wedge
26
approach. The use of the chart is limited for wall with 10 face batter and 10 nail
inclinations (Gassler and Gudehus, 1981).
The tension force is evaluated using the normalized tension forces () per unit
facing surface area using the following relation.
Tm
Sh Sv
(2.9)
where:
Tm = Shear force per unit length of nail
= Unit weight of soil
Sv and Sh = Vertical and horizontal spacing of the nail
The German method considers only axial forces in vertical walls. The tensile force in the
nail is evaluated using the shear force per length of nail. This shear force is assumed to be
constant along the length of the nail and can be obtained from pullout test. The German
method recommends a global factor of safety in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 and 1.2 to 1.25 for
pullout capacity.
Figure 2.11: German gravity wall method (Gassler and Gudehus, 1981)
27
Figure 2.12: German method: Design chart for stability calculations (Gassler and
Gudehus, 1981)
2.2.6.2 French Multicriteria Analysis
The research work in the four-year French national project CLOUTERRE has
led to the publication of the French soil-nail design method. This method considers the
contribution of both tension and shearing resistance of the nails in addition to the nail
bending stiffness. Schlosser (1985) presented a Multicriteria analysis procedure for soil
nailing. The overall stability is evaluated assuming a circular slip surface utilizing the
simplified Bishops method. The method considers the mobilized lateral earth pressure on
the nails and the corresponding shearing resistance developed in the nails. The method is
based on the assumption that the nails behave similar to long elastic piles subjected to
lateral load.
The Multicriteria analysis is conducted to evaluate the factors of safety with
respect to the following considerations as shown in Figure 2.13:
a. Shear resistance of the soil
b. Skin friction of the nails
28
c. Normal interaction between the soil and the nails

d. Strength of the nail against tension, shear forces and bending moment
2.2.6.2.1 Shear Resistance of the Nail
The shear resistance of the soil is calculated using the classical Mohr-Coulombs
failure criterion as described by the following relation:
= c + v tan
(2.10)
Where c is the soil cohesion and is internal friction angle of the soil and the
normal vertical stress v = z.
2.2.6.2.2 Skin Friction of the Nail
The skin friction, qs can be assessed by pullout test performed in the laboratory or
in the field. Observations of soil nail walls by Cartier and Gigan (1983) and Schlosser
(1983) concluded that the unit skin friction of the soil nail qs was independent of the soil
depth. This is attributed to the fact that the reduction in the apparent coefficient of friction
= v due to decrease in dilatancy is offset by the increase in the normal stress v; i.e.
qs = * (z) z = constant
Therefore, the maximum resistance of the nails is dependant on the soil-nail
interaction criteria. Assuming the skin friction constant along the embedment length, the
nail tensile strength, Tn is evaluated using the following relationship (CLOUTERRE,
1991).
Tn q s D La
(2.11)
Where D is the diameter of the soil nail and La is the embedment nail length in the
resistant zone.
2.2.6.2.3 Normal Interaction between the Soil and the Nails
Development of the shear zone in reinforced mass results in progressive
mobilization of the passive lateral earth pressure on the nails. Since this phenomena
resembles interaction between laterally loaded piles and surrounding soil, the
conventional p-y analysis may be used to estimate the ultimate shear forces and bending
29
moments mobilized in the nails. This analysis models the soil reaction as a series of
elastoplastic springs where the lateral reaction modulus Kh is estimated from
pressuremeter data or Figure 2.5 (Elias and Juran, 1991).
The maximum shear force, Tc mobilized at the point of intersection between the
failure surface as shown in Figure 2.13 is given by:
Tc =
p D l0
2
; p < pmax
(2.12)
The maximum bending moment mobilized at the distance (/4) l0 from point ,O is
given by:
2
M max = 0.16 pD l0 < M p
(2.13)
where:
p = Passive earth pressure on the nail
pmax = Maximum passive resistance that can be mobilized in the soil
l0 = Transfer length given by equation (2.4)
Mp = Limit bending capacity of the nail
2.2.6.2.4 Strength of the Nail
The nails must withstand both tension (T) and shear force (V). Assuming the nail
element follows Trescas failure criterion (Elias and Juran, 1991):
T2 V2
+ 2 <1
2
Fy
Rc
(2.14)
where:
Fy = tensile strength of the nail
Rc = shear strength of the nail (Rc = Fy/2)
Using the principle of maximum plastic work, the mobilized tensile and shear
forces Tf and Vf at failure can be calculated as:
Vf =
Rc
1 + 4 tan 2 (45 )
T f = 4V f tan (45 )
30
(2.15)
(2.16)
Figure 2.13: Multicriteria slope stability analysis method (Elias and Juran, 1991 and
CLOUTERRE, 1991)
31
where:
= nail inclination
It can be noted that for = 0, only the tensile force can be developed in the nail
for = 45 only shear forces is mobilized.
2.2.6.3 Kinematical Limit Analysis (FHWA 1991)
Juran and Elias (1988) proposed this design method, which was adapted from
methods developed by Schlosser and DeBuhan (1990) and Stocker et al. (1979). The
design approach is based on solution obtained through limit analysis on observation of
model walls. The method assures kinematically admissible displacement failure surface
using a unique failure surface, which satisfies all equilibrium conditions of the active
mass. The main design assumptions are illustrated in Figure 2.14 and can be summarized
as follows (Elias and Juran, 1991):
1. A logarithmic spiral failure surface separates the stationed (resistant) zone
from the rotating quasi-rigid body of the active zone.
2. The locus of the maximum tension and shear forces in the nails coincide
with the failure surface developed in the reinforced soil mass.
3. The quasi-rigid zone and the resistant zone are separated with a thin layer of
soil at limit state of rigid plastic flow.
4. The shear strength of the soil is entirely mobilized and is defined by
Coulombs failure criterion.
5. The reinforced mass is divided into slices parallel to the nails.
6. The horizontal component Eh of the interslice forces acting on each side of
the slice remain equal.
7. The effect of the slope or horizontal surcharge at the upper surface of the
reinforced mass on the forces in the nails is linearly decreasing with depth
along the failure surface.
32
Figure 2.14: Kinematical limit analysis method: design assumptions (Elias and Juran,
1991)
The method designs the soil nail wall for progressive failure by considering only
the local stability in each slice irrespective of global stability. The nail tensile and shears
forces are determined by considering the force-equilibrium of the slice containing the
nail. The maximum nail tensile force Tn and the maximum shear force Tc are determined
in accordance with two nondimensional parameters, TN and TS, using Equations 2.5 and
2.6, respectively. The bending stiffness of the nails is also considered using a
nondimensional parameter, N, defined by Equation 2.3.
For preliminary design, simplified design charts have developed for 15 nail
inclination and uniform nails length. These charts estimate the nail length, tensile and
shear forces by considering the maximum value of S/H, TN and TS where S is the length
of the nail in the active zone. The preliminary design charts are presented in
dimensionless format as shown in Figure 2.15. The total length of the nail can be
obtained by satisfying the following design criterion:
L/H
TN
S
+ FSP
H

33
(2.17)
Fl Dg
Sh Sv
(2.18)
where:
FSP = Factor of safety with respect to pullout
Fl = skin friction
Dg = Diameter of grouted drill hole
Figure 2.15: Kinematical method: Design charts for perfectly flexible nails, N = 0 (Juan
et al., 1990)
2.2.6.4 FHWA 1996 Design Method
In 1996, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the
"Manual for Design and Construction of Soil Nail Walls" (FHWA-SA-96-069). The
manual integrates the work in France, Germany and current U.S. practice, to form a
guideline for soil nail design for highway works. The document includes detailed design
procedures and comprehensive construction specifications.
The limiting equilibrium method has been adopted in this approach. The method
considers only tension in the nails as the main load transfer mechanism in the nails to
stabilize the soil mass (FHWA, 1996). For nails intersecting the slip surface, the method
assumes that the nails contribution to improve stability is due mainly to an increase in the
34
normal force within the reinforced soil mass, which in turn increases the soils shear
resistance along the slip surface in frictional soils.
The proposed tension distribution of tensile forces in the nail is illustrated in
Figure 2.16. The tension distribution diagram is based on the nails head strength and
locus of intersection with the wall facing, the nails yield strength, and the nail pullout
resistance.
The FHWA (1996) method designs the soil nail wall to satisfy both internal and
external stability. The internal stability is performed in two stages; first by ensuring
stability of the nail itself with respect to verification of tensile strength of the nail tendon,
ground-grout bond (friction bond), and grout-tendon bond; Second by ensuring stability
of the nail head and the wall facing with respect to resistance to soil earth pressure,
flexure of the wall face, and punching shear of the facing and connection system. The
external stability ensures the provision of a satisfactory factor of safety against horizontal
sliding along the base, bearing capacity failure of the foundation soil and overall stability
of the ground. The design approach implements both the Service Load Design (SLD) and
the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD).
Figure 2.16: Tensile force distribution diagram for soil nail (FHWA 1996)
35
A set of simplified preliminary charts were developed to design soil nail walls
with common geometries encountered in highway practice. The charts as shown in Figure
2.17 have been prepared for a 15 nail inclination, equal length nails, and a global factor
of safety of 1.35 for SLD. The resistance factor is 0.9 for LRFD.
2.2.6.5 FHWA 2003 Design Method
In 2003, The FHWA published the Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.7.
The purpose of the document is to provide an update to the information contained in the
FHWA-SA-96-069R (Byrne et al., 1998) and incorporate recent trends in design
methods. This design approach is based on Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method.
Similar to the 1996 design approach, this method uses a series of preliminary
dimensionless design charts as shown in Figure 2.18. The charts have been developed
using computer program SNAIL for a factor of safety of 1.35 and a range of face batter,
back slope and effective friction angle. After evaluating the normalized bond strength ,
the L/H ratio as well as the normalized design nail force, tmax-s can be obtained. A set of
correction factors were developed as shown in Figure 2.18 to correct the value of L/H for
drill-hole diameter, soil cohesion and global factor of safety.
2.2.7 Computer Design Programs for Soil Nail Walls
Several computer programs have been developed over the last three decades for
the analysis and design of soil nail walls. Many of these programs have been developed
by adapting general slope stability programs and adding capability to model soil nails as
reinforcing elements. Some of these programs were developed and used for in-house
design whereas others are available commercially. The followings are programs that are
available commercially (Banerjee et al., 1998):
SNAIL : California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), CA,

USA
GOLDNAIL: Golder Associates, Redmond, Wash, USA
TALRENS: Terrasol, Montreuil, France
36
37
Figure 2.17: Preliminary design chart for soil nail walls (FHWA, 1996)
37
38
Figure 2.18: Preliminary design chart for soil nail walls (FHWA, 2003)
38
In the United State, the two programs are most commonly used for design soil
nail walls are SNAIL and GOLDNAIL (FHWA, 2003). A brief description of the main
features of each programs are presented in the following sections.
2.2.7.1 GOLDNAIL
GOLDNAIL is a Windows-based program developed by Golder Associates.
The program implements the limit-equilibrium approach using circular failure surface
based on Janbus method of slices (Janbu, 1973). The program satisfies both moment and
force equilibrium and uses vertical slices to divide the potential slip surface (Banerjee et
al., 1998). The program can analyze slopes with or without reinforcement or structural
facing. It can accommodate passive as well as active tiebacks. GOLDNAIL can handle
up to 13 soil layers with varied back slope geometry, groundwater, earthquake loadings,
point loads and varying horizontal and vertical surcharge distributions. It can also
accommodate various nail and soil parameters (FHWA, 2003).
A limitation of the program is that it is unable of modeling stepped walls or toe
slopes directly. When using GOLDNAIL stepped walls must be modeled with an
equivalent sloped wall. Another limitation of the program is that all nails must have the
same horizontal spacing and inclination. Finally, because of the assumption about the
circular slip surface, the program does not consider block/wedge geometries and hence
cannot evaluate sliding or bearing capacity.
The soil strength is defined by a linear Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope with
option to use a bi-linear strength envelope. The analysis considers only tension in the
nails, and the tension value is determined from the location where the nail intersects with
the trial slip surface as shown in Figure 2.19. The nail tension distribution is determined
using the tensile nail distribution diagram illustrated in Figure 2.16. The program allows
the design and analysis of soil nail walls to be performed using both the SLD and LRFD
approaches (GOLDNAIL Manual, 1996).
The program can run in three modes of
operation:
1. Design mode: in this mode, a trial run is initiated in which the wall
geometry, soil properties and a desired factor of safety are specified. The
39
program then modifies the nail properties until the desired factor of safety
is achieved.
2. Factor of safety mode: in this mode, the minimum global factor of safety
is determined for a given wall geometry, soil and nail properties.
3. Nail service load mode: in this mode, the SLD method is used to estimate
the maximum nail service loads in the soil nail tendons.
In the design mode, the calculation process begins by initiating a first slip surface
in which the nails are assumed to have sufficient pullout capacity behind the failure
surface. Then a minimum value of the wall pressure is evaluated to obtain the desired
safety factor on the soil. The second failure surface generated uses the wall pressure
obtained from the first trial to determine the required length of the nail by systematically
adding an incremental length to each nail until the desired factor of safety is achieved.
Finally, using the wall pressure, the nail length and the factored bond stress thus
obtained, GOLDNAIL calculates the loads on the nails (Banerjee et al., 1998).
Figure 2.19: Nail tension distribution used in GOLDNAIL (GOLDNAIL Manual, 1996)
In the factor of safety mode, the calculation begins by assuming the nail loads as
the product of the factored yield strength of the steel tendon and the nails cross-sectional
area. The program then modifies iteratively the normal stress distribution at the base of
the slice until force and moment equilibrium are achieved. The program places fictitious
40
nails through the center of the base slices and uses them to determine interslice forces and
the relative magnitudes of nail forces (Banerjee et al., 1998).
2.2.7.2 SNAIL
SNAIL is a DOS-based program that was developed by the California Department
of Transportation (CALTRANS) in 1991. The program uses a bilinear wedge analysis
with failure planes originating from the wall toe and trilinear wedge analysis with failure
planes originating below and away from the wall toe. For the latter case, the resisting
forces are determined by the passive earth pressure principles where the inclination of the
passive force is fixed at an angle of 1/3 of the mobilized friction angle (Kim, 1998).
The program can analyze slopes with or without reinforcement or structural
facing. It can accommodate passive as well as active tiebacks. SNAIL can handle up to
seven soil layers and up to six back slope segments and two slope-segments at the toe.
The soil layers are defined as lines with end-points while the water table is defined by
three points. The program can accommodate up to two vertical surcharge loads and
earthquake loadings. It can also accommodate various nail lengths, vertical spacings and
soil parameters. Unlike GOLDNAIL, SNAIL can accommodate cases such as stepped
walls, two slope angles below wall toe and varying nail inclination and bar diameter.
Similar to GOLDNAIL, analysis in SNAIL assumes that the nails act in tension
and the soil strength is defined by a linear Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope. However,
SNAIL considers force equilibrium with only interslice forces being included. Moment
equilibrium is not generally achieved (FHWA, 2003). The mobilized tension is
determined as the lesser of either the nail force developed on the portion of the nail
embedded in the resisting zone, or the force developed on the portion of the nail inside
the active zone combined with the user defined punching shear (Banerjee et al., 1998).
41
2.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls (MSE)

2.3.1 Historical Background of MSE Walls
In early 1960's, investigation of the effect of reinforcement friction as a means to
improve the mechanical properties of the soil led to the invention of the modern earth
reinforcement techniques. In 1966, the system was patented to Henri Vidal, a French
architect and engineer, as Terre Armee in France and Reinforced Earth in the United
States (Ingold, 1982).
The first documented highway use of Reinforced Earth was near Nice, France. In
1972, the first reinforced earth wall was constructed in the US along Highway 39 in
southern California (NCHRP Report 290). Since then, the use of earth reinforcement has
increased significantly. Mitchell et al. (1990) described several types of e earth
reinforcements available and their applications in walls, embankments, and strengthening
in situ grounds.
As the use of earth retaining wall structures saw rapid growth, intensive
worldwide research was carried out with particular emphasis on the performance of
model and full-scale walls. In 1964, the first Reinforced Earth test wall was built in the
Pyrenes Mountains. In 1967, the first fundamental research of wall behavior and design
methods started at the Laboratories Central des Ponts et Chausses (LCPC) in France
(Schlosser, 1990). Later research conducted in the US by the University of California,
Berkeley and Christopher et al. led to the development of the FHWA design manual in
1990.
2.3.2 Types of MSE Walls
Unlike soil-nail walls, an MSE wall system can be found in varying
reinforcement geometries, stress transfer mechanisms, material types, degrees of
extensibility of the reinforcement material and types of facing connection (FHWA 2001).
The following is a brief description of the major earth reinforcement systems as presented
in the FHWA guideline for MSE wall (2001):
1. Reinforcement Geometry
42
i. Linear unidirectional such as ribbed steel strips, or coated geosynthetic strips

ii. Composite unidirectional such as grids or bar mats with grid
spacing greater than 6 inches
iii. Planar bidirectional such as continuous sheets of geosynthetics,
welded wires and woven wires mesh with element spacing less
than 6 inches.
2. Reinforcement Material
i. Metallic reinforcements, typically galvanized or epoxy coated mild
steel
ii. Nonmetallic reinforcements, usually polymeric materials
3. Reinforcement Extensibility
i. Inextensible reinforcements, deformation of the reinforcing
material at failure is less than the deformation of the soil
ii. Extensible reinforcement, deformation of the reinforcement at
failure is equal to or greater than the deformation of the soil
4. Facing systems and connection
i. Segmental precast concrete panels, usually consist of a 6-inch thick
panels produced in the form of square, rectangular or diamond and
connected with shear pins
ii. Dry modular block wall (MBW) units, usually consists of concrete
masonry units which are placed without the use of mortar (dry
stacked)
2.3.3 Mechanism and Behavior
The stability of reinforced soil relies on the contribution of two materials, the soil
that forms the bulk mass and provides resistance to shear and compression, and the
reinforcement, which provides the tensile strength. The basic mechanism involves the
generation of frictional forces between the soil and the reinforcement. Such interaction
43
produces a composite material that combines the best characteristics of soil and the
reinforcement (Collin, 1988).
The reinforcement, through its large Youngs Modulus compared to the soil,
restricts deformation of the soil along the reinforcement length. The reinforcement is
assumed to introduce horizontal and vertical shear stresses into the original geostatic
stress conditions and hence increase the confining pressure and hence the soil cohesion
on the plane perpendicular to the soil (Ingold, 1982). This action increases resistances to
shear failure by resisting the disturbing force and by increasing the normal component of
force, which mobilizes additional frictional resistance (Geoguide 6, 2002). The composite
material thus produces a coherent mass that can withstand substantial loads higher than
the original unreinforced soil.
The mobilized stress between soil and reinforcements is formed through two
mechanisms, friction and/or passive soil resistance. This interaction determines the bond
strength which controls the maximum rate of change of axial forces in the reinforcement
along its length (NCHRP 290, 1987).
2.3.3.1 Friction Load Transfer
The fundamental concept is that the reinforcement assists the soil to resist soil
expansion mainly through friction. Lateral expansion of the soil creates a prestress
statically equivalent to the frictional force developed between the soil and the
reinforcement. This friction transfer as illustrated in Figure 2.20 depends on the interface
characteristics of the soil and reinforcing material and the normal stress between them.
The normal stress, which is stress dependent, is a function of the stress-deformation
behavior of the soil and the overburden pressure. The effective friction coefficient
between the two materials (*) can be determined empirically from laboratory and field
tests. The selection of appropriate values for * often obtained through pullout tests,
direct shear tests between soil and reinforcements and from instrumented models and
full-scaled structures.
44
Figure 2.20: Transfer of frictional stress between soil and reinforcement (Collin, 1986)
Figure 2.21 illustrates the local equilibrium of an isolated section of reinforcement
within the soil and can evaluate using the following equation.
d T = T2 T1 = 2b (dl )
(2.19)
where:
b = reinforcement width
l = length along reinforcement
T = tensile force
= shear stress along soil-reinforcement interface

The shear stress is a function of normal stress (v) and the effective friction
coefficient (*).
= v *
(2.20)
The coefficient of friction is known to be in the range of 0.5 to 0.8 times the
shearing resistance that can be mobilized in the soil.
* = tan = (0.5 0.8) tan

where:
= friction between the soil and smooth surface

= internal frictional angle of soil
45
(2.21)
Figure 2.21: Tensile forces variation along the reinforcements (Collin, 1986)
The pullout capacity of the reinforcement (PF) is thus determined by the
following equation.
PF = * v AS
(2.22)
where:
AS = cross sectional area of the reinforcement
2.3.3.2 Passive Resistance
The passive resistance is developed through bearing type stress at the interfacing
between the soil and the reinforcement as illustrated in Figure 2.21. This mechanism is
generally considered to be the primary interaction for rigid geogrids, bar mat and wire
mesh reinforcement (FHWA, 2001).
The passive resistance is a function of the roughness of the surface (skin friction),
overburden pressure, grid opening dimensions, and thickness of the transverse members
and elongation characteristics of the reinforcement.
46
CHAPTER 3
VALIDATION OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS USING PLAXIS
3.1 Introduction
The conventional limit-equilibrium design methods (LEM) for both soil nail walls
and MSE walls consider overall stability of the structure, and breakage and pullout
capacities of the reinforcements. They do not look at wall deformation explicitly.
Moreover, the predictions accuracy of the reinforcement loads is not accurate since they
only consider the wall at failure condition. The deformation behavior becomes
particularly important, in situations where the wall geometry is irregular or wall loading
falls outside the range considered by the LEM design methods. In many instances,
topographic or economic constraints may dictate the use of shortened reinforcement. This
may cause increased wall deformations. Walls with substantial external loads or
significant back slopes may also be prone to excessive deformations. Other situations
include critical structures that require wall deformations to be controlled within very
small values. Therefore, evaluation of wall deformation can be an essential step in the
satisfactory design for some walls (Chew et al., 1990).
Finite element analysis (FEA) has been used successfully to investigate the
behavior of earth retaining walls. The finite element method (FEM) provides important
information on the mechanical behavior of the wall that are not obtained through
conventional LEM. The FEM approach eliminates the need for simplifying assumptions
that are necessary in conventional LEM. Therefore, the results from FEM can give
insight into the behavior of the reinforced soil wall under various geometric and loading
conditions. It allows quantitative evaluation of the load-deformation behavior of the wall
and hence provides a means to assess the overall performance of the wall. With the use of
FEM, it is possible to estimate the complete state of stress in the reinforced mass, the
horizontal and vertical movements of the wall facing as well as the forces in the
reinforcements.
In this study, the two-dimensional finite element program PLAXIS V.8 was used
to perform the numerical analyses of the reinforced soil walls (soil nail and MSE walls).
47
The basic features of the program PLAXIS have been evaluated and verified by
several previous research studies. Elbert (1996) validated PLAXIS results for a variety of
geotechnical problems. In his research study, he investigated three material models:
Mohr-Coulomb, Modified Cam Clay, and PLAXIS Cap models. These were later
replaced by other advanced constitutive models. Other program features, involving
foundation, bearing capacities of soils, and retaining wall analyses, interface elements
and slope stability analysis through - c reduction, were also verified by comparing
PLAXIS results against benchmark problems. Based on the finding from the above study,
Elbert concluded that the program is effective for analyzing problems in geotechnical
engineering as long as they are defined carefully and the geotechnical parameters are
selected appropriately. In his thesis, however, Elbert (1996) did not use PLAXIS to
analyze reinforced earth structures and therefore a more detailed analysis of the ability of
PLAXIS to simulate these structures should be conducted.
Other research studies have also successfully used PLAXIS to model soil nail and
MSE walls. For instance, Jiun-Hung Luo (2004) used the program to investigate the
optimum design parameters of soil nail walls. Tan Siew Ann (2004) used PLAXIS in
back analysis of instrumented soil nail slope and concluded that the program can predict
the trend of lateral deformation adequately. In 2006, Morrison et al. used PLAXIS to
investigate the performance of MSE walls with short reinforcement placed in SMSE
wall-systems configuration.
Before PLAXIS can be used as the basis for designing MSE/Soil nail hybrid wall
systems, it was necessary to calibrate the program. Calibration of PLAXIS model was
performed using data from cases histories of instrumented walls. The above calibration
process was helpful in verifying that the numerical model was yielding results with
acceptable accuracy.
48
3.2 Case Studies

The historical case studies included two well-documented instrumented soil nail
walls, the CLOUTERRE CEBTP Wall No.1 (Plumelle et al., 1990), the Polyclinic wall in
Seattle, WA (Thompson and Miller, 1990) and the A-2 wall in New Braunfels which was
instrumented and monitored by Texas Tech researchers (Johnson et al., 2004). Moreover,
historical data from two MSE walls were considered. The two MSE walls used for this
purpose were: the Hayward wall (Collin, 1986) and the FHWA Wall No.3 (Schmertmann
et al., 1989).
3.2.1 CLOUTERRE CEBTP Wall No.1
A full-scale experimental soil nail wall was constructed as part of the French
national research project on soil nailing (CLOUTERRE) that was conducted between
1986 and 1989. This wall was one of three fully instrumented experimental soil nail
walls built in order to investigate the behavior of soil nail walls from construction to
failure (CLOUTERRE, 1991). Data obtained from these walls and more than 450 pullout
tests were used to set up a database, which was later used to establish the CLOUTERRE
design recommendations (Plumelle et al., 1990). The project consisted of building three
full experimental walls and by brining to failure by different mechanisms:
1. by saturation of the soil from the top to cause breakage in the nails
2. by lack of adherence on the nail through decreasing the length of the nails
3. by progressively increasing the height of the excavated lift.
Prior to construction of the soil nail walls, a 7 m high embankment was
constructed on Fontainebleau sand foundation using slightly cohesive sand as shown in
Figure 3.1. The soil properties were determined in the field using the SPT test. The SPT
blow counts on the soil varied from 8 blows at 1 m depth to 15 blows at 6 m depth. The
pressuremetric modulus was measured using a Menard type pressuremeter. Figure 3.2
shows results from SPT and pressuremeter tests conducted at CEBTP test site. The shear
strength parameters were determined in the laboratory to be = 38 and c = 3 kPa. The
average density of the sand after compaction was 15.1 kN/m3 which is equivalent of a
medium dense sand with relative density Dr = 0.6 (Plumelle, 1990).
49
Figure 3.1: Wall geometry of CEBTP Wall No.1 (Plumelle, 1990)
Figure 3.2: Field results from SPT and Pressuremeter tests (Plumelle, 1990)
The CEBTP No.1 wall was constructed in by excavating soil in several stages;
each stage of excavation was 1 m high as shown in Figure 3.1. The nails were spaced 1
m horizontally and 1.15 m vertically and were made of aluminum tubes fixed to 80 mm
thick shotcrete facing. The nails spacing was chosen to produce a design factor of safety
of 1.1 to ensure failure of the wall by breakage of the aluminum tubes. After finishing
construction, the soil mass was progressively flooded from the top to increase soil density
and reduce soil cohesion (Plumelle et al., 1990). The observed failure zone coincided
with the measured maximum tensile force line as illustrated in Figure 3.3. The tensile nail
force was mobilized during the next two excavation stages after installation of the nail.
50
No bending in the nail was observed until large deformations had occurred prior to
complete failure (Banerjee et al., 1998).
Figure 3.3: The wall after failure by saturation of the soil from the top (CLOUTERRE,
1991 and Plumelle, 1990)
The instrumentation plan consisted of three vertical inclinometers tubes spaced at
2, 4 and 8 meters from the facing to measure the lateral wall deformation. The tensile
forces were measured using 8-10 strain gauges per nail placed at a distance of 0.5 m as
shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: Instrumentation details of the grouted bars

Inclinometer data as well as field observation showed continuous lateral
movement of the wall during construction and at failure. It was also noted that wall
rotated with respect to the toe with final displacements in the order of 0.3% of the wall
51
height (21 mm). Field observation also indicated that the maximum vertical deformations
were generally in the same order of magnitude as the lateral displacements. Figure 3.5
shows observed wall deformations during construction and at failure. The larger
deformation at bottom than at top at failure condition is consistent with failure by nail
breakage as illustrated in Figure 2.8 (a).
Figure 3.5: Lateral wall deformations during and after construction (CLOUTERRE,
1991)
Observations from instrumented nails at the end of construction showed that the
line of maximum tension coincides with developed failure surface, which was located at
an approximate distance of 0.3H from the wall facing. It was also noted that no tensile
forces developed in the bottom row of nails. However, large tensile forces were observed
in the upper nails. The distribution of tensile forces in nails just before breakage are
shown in Figure 3.6
A two-dimensional finite element analysis was conducted to verify the
experimental results. The analysis used the linear elastic plastic Mohr-Coulomb model to
simulate the soil behavior. The modeling details of the nails, wall facing and nail-soil
interaction were not provided. Comparison of PLAXIS results and historical data
52
presented in (Plumelle, 1990) will be presented in Section 3.5.1. Table 3.1 presents the
soil, geometry and structural characteristics of the wall.
Table 3.1: Parameters input of CEBTP No.1 Wall
Parameters
Wall height (m)
Soil Properties:
Unit Weight, (kN/m3)
15.1
Soil modulus, E (kPa)
-----
Cohesion (kPa)
Angle of internal friction ()
38
Nails Properties:
Youngs modulus (kPa)
----
Nail length (m)
Vary (see Fig 3.4)
Nail Inclination ( )
10
Vertical spacing (m)
1.15
Horizontal spacing (m)
1.0
Nail diameter (mm)
Vary (see Fig 3.4)
Steel diameter (mm)
Vary (see Fig 3.4)
3.2.2 Polyclinic Wall in Seattle, Washington

This case study illustrates a 55 ft soil nailed wall designed and constructed by
DBM Contactors and instrumented by Golder Associates in Seattle area (Thompson and
Miller, 1990). The wall was built to support a temporary shoring system for a building
excavation. The spacing of the nails in the horizontal and vertical directions was 6 ft as
shown in Figure 3.8. The nail bars consisted of Grade 150 Dywidag bars ranging from 1
inch to 1.35 inch in diameter with a maximum length of 35 ft. The holes were drilled with
an 8 inch diameter and an inclination of 15 degrees. The soil condition consisted of a fill
to a depth of 8 ft, underlain by very dense glacial sand and gravel and very dense
lacustrine fine sand and silt. The soil shear strength characteristics were = 40 and c =
200 psf and the soil unit weight = 135 pcf.
53
54
Figure 3.7: Tensile forces distribution along the nails (CLOUTERRE, 1991 and Plumelle, 1990)
55ft
Figure 3.8: Geometry of the Polyclinic wall in Seattle (Thompson and Miller, 1990)
The instrumentation program consisted of five instrumented nails of the nine nails
with four to six vibrating wire strain gauges. A single stain gauge per nail location was
installed at the 3 oclock position of the steel bar as shown in Figure 3.9. Therefore the
bending on the nails was discounted for. The strain data were collected during
construction and after construction and were corrected for temperature changes. It was
noted that due to the large nail diameter (thus large grout), the estimated tensile nail
forces were much larger than forces in the steel bar except in location where apparent
cracking was observed. The lateral wall deformations were measured using one vertical
inclinometer casing placed at a distance of 3 ft from the wall face.
Inclinometer data showed that total lateral wall displacements at the top of the
wall at the end of construction was 0.7 in (18 mm). Similar to the CLOUTERRE wall, the
wall rotated with respect to the toe as shown in Figure 3.10a. The maximum movement at
the top wall was in the order of 0.1% of the wall height. Strain data on the nails indicated
continuous influence of the advancing excavation especially after the next three lifts.
Here again, the instrumented data indicate that no tensile forces were generated in the
bottom row of nails, whereas large tensile forces were observed in the middle nails as
shown in Figure 3.10b. Long-term increase in stain was observed and was attributed to
55
creep, development of cracks in the nail grout and redistribution of the nail load from the
concrete to the steel rebar. The loads on the nails were calculated using two approaches,
the first approach Indirect Method - a composite stiffness for the steel/concrete was
used assuming no cracks occurred in the grout (uncraked section). The second approach
Direct Method - assumed that cracks were developed in the grout and a full release of the
tensile stress in the grout had occurred. The composite stiffness of the uncraked section
was back-calculated assuming the load was constant (Thompson and Miller, 1990).
A finite element analysis was performed using a non-linear two-dimensional
program called FES2D. The program was developed by Ian Miller, and is capable of
analyzing either plane-stain or plane stress problems. The model was calibrated by
varying the soil moduli until the measured wall deformation was matched. The stepped
construction excavations were modeled by means of construction phases with an
increment of 4 ft for the first excavation and 6 ft for the remaining depth. Table 3.2
summarizes the parameters used in the finite element analysis.
Figure 3.9: Details of instrumented section of the wall (Thompson and Miller, 1990)
56
57
Figure 3.10: Measured wall deflection and nail loads (Thompson and Miller, 1990)
Table 3.2: Input parameters for Seattle Wall

Parameters
Wall height (ft)
55
Soil Properties:
Unit Weight, (pcf)
135
Soil modulus, E (ksf)
-----
Cohesion (psf)
200
Angle of internal friction ( )
40
Nails Properties:
Youngs modulus
----
Nail length (ft)
35
Nail Inclination ()
15
Vertical spacing (ft)
Horizontal spacing (ft)
Nail diameter (in)
Steel diameter (in)
11
3.2.3 A-2 Wall in Comal County, Texas

One of the primary goals of this research is to instrument and monitor three
hybrid walls to provide insight to the mechanisms controlling and performance of hybrid
walls and hence develop design guidelines for such systems. Data obtained from
instrumentation of these walls will be used to validate PLAXIS results and to calibrate
the new design procedure. The instrumentation scheme consisted of monitoring the walls
during and after construction to examine wall displacement and the load distribution
along the soil nails. The three walls are located in New Braunfels and San Antonio areas.
Only one wall has been constructed to date and the other two are scheduled to be
constructed in December 2006. As a result, data from the latter two walls will not be
discussed in this document and will be later published in a different report by the Center
of Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation (TechMRT) at Texas Tech University.
The A-2 wall was constructed along the I-35 corridor in New Braunfels (Comal
County), Texas in 2004. The wall was built by a local contractor (Graig Olden) and was
58
instrumented and monitored by TechMRT researchers (Johnson et al., 2004). The height
of the soil nail portion of this hybrid wall varied along the length of the wall. The tallest
section of the wall is located at the midpoint and was approximately 26.5 ft as shown in
Figures 3.11 and 3.12. The MSE wall constructed above the soil nail wall was
approximately 10 ft in height and is offset about 2 ft from the soil nail wall face as
illustrated in Figure 3.11. No instrumentation were planed for this part of the wall.
The soil properties were estimated from boring logs provided by TxDOT. Only
limited information was available; as a result, an average value was calculated and will
be used in the analysis. The shear strength parameters of soil were estimated as c = 150
psf and = 38 and the soil unit weight was estimated as 130 pcf as shown in Figure
3.12b.
Figure 3.11: Cross section view of A-2 wall

The instrumentation scheme of this wall consisted of two vertical inclinometer
casings installed in holes drilled 2 ft behind panels 5 and 6 as shown in Figure 3.12b.
Three pairs of resistance (foil) strain gauges were welded to each of the selected nails
prior to installation. Each pair consisted of one gauge on the top of the steel rebar and one
on the bottom. The strain gauges were placed along the length of the nails at 1 ft, L/4 and
L/2 from the face as demonstrated in Figure 3.12a (c).
59
(a)
60
(b)
Figure 3.12a: Geometry and instrumentation details of A2 wall (Johnson, 2004)
(c)
185.8 m
Fill Material, clay,
0
stiff, = 33
183.9 m
Clay, very stiff
= 350
182.0 m
Clay, silty, sandy,

0
stiff to soft, = 32
177.8 m
61
Clay Shale, hard,

= 440
Figure 3.12b: Estimated soil parameters for A-2 wall
Unfortunately, due to construction difficulties and limited access to the site most
of the gauges and one inclinometer casing were damaged during installation. Figure 3.14
shows the inclinometer data collected during and after construction of the soil nail
portion of the wall. The total lateral wall displacement at the top of the wall at the end of
construction of the soil nail wall was 7 mm. The maximum movement was less than 0.1%
of the wall height. Unfortunately, the inclinometer casing was not extended upward prior
to construction of the MSE wall progressed as was originally planned and hence no data
on the influence of construction of the MSE wall could be obtained.
Displacem ent (m m )
-2
De pth (m )
8
14-Feb
19-Feb
26-Feb
18-Mar
13-Apr
26-May
11-Mar
Figure 3.14: Lateral wall deformation at panel 5 (Johnson, 2004)
62
The shortcomings observed in the construction of wall A-2 were identified and a
careful instrumentation plan has been developed for the two new walls to be constructed
in San Antonio. The new instrumentation plan for each wall section will include two
inclinometer casings at 2 and 5 ft behind the facing. The casings will be protected using
concrete blocks during the construction progress of the MSE wall. In addition to the
inclinometer casings, several survey points will be established on the wall face of both
the soil nail and MSE wall. Vibrating wire strain gauges will be used in pair at four
different locations along the soil nail. Three embedment concrete gauges will be used in
selected nails to measure the load taken by the grout. Details of the new instrumentation
plan are given in Appendix C. In addition to using better instrumentation scheme that
conforms to FHWA guidelines, representatives from TxDOT and TechMRT will be
present at the site while construction of the wall progresses. This physical presence is
crucial to the success of the project to guarantee higher survival rate of the instruments.
The soil parameters to be used in PLAXIS were estimated from boring logs
provided by TxDOT and are listed in Figure 3.12b. The average soil shear strength
parameters were = 380 and c = 150 psf and a soil unit weight = 130 pcf.
3.2.4 Hayward Wall
A VSL MSE wall constructed to support an embankment for a grade separation in
Hayward, California (Collin, 1988). The height of the wall varied along its length from
4.3 m to 6.1 m. The backfill material consisted of gravelly sand backfilled at slope angle
of 26 degrees from the horizontal and extends 50 feet behind the back of the wall. The
wall was reinforced using steel bar mats laid on top of the fill at distance of 0.61 m center
to center and connected to the wall face.
Two sections of the wall, A-A and B-B as shown in Figure 3.14, were
instrumented using strain gauges. However, no field displacement measurements were
taken during the construction of the wall. The only displacement readings available were
taken after the end of the construction of the wall. Figure 3.15 shows data from strain
gauges and Figure 3.16 shows the inclinometer casings data after construction of the
wall.
63
Figure 3.14: Wall geometry of Hayward wall (Collin, 1986)

As part of his research work, Collin (1986) performed a finite element analysis of
the wall using the computer code SSCOMP that uses the hyperbolic stress-strain model
developed by Duncan et al. (1980). The construction of the wall was modeled as a two
dimensional plane strain problem (Adib, 1988). In his model, the erection of the wall was
modeled via 10 construction increments to simulate the fill placement, each 2 ft thick.
Each construction increment was followed by a compaction increment. The backslope
was modeled using four additional construction increments. The compaction induced
stresses were determined using the computer program XPRESS developed by Seed
(1983). The program calculates the lateral earth pressure profile, which simulate the
effects of the backfill compaction behind the wall.
The material properties of the backfill material consisted of an internal friction
angle of 40.6 and a unit weight of 122 pcf. Parameter inputs for the constitutive model
were estimated from a table with 80 different soils prepared by Duncan et al. (1980). The
soil-reinforcement interaction was modeled by means of interface elements which allow
for relative movement between the soil and inclusion. The interface element had zero
thickness with two nodal links and consisted of a normal spring and shear. Table 3.3
summarizes all the input parameters used for the analysis of this wall.
64
65
Figure 3.15: Strain gauge data from section A-A of Hayward wall (Collin, 1986)
Figure 3.16: Displacement measurements at section A-A of Hayward wall (Collin, 1986)
66
A finite element analysis was conducted for the Hayward wall using PLAXIS.
Comparison of PLAXIS results and historical data presented by Collin (1986) is
presented in Section 3.5.5. The numerical analysis was performed for the 20 ft wall at
Section A-A as shown in Figure 3.15 and 3.16: when the wall was constructed to the full
height with level backfill; and after the backslope was completed.
Table 3.3: Input parameters for Hayward Wall
Parameters
Wall height (ft)
20
Foundation
Backfill
0.107
0.122
Youngs modulus number, K
250
550
Young modulus exponent, n
0.2
0.5
Failure ratio, Rf
0.7
0.7
Bulk Modulus number, KB
600
450
Bulk modulus exponent, m
0.2
0.4
Cohesion (ksf)
1.09
40.6
At-rest Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K0
300
825
Unloaded-reloaded modulus number, Kur
0.75
0.35
Soil Properties
Unit Weight, g (ksf)
Angle of internal friction (0)
Reinforcement Properties (Bar Mat):

Youngs modulus (ksf)
4,176,000
Cross sectional area (ft2 / ft)
0.00112
Reinforcement width (ft)
2.0
Reinforcement length (ft)
16
Vertical spacing (ft)
2.0
Horizontal spacing (ft)
3.42
Interface Element Properties
Soil-Reinforcement
Soil-Concrete
Adhesion, C
Soil-structure element friction angle (0)
21
32
1 x 108
1 x 108
950
5,000
Normal spring coefficient

Shear spring coefficient
67
3.2.5 FHWA Wall No.3

The full-scale test wall No.3 was constructed as part of a research study to
investigate the behavior of reinforced soil walls. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) sponsored the research study, which consisted of building six walls and four
embankments in the state of Illinois. The wall was a 20 ft high bar mat (VSL) wall with
segmental concrete facing and steel bar mats as shown in Figure 3.17. The reinforcing
steel bar mats consisted of 0.375 inches bars spaced at 6 inches center to center and
transverse bars spaced at 2 ft. The bar mats were laid on top of the fill at distance 4.92 ft
horizontally. The wall was constructed in 8 lifts with backfill material described as
gravelly sand.
Figure 3.17: FHWA Wall No. 3 (Schmertmann et al., 1989)

Similar to the
Hayward wall, the wall was modeled using SSCOMP (Adib, 1988). Figure 3.18
shows a comparison between predicted and measured data. The parameters for the
foundation soil were derived from correlations based on SPT blow counts (Schmertmann
et al., 1989). Table 4 summarizes the input parameters for soil, reinforcements and
interface elements as used in this analysis.
68
Table 3.4: Parameters inputs of FHWA No.3 Wall

Parameters
Wall height (ft)
20
Soil Properties
Foundation
Backfill
0.130
0.130
Youngs modulus number, K
600
460
Young modulus exponent, n
0.25
0.5
Failure ratio, Rf
0.7
0.7
Bulk Modulus number, KB
450
230
Bulk modulus exponent, m
0.2
0.5
Cohesion (ksf)
1.09
40
0.412
0.357
900
690
Unit Weight, (ksf)
Angle of internal friction ( )

At-rest Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K0
Unloaded-reloaded modulus number, Kur
Reinforcement Properties (Bar Mat):
4,176,000
Cross sectional area (ft / ft)
0.000621
Reinforcement width / length (ft)
2.0 / 14
Vertical/ Horizontal spacing (ft)
2.5 / 4.92
Wall Facing:
144,000
Moment of Inertia (ft /ft)
0.0131
Area (ft2 / ft)
0.54
Interface Element Properties

Adhesion, c (psf)
0
Soil-structure element friction angle ( )

Normal spring coefficient
Shear spring coefficient
69
Soil-Reinforcement
Soil-Concrete
33
32
1 x 108
1 x 108
1,640
5,000
70
Figure 3.18: Instrumented vs. predicted data FHWA Wall No. 3 (Adib, 1988)
3.3 Description of PLAXIS

The PLAXIS program was originally developed in 1986, as a jointed project
between Delft University of Technology and the Dutch Ministry of Public Works. The
goal was to provide a practical means to use the finite element method in geotechnical
engineering problems. In 1993, the PLAXIS Company was formed and it took over the
activities from Delft University of Technology. Since then, many features were added to
the software to extend its capability to cover most areas of geotechnical engineering
(PLAXIS).
PLAXIS Version 8 is two-dimensional finite element code and is available
commercially to conduct analysis of deformation and stability for a variety of
geotechnical problems. The program can be used in plane strain as well as in
axisymmetric modeling. The program can also be used to model slope-stability problems
and uses a -c reduction routine to calculate the factor of safety. With its advanced builtin soil models, it provides tools to simulate sequences of real events:
change in geometry (excavation, fill placement)
change in loading condition (compaction effort, pullout test) and
change in soil properties (fill replacement).
The inputs are entered graphically and allow for a detailed modeling of the
geometry cross section. The graphical interface provides tools to define soil layers,
structures, construction stages, loads and boundary conditions inputs of soil layers
(PLAXIS Manual).
3.3.1 Mesh Elements and Density
Two types of elements are available in PLAXIS; one consists of a 6-node element
whereas the other uses a 15-node triangular element. Selection of the type of mesh is a
function of the accuracy to be obtained, speed of calculation, and memory consumption.
The 15-node triangle element is more accurate and uses fourth order shape function with
twelve Gauss points as shown in Figure 3.19. Calculation using 6-node triangle element
71
is significantly faster and still fairly accurate. The order of interpolation is two and uses
three gauss points.
Figure 3.19: Examples of typical mesh elements in PLAXIS (PLAXIS Manual)

PLAXIS uses unstructured mesh, which is generated automatically with options
for global and local mesh refinement. Five levels of refinement can be selected which
range from very coarse with less number of elements to very fine with significantly larger
number of elements. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the effect of mesh
density and to select the appropriate density. The CLOUTERRE wall model was used for
that purpose. Five different density levels were used to model the wall and the results
were then compared with the measured ones. Figure 3.20 shows two different mesh
densities.
Comparison of results is done in terms of wall displacements, maximum tensile
force in the nail and location of maximum tension line. Results obtained with fine mesh
were found to be in better agreement with measured data and hence this mesh density
was adapted throughout this study. Figures 3.21 and 3.22 compare results obtained using
five different mesh densities. Table 3.5 summarizes the input parameters used in
modeling this wall. Detailed discussion of the wall model is presented in Section 3.5.1.
72
(a) Very coarse mesh
(b) Very fine mesh
Figure 3.20: Comparison of mesh density used to model the CLOUTERRE Wall No.1
73
Effect of Mesh Density
10
15
Distance from face (m)
Tmax (kN)
Displacement (mm)
0
Locus of Maximum Tension Line
Maximum Tensile Forces
Lateral Wall Displacement
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
0
Measured
Very Coarse
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Very Fine
74
Depth Below Top of W all (m )
Depth Below Top of Wall (m)
Measured
Measured
Very Coarse
Coarse
Fine
Medium
Very Coarse
Coarse
Fine
Medium
Very Fine
Very Fine
Figure 3.21: Effect of mesh density on results prediction of CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 using PLAXIS
30
SN1
20
10
0
0
30
SN2
20
10
0
0
30
SN3
20
10
0
0
Tensile Loads (kN)
30
SN4
20
10
0
0
30
SN5
20
10
0
0
30
SN6
20
10
0
0
30
20
10
0
Distance from head (m)

Measured
Very Coarse
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Very Fine
Figure 3.22: Effect of mesh density on prediction of distribution of nail forces
75
Table 3.5a: Soil Properties for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1

Mohr-Coulomb
Soil1
Soil3
Soil2
Type
Drained
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
0.000
10000.00
0.350
3703.70
16049.38
3.00
38.00
0.00
500.00
22.000
0.50
0.00
0.80
Drained
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
1E15
25000.00
0.230
10162.60
28982.23
5.00
38.00
0.00
5000.00
17.000
1.00
0.00
0.80
Drained
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
1E15
15000.00
0.300
5769.23
20192.30
5.00
38.00
0.00
3000.00
19.000
1.00
10000000000.00
0.80
unsat
sat
kx
ky
einit
ck
Eref
Gref
Eoed
cref
Einc
yref
cincrement
Tstr.
Rinter.
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[-]
[-]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[]
[]
[kN/m/m]
[m]
[kN/m/m]
[kN/m]
[-]
Table 3.5b: Beam data sets parameters

No.
1
2
Identification
EA
EI
Shortcrete Wall
Soil Nail
[kN/m]
2E6
1.15E5
[kNm/m]
1200.00
37.20
[kN/m/m]
2.00
0.08
[-]
0.15
0.20
Mp
Np
[kNm/m]
1E15
1E15
[kN/m]
1E15
1E15
3.3.2 Soil Constitutive Models

In the last four decades, numerous material models have been developed to be
used in finite element analysis to predict the stress-strain behavior of soils. The purpose
of these models is to simulate soil structures and soil-structure interaction problems in
axisymmetric, plane strain, and 3D conditions. They consist of mathematical expressions
formulated based on theories of elasticity and plasticity to express the relations between
stresses and strains for a variety of materials that make up a geotechnical structure. These
models vary in terms of complexity level and the number of required parameters. The
more sophisticated a soil model is, the more parameters are required as input. Some
76
complex parameters may require unconventional soil laboratory tests. As a result, for
practical application of finite element methods, the selection of the appropriate model
depends on the type of information available, which should be obtainable through
conventional and relatively simple laboratory experiments (Lade, 2005).
PLAXIS V8 contains five constitutive models, four of which are advanced models
for simulating non-linear, time dependent and anisotropic behavior of soils. These soil
models include (PLAXIS Manual):
1. Mohr-Coulomb elastic perfectly plastic model (MC)
2. Hardening Soil model (HS)
3. Soft Soil Creep model (SSC)
4. Soft Soil model (SS)
5. Modified Cam Clay model (MCC)
The two first constitutive models were selected for preliminary work, first to
confirm the ability of PLAXIS program to simulate reinforced soil walls, and second to
assess the accuracy of each model in simulating and predicting the reinforced wall
behavior. A comparison of the performance of each model is presented in Figures 3.23
and 3.24. The following gives a brief discussion of the required parameters, capability
and limitations of the two selected models:
3.3.2.1 Mohr-Coulomb Model (MC)
This is an elastic perfectly-plastic model, which combines Hookes law and the
Coulombs failure criterion. It is a first order model for soils which requires the input of
five parameters as shown in Figure 3.25; E and for soil elasticity, and c for soil
plasticity, and the dilatancy angle (PLAXIS Manual). The failure behavior is quiet well
captured in this model especially in drained conditions and the stress combinations,
which cause failure, are found to be in good agreement with those obtained from triaxial
tests. However, since the stiffness behavior below the failure contour is assumed to be
linear elastic, the model has a limitation in terms of deformation behavior before failure
(Brinkgreve, 2005).
77

Displacement (mm)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
Distance From Wall Face (m)
Tmax (kN)
40.0
50.0
0.0
10
20
30
40
2.0
4.0
78
5.0
6.0
Measured
Depth (m)
1.0
FEM - MC
FEM - HS
7.0
8
Measured
MC
HS
Measured
MC
HS
3.0
Figure 3.23: Effect of soil model selection on results prediction for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1 using PLAXIS
Tensile Force Distribution

30
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
Tensile Loads (kN)
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0
0.0
30
20
10
0
30
20
10
0

Measured
MC
HS
Figure 3.24: Effect of soil model selection on prediction of distribution of nail forces
79
3.3.2.2 Hardening-Soil Model (HS)

This is an advanced soil model capable of simulating both soft soil and stiff soil.
Similar to MC model, failure in HS model is defined by means of Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion. Unlike the MC model, the HS model accounts for the increase in stiffness with
pressure. The model uses a power law formulation for stress-dependent stiffness similar
to the one used in the Duncan-Chang model. The HS model as shown in Figure 3.26
requires the input of 10 parameters, i.e. three reference stiffness parameters; the triaxial
loading stiffness E50, the triaxial unloading stiffness Eur and the oedometer loading
stiffness Eoed. A power, m parameter for the stress-dependent stiffness formulation, a
Poissons ratio for loading and unloading, ur, the Mohr-Coulomb strength parameters,
and , the dilatancy angle , a K0-value, and a parameter called the failure ratio, Rf which
determines the strain level at failure. Although, the HS model can be used to more
accurately predict displacement and failure for general types of soils, this accuracy is
limited by the availability and accuracy of these parameters. In geotechnical engineering
practice, routine evaluation of material property may not yield such information; as a
result, such parameters would have to be estimated from existing correlations. Such
assumptions will offset the accuracy of the model in predicting precisely the overall
performance of the wall structure.
A process similar to that used for selecting the appropriate mesh density was used
to select a appropriate soil model. The important factor in selecting the soil model
depends on the availability of the input parameters and the accuracy of the prediction of
wall performance. Due to limitations in data available in these case studies, the MohrCoulomb model was found to be the most appropriate model to use for this analysis.
Figures 3.23 and 3.24 compare the results of the two wall models using MC model, HS
model against the measured data. Since the input parameters as shown in Table 3.6 are
different, an estimate of the soil stiffness was made based on the data provided in Figure
3.2.
80
81
Figure 3.23: (a) Parameters required for the Mohr-Coulombs model (Whittle, 2005)
(b) Assumed failure contour for MC model in principal stress space (PLAXIS Manual)
82
Figure 3.24: (a) Parameters required for the Hardening Soil model (PLAXIS Manual)
(b) Assumed failure contour for HS model in principal stress space (PLAXIS Manual)
It is clear from Figure 3.23 and 3.24 that simulating the wall with the MC model
gives very good agreement with measured data. This good agreement gives confidence in
pursuing the rest of the analysis using the MC model despite its limitations as discussed
is Section 3.2.2.1.
Table 3.6: Soil data sets parameters using the HS model
Hardening Soil
Type
unsat
sat
kx
ky
einit
emin
emax
ck
E50ref
Eoedref
power (m)
cref
Eurref
ur(nu)
pref
cincrement
yref
Rf
Tstr.
Rinter
inter
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[]
[]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[-]
[m]
1
Soil1
Drained
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
0.50
0.00
999.00
0.00
10,000.00
8,000.00
0.50
3.00
38.00
0.00
30,000.00
0.200
100.00
0.50
22.00
0.90
0.00
0.80
0.00
2
Soil3
Drained
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
0.50
0.00
999.00
1E15
25,000.00
20,000.00
0.50
5.00
38.00
0.00
75,000.00
0.200
100.00
1.00
17.00
0.90
0.00
0.80
0.00
3
Soil2
Drained
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
0.50
0.00
999.00
1E15
15,000.00
12,000.00
0.50
5.00
38.00
0.00
45,000.00
0.200
100.00
1.00
19.00
0.90
0.00
0.80
0.00
3.4 Modeling Issues

Five finite element models were used in this study to evaluate PLAXIS for
modeling soil nail wall and MSE wall structures. To achieve this evaluation, comparisons
between PLAXIS results and the measured values found in the literature were made of
the following:
83
deformation of the wall facing
distribution of tensile forces along the nails/reinforcements
locus of the maximum tension
Three soil nail walls were used for modeling using data from the CLOUTERRE
CEBTP Wall No. 1, Polyclinic wall in Seattle, and A2 wall in Comal County. Two MSE
walls were modeled using data from the FHWA Wall No. 3 and Hayward wall. All walls
were modeled using fine mesh with 15-node elements. Simulation of field construction
was performed as the following:
For soil nail wall, simulation of construction sequences were performed in

two stages that were continued until the full height of wall was reached:
i. excavation of one row of soil
ii. installation of nail row and placement of shotcrete facing
For MSE wall, simulation of construction sequences and compaction

effort were carried out in two stages and were continued until the full
height of the wall was reached:
iii. installation of wall panel, row of reinforcement and placement of
backfill lift each 2ft thick
iv. application of compaction effort; 500 psf close to the wall face and
up to 5 ft from the wall face, and 1,000 psf beyond 5 ft from the
wall face and extends 30 ft behind the wall face
The soil stiffness was varied with depth in order to obtain the appropriate trend.
As illustrate in Figure 2.9, for soil nail walls, the larger lateral wall deformation occurs at
the top of the wall and decreases with depth. Several layers of soils are used in which all
parameters are kept constant except for the soil modulus which was increased with depth.
This process varied from one wall to another in which the soil stiffness was altered until a
close match between the model predicted wall displacement and the measured data was
achieved. In MSE walls, use of the bulk modulus instead of the initial Young Modulus
was found to give better representation of wall face deformation.
84
The wall facing was modeled using beam elements with bending and axial
stiffness. In soil nail walls, a pinned connection was used between the shotcrete face and
the soil nails. A pinned connection was also used between two rows of the shotcrete face.
A reduction factor of 0.8 was used for the interface element between the shotcrete wall
and soil. In MSE walls, a pinned connection was used between two wall panels. No
interface reduction factor was used between the wall facing and the backfill material.
The soil nails were modeled using beam elements with bending and axial
stiffness. An interface element was placed between the soil elements and the beam
elements to permit the slippage of the two materials. Each interface element consists of
five pairs of nodes and the virtual thickness factor is set to 0.1 (default value). The MSE
reinforcements are modeled using goegrid elements with normal stiffness only. No
interface elements are placed between the geogrid and the soil as recommended by
PLAXIS manual.
3.5 The Modeling of Finite Element Analysis Using PLAXIS
3.5.1 CLOUTERRE CEBTP Wall No.1
The CLOUTERRE wall (CEBTP No.1) was constructed on a slightly cohesive
sand embankment, which was 7.5m high and is illustrated in Figure 3.1. The soil shear
strength characteristics were = 380 and c = 3 kPa. Table 3.5 summarizes the parameters
used in the finite element analysis for this wall. The spacing of the nails in the horizontal
and in the vertical directions was 1.15 m. The stepped construction excavations were
modeled by means of construction phases with an increment of 1 m.
3.5.1.1 Finite Element Modeling
Figures 3.27 and 3.28 illustrate the wall geometry and the mesh model that were
used. The 15 node triangular element type was selected. The soil was modeled using the
elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model. Beam elements were used to model the soil nails as
they provided better prediction of the performance of soil nails. Twenty phases were used
to model the wall:
1. One phase to generate the initial stresses
85
2. Sixteen phases to model the construction sequences

3. Two phases to compute the factor of safety before and after saturation of
soil behind the wall
4. One additional phase was used to simulate the saturation process by
replacing the original soil properties with the saturated ones. This was
achieved by reducing the soil cohesion to a value close to zero and
increasing the soil unit weight to 24 kN/m3.
The initial stresses were generated using the gravity method instead of the K0method in order to obtain better representation of the stress distribution along the slope as
shown in Figure 3.27.
Figure 3.27: Distribution of principal stresses after initial stress generating

3.5.1.2 Finite Element Analysis Results:
A parametric study was conducted to simulate the effect of increased soil stiffness
with depth on the wall deformation, and determine the maximum tensile forces of the soil
nails. In the following sections, model predictions are compared comparison with data
found in the original reference.
86
Figure 3.28: Mesh model for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1

3.5.1.2.1 Prediction of Lateral Wall Displacement
The observed trend of the wall lateral displacement was well depicted by the
PLAXIS model as shown in Figure 3.29. Figure 3.30 compares the measured data with
the predicted data. It can be noted that the numerical displacements match quite closely
with the actual trend recorded by the inclinometer readings. However, most of the
numerical runs predicted larger maximum deflection at the bottom of the wall when
compared with the inclinometer data that showed no lateral movement at the bottom of
the wall. A better match can be obtained by using larger soil stiffness for the soil in the
lower part of the wall. However, in order to simulate the wall behavior quite closely it
was necessary to conform to the parameters as given by the author (Plumelle, 1990).
87
Figure 3.29: Deformed mesh of the CLOUTERRE Wall No.1

3.5.1.2.2 Prediction of Nail Tensile Forces
The predicted axial forces along soil nails 1 to 7 are shown in Figures 3.31 to
3.33. The tensile forces along the nails were compared with the measured readings. The
general trend in the tensile forces distribution within the nail appears to be in agreement
with the measured behavior as shown in Figure 3.33. However, the predicted maximum
forces appeared to be slightly under-estimated for the top three nails and slightly over
predicted for the lower nails. This dissimilarity between the predicted data and the
measured data is probably due to the way the soil nails were simulated. In PLAXIS, the
discrete nails are transformed into equivalent plates using beam elements. The predicted
forces are estimated first for a unit width of the beam element and then were multiplied
by the horizontal nail spacing to obtain the forces along the nail. The predicted locus of
the maximum axial forces (maximum tensile line), appears to be in good agreement with
measured values as shown in Figure 3.31. A similar trend can also be noted between
predicted and measured data for the magnitude of the maximum tensile forces as
illustrated in Figure 3.32.
88

Displacement (mm)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0
1.0
Depth (m)
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
FEM
PLAXIS
Measured
7.0
Figure 3.30: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall displacement
89

Distance from face (m)
0
Depth (m)
6
Measured
7
Figure 3.31: Comparison of the location of maximum tensile line
90
FEM
PLAXIS

Tmax (kN)
0
10
15
20
25
0
Measured
FEM
PLAXIS
Depth (m)
7
Figure 3.32: Comparable trend of maximum nail tensile forces
91
30
Tensile Force Distribution

30
SN1
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
30
SN2
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
30
SN3
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Tensile Load (kN)
30
SN4
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
30
SN5
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
30
SN6
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
30
SN7
20
10
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

Measured
PLAXIS
Calculated
Figure 3.33: Tensile forces distribution along soil nail (predicted vs. measured)
92
8.0
3.5.1.3 Comparison of Slope Stability Analysis between FEM and LEM

A comparative study was made to investigate the applicability of FEM for
assessing the factor of safety of the wall. Stability calculations in PLAXIS were
conducted using the - c reduction routine and compared with conventional slope
stability method such as the limit equilibrium method (Bishops method) incorporated in
GSTABL program. The predicted factor of safety by the GSTABL program for the
CLOUTERRE wall was 1.06. This is illustrated in Figure 3.34 along with the predicted
critical slip surface. This factor of safety closely matches the value reported by Plumelle
(1990) which was 1.1. PLAXIS, on the other hand, predicted a much higher F.O.S. value
of 2.3 before saturation and 1.23 after modeling the saturation process as described in
section 3.5.1.1.
Figure 3.34: Failure surface as predicted by LEM
93
Figure 3.35: Developed failure surface as predicted by FEM

Table 3.7: Soil Properties used in PLAXIS model for CLOUTERRE Wall No.1
Mohr-Coulomb
Type
unsat
sat
kx
ky
einit
ck
Eref
Gref
Eoed
cref
Einc
yref
cincrement
Tstr.
Rinter.
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[m/day]
[m/day]
[-]
[-]
[kN/m]
[-]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[kN/m]
[]
[]
[kN/m/m]
[m]
[kN/m/m]
[kN/m]
[-]
Interface permeability
1
Soil1
Drained
2
Soil3
Drained
3
Soil2
Drained
4
Soil1_sat
Drained
5
Soil2_sat
Drained
6
Soil3_sat
Drained
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
0.000
10000.0
0.350
3703.70
16049.38
3.00
38.00
0.00
500.00
22.000
0.50
0.00
0.80
Neutral
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
1E15
25000.0
0.230
10162.60
28982.23
5.00
38.00
0.00
5000.00
17.000
1.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
18.00
20.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
1E15
15000.0
0.300
5769.23
20192.31
5.00
38.00
0.00
3000.00
19.000
1.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
18.00
24.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
0.000
10000.0
0.350
3703.70
16049.38
0.01
38.00
0.00
500.00
22.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
18.00
24.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
1E15
15000.0
0.300
5769.23
20192.31
0.01
38.00
0.00
3000.00
19.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
18.00
24.00
0.001
0.001
1.000
1E15
25000.0
0.230
10162.60
28982.23
0.01
38.00
0.00
5000.00
17.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
94
3.5.2 Polyclinic Wall in Seattle, WA

This case study illustrates a 55 ft soil nailed wall designed and constructed in
Seattle. The wall was built to support a temporary shoring system for a building
excavation. The soil condition consisted of a fill to a depth of 8 ft, underlain very dense
glacial sand and gravel and very dense lacustrine fine sand and silt. The soil shear
strength characteristics were = 40 and c = 200 psf as illustrated in Figure 3.8. The
spacing of the nails in the horizontal and in the vertical directions was 6 ft. The stepped
construction excavations were modeled by means of construction phases with an
increment of 4 ft for the first excavation and 6 ft for the remaining depth. The nail bars
consisted of Grade 150 Dywidag bars ranging from 1 inch to 1.35 inch with a maximum
length of 35 ft. The holes were 8 inches in diameter and were drilled at an inclination of
15 degrees to the horizontal.
Figure 3.36 illustrates the mesh used in the FE model. The 15 node triangular
element type was selected. The soil was modeled using the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb
model. Five soil layers were used to profile the soil condition. Soils 1-4, as shown in
Table 3.8, have the same parameters except the soil modulus (E) was increased with
depth. This modeling provided horizontal displacements that matched closely with the
measured data presented by Thomson and Miller (1990). Similar to the CLOUTERRE
wall model, the discrete nails were transformed into equivalent plates using beam
elements. The shotcrete wall was modeled using beam elements and pinned connection
was used between the wall and the nails. An interface element was introduced between
the soil and the beam elements with an interface reduction value of 0.8. A total of 19
phases were used in this model; 18 phases to simulate the construction sequences of the
soil nail wall, and one phase to calculate the factor of safety using the - c reduction
routine.
95
Figure 3.36: FEM mesh for Seattle Wall

3.5.2.2 Finite Element Analysis Results
A parametric study was conducted to examine the effect of several factors which
found to contribute to the overall performance of the wall. First, the soil stiffness
parameters were altered and its effect on the wall deformation was observed along with
the maximum tensile forces in the soil nails. Once the best match between predicted and
actual wall deformation is obtained, the soil modulus was fixed and the nail forces were
recorded. Second, the effect of the interface reduction factor between the soil and the
beam elements was studied. A reduction factor of one was first used assuming a rigid
connection between the soil and the beam elements and the performance of the wall was
observed. The reduction factor is then reduced to 0.8 and 0.7 and the horizontal
displacement and the nail loads were compared with the measured data. A reduction
factor of 0.8 was adopted because it was found to give reasonable estimate of the lateral
96
wall deformation and comparable wall deformation. The following sections show the
model predications and how they compared with data found in the literature.
The trend in the lateral displacement was very well depicted as shown in Figures
3.37. Figure 3.38 compares the measured data with the predicted data showing that the
numerical displacements match qualitatively and quantitatively with inclinometer data.
However, the numerical model predicted slightly larger deflection especially at the
middle of the wall as compared with the inclinometer data.
Figure 3.37: Deformed mesh of the Seattle wall

3.5.2.2.2 Prediction of Nail Forces
The predicted axial forces for soil nails 1 to 9 are shown in Figures 3.39 to 3.41
compared with the measured readings. The general trend of axial force mobilized along
the nails is not precisely predicted but a reasonably close match was obtained as shown in
97
Figure 3.41. The predicted maximum axial forces appear to be slightly under-predicted
for the top three nails but over-estimated for the lower four nails. This trend is completely
reverse of the typical trend expected in the field. For instance, the general trend of the
observed data shows that the topmost soil nails carry larger mobilized forces when
compared with lower nails. On the other hand, the estimated position of the maximum
tensile forces appears to be similar in trend but dissimilar in magnitude as illustrated in
Figure 3.40. This discrepancy in the results is due mainly to poor modeling of the wall as
a result of lack of essential data, such as soil modulus which was not provided in the
literature.
3.5.2.3 Comparison of Slope Stability between FEM and LEM
The factor of safety predicted by GSTABL was 1.96 assuming a bond stress of
3500 psf and nominal nail strength of 82.5ksi. Other parameters used in this computation
are shown in Figure 3.42. PLAXIS model, on the other hand, yielded a factor of safety of
2.28 whereas GOLDNAIL predicts a factor of safety of 1.58. This discrepancy in
calculating the factor of safety may be due to the following:
Different assumptions in terms of mobilized resisting forces along the soil

nails.
The slip surface in LEM is confined to certain assumed pattern, whereas in

FEM, the formation of the slip surface is due to the natural progression of
stress and strains as shown in Figure 3.43.
98

Horizontal Displacement (mm)
0
10
15
20
0
1 in = 25.4 mm
10
Depth (ft)
20
30
40
50
Measured
FEM
PLAXIS
60
Figure 3.38: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall deformation
99
Maximum Tensile Loads

0
10
20
30
Tmax (kips)
40
50
10
Depth (ft)
20
30
40
50
Measured
FEM
PLAXIS
60
Figure 3.39: Comparable trend of maximum nail loads
100
Locus of Maximum Tensile Line
Distance from face (ft)

10
15
20
25
30
10
Depth (ft)
20
30
40
50
Measured
PLAXIS
FEM
60
Figure 3.40: Locus of maximum tensile line
101
35
40
SN1
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN2
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN3
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN4
20
Tensile Loads (kips)
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN5
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN6
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN7
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN8
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
SN9
20
0
0
10
15
20
Distance from wall face (ft)

Measured
Figure 3.41: Tensile forces distribution along nails
102
PLAXIS
25
30
35
Figure 3.42: Failure surface predicted by GSTABL for Seattle Wall
Figure 3.43: Predicted failure surface by PLAXIS for Seattle Wall

103
Table 3.8a: Soil parameters used in PLAXIS model for Seattle wall
Mohr-Coulomb
Type
unsat
sat
kx
ky
einit
ck
Eref
Gref
Eoed
cref
Einc
yref
cincrement
Tstr.
Rinter.
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[ft/s]
[ft/s]
[-]
[-]
[lb/ft]
[-]
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[]
[]
[lb/ft/ft]
[ft]
[lb/ft/ft]
[lb/ft]
[-]
1
SN_Soil1
Drained
135.00
135.00
0.001
0.001
0.500
1E15
850000.00
0.340
317164.18
1308302.24
200.00
40.00
0.00
70000.00
155.000
15.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
2
SN_Soil2
Drained
135.00
135.00
0.001
0.001
0.500
1E15
2000000.00
0.320
757575.76
2861952.86
200.00
40.00
0.00
150000.00
141.500
25.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
3
SN_Soil3
Drained
135.00
135.00
0.001
0.001
0.500
1E15
3000000.00
0.290
1162790.70
3931339.98
200.00
40.00
0.00
390000.00
129.500
30.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
4
SN_Soil4
Drained
135.00
135.00
0.001
0.001
0.500
1E15
7500000.00
0.234
3038897.89
8751111.98
200.00
40.00
0.00
980000.00
117.500
40.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral

No.
Identification
1
2
Soil Nail
Shotcrete
EA
[lb/ft]
5.06E6
1.87E8
EI
[lbft/ft]
2196.80
2.72E6
w
[lb/ft/ft]
30.00
50.00
104
[-]
0.20
0.18
Mp
[lbft/ft]
1E15
1E15
Np
[lb/ft]
1E15
1E15
5
SN_Soil5
Drained
135.00
135.00
0.001
0.001
0.500
1E15
19300000.00
0.200
8041666.67
21444444.44
200.00
40.00
0.00
2350000.00
105.500
45.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
3.5.3 A-2 Wall in New Braunfels, Comal County

As described in Section 3.2.3, this wall is composed of a 26.5 ft soil nailed wall
with approximately 10ft of MSE wall built on top of it. This soil nail/MSE hybrid wall
was constructed in Comal County, TX. The soil condition consisted of a fill material of
soft to stiff clay to a depth of 6 to 9 ft, underlain by very stiff to hard clay with silt and
sand and very hard clay shale at depth greater than 30ft. The average estimated soil shear
strength characteristics were = 38 and c = 150 psf as illustrated in Figure 3.12b. The
horizontal nail spacing was 3.3 ft and the vertical stepped construction excavations were
modeled by means of construction phases with an increment of 3.3 ft. The No. 8 bar size
nail was used with a maximum length of 26 ft. The holes were drilled with 6 inch
diameter and an inclination of 15 degrees.
An analysis approach similar to those described in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 was
followed to model this wall. The soil stiffness parameters was altered until the best match
between predicted and measured wall deformation was obtained. Tables 3.9 lists all the
parameters used to model this wall.
3.5.3.1 Prediction of Wall Behavior
The trend in the lateral displacement was adequately predicted as shown in Figure
3.44, which compares the measured versus predicted data. However, the numerical model
tends to predict slightly larger deflection in particular at the lower portion of the wall as
compared with the inclinometer data.
The predicted nail forces and maximum axial forces are presented in Figure 3.45
and 3.46. Since no strain gauge data were available, there would be no comparison of nail
forces. However, similar trend can be observed for the mobilized forces along the nails.
The factor of safety, on the other hand, predicted by GSTABL was 2.76 assuming
a bond stress of 2000 psf and nominal nail strength of 33ksi. PLAXIS, on the other hand,
yields a factor of safety of 2.54 whereas GOLDNAIL predicts a factor of safety of 3.21.
Figures 3.47 and 3.48 illustrate the predicted slip surface using GSTABL and PLAXIS.
105
Lateral Wall Displacement Profile

Lateral Displacement (mm)
0
Depth Below Top of Wall (ft)
10
15
20
Measured
PLAXIS
25
30
Figure 3.44: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall deformation
106

Maximum Tension in Reinforcement (kips)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0
K0 Line
Ka Line
FEM
10
15
20
25
30
Figure 3.45: Predicted maximum nail tensile forces
107
9.0
SN1
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
9.0
SN2
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
9.0
SN3
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
9.0
SN4
Tensile Loads (kips)
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
9.0
SN5
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
9.0
SN6
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
9.0
SN7
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
9.0
SN8
PLAXIS
6.0
3.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
Distance From Wall Face (ft)
Figure 3.46: Predicted nail force distribution

108
25
30
Figure 3.47: Failure surface predicted by GSTABL for A2 wall
Figure 3.48: Predicted failure surface by PLAXIS for A2 wall

109
Table 3.9a: Soil parameters used in PLAXIS model for A2 wall

Mohr-Coulomb
Type
unsat
sat
kx
ky
einit
ck
Eref
Gref
Eoed
cref
Einc
yref
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[ft/day]
[ft/day]
[-]
[-]
[lb/ft]
[-]
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[]
[]
[lb/ft/ft]
[ft]
[lb/ft/ft]
cincrement
[lb/ft]
Tstr.
[-]
Rinter.
1
Soil1
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
500000.00
0.359
183958.79
836294.94
150.00
38.00
0.00
50000.00
56.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
2
Soil2
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
850000.00
0.347
315515.96
1346613.87
150.00
38.00
0.00
85000.00
50.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
3
Soil3
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
1500000.00
0.305
574712.64
2048334.81
150.00
38.00
0.00
150000.00
43.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
4
Soil4
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
2500000.00
0.250
1000000.00
3000000.00
150.00
38.00
0.00
254065.04
36.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral

No.
Identification
1
2
Shotcrete
Soil Nail
EA
[lb/ft]
2.16E8
6.91E6
EI
[lbft/ft]
4.5E6
3000.00
w
[lb/ft/ft]
10.00
10.00
110
[-]
0.18
0.20
Mp
[lbft/ft]
1E15
1E15
Np
[lb/ft]
1E15
1E15
3.5.4 FHWA Wall No.3

Next, PLAXIS model was used to simulate a 20ft VSL MSE wall constructed in
the state of Illinois as part of research study funded by the FHWA. The backfill material
used in the construction of the wall consisted of soil with = 130 pcf and shear strength
parameters of = 40 and c = 0 psf as illustrated in Figure 3.17.
The wall was modeled using 16 phases in which two phases represented one
construction sequence. In the first phase the backfill soil is placed along with the
reinforcement and in the a second phase the compaction effort is simulated using
surcharge loads. The surcharge loads consisted of 500 psf close to the wall facing and
1000 psf beyond 5ft from the wall facing. This process was continued until the full height
of the wall was reached.
The 15-node triangular elements were selected using fine mesh as illustrated in
Figure 3.49. The soil was modeled using the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model. The
soil modulus was estimated based on soil type using a bulk modulus found from tables
developed by Duncan-Chang. Three soil layers were used to profile the soil condition.
Soils 1-3, as shown in Table 3.10, have the same parameters except that the soil modulus
(E) was increased with depth. This modeling approach which used the bulk modulus to
model the backfill soil and surcharge loads to model the compaction effort provided close
agreement between predicted and measured horizontal displacements.
The reinforcement was modeled using geogrid element with only axial stiffness.
The reinforcements were 14 ft long and were spaced 2 ft vertically. No interface elements
were placed between the soil and the geogrid elements.
111
Figure 3.49: Mesh model for FHWA No. 3 wall

3.5.4.2 Finite Element Analysis Results
A parametric study was conducted to examine the effect of soil stiffness and
compaction effort. Initial FEM analysis conducted using soil modulus E0 yielded smaller
lateral deformations of the wall facing than observed. An average bulk modulus, K,
estimated from tables developed by Duncan-Chang, along with the use of compaction
effort provided better prediction of the lateral deformation profile as shown in Figure
3.46. Three soil layers were used. All parameters were kept constant except for the soil
stiffness, which was increased with depth. As a result, this approach was adopted in
modeling backfill material for the MSE wall.
The trend in the lateral displacement was predicted very well by PLAXIS as
shown in Figures 3.50 and 3.51. Figure 3.51 compares the calculated lateral deformations
(Collin, 1988) with those predicted, showing good agreement especially when the bulk
112
modulus was used. However, the numerical model predicted slightly smaller deflection in
particular at the top of the wall as compared with the calculated data.
Figure 3.50: Deformed mesh of the FHWA wall No.3

3.5.4.2.2 Prediction of Nail Forces
The predicted forces in the reinforcements are shown in Figures 3.52 to 3.53 and
are compared with the measured readings. Figure 3.53 shows the good agreement in
tensile forces distribution along the reinforcement. However, the maximum tensile forces
appear to be slightly over estimated using PLAXIS.
3.5.4.3 Comparison of Slope Stability between FEM and LEM
The factor of safety predicted by GSTABL was 1.53 assuming a bond stress of
2040 psf. Other parameters used in this computation are shown in Figure 3.54. PLAXIS
model, on the other hand, yields a factor of safety of 1.72. Comparison of Figure 3.54 and
3.55 shows good agreement between the assumed slip surface using LEM versus that
predicted by PLAXIS.
113
Displcement at Wall Face

0
10
20
30
40
50
10
12
14
16
Corrected
18
Uncorrected
PLAXIS,
FEM Ei Eo
PLAXIS,
FEM BulkBulk
M.
20
Figure 3.51: Comparison between predicted and measured lateral wall displacement
114

Maximum Tension in Reinforcement (kips/ft)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0
Measured
PLAXIS
K0 Line
Ka Line
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 3.52: Maximum reinforcement tensile forces
115
3.5
3.0
Layer No.8
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
3.0
Layer No.7
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
3.0
Layer No.6
2.0
1.0
0.0
Tension in Reinforcement (kips/ft)
10
12
14
3.0
Layer No.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
3.0
Layer No.4
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
3.0
Layer No.3
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
3.0
Layer No.2
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
3.0
Layer No.1
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12

Measured
PLAXIS
Figure 3.53: Reinforcement Tensile force distribution (predicted vs. measured)
116
14
Figure 3.54: Failure surface predicted by GSTABL for FHWA wall No.3
Figure 3.55: Predicted failure surface by PLAXIS for FHWA wall No.3
117
Table 3.10a: Soil parameters used in PLAXIS model for Seattle wall
Mohr-Coulomb
Type
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[ft/s]
[ft/s]
[-]
[-]
[lb/ft]
[-]
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[lb/ft]
[]
[]
[lb/ft/ft]
[ft]
[lb/ft/ft]
[lb/ft]
[-]
unsat
sat
kx
ky
einit
ck
Eref
Gref
Eoed
cref
Einc
yref
cincrement
Tstr.
Rinter.
1
Soil1
2
Soil2
3
Soil3
4
Soil4
Drained
130.00
130.00
0.100
0.100
0.500
1E15
400000.00
0.300
153846.15
538461.54
0.10
40.00
0.00
10000.00
52.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
Drained
130.00
130.00
0.100
0.100
0.500
1E15
300000.00
0.300
115384.62
403846.15
0.10
40.00
0.00
8000.00
57.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
Drained
130.00
130.00
0.100
0.100
0.500
1E15
250000.00
0.300
96153.85
336538.46
0.01
40.00
0.00
5000.00
62.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
Drained
130.00
130.00
0.100
0.100
0.500
1E15
150000.00
0.300
57692.31
201923.08
0.10
40.00
0.00
2000.00
69.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
5
Retained
Soil
Drained
110.00
110.00
0.100
0.100
0.500
1E15
200000.00
0.300
76923.08
269230.77
0.10
30.00
0.00
10000.00
67.500
0.00
0.00
1.00
Neutral
6
Foundation
Soil
Drained
130.00
130.00
0.100
0.100
0.500
1E15
1066710.00
0.300
410273.08
1435955.77
50.00
36.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.00
1.00
Neutral

No.
Identification
Panel
EA
[lb/ft]
7.77E7
EI
[lbft/ft]
1.872E6
w
[lb/ft/ft]
30.00
Table 3.10c: Geogrids data sets parameters

No.
Identification
Reinforcement
EA
[lb/ft]
2590000.0
118
Np
[lb/ft]
1E15
[-]
0.18
Mp
[lbft/ft]
1E15
Np
[lb/ft]
1E15
3.5.5 CALTRANs Hayward Wall

In this final simulation, PLAXIS was used to model a 20 ft MSE wall with both
level backslope and sloping backslope as shown in Figure 3.14. The backfill material
consisted of granular material with average estimated shear strength of = 40.6 and c =
0 psf. A similar analysis sequences approach was followed to model this wall. The soil
stiffness parameters were altered until the best agreement between measured and
predicted wall deformation was obtained. Tables 3.11 lists all the parameters used to
model this wall.
3.5.5.1 Prediction of Wall Behavior
Once again, the trend in the lateral displacements was predicted fairly accurately
as shown in Figure 3.57 for both cases, level backslope and sloping backslope. The
numerical model, however, tends to underestimate the lateral wall deformations in
particular at the mid height of the wall. Better results may be obtained using advanced
soil model in addition to closely simulating the compaction effort by increasing soil
modulus after application of compaction effort. However, the use of more advance soil
models was not attempted in this research study because of the limited information
available on soil characteristics.
The predicted reinforcement forces distribution and maximum axial forces are
presented in Figures 3.58 and 3.59. Figure 3.59 shows comparable trend between
predicted and measured data even though the locus of maximum tensile forces does not
match.
Comparison of factor of safety shows that PLAXIS gives comparable results with
GSTABL. The predicted values by GSTABL for both cases, level backslope and sloping
backfill were 1.66 and 1.13 assuming a bond stress of 2000 psf and 1000 psf of the upper
three reinforcement rows. PLAXIS, on the other hand, yields a factor of safety of 1.63
and 1.04 respectively. Figures 3.60 and 3.61 show the predicted slip surface using
GSTABL and PLAXIS.
119
Figure 3.56a: Deformed mesh level backfill
Figure 3.56b: Deformed mesh sloped backfill

120
Displacement at Wall Face

Lateral Displacement (in)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
12
14
16
18
20
Before Backslope (SSCOMP)
After Backslope (SSCOMP)
Before Backslope - PLAXIS
After Backslope - PLAXIS
Figure 3.57: Lateral wall deformation before and after backslope
121
70

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
Measured - L.B.
Level Backfill
Sloping Backfill
K0 Line
Ka Line
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 3.58: Maximum reinforcement tensile forces
122
2.5
Reinforcement Tension Distribution

3.0
Layer No.9
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
3.0
Layer No.7
Tension in Reinforcement (kips/ft)
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
3.0
Layer No.5
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
3.0
Layer No.3
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
16
3.0
Layer No.1
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
10
12
14
16

Measured - Level Backfill
Measured - Sloping Backfill
PLAXIS - Level Backfill
Figure 3.59: Tensile forces distribution along the reinforcements
123
PLAXIS - Sloping Backfill
Figure 3.60: Slip surface as predicted by GSTABL for before and after backslope
124
Figure 3.61: Slip surface as predicted by PLAXIS for before and after backslope
125
Table 3.11a: Soil data sets parameters for Hayward wall

Mohr-Coulomb
Type
1
Soil1
Drained
2
Soil2
Drained
3
Soil3
Drained
4
Retained_Soil
Drained
5
Foundation_Soil
Drained
unsat
[lb/ft]
122.00
122.00
122.00
110.00
107.00
sat
kx
[lb/ft]
122.00
122.00
122.00
110.00
107.00
[ft/s]
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
ky
[ft/s]
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
einit
[-]
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
ck
[-]
1E15
1E15
1E15
1E15
1E15
Eref
[lb/ft]
300000.00
350000.00
400000.00
200000.00
500000.00
Gref
[-]
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
[lb/ft]
115384.62
134615.39
153846.15
76923.08
192307.69
Eoed
[lb/ft]
403846.15
471153.85
538461.54
269230.77
673076.92
cref
[lb/ft]
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
1090.00
[]
40.60
40.60
40.60
30.00
1.00
Einc
[]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
[lb/ft/ft]
6000.00
0.00
0.00
10000.00
0.00
yref
[ft]
70.000
0.000
0.000
67.500
0.000
cincrement
[lb/ft/ft]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tstr.
[lb/ft]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rinter.
[-]
0.80
0.80
0.80
1.00
1.00
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral

No.
Identification
Panel
EA
[lb/ft]
7.77E7
EI
[lbft/ft]
1.872E6
Table 3.11c: Geotextile data sets parameters

No.
Identification
Reinforcement
EA
[lb/ft]
5094720.00
[-]
0.00
126
w
[lb/ft/ft]
30.00
[-]
0.18
Mp
[lbft/ft]
1E15
Np
[lb/ft]
1E15
3.6 Conclusions
Validation of PLAXIS results is a crucial step in this research study to ensure that
the program yields results of acceptable accuracy. The procedure used to calibrate the
numerical model was important not only to evaluate key features in PLAXIS but also
helped in learning the modeling of different aspects of soil nail walls and MSE walls.
These lessons learned during the calibration process will help in building a model for the
hybrid wall that will adequately depict the behavior of these wall systems.
The calibrations of FE models were performed with data from instrumented walls.
These data consist of strain gauges and inclinometers data. Three soil nail walls and two
MSE walls were used in the calibration process. These walls are:
1. CLOUTERRE Wall CEBTP No.1, France (25ft)
2. Polyclinic Wall - Seattle, WA (55ft)
3. A2 Wall New Braunfels, Comal County (26.5ft)
4. FHWA Wall No.3, CA (20ft)
5. CALTRAN Hayward Wall, CA (20ft)
Several features available in PLAXIS were used in the calibration process and
hence their capability to model reinforced earth structures was verified. The features
verified in this analysis included the used of Mohr-Coulomb model, Hardening soil
model and slope stability analysis using - c reduction routine. Other key elements
addressed in this chapter included the use of beam or plate elements to model soil nails,
and geogrids elements to model MSE wall reinforcement. The effect of interface
elements was also investigated. Construction sequences were also examined and an
appropriate number of phases were selected to closely simulate the construction activities
expected at the site.
Overall, PLAXIS was capable to model successfully both soil nail walls and MSE
walls even with a first order constitutive model such as the Mohr-Coulomb model. After
calibrating the numerical models via altering the soil stiffness with depth, PLAXIS was
able to predict the expected trend for the wall lateral displacements. Once a match was
obtained for the wall deformation, the nails and reinforcements forces were obtained. In
127
most cases, PLAXIS was capable to adequately predict these forces as well as the locus
of the maximum tensile forces. The - c reduction routine was found to be effective in
predicting adequate global factors of safety, which were compared with LEM methods
implemented in the GSTABL program.
3.6.1 Lessons Learned
The following sections summarize the key lessons learned in modeling both soil
nail and MSE walls:
3.6.1.1 Soil Nail Wall
The Mohr-Coulomb model is capable to model appropriately the soil

behavior behind the soil nail wall
When the soil stiffness can not be obtained through laboratory testing; it
should be altered until the model provided close horizontal displacement
with the measured data
Several soil layers should be used to simulate the increase of soil stiffness
(E) with depth
The initial stresses should be generated either using the K0-Method if the
surface in level or using the Gravity-Method is the surface is sloped
Simulation of construction sequences should be performed in two stages:

1. Soil excavation
2. Installation of nail and placement of shotcrete wall
Soil nails should be modeled using plate elements with an equivalent

thickness
The shotcrete wall should also be modeled using plate elements
A pinned connection should be used between shotcrete wall and soil nails
The default hinges were used to connect to shotcrete wall segments
The soil-structures interaction should be modeled using interface elements

with a virtual thickness of 0.1 and a reduction strength factor (R inter) of 0.8
128
A fine mesh with 15 nodes triangular elements was used in modeling the
geometry of the wall
3.6.1.2 MSE Wall
The Elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb Model was used to model the behavior

of backfill soil
Simulation of construction sequences and compaction effort were carried

out in two stages:
o Placement of backfill lift and reinforcements
o Application of compaction effort using surcharge loads (500psf,
1000 psf)
o Remove load and place subsequent backfill lift and reinforcements
Using bulk modulus instead of initial Young Modulus gives better

representation of wall face deformation
Plate elements were used to model the facing panels
Geogrids elements were used to model the reinforcement with no interface

elements
A fine mesh with 15 node triangular elements was used
129
CHAPTER 4
PARAMETRIC STUDY OF HYBRID WALL SYSTEMS
4.1 Parametric Study
In chapter three, PLAXIS was used successfully to predict the behavior of several
full-scale instrumented reinforced soil walls. In general, the predicted reinforcement
tensions and wall facing deformations agreed well with measured values. In this chapter,
a parametric study of selected variables was conducted and the results were compared
with those obtained from a reference wall designated as the baseline hybrid wall.
Twelve variables were chosen to model a total of 48 wall models. A combination of 288
cases was examined to evaluate the effect of each parameter on the wall behavior.
The performance of the wall was assessed in terms of lateral wall deformations of
the soil nail wall, tensile forces on the nails and lateral wall pressure behind the soil nail
wall facing. Data obtained from these analyses was used to compile a performance based
design procedure for the hybrid wall systems.
4.2 The Baseline Wall
The hybrid baseline wall was modeled based on two wall models described in
chapter three. The A-2 soil nail wall was used to model the lower portion of the hybrid
wall, and the Hayward MSE wall was used to model the upper portion of the wall. All the
parameters used in these two walls were kept constant except for the length of
reinforcements of MSE portions of the wall which was increased. The increase in
reinforcement length was necessary to optimize the wall performance, in particular that
of the soil nail portion of the wall. The optimization of the wall performance was
evaluated in terms of displacements of the wall facing as well as overall stability of the
wall system. Figure 4.1 shows the geometry of the combined wall versus the modified
wall.
The L/H ratio of the MSE wall was increased from 0.7 to 1.5, which results in a
reduction in the lateral wall displacements by 50% from 55 mm to only 27.5 mm as
shown in Figure 4.1a. The global factor of safety, on the other hand, was increased by
130
10% from 1.56 to 1.72 as shown in Figure 4.1b. Figure 4.2 illustrates the new baseline
hybrid wall geometry and the soil parameters used. The new modified hybrid wall
consists of a 26.5-ft soil nail wall and a 20 ft MSE wall on top. The soil foundation
consists of = 38 and c = 150 psf and = 130 pcf. The backfill material consists of =
40.6 and c = 0 psf and = 122 pcf.
4.3 Description of Model
4.3.1 Modeling Sequence
The baseline wall was modeled carefully so that the model would simulate the
actual construction sequence that would be carried out in the field. The procedure
followed in modeling the baseline wall was identical to that developed in Chapter 3. The
steps were as follows:
a. Establish the soil condition prior to the construction of the soil nail wall by
generating the initial stresses using the K0-Method.
b. Construct the soil nail wall by removing a soil cut of 3.3ft in one phase and
placing the shotcrete wall and the soil nail in subsequent phases; Continue
the above procedure until the entire wall height is reached
c. After completion of the soil nail wall, the MSE wall is constructed on top of
it by placing a wall facing, reinforcement elements and 2 ft thick backfill
material followed by subsequent compaction phase via surcharge loads; This
procedure was continued until full height of MSE wall was reached.
d. After simulating the construction sequences, the predicted results of the wall
performance were obtained and stored in a database.
e. The predicted wall performance parameters were:
i. Lateral and vertical deformation of the soil nail wall
ii. Lateral wall pressure behind the soil nail wall facing
iii. Tensile forces on the nails
iv. Bending moments and shear forces developed in the
shotcrete wall.
131
Baseline Wall
Modified Baseline Wall
132
Figure 4.1a: Modification of the geometry of the baseline hybrid wall to optimize the wall performance
132

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
15
20
25
30
35
MSE Baseline - Hayward Wall
SN Baseline - A2 Wall
40
Hybrid Baseline Wall

45
50
Figure 4.1b: Optimization of wall performance using the modified baseline wall in terms
of lateral wall deformations
133
Maximum Tensile Forces (MSE)
Maximum Tensile Forces (SN)

Maximum Tension in Nails (kips)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0

40.0
0.0
50.0
K0 Line
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
K0 Line
Ka Line
GOLDNAIL
0.5
Ka Line
MSE Baseline
SN Baseline
134
6
10
15
20
10
12
MSE Height = 20ft
14
16
25
18
MSE Height = 20ft
30
20
Figure 4.1c: Reduction in tensile forces in reinforcements
134
3.0
(FS = 1.56)
(FS = 1.72)
135
Baseline Wall
Figure 4.1d: Increase in global factor of safety
135
MSEW
20ft
c = 0 psf
= 40.6
= 122 pcf
30ft
26ft
15
26.5ft
3.3ft
SNW
Drawing Not to Scale
Figure 4.2: Geometry of the baseline hybrid wall
136
c = 150 psf
= 38
= 130 pcf
4.3.2 Mesh Description

A fine mesh was selected to model the baseline wall using triangular 15-node
elements. The complete FEM mesh consisted of 9582 nodes, 1103 elements and 13236
stress points. A scale drawing of the mesh is given in Figure 4.3, showing the soil
elements and the location of the nails and reinforcement as well as the facing elements.
4.3.3 Modeling Elements
The wall facings and the soil nails were modeled using beam plate elements
whereas the MSE reinforcements were modeled using geogrid elements. A hinge
connection was used between the beam elements such as in shotcrete wall and MSE
panel. The soil nails were pinned to the shotcrete wall with no bending moment transfer.
The interface elements were only introduced between the beam elements and the soil
elements in the soil nail portion of the wall. No interface elements were used in the MSE
wall. An interface reduction factor of 0.8 was used between the soil and the soil-nail. This
value reduces the soil strength by 20% at the drillhole wall to account for the loss of
adhesion between the nails and the surrounding soil.
4.3.4 Material Properties
a. Soil Elements
Three types of soils were included, the existing soil in which the soil nail
wall is constructed was defined using four layers. All layers have the same
parameters except for the soil modulus and Poissons ratio which were
varied with depth to account for the increase in soil stiffness with depth.
The soils above the elevation of the top of soil nail wall were defined
using 4 layers. Three layers were used to model the granular backfill
material for the MSE wall. Similarly, all parameters were kept constant
except of the soil modulus and Poissons ratio which were varied with
depth. The third soil was used to model the retained soil behind the MSE
wall.
137
MSE Reinforcements
Panel Facing
Shotcrete Wall
Soil Nails
138
Figure 4.3: Finite element mesh for analysis of the hybrid baseline wall
138
The soil parameters were estimated from input used by Collin (1986) and
Adib (1988) as well as tables by Duncan et al. (1980). The soil parameters
are listed in Tables 4.1a and 4.1b.
b. Reinforcement Elements
Two types of reinforcement were used. The soil nails were modeled as
beam plate elements with an equivalent thickness of a 6-in diameter.
The modulus of elasticity was set to beequal to the known value for steel
assuming no contribution from the grout column (cracked section). The
MSE reinforcements were modeled as using geogrid geotextile
elements. The parameters were defined assuming metal strips 2 in wide
and 0.16 in thick placed 1 ft center to center. The parameters values are
listed in Tables 4.1c and 4.1d.
c. Wall Facing Elements
Two types of wall facing were modeled. The soil nail facing is molded as
a 5-in thick shotcrete wall and was modeled using beam elements. For
MSE wall, the facing was molded as 6-in thick cast-in-place (CIP) panel
with nominal steel reinforcement (Schmertmann et al., 1989). The
parameters values are listed in Table 4.1c.
4.4 Case Studies
A parametric study was conducted to examine several variables that were thought
to contribute significantly to the overall performance of the hybrid wall. Results obtained
by parametric study were then used to develop the proposed design procedure, presented
in Chapter 5.
The study is conducted by varying selected variables and comparing the predicted
deformations, global factor of safety, nails forces and lateral wall pressure behind soil
nail wall with results obtained for the baseline case. In addition, the bending moments
and
shear
forces
developed
in
the
139
shotcrete
wall
were
recorded
and
Table 4.1a: Soil data sets parameters for soil nail wall
Mohr-Coulomb
Type
[lb/ft]
unsat
[lb/ft]
sat
[ft/day]
kx
[ft/day]
ky
[-]
einit
[-]
ck
[lb/ft]
Eref
[-]
[lb/ft]
Gref
[lb/ft]
Eoed
[lb/ft]
cref
[]
[]
[lb/ft/ft]
Einc
[ft]
yref
[lb/ft/ft]
cincrement
[lb/ft]
Tstr.
[-]
Rinter.
1
SN_Soil1
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
500000.000
0.359
183958.793
836294.939
150.00
38.00
0.00
50000.00
76.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
2
SN_Soil2
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
850000.000
0.347
315515.961
1346613.874
150.00
38.00
0.00
85000.00
70.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
3
SN_Soil3
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
1500000.000
0.305
574712.644
2048334.807
150.00
38.00
0.00
150000.00
63.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
4
SN_Soil4
Drained
130.00
130.00
1.000
1.000
0.500
1E15
2500000.000
0.250
1000000.000
3000000.000
150.00
38.00
0.00
254065.04
56.500
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
7
MSE_Soil3
Drained
122.00
122.00
8643.042
8643.042
0.500
1E15
300000.000
0.300
115384.615
403846.154
0.01
40.60
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
8
RetainedSoil
Drained
120.00
120.00
86430.424
86430.424
0.500
1E15
500000.000
0.350
185185.185
802469.136
0.10
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.00
1.00
Neutral
Table 4.1b: Soil data sets parameters for MSE wall

Mohr-Coulomb
Type
[lb/ft]
unsat
[lb/ft]
sat
[ft/day]
kx
[ft/day]
ky
[-]
einit
[-]
ck
[lb/ft]
Eref
[-]
[lb/ft]
Gref
[lb/ft]
Eoed
[lb/ft]
cref
[]
[]
[lb/ft/ft]
Einc
[ft]
yref
[lb/ft/ft]
cincrement
[lb/ft]
Tstr.
[-]
Rinter.
5
MSE_Soil1
Drained
122.00
122.00
8643.042
8643.042
0.500
1E15
400000.000
0.300
153846.154
538461.538
0.01
40.60
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
6
MSE_Soil2
Drained
122.00
122.00
8643.042
8643.042
0.500
1E15
350000.000
0.300
134615.385
471153.846
0.01
40.60
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.80
Neutral
140
Table 4.1c: Beam data sets parameters

No.
1
2
3
Identification
Soil_Nail
Shotcrete
MSE_Panel
EA
[lb/ft]
6.91E6
2.16E8
7.77E7
EI
[lbft/ft]
3000.00
4.5E6
1.872E6
w
[lb/ft/ft]
10.00
10.00
30.00
Table 4.1d: Geotextile data sets parameters

No.
Identification
Metal_Strip
EA
[lb/ft]
5094720.00
[-]
0.00
141
[-]
0.20
0.15
0.18
Mp
[lbft/ft]
1E15
1E15
1E15
Np
[lb/ft]
1E15
1E15
1E15
saved together with other data in a database for further use. Figure 4.4 illustrates these
variables under consideration in this analysis.
1. Height of soil nail wall, H
2. Height of MSE wall, h
3. Length if soil nail, L
4. Length of MSE reinforcements, l
5. Vertical spacing of soil nails, Sv
6. Soil properties of soil nail wall, c, and
7. Surface slope or terrain slope and backslope angles, and
8. Setback of MSE wall, d
9. Nails inclination,
10. Bar size
As mentioned previously, each parameter was varied and its effect on the overall
performance of the hybrid wall was observed and compared with results obtained for the
baseline wall. Table 4.2 summarizes the values used in each and every one of these
parameters.
4.5 Analysis Results
The results are summarized and presented in the form of charts. These plots were
produced by varying the height of the MSE wall. Each chart plots the results including
those obtained for the baseline case for comparison. The results of the analyses are
presented in terms of factor of safety against global stability, maximum lateral wall face
deformation, maximum vertical displacement at wall crest, maximum lateral earth
pressure at wall face and maximum tensile nail forces. A different set of charts will
explore the same results after being normalized based on results obtained for the baseline
wall. These charts will be presented as percentage difference for the above mentioned
criteria.
142
MSEW
MSEW
MSEW
MSEW
l
L
H
SNW
SNW
SNW
SNW
Height of SNW
Height of MSEW
L/H of SNW
MSEW
MSEW
MSEW
143
d
MSEW
c, and
SV
l/h of MSEW
SNW
SNW
SNW
SNW
Nails Vertical Spacing
Soil Properties of SNW
Surface Slope & Backslope
Figure 4.4: Variables considered in parametric study
143
Setback of MSEW
Table 4.2: Analysis Cases for Parametric Study

Variables
Parameters
Height of Soil Nail Wall , H (ft)
13
26.5
40
Height of MSE Wall, h (ft)
12
16
3.3
4.5
SV = 3.3 ft
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
SV = 4.5 ft
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.6
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
10
20
50
100
150
300
500
Friction Angle, ( )
30
34
38
42
Unit Weight, (pcf)
110
120
130
140
Surface slope, ()
No Slope (0)
1V: 1.5H (33.7)
1V:1H (45)
Backslope, ()
No Slope (0)
1V: 1.5H (33.7)
1V:1H (45)
10
15
20
No. 6
No. 8
No. 10
Nails Vertical Spacing, SV (ft)
20
L/H of Soil Nail Wall
l/h of MSE wall

Wall Setbacks, d (ft)
1) Soil Properties of soil nail wall
Soil Cohesion, c (psf)
144
Nail Inclination, ()
Bar size
144
No. 14
30
4.5.1 Soil Nail Wall Height, H

This section will explore the effect of varying the height of the soil nail wall while
maintaining the remaining parameters constant. Three different heights are considered, a
medium height wall with H = 26.5 (baseline), a short wall with H = 13.2ft and tall wall
with H = 40ft. The nail length is kept constant and equal to 26ft. This clearly does not
yield an optimum design but was used for investigating the effect of the wall height
variable. The L/H ratios for the three analyzed cases are 1, 2 and 0.65 respectively.
The results for the factor of safety against global stability are shown in Figure 4.5.
This plot shows the predicted factor of safety for different heights of MSE wall. The
general trend shows that the factor of safety is decreasing linearly with increasing height
of MSE. The plot also shows that the short wall has the largest factor of safety in
comparison with the other two walls. It can also be noted that the factor of safety is
significantly affected by the change in height of the soil nail wall. This change becomes
less significant as the height of the MSE wall increases.
Impact of Height of Soil Nail Wall
Global Factor of Safety
3.5
H = 13.2 ft
H = 26.5 ft
H = 40 ft
Factor of Safety
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
Height of MSE Wall (ft)
Figure 4.5: Factor of safety for different heights of soil nail wall
145
16
20
The maximum lateral wall deformations of the wall face range from 2 - 9 mm
without the MSE wall to 15 - 37 mm when a 20ft tall MSE wall is placed on top, as
shown in Figure 4.6. The plot shows that the lateral deformation becomes increasingly
significant as the height of the MSE wall increases. The plot also shows that height of the
soil nail wall significantly affects the predicted lateral deformation of the wall face as can
be noted from the distances between the curves.
Maximum Lateral Wall Displacement
40.0
H = 13.2 ft
35.0
H = 26.5 ft
Lateral Wall Displacement (mm)
H = 40 ft
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.6: Lateral wall deformation for different heights of soil nail wall
The vertical displacements at the soil nail wall crest show similar trend as the
lateral deformation. Figure 4.7 shows that vertical displacements are significantly
affected by the change in height of the soil nail wall. However, these displacements are
less appreciable at increasing heights of MSE walls. Although, the short wall yields the
smallest displacement, the ratio of vertical displacement to wall height yields the highest
magnitude. This may suggest that the current design criterion of limiting the ratio of wall
deformation to wall height of 0.3% should be revised and new criteria may be necessary
for different wall heights.
146

Maximum Vertical Wall Displacement
30.0
H= 13.2 ft
H = 26.5 ft
Vertical Wall Displacement (mm)
25.0
H = 40 ft
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.7: Vertical wall displacements for different heights of soil nail wall
The lateral wall pressure developed behind the wall increases with increasing
height of MSE wall. The magnitude of this pressure ranges from negligible value with no
MSE wall to values as high as 4000 psf for the short wall with 20 ft MSE wall. Figure 4.8
indicates that lateral pressure starts to increase significantly immediately after placing the
first lift of backfill. The lateral pressure keeps increasing but at lower rate after 4ft of fill
for all different heights of soil nail wall.
The maximum tensile forces in the nails are shown in Figure 4.9 for the before
and after construction of a 20 ft MSE wall. The plot shows clearly the forces in the nails
are significantly affected by the increasing surcharge by almost the same magnitude.
However, the distribution of the loads is slightly different, particularly for the tall wall in
which the lower nails tend to take larger proportion of the loads, whereas in the short wall
the reverse trend is observed. This may suggest that the surcharge load has been
transmitted to the foundation soil relieving some of the tensile load at lower nails.
147

Maximum Lateral Wall Pressure
9000
H = 13.2 ft
8000
H = 26.5 ft
H = 40 ft
Lateral Wall Pressure (psf)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.8: Lateral earth pressure for different heights of soil nail wall
Figure 4.10 shows the same results but normalized using results obtained for the
baseline case. The plot shows the effect of varying the heights of soil nail wall on each
performance criterion such as bending moment and shear forces developed in the
shotcrete wall. The plots show the percent difference in performance parameters when
compared with baseline case.
148
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0

25.0
30.0
0.0
0.00
5.0
10.0
H = 13.2 ft
0.10
0.30
0.30
z/H
149
0.20
0.60
25.0
H = 26.5 ft
H = 40 ft
0.20
0.50
20.0
H = 12 ft
0.10
H = 26.5 ft
H = 40 ft
0.40
15.0
0.00
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
Figure 4.9: Maximum tensile forces in the nails for different heights of soil nail wall
149
30.0
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 10
h max (%)
100%
% D ifference
% D ifference
FS (%)
14
18
22
26
30
34
60%
20%
-20%
10
14
18
38
v max (%)
20%
-20% 10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
% Difference
% Difference
34
38
34
38
34
38
100%
60%
-60%
60%
20%
-20% 10
14
18
22
26
30
-60%
Height of Soil Nail Wall (ft)
M max (%)
V max (%)
100%
60%
20%
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
-60%
% Difference
100%
% Differenc e
30
E max (%)
100%
-100%
60%
20%
-20% 10
14
22
26
30
Height of Soil Nail Wall (%)
T max (%)
Locus of T max (%)

100%
100%
80%
% Difference
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 10
18
-60%
% Difference
26
Heigh of Soil Nail Wall (ft)
-20%
22
-60%
14
18
22
26
30
34
60%
40%
20%
0%
38
-20% 10
-40%
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
Figure 4.10: Effect of soil nail wall heights on overall performance normalized by results
from baseline wall.
150
4.5.2 Vertical Spacing of Nails, SV

This section will explore the effect of varying the vertical spacing of nails. Two
vertical distances are considered in this analysis, 3.3ft for the baseline case and 4.5ft for
the other case. These two values are selected because they are the most commonly used
in TxDOT projects. All other parameters are kept constant except of the vertical spacing
between the nails. Figures 4.11 to 4.16 reveal the following effects:
The factor of safety against global stability is not affected by the change in
vertical spacing of the nails; however, the factor of safety decreases as the
height of the MSE wall increases
The lateral wall displacement is significantly affected by increasing the

vertical nail spacing by about 45% from 3.3 ft to 4.5 ft
The lateral wall deformation increases at a constant rate with respect to

increase in MSE wall height
A similar trend can be observed for vertical displacements except the

vertical displacement is slightly larger than the lateral displacement for
both cases with and without MSE wall
The lateral wall pressure increases significantly for the first 4ft and
increases at slightly lower rate thereafter
The increase in vertical nail spacing results in an increase of about 118%

in the nail forces with no MSE and 61% with 20ft MSE
The increase in tensile forces decreases as the height of the MSE wall
increases
151
Impact of Vertical Spacing of Nails

3.5
SV = 3.3 ft
3.0
Factor of Safety
SV = 4.5 ft
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.11: Effect of nail vertical spacing (SV) on factor of safety

30.0
Lateral Wall Dsiplacement (mm)
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
SV = 3.3 ft
5.0
SV = 4.5 ft
0.0
0
12
16
Figure 4.12: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on lateral wall deformation
152
20

35.0
Vertical Wall Dsiplacement (mm)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
SV = 3.3 ft
5.0
SV = 4.5 ft
0.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.13: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on vertical displacement at SNW crest
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
SV = 3.3 ft
1000
SV = 4.5 ft
0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.14: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on lateral earth pressure behind wall face
153
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
0.0
154
0.0
10
15
20
10.0
15.0
20.0
10
15
20
25
25
30
30
SV = 3.3 ft
5.0
SV = 4.5 ft
SV = 3.3 ft
Figure 4.15: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on maximum nail tensile forces
154
SV = 4.5 ft
25.0
30.0
35.0
h max (%)
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
FS (%)
100%
60%
40%
20%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 3
3.5
4.5
0%
Vertical Nail Spacing (ft)
3.5
v max (%)
80%
80%
% Differenc e
% Difference
E max
60%
40%
20%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 3
0%
3
3.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
-40%
M max
V max
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
4.5
100%
100%
60%
40%
20%
0%
60%
40%
20%
0%
3.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
Locus of T max (%)
T max (%)
100%
80%
100%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
60%
40%
20%
0%
3
3.5
4.5
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 3
-40%
3.5
4.5
Figure 4.16: Effect of vertical nail spacing (SV) on overall performance normalized by
results from baseline wall
155
4.5.3 Length of Soil Nails, L/H ratio

Two cases are considered in this analysis, the first case consists of a vertical nail
spacing of 3.3ft and the second one has a vertical nail spacing of 4.5ft. All other
parameters are kept constant except for the length of the nails. The L/H ratio considered
for the first case are 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.2 and 1.4 and their results are presented in Figures 4.17
to 4.22. For SV = 4.5ft, the L/H ratio considered are 0.6, 0.8, 1 and 1.2 and the results are
presented in Figures 4.23 to 4.28 show the results obtained for the first case and Figures
4.28a to 4.28h will plot the results for the other case. In some plot a dotted line will be
used to distinguish those cases in which PLAXIS was not able to yield a solution using
the standard settings. The tolerated error was then increased until a solution could be
obtained. As a result, any dotted line will indicate that the wall in these cases is not
stable. Figures 4.17 to 4.23 reveal the following effects:
The factor of safety is significantly affected by the length of the nails;

however, the increase in factor of safety begins to diminish as the L/H
ratio exceeds unity
At L/H values equal to or larger than unity, the performance of the wall in
terms of lateral wall deformation appears to be unaffected. This suggests
that a value of L/H equals to 1 provides the optimum length for wall
performance.
The lateral deformation increases significantly as L/H is reduced from

unity; this becomes more critical as MSE height increases.
The vertical displacement at the wall crest was not sensitive to changes in
nail length.
The variation in lateral wall pressures with increasing nail length was
insignificant
The maximum tensile forces were unaffected by the change in nail lengths
Figures 4.23 to 4.28 show impact of L/H ratio on the performance of soil nail wall
using vertical nail spacing of 4.5ft.
156
Impact of L/H Ratio

3.5
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 1.0
3.0
L/H = 1.2
Factor of Safety
L/H = 1.4
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
16
20
Figure 4.17: Effect of L/H ratio on factor of safety (Sv = 3.3ft)

Impact of L/H Ratio
45.0
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
40.0
L/H = 1.0
35.0
L/H = 1.2
L/H = 1.4
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
Figure 4.18: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral wall deformation (Sv = 3.3ft)
157
Impact of L/H Ratio

30.0
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 1.0
25.0
L/H = 1.2
L/H = 1.4
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.19: Effect of L/H ratio on vertical displacement (Sv = 3.3ft)

Impact of L/H Ratio
7000
L/H = 0.6
6000
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.2
5000
L/H = 1.4
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12
Figure 4.20: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral earth pressure (Sv = 3.3ft)
158
16
20
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
0
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.2
15
L/H = 1.2
L/H = 1.4
159
L/H = 1.4
10
5.0
10
15
20
20
25
25
Figure 4.21: Effect of L/H on maximum nail tensile forces (Sv = 3.3ft)
159
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
h max (%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.6
-40%
100%
0.8
1.2
1.4
% Difference
% Difference
FS (%)
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.6
0.8
L/H ratio (Sv = 3.3ft)
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0.8
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.4
1.2
1.4
V max
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
1.2
0%
-20%0.6
60%
40%
20%
0%
1
1.2
1.4
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.6
0.8
1
Locus of T max (%)
T max (%)
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
1.4
20%
M max
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0.6
1.2
40%
100%
0.8
1.4
60%
-20%0.6
1.2
E max
% Difference
% Difference
v max (%)
-20%0.6
1
60%
40%
20%
0%
0.8
1.2
1.4
-20%0.6
0.8
1
Figure 4.22: Effect of L/H ratio on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall (Sv = 3.3ft)
160
Impact of L/H Ratio

3.5
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
3.0
L/H = 1.0
Factor of Safety
L/H = 1.2
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.23: Effect of L/H ratio on factor of safety (Sv = 4.5ft)

Impact of L/H Ratio
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
L/H = 0.6
10.0
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 1.0
5.0
L/H = 1.2
0.0
0
12
16
Figure 4.24: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral wall deformation (Sv = 4.5ft)
161
20
Impact of L/H Ratio

35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
5.0
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.2
0.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.25: Effect of L/H ratio on vertical displacement (Sv = 4.5ft)

Impact of L/H Ratio
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
1000
L/H = 1.0
500
L/H = 1.2
0
0
12
Figure 4.26: Effect of L/H ratio on lateral earth pressure (Sv = 4.5ft)
162
16
20
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0

40.0
50.0
0.0
10.0
40.0
50.0
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.0
163
15
30.0
L/H = 0.6
L/H = 1.2
10
20.0
10
15
20
20
25
25
Figure 4.27: Effect of L/H ratio on maximum nail tensile forces (Sv = 4.5ft)
163
L/H = 1.2
h max (%)
100%
% Difference
% Difference
FS (%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0.6
-40%
0.8
1.2
1.4
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0.6
0.8
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
-20% 0.6
1.2
1.4
0.8
M max
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
V max
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
1
60%
40%
20%
0%
1
1.2
1.4
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.6
0.8
1
Locus of T max (%)
T max (%)
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
1.4
20%
0%
0.8
1.2
40%
-20%0.6
-20%0.6
1.4
60%
0%
1
1.2
E max
100%
% Differenc e
% Difference
v max (%)
0.8
1
60%
40%
20%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.6
1.4
0.8
1
Figure 4.28: Effect of L/H ratio on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall (Sv = 4.5ft)
164
4.5.4 Length of Reinforcement of MSE Wall, l/h Ratio

This section will examine the effect of varying the reinforcement length of the
MSE wall on the performance of the lower soil nail wall. All parameters are kept constant
except for the length of the MSE wall reinforcement. The reinforcement length l/h
considered in this analysis are 0.75, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0. The results from this analysis are
presented in Figures 4.29 through 4.34. These results can be summarized as follows:
The factor of safety is not significantly affected by the length of the MSE
wall reinforcement; however, longer reinforcements tend to produce
slightly higher factor of safety at large surcharge loads.
The increase in length of MSE wall reinforcement appears to have no

significant effect on the maximum lateral deformation at the soil nail wall
crest until the height of MSE wall reaches 8ft; afterward the additional
length appears to help minimize the overall wall deformation.
Similar trend can also be observed for the vertical displacement but to a
lesser extent when the wall height reaches 12ft.
The effect on lateral wall pressures as a result of increasing reinforcement

length appears insignificant up to a MSE wall height of h = 12ft
The maximum tensile forces in the nails appear unaffected by the change
in MSE reinforcement length when MSE height (h) is less than 12ft.
However, longer reinforcement tends to reduce the forces in the nail
slightly when h is larger than 12ft.
Figures 4.34 shows that a l/h ratio of 1 appear to be the optimum length which
contributes favorably in controlling wall deformation and increasing factor of safety
against overall stability.
165
Impact of L/H Ratio of MSE Wall

3.5
Factor of Safety
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20

L/H = 0.75
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.5
L/H = 2.0
Figure 4.29: Effect of l/h ratio on factor of safety

45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16

L/H = 0.75
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.5
Figure 4.30: Effect of l/h ratio on lateral wall deformation
166
L/H = 2.0
20

35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
16
20

L/H = 0.75
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.5
L/H = 2.0
Figure 4.31: Effect of l/h ratio on vertical displacement

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12

L/H = 0.75
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.5
Figure 4.32: Effect of l/h ratio on lateral earth pressure
167
L/H = 2.0
MSE H = 4 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
168
0.0
10
15
25
25
L/H = 1.5
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
15
20
L/H = 1.0
10.0
10
20
L/H = 0.75
5.0
L/H = 2.0
L/H = 0.75
Figure 4.33: Effect of l/h ratio on maximum nail tensile forces
168
L/H = 1.0
L/H = 1.5
L/H = 2.0
35.0
h max (%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.75
-40%
100%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
FS (%)
1.25
1.5
1.75
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.75
1.25
l /h ratio for MSE wall
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
1.75
1.75
0%
-20%0.75
1.25
1.5
V max
100%
45%
80%
% Difference
% Differenc e
20%
M max
30%
15%
0%
1.25
1.75
40%
60%
60%
-15%0.75
1.75
E max
100%
% Difference
% Difference
v max (%)
-20%0.75
1.5
1.5
1.75
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.75
1.25
1.5
Locus of T max (%)
T max (%)
100%
100%
% Difference
% Difference
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%0.75
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1.25
1.5
1.75
-20%0.75
1.25
1.5
Figure 4.34: Effect of l/h ratio on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall
169
4.5.5 Wall Setback, d

This section examines the effect of varying the wall setback of the MSE wall on
the performance of the lower soil nail wall. All parameters are maintained constant
except for the wall setback. The offset distances, d, considered in this analysis are: 0, 2, 5,
10, 20 and 30ft with d/H ratios of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.75 and 1.1 respectively. Results
obtained from this analysis are presented in Figures 4.35 through 4.40. These results can
be summarized as follows:
The factor of safety is affected slightly by the changes in the wall setback.
The minimum factor of safety is obtained when the offset distance is set to
zero and it increases as the set back distance increases.
The lateral wall deformation is maximum when the wall setback distance
is set to zero and it reduces significantly as the distance increases.
The effect of wall setback is more evident when taller MSE walls are used.
For instance, a reduction of 30% of the lateral wall deformation maybe
obtained by increasing the offset distance from 0 to 2ft as shown in Figure
4.36 for a MSE wall height of 20ft.
The effect of wall setback is even more significant on vertical wall

displacement even when shorter MSE walls are used.
The lateral wall pressures are also significantly affected by the wall
setback distance even when shorter wall is used.
A wall setback of zero produces largest tensile forces in the nails and the
nail forces decrease as the setback distance increases.
The nail forces appear unchanged when the wall setback is set to 30ft or
d/H ratio of 1. This may suggest that no interaction exists between the
walls when the offset distance is larger than unity. This confirms the
previous observations described by Elias and Christopher (1997) and
proposed in their FHWA design approach.
170
Impact of Wall Setbacks

Factor of Safety
2.6
D = 0 ft
2.5
D = 2 ft
D = 5 ft
2.4
D = 10 ft
D = 20 ft
Factor of Safety
2.3
D = 30 ft
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
0
12
16
20
16
20
Figure 4.35: Effect of wall setback on factor of safety

Impact of Wall Setbacks
30.0
D = 0 ft
D = 2 ft
D = 5 ft
Lateral Wall Dsiplacement (mm)
25.0
D = 10 ft
D = 20 ft
D = 30 ft
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
Figure 4.36: Effect of wall setback on lateral wall deformation
171
Impact of Wall Setbacks on Vertical Wall Displacement

30.0
D = 0 ft
D = 2 ft
D = 5 ft
Vertical Wall Dsiplacement (mm)
25.0
D = 10 ft
D = 20 ft
D = 30 ft
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.37: Effect of wall setback on vertical displacement

Impact of Wall Setbacks on Lateral Wall Pressure
7000
D = 0 ft
D = 2 ft
6000
D = 5 ft
D = 10 ft
D = 20 ft
5000
D = 30 ft
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12
Figure 4.38: Effect of wall setback on lateral wall pressure
172
16
20
MSE H = 4 ft
MSE H = 20ft

10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
0.0
10
10
173
0.0
15
20
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
15
20
25
25
30
30
D = 0 ft
D = 2 ft
D = 5 ft
D = 10 ft
D = 20 ft
D = 0 ft
D = 30 ft
Figure 4.39: Effect of wall setback on maximum nail tensile forces
173
D = 2 ft
D = 5 ft
D = 10 ft
D = 20 ft
D = 30 ft
h max (%)
FS (%)
% Difference
% Difference
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
5
10
15
20
Wall Setbacks (ft)
25
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0
-40%
0%
0
100%
80%
30
10
15
20
25
30
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0
-40%
-60%
-80%
Wall Setbacks (ft)
M max (%)
% Difference
% Difference
40%
20%
10
15
20
25
30
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0
-40%
-60%
15
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
Locus of T max (%)
20
30
% Differenc e
% Difference
T max (%)
10
10
Wall Setbacks (ft)
Wall Setbacks (ft)
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 0
-50%
-75%
30
V max (%)
80%
60%
25
Wall Setbacks (ft)
100%
0%
-20% 0
-40%
20
E max (%)
% Difference
% Difference
15
Wall Setbacks (ft)
v max (%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0
-40%
-60%
10
150%
125%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 0
10
20
Wall Setbacks (ft)
Wall Setbacks (ft)
Figure 4.40: Effect of wall setback on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall
174
30
4.5.6 Soil Properties

This section examines the effect of soil properties such as shear strength and unit
weight. The soil cohesion values considered in this analysis are: 50, 100, 150, 300 and
500 psf. The soil frictional angle values used are 30, 34, 38 and 42 degrees. Four unit
weights were used; 110, 120, 130 and 140 pcf. Results obtained from these analyses are
presented in Figures 4.41 through 4.46 for soil cohesion, Figures 4.47 through 4.52 for
soil frictional angle, and Figures 4.53 through 4.58 for unit weight of soil. These results
can be summarized as follows:
The factor of safety is significantly affected by both the variation in soil

cohesion as well as soil frictional angle. However, the variation in unit
weight of soil has no effect on the factor of safety as shown in Figure 4.53.
The lateral wall deformations as well as the vertical displacements are

significantly affected by the variation in both soil cohesion and friction
angle. The effect of soil unit weight appeared to be insignificant.
In general, the soil nail walls with soil frictional angle of 30 becomes
unstable when subjected to MSE wall height of more than 8ft.
Both soil cohesion and friction angle had significant effect on lateral wall
pressure but soil unit weight did not.
The effect of soil cohesion and friction angle on nail tensile forces were
significant; but the unit weight affected only slightly.
In general the soil cohesion and soil frictional angle are key factors that contribute
significantly to the overall performance of the wall. On the other hand, the soil unit
weight is not a significant factor and appears to have minimum influence on the
performance of the wall. This suggests that the soil unit weight need not to be considered
as a key factor in designing soil nail walls.
175
Impact of Soil Cohesion

3.3
c = 50 psf
3.1
c = 100 psf
c = 150 psf
2.9
c = 300 psf
c = 500 psf
Factor of Safety
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.41: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on factor of safety

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
c = 50 psf
10.0
c = 100 psf
c = 150 psf
c = 300 psf
5.0
c = 500 psf
0.0
0
12
16
Figure 4.42: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on lateral wall deformation
176
20

60.0
c = 50 psf
c = 100 psf
c = 150 psf
50.0
c = 300 psf
c = 500 psf
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
16
20
Figure 4.43: Effect of soil cohesion (c) vertical displacements

9000
c = 50 psf
8000
c = 100 psf
c = 150 psf
7000
c = 300 psf
c = 500 psf
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12
Figure 4.44: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on lateral wall pressure
177
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0
30.0
5.0
0
c = 50 psf
c = 50 psf
c = 100 psf
c = 100 psf
c = 150 psf
c = 150 psf
c = 300 psf
c = 300 psf
10
15
178
c =500 psf
10
15
20
20
25
25
Figure 4.45: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on maximum nail tensile forces
178
c =500 psf
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
h max (%)
FS (%)
80%
% Difference
% Difference
100%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 50
150
250
350
450
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 50
-40%
160%
120%
80%
250
350
450
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 50
-40%
% Difference
% Difference
250
350
450
100%
150
250
350
450
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 50
150
250
350
450
Tmax
Locus of Tmax
100%
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
150
250
350
450
% Difference
% Difference
150
V max (%)
M max (%)
-25% 50
450
Soi Cohesion, c (psf)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 50
-40%
350
Emax (%)
% Difference
% Difference
v max (%)
150
250
40%
0%
-40% 50
-80%
150
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 50
-50%
150
250
350
450
Figure 4.46: Effect of soil cohesion (c) on overall performance normalized by results
from baseline wall
179
Impact of Soil Frictional Angle

3.5
phi = 30
phi = 34
phi = 38
phi = 42
Factor of Safety
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.47: Effect of soil friction () on factor of safety

45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
phi = 30
10.0
phi = 34
phi = 38
5.0
phi = 42
0.0
0
12
Figure 4.48: Effect of soil friction () on lateral wall deformation
180
16
20

45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
phi = 30
10.0
phi = 34
phi = 38
5.0
phi = 42
0.0
0
12
16
20
16
20
Figure 4.49: Effect of soil friction () on vertical displacements

Maximum Lateral Earth Pressure
8000
7000
phi = 30
phi = 34
phi = 38
6000
phi = 42
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12
Figure 4.50: Effect of soil friction () on lateral wall pressure
181
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0

25.0
30.0
0.0
10
15
10.0
phi = 30
phi = 30
phi = 34
phi = 34
phi = 38
phi = 38
phi = 42
182
5.0
10
15
20
20
25
25
Figure 4.51: Effect of soil friction () on maximum nail tensile forces
182
phi = 42
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
h max (%)
100%
34
38
42
% Difference
% Difference
FS (%)
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 30
-50%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 30
Soil Friction, ( )
0
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 30
-50%
E max
34
38
42
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 30
Soil Friction, ( )
100%
34
38
42
% Difference
% Difference
42
V max
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 30
0
% Difference
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
34
34
38
0
Soil Friction, ( )
42
Locus of T max (% )
T max (% )
% Difference
38
0
Soil Friction, ( )
-25% 30
34
Soil Friction, ( )
M max
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 30
-50%
42
100%
% Difference
% Difference
v max (%)
34
38
0
Soil Friction, ( )
38
42
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
30
Soil Friction, ( )
0
34
38
0
Soil Friction, ( )
Figure 4.52: Effect of soil friction () on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall
183
42
Impact of Unit Weight of Soil

3.0
gama = 110 pcf

gama = 120 pcf
gama = 130 pcf
2.5
Factor of Safety
gama = 140 pcf
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
16
20
Figure 4.53: Effect of soil unit weight () on factor of safety

30.0
gama = 110 pcf
gama = 120 pcf
25.0
gama = 130 pcf

gama = 140 pcf
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
Figure 4.54: Effect of soil unit weight () on lateral wall deformation
184

30.0
gama = 110 pcf
25.0
gama = 120 pcf

gama = 130 pcf
gama = 140 pcf
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
Figure 4.55: Effect of soil unit weight () on vertical displacements

7000
gama = 110 pcf
6000
gama = 120 pcf

gama = 130 pcf
5000
gama = 140 pcf

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12
Figure 4.56: Effect of soil unit weight () on lateral earth pressure
185
16
20
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0

20.0
25.0
0.0
0
gama = 110 pcf
gama = 110 pcf
gama = 120 pcf
gama = 120 pcf

gama = 130 pcf
gama = 130 pcf
10
15
gama = 140 pcf
186
5.0
gama = 140 pcf
10
15
20
20
25
25
Figure 4.57: Effect of soil unit weight () on maximum nail tensile forces
186
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
h max (%)
FS (%)
100%
% Difference
% Difference
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%110
120
130
140
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%110
Soil Unit Weight, (pcf)
130
140
% Difference
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%110
130
140
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%110
120
130
140
Locus of T max (% )
100%
% Difference
100%
% Difference
140
T max (% )
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 110
130
V max
% Difference
% Difference
M max
120
120
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%110
140
E max
% Difference
120
130
v max (%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%110
120
120
130
140
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 110
120
130
140
Figure 4.58: Effect of soil unit weight () on overall performance normalized by results
from baseline wall
187
4.5.7 Surface Slope, Nail Inclination and Bar size

This section will examine the effect of the rest of the parameters considered in the
analysis. A brief description will be presented along with the pertinent plots. Similar to
analysis procedure followed with previous parameters, all variables will be kept constant
except of the one in consideration. Three different parameters will be inspected in this
section which are surface slope including backslope effect, nail inclination and bar size.
The following are the variable values considered with each one of the parameters:
Surface slope: flat surface (no slope), 1:1.5 slope (33.7), and 1:1 slope
(45)
Nail inclination: 10, 15 and 20
Bar size: No.6 (19mm), No.8 (25mm), No.10 (32mm) and No.14 (43mm)
For the analysis in which the slope surface is examined, the original condition
consisted of a slope with total height of the combined height of both soil nail and MSE
walls. This should be the critical condition which will result into larger deformation and
the lower factor of safety. The initial stresses were generated using the Gravity Method
and the overall deformation was reset to zero. The construction of the soil wall was
simulated with the backslope on top. After reaching the full height of the soil nail wall,
the backslope was removed in one phase and the soil cut was supported via Fixed-end
Anchor element. The deformation of the cut slope was controlled within 10mm.
Results obtained from these analyses are presented in Figures 4.59 through 4.64
for surface slope, Figures 4.65 through 4.70 for nail inclination and Figures 4.71 through
4.76 for bar size. Table 4.3 summaries all the results obtained for the 12 parameters
consider in this parameters study. In table 4.4, the same results are presented after being
normalized by results from the baseline wall.
188
Impact of Slopped Surface

3.5
3.0
Factor of Safety
After Slope Cut
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
16
20

No Slope
1:1 Slope
1:1.5 Slope
Figure 4.59: Effect of slope surface on factor of safety

30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12

No Slope
1:1 Slope
1:1.5 Slope
Figure 4.60: Effect of slope surface on Lateral wall deformation
189

35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
16
20

No Slope
1:1 Slope
1:1.5 Slope
Figure 4.61: Effect of slope surface on vertical displacements

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12

No Slope
1:1 Slope
1:1.5 Slope
Figure 4.62: Effect of slope surface on lateral wall pressure
190
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
10
Before backslope removal
15
191
0.0

15.0
20.0
15
20
25
25
1:1 Slope
10.0
10
20
No Slope
5.0
1:1.5 Slope
No Slope
Figure 4.63: Effect of slope surface on maximum nail tensile forces
191
1:1 Slope
1:1.5 Slope
25.0
h max (%)
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Differenc e
FS (%)
100%
60%
40%
20%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0
10
20
30
40
0%
50
Surface Slope, (0)
10
100%
80%
80%
60%
40%
20%
40
50
40%
20%
0%
10
20
30
40
50
10
Surface Slope, (0)
20
30
Surface Slope, (0)
M max
V max
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Differenc e
% Difference
50
60%
0%
60%
40%
20%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
0
10
20
30
Surface Slope, (0)
40
50
10
T max (%)
20
30
Surface Slope, (0)
40
50
Locus of T max (%)
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
40
E max
100%
% Difference
% Difference
v max (%)
20
30
Surface Slope, (0)
60%
40%
20%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0%
0
10
20
30
0
Surface Slope, ( )
40
50
10
20
30
40
Surface Slope, (0)
Figure 4.64: Effect of surface slope on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall
192
50
Impact of Nails Inclinations

3.5
Factor of Safety
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
16
20

Alpha = 10
Alpha = 15
Alpha = 20
Figure 4.65: Effect of nail inclination on factor of safety

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12

Alpha = 10
Alpha = 15
Alpha = 20
Figure 4.66: Effect of nail inclination on lateral wall deformation
193

70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
16
20

Alpha = 10
Alpha = 15
Alpha = 20
Figure 4.67: Effect of nail inclination on vertical displacements

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12

Alpha = 10
Alpha = 15
Alpha = 20
Figure 4.68: Effect of nail inclination on lateral wall pressure
194
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
195
0.0
10
15
15.0
20.0
15
20
25
25
Alpha = 15
10.0
10
20
Alpha = 10
5.0
Alpha = 20
Alpha = 10
Figure 4.69: Effect of nail inclination on maximum nail tensile forces
195
Alpha = 15
Alpha = 20
25.0
FS (%)
h max (%)
80%
60%
% Difference
% Difference
100%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 10
15
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 10
20
Nail Inclination, ( )
v max (%)
E max
80%
60%
% Difference
% Difference
100%
40%
20%
0%
15
20
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25% 10
-50%
-75%
80%
60%
% Difference
% Difference
100%
40%
20%
0%
20
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 10
-40%
T max (%)
20
Locus of T max (%)
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
15
Nail Inclination, (0)
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 10
20
V max
M max
15
15
-20% 10
20
0
-20% 10
15
60%
40%
20%
0%
15
20
-20% 10
15
Nails Inclination, (0)
Nails Inclination, (0)
Figure 4.70: Effect of nail inclination on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall
196
20
Impact of Bar Size

3.5
Factor of Safety
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
12
16
20
16
20

No.6
No.8
No.10
No.14
Figure 4.71: Effect of bar size on factor of safety

Impact of Bar Size
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12

No.6
No.8
No.10
No.14
Figure 4.72: Effect of bar size on lateral wall deformation
197
Impact of Bar Size

35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
12
16
20
16
20

No. 6
No. 8
No. 10
No. 14
Figure 4.73: Effect of bar size on vertical displacements

Impact of Bar Size
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
12

No 6
No 8
No 10
Figure 4.74: Effect of bar size on lateral wall pressure
198
No 14
MSE H = 0 ft
MSE H = 20 ft

5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
0.0
199
0.0
10
15
25
25
No 10
15.0
20.0
25.0
15
20
No 6
10.0
10
20
No 8
5.0
No 14
No. 6
Figure 4.75: Effect of bar size on maximum nail tensile forces
199
No. 8
No. 10
No. 14
30.0
35.0
h max (% )
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 15
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
-25%15
% difference
% Diffference
FS (%)
20
25
30
35
40
45
20
20
25
30
35
40
45
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%15
20
Bar Size (mm)
% Difference
% Difference
100%
80%
60%
20
25
30
35
Bar Size (mm)
40
45
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%15
20
40
45
25
30
35
Bar Size (mm)
40
45
25
30
35
Bar Size (mm)
40
45
40
45
Locus of T max (%)
100%
100%
80%
80%
% Difference
% Difference
T max
60%
40%
20%
0%
15
-20%
35
V max
M max
40%
20%
0%
-20%15
30
E max
(%) Difference
% Difference
v max (%)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%15
25
Bar Size (mm)
Bar Size (mm)
60%
40%
20%
0%
20
25
30
35
40
45
-20%
Bar Size (mm)
15
20
25
30
35
Bar Size (mm)
Figure 4.76: Effect of bar size on overall performance normalized by results

from baseline wall
200
Table 4.3a: Results from parametric Study
MSEW h (ft)
12
16
Parameters
Soil Nail Wall Height (ft)
Short (13ft) 3.101 2.604 2.289 2.06 1.873
Medium (26.5ft) 2.458 2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845
Tall (40ft) 2.33 2.13 2.002 1.892 1.776
Vertical Spacing, Sv (ft)
3.3 2.458 2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845
4.5 2.364 2.178 2.041 1.919 1.802
201
L/H ratio - Sv = 3.3 ft

0.6 1.972
0.8 2.254
1.0 2.458
1.2 2.537
1.4 2.6
0.6 1.926
0.8 2.16
1.0 2.364
1.2 2.576
V max (mm)
H max (mm)
F.S.
20
12
16
20
1.22
5.54
7.94
12
16
20
Values
1.743
1.99
4.94
7.22
10.41 14.34 19.74
10.78 14.22 18.67
1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52 15.00 19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67 25.70
1.692
7.38
10.48 13.31 16.64 20.96 24.78
9.38
12.72 15.03 17.65 21.28 23.41
1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
15
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
1.713
7.83
11.95 15.26
19
23.58 28.44 10.21 15.09 18.02 21.23 25.14 29.04
1.741 1.654 1.575 1.507
7.76
12.91
17.3
23.77 32.09 41.09
7.92
12.27 15.12 18.96 23.36 28.25
2.086 1.956 1.824 1.735 1.649
5.89
9.88
13.2
17.37 23.28 29.77
7.47
11.54 14.08 17.36 21.63 26.52
1.84
2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
2.401 2.263 2.138 2.005
1.87
5.23
8.17
10.17 13.89
15
5.18
8.01
25.7
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
17.7
22.21
7.26
11.12 13.57 16.85 20.96 26.02
25.7
10.26 13.23 16.85 21.16
7.25
11.04 13.37 16.45 20.43 25.55
2.505
2.42
2.278 2.131 1.992
1.789
1.69
1.607 1.529 1.427 12.86 19.05 23.85 29.30 35.63 45.25 11.48 16.93 20.28 23.90 27.05 32.04
1.994 1.872 1.762 1.675 1.589
8.99
13.91 17.69 22.28 28.90 35.28 10.47 15.73 18.85 22.50 27.02 31.39
2.178 2.041 1.919 1.802 1.713
7.83
11.95 15.26 19.00 23.58 28.44 10.21 15.09 18.02 21.23 25.14 29.04
2.421 2.201 2.076 1.962 1.854
7.28
11.03 13.93 17.31 21.80 26.28 10.08 14.98 17.95 21.45 26.72 31.15
1.56
5.36
9.05
12.83 17.75 27.49 42.05
7.32
11.22 14.16 17.69 23.69 32.08
2.458 2.233 2.044 1.889 1.749 1.601
5.36
8.84
12.13 16.24 21.41 30.25
7.32
11.17 13.82 17.34 21.65 27.83
2.458 2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
2.458 2.283 2.153 2.027 1.926 1.835
5.36
8.52
11.14 14.23 18.01 22.22
7.32
11.09 13.54 16.42 20.29 24.87
l/h ratio (MSE wall)

0.75
1
1.5
2
2.458 2.226 2.029 1.853 1.704
201
15
25.7
Table 4.3a: Results from parametric Study (continue)

MSEW h (ft)
Parameters
Wall Setbacks, D (ft)
0 2.458
2 2.458
5 2.458
10 2.458
20 2.458
30 2.458
12
202
Unit Weight, (pcf)

110 2.514
120 2.487
130 2.458
140 2.458
16
20
12
16
20
12
16
20
Values
2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
25.7
2.316 2.166 2.027 1.924 1.826
5.36
8.03
10.12 12.56 15.46 18.35
7.32
9.89
11.69 13.76
18.73
2.341
2.19
2.063 1.961 1.866
5.36
7.8
9.56
11.54 13.81 16.34
7.32
9.21
10.39 11.84 13.48 15.24
2.363
15
2.24
16.2
2.115 2.003 1.914
5.36
7.62
9.14
10.77 12.55 14.53
7.32
8.41
9.19
10.04 10.96 11.98
2.337 2.198 2.072 1.958 1.865
5.36
7.47
8.79
10.23 11.74 13.38
7.32
7.64
8.02
8.43
8.87
9.35
2.38
1.85
5.36
6.84
7.77
10.18 11.91
7.32
7.32
7.52
7.74
8.01
8.34
16.9
20.47 24.97 30.35
2.233 2.093 1.962

100 2.351 2.167 2.036 1.9
150 2.458 2.257 2.108 1.968
300 2.733 2.5 2.311 2.147
500 3.096 2.805 2.558 2.356
Friction Angle, (0)
30 1.897
34 2.166
38 2.458
42 2.79
V max (mm)
H max (mm)
F.S.
1.742 1.625
1.52
8.8
1.774 1.668
6.75
10.31 13.41 17.21 21.81 27.55
9.92
13.41
1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
25.7
2.008 1.878
4.08
7.24
9.44
12.14 15.94 20.41
4.9
8.27
10.1
12.58 15.35
19.2
2.191 2.038
3.27
6.49
8.39
10.96 14.02 17.68
3.6
6.75
8.4
10.27 12.47 15.23
15
1.435 1.372 10.05 15.42 19.86 22.93 28.18 35.73 14.91 21.08 25.75 28.47 33.11 39.48
1.989 1.875 1.732 1.638 1.558
7.07
11.1
14.5
18.9
24.47 31.21
9.56
14.62 18.07 22.32 27.42 33.83
2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
15
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
2.553 2.384 2.224 2.078 1.974
4.31
7.27
9.58
12.8
16.38 20.73
5.76
9.14
11.1
2.271 2.099 1.941 1.821
1.68
4.39
7.75
10.54 14.18
18.5
23.95
5.83
9.72
12.17 15.49 19.48 24.62
2.264 2.104 1.952 1.826 1.708
4.86
8.19
11.05 14.63 19.08 24.13
6.54
10.39 12.94 16.19 20.36 24.91
2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
2.251
5.87
9.18
12.02 15.48 19.48
8.11
11.95 14.41 17.45 21.45 26.29
2.11
1.971 1.868 1.733
202
15
19.31 24.77
25
25.7
13.51 16.24 19.85
25.7
Table 4.3a: Results from parametric Study (continue)

MSEW h (ft)
V max (mm)
H max (mm)
F.S.
12
16
20
Parameters
Surface Slope
No Slope 2.458 2.257 2.108 1.968 1.845 1.715 5.36
12
16
20
12
16
20
Values
8.63
11.52
15
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
25.7
1V: 1.5H (33.7 ) 1.719 2.072 1.971 1.87 1.819 1.781 11.86 13.76 15.9 18.61 21.54 25.9 15.24 16.72 19.06 21.84 25.48 30.22
1V:1H (450) 1.571 2.079 1.983 1.877 1.823 1.865 15.7 17.18 19.2 21.71 24.39 28.38 18.27 18.8 20.91 23.68 26.91 31.19
203

10 2.412 2.203 2.055 1.918
15 2.458 2.257 2.108 1.968
20 2.249 2.12 2.066 1.955
Bar size
19 mm No. 6 2.452 2.253 2.097 1.965
25 mm No. 8 2.458 2.257 2.108 1.968
32 mm No. 10 2.489 2.262 2.11 1.979
43 mm No. 14 2.456 2.261 2.108 1.978
1.803
1.7
4.65
8.79
12
15.74 20.31 26.12
11.52
11.22 14.08 17.34 21.25 26.04
1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
19.31 24.77
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
1.846 1.763
6.26
12.06 16.33 21.41 28.56 37.79
8.08
17.71 24.67
1.852 1.716
6.39
10.27 13.35 17.21 22.07 28.33
8.3
12.35 15.03 18.58 23.34 29.22
1.845 1.715
5.36
8.63
11.52
7.32
11.14 13.64 16.72 20.67
1.853 1.733
4.84
7.72
10.41 13.63 17.87 22.74
1.856 1.739
4.4
6.95
9.4
15
6.16
15
19.31 24.77
12.43 16.49 21.19
33.3
25.7
46.63 63.33
25.7
6.8
10.54 12.92 15.72 19.68 24.18
6.36
10.03 12.29 14.96 18.66 23.07
Table 4.3a: Results from parametric study (with backslope but no MSE)
H max (mm)
F.S.
Backslope
height, hs (ft)
Parameters
Backslope,
V max (mm)
---
---
---
7.32
---
---
---
---
---
Values
0
No backslope (0 ) 2.458
0
---
1V: 1.5H (33.7 ) 2.454 2.236

1V:1H (450) 2.477 2.254
--2.077
2.081
---
---
1.934 1.822
1.929 1.73
---
5.36
1.718
1.566
6.83
7.34
---
---
9.28 11.53 14.19 16.48 18.31

10.15 12.94 16.58 21.07 26.07
203
7.82
8.30
9.82 10.97 12.35 13.57 14.75

10.75 12.41 14.49 17.05 20.03
Table 4.3b: Results from parametric Study

E max (psf)
MSEW h (ft)
Parameters
Short (13ft) 159
1435
Medium (26.5ft) 102
2671
Tall (40ft) 444
3720
12
M max (k-ft)
16
20
12
V max (kips)
16
20
12
16
20
Values
2199
3090
4038
5002
2.1
2.6
3.2
3.6
4.2
4.8
1.4
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
6.9
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1
12.9
4763
5994
7044
8935
6.7
6.8
6.8
7.6
11.7
11.7
3.8
5.4
5.6
7.1
10.1
9.8
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1
12.9
5.4
1700
2314
2956
3553
4323
8.1
9.4
10.7
11.9
13.3
14.8
8.2
9.4
10.4
11.5
12.5
8.2
133
2766
3635
4432
5224
6217
5.9
6.5
7.8
12.7
18.8
25.1
5.9
5.9
9.3
13.2
17.3
5.9
111
2640
3548
4407
5218
6088
5.5
6.12
6.7
8.4
14.8
21.5
5.6
5.9
6.8
10.7
14.8
5.6
102
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1
12.9
5.4
3.3 102
4.5 163
204
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
102
2620
3522
4348
5239
6029
5.4
5.9
6.2
8.7
14.8
21.3
5.4
5.6
6.7
10.5
14.4
5.4
102
2623
3571
4446
5383
6175
5.3
5.9
7.3
12.2
18.2
5.4
5.7
6.9
12.6
5.4
178
1657
2178
2873
3767
4426
9.1
11.3
12.8
14.1
15.3
16.5
5.8
9.4
10.9
12.5
14.1 15.6
161
1636
2202
2766
3298
3978
7.8
10.0
11.4
12.9
14.5
16.1
4.9
8.5
9.6
10.6
11.5 13.1
163
1700
2314
2956
3553
4323
8.1
9.4
10.7
11.9
13.3
14.8
4.9
8.2
9.4
10.4
11.5 12.5
164
1684
2281
2852
3253
3972
8.3
9.3
10.5
11.8
13.6
15.3
4.9
8.2
9.3
10.3
11.3 12.8
102
2732
3650
4700
5843
7069
5.4
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.5
3.7
5.6
6.1
7.8
11.7 17.5
102
2728
3655
4503
5499
6448
5.4
5.8
5.9
6.1
6.2
3.7
5.6
5.9
10
14.5
102
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
5.7
5.8
5.8
6.1
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1
12.9
102
2648
3508
4386
5168
5922
5.4
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.5
3.7
5.5
5.9
6.2
8.9
12.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.75
1
1.5
2
204
Table 4.3b: Results from parametric study (continue)

E max (psf)
MSEW h (ft)
Parameters
0 102
2 102
5 102
10 102
20 102
30 102
100 130
150 102
300 350
500 476
205
Friction Angle, (
30
34
38
42
12
M max (k-ft)
16
20
V max (kips)
12
16
20
12
16
20
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1 12.9
Values
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
2300
3134
3885
4610
5230
5.4
6.2
6.3
6.3
9.3
11.9
3.7
5.2
5.5
6.4
7.9
9.4
1624
2380
3090
3690
4297
5.4
6.1
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.6
3.7
4.8
5.4
5.7
907
1328
1762
2307
2875
5.4
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.5
3.7
4.3
4.7
5.3
5.6
421
617
814
1017
1233
5.4
5.8
5.9
6.1
6.2
3.7
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
239
347
362
615
791
5.4
5.7
5.8
5.8
6.1
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.9
2522
3352
4155
4934
5625
5.4
5.9
6.6
10.3
15.7
21.5
5.3
5.7
7.6
11 14.7
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1 12.9
2709
3884
4925
6145
7136
5.3
5.9
6.1
6.2
6.4
7.9
3.2
5.1
6.7
9.1
2746
3953
5269
6641
7954
4.5
5.1
5.3
5.6
6.5
8.2
2.7
4.5
5.4
6.9
8.4
9.9
2270
2755
3312
4049
4672
6.5
6.8
9.8
11.7
15.2
19.8
4.8
6.2
7.9
9.6
11.9 15.1
241
153
2418
3129
3846
4510
5106
6.3
6.8
7.4
12.5
17.6
23.4
3.6
5.3
9.3
12.6 16.4
102
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1 12.9
170
2738
3810
4917
6105
7136
4.7
5.2
5.5
5.6
6.5
9.5
3.1
4.9
5.5
6.6
7.9
2589
3505
4305
5201
5987
4.6
5.2
5.4
7.2
12.6
18.7
3.1
4.9
5.3
6.1
9.2
13
2635
3541
4341
5186
6131
5.7
5.8
7.4
13.3
18.3
3.4
5.2
5.5
6.2
9.6 12.8
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1 12.9
2689
3591
4493
5370
6239
5.8
6.5
6.6
7.8
12.3
18.5
5.8
6.2
6.6
9.2 12.9
Unit Weight, (pcf)

110 117
120 99
130 102
140 125
205
Table 4.3b: Results from parametric study (continue)

E max (psf)
MSEW h (ft)
Parameters
Surface Slope,
No Slope (00) 102
12
M max (k-ft)
16
20
12
V max (kips)
16
20
12
16
20
Values
2671
3566
4454
5340
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1
12.9
2502
3376
4303
5062
5834
8.9
9.6
9.5
10
12
17.5
5.4
5.6
6.5
7.7
8.5
11.6
2493
3471
4323
5213
6075
9.6
10.2
10.2
10.2
11.8
14.3
5.9
5.4
6.8
8.9
9.8
1637
2370
3154
4003
4773
6.5
6.9
7.2
7.9
9.2
10.6
3.5
11.1
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1
12.9
1540
2021
2444
2765
3116
5.1
6.5
7.3
7.9
8.4
8.9
3.3
5.3
5.8
6.2
6.5
6.5
145
2757
3615
4444
5189
5909
5.5
5.5
7.1
12.4
18.5
3.2
4.8
5.5
12.8
135
2671
3566
4454
5339
6146
5.4
6.1
6.2
7.5
12.1
18.5
3.7
5.4
5.9
6.5
9.1
12.9
122
2607
3535
4501
5333
6248
6.1
6.4
7.8
13.1
19.3
4.2
6.1
6.5
7.7
9.9
13.7
164
2592
3564
4572
5432
6345
6.6
7.3
7.7
8.5
12.9
19.9
4.7
6.8
7.1
8.8
10.3
14.3
1V: 1.5H (33.7 ) 180

0
1V:1H (45 ) 188

10 186
15 102
20 44
0
Bar size
19 mm
25 mm
206
No. 6
No. 8
32 mm No. 10
43 mm No. 14
Table 4.3b: Results from parametric study (with backslope but no MSE)
E max (psf)
Backslope
height, hs (ft)
12
M max (k-ft)
16
20
Parameters
Backslope,
12
V max (kips)
16
20
12
16
20
Values
0
No backslope (0 ) 102
0
1V: 1.5H (33.7 )

1V:1H (450)
67
73
---
---
---
---
---
5.4
---
---
---
---
---
3.7
---
---
---
---
---
99
97
120
128
173
160
192
178
222
186
4.2
4.4
5.6
5.4
6.6
6.5
7.4
7.6
7.9
8.6
8.6
9.8
3.1
3.2
3.8
3.9
4.3
4.2
4.8
4.6
5.1
5.5
5.4
6.1
206
Table 4.3c: Results from parametric study

MSEW h (ft)
0
Parameters
Short (13ft) 2.6
Medium (26.5ft) 9.0
Tall (40ft) 12.3
T max (kips)
8
12
Values
16
20
7.6
13.8
9.7
15.9
12.3
17.3
15.2
18.4
18.1
22.2
17.2
18.4
19.5
21.5
22.5
9.0
13.8
15.9
17.3
18.4
22.2
14.3
21.1
23.9
26.6
29.7
32.7
9.9
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.9
15.7
14.3
13.8
13.8
13.6
18.3
16.6
15.9
15.7
15.6
20.9
18.3
17.3
16.8
16.8
23.9
19.6
18.4
18.5
18.6
30.4
25.6
22.2
24.6
22.2
15.8
13.6
14.3
25.1
21.3
21.1
29.5
24.7
23.9
34.5
28.4
26.6
38.4
32.3
29.7
43.7
36.3
32.7
14.5
21.1
23.6
26.3
30.5
35.3
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
14.0
13.8
13.8
13.7
16.1
16.0
15.9
15.9
17.4
17.4
17.3
17.3
21.6
19.5
18.4
18.3
30.4
24.9
22.2
21.5
3.3
4.5
207
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.75
1
1.5
2
207
Table 4.3c: Results from parametric study (continue)
208
MSEW h (ft)
0
Parameters
0 9.0
2 9.0
5 9.0
10 9.0
20 9.0
30 9.0
100 9.8
150 9.0
300 7.1
500 5.4
Friction Angle, (0)
30 11.4
34 9.9
38 9.0
42 7.1
Unit Weight, (pcf)
110 7.4
120 8.2
130 9.0
140 9.8
T max (kips)
8
12
Values
16
20
13.8
11.3
10.5
9.3
8.0
7.6
15.9
13.1
12.2
10.5
8.5
7.8
17.3
14.9
14.0
11.8
9.0
8.1
18.4
16.6
15.8
13.4
10.2
8.4
22.2
17.4
17.7
15.3
12.5
8.8
14.1
13.8
11.7
9.1
15.4
15.9
13.8
11.1
16.3
17.3
16.3
13.1
19.2
18.4
18.1
15.8
26.1
22.2
19.6
18.7
16.4
15.3
13.8
11.2
18.4
16.6
15.9
13.3
19.5
18.4
17.3
15.2
22.4
22.1
18.4
17.1
29.2
29.8
22.2
20.0
12.2
13.0
13.8
14.7
14.3
15.1
15.9
16.8
15.6
16.4
17.3
18.3
17.2
17.5
18.4
19.3
22.3
21.9
22.2
22.3
208
Table 4.3c: Results from parametric study (continue)

MSEW h (ft)
Parameters
Surface Slope
No Slope
1V: 1.5H (33.70)
1V:1H (450)
10
15
20
Bar size
19 mm No. 6
25 mm No. 8
32 mm No. 10
43 mm No. 14
T max (kips)
8
12
Values
16
20
9.0
14.4
16.1
13.8
15.2
15.8
15.9
16.1
16.9
17.3
16.8
17.4
18.4
18.5
19.3
22.2
21.5
22.2
8.4
9.0
6.8
12.8
13.8
11.7
14.6
15.9
13.5
16.4
17.3
15.6
18.5
18.4
18.7
22.0
22.2
23.4
8.2
9.0
9.7
10.3
13.0
13.8
14.6
15.6
15.2
15.9
16.6
17.4
16.5
17.3
18.1
20.3
17.6
18.4
21.1
24.5
21.9
22.2
24.6
28.7
209
Table 4.3c: Results from parametric study (with backslope but no MSE)
Backslope
height, hs (ft)
Parameters
Backslope,
No Slope
1V: 1.5H (33.70)
1V:1H (450)
9.0
7.6
8.3
--9.4
10.2
T max (kips)
8
12
Values
--10.6
11.6
--11.7
13.1
16
20
--12.8
14.8
--13.6
16.6
209
4.6 Summary and Conclusions

Review of results from parametric study are summarized and ranked according to
their significance in Table 4.4. Some parameters such as unit weight of soil appear to be
not important as far as the overall performance of the wall is concerned. Other parameters
such as bar size appear to be significant only when a large surcharge load is applied. A
linear regression analyses were conducted to develop models that can be used for
prediction of wall performance. An ANOVA test was also conducted to determine
whether there are significant parameters with respect to wall performance in terms of
wall deformation, nail forces, lateral earth pressure and global factor of safety. Appendix
A contains results form the ANOVA tests.
Two models were developed for each wall performance; in the full model, all
parameters were used regardless of their significance whereas in the reduced model, only
the significant parameters were kept. Table 4.5 lists all linear regression models for each
aspect of wall performance considered in the parametric study.
210
Table 4.4: Table of significance

FS
H max
Emax
Tmax
Cohesion, c
Angle of Friction,
Unit Weight,
Height, H
Nail Length, L
B2
Vertical Spacing, Sv
Sloped Surface
B1
A1
Nail Inclination,
C2
Bar size
A2
Height, h
Reinforcement length, l
B2
Setback, d
Parameters
Soil Properties
Wall Geometry
(Soil nail wall)
211
Wall Geometry
(MSE wall)
A Strongly Significant, B Moderately Significant, C Slightly Significant, D Not Significant

1 Significant to a point, 2 Significant at high surcharge
211
Table 4.5: Regression models for difference aspects of wall performance

Full Model
Maximum Lateral Wall Deformation
Maximum Vertical Displacement
Maximum Tensile Nail Forces
212
Maximum Lateral Earth Pressure
M max and V max on Wall face

(Reduced Models)
Reduced Model
h(max) = 9.3 + 0.628 H + 3.79 SV - 0.388

L - 3.17 L/H + 1.04 h - 0.0733 l/h 0.272 d + 0.117 - 0.0154 c - 0.834
+ 0.0749 + 0.580 - 0.197 Db
h(max) = 19.3 + 0.745 H + 3.91 SV 0.502 L + 1.04 h - 0.264 d +

0.121 - 0.0149 c - 0.848
R2 = 84.1%
R2 = 83.4%
v(max) = 8.45 + 0.468 H + 3.92 SV +
0.897 h - 0.364 d + 0.155 - 0.0218
c - 1.25 + 1.63
v(max) = 4.82 + 0.398 H + 3.79 SV + 0.042

L - 2.88 L/H + 0.897 h - 0.0325 l/h 0.370 d + 0.151 - 0.0221 c - 1.24 +
0.0851 + 1.63 - 0.141 Db
R2 = 86.8%
R2 = 86.5%
T(max) = - 18.4 + 0.289 H - 0.0257 L +

7.94 SV + 0.26 L/H + 0.713 h - 0.0114 l/h
- 0.291 d + 0.0288 - 0.00921 c - 0.436
+ 0.0424 - 0.0342 + 0.131 Db
T(max) = - 13.4 + 0.272 H + 7.97 SV +

0.713 h - 0.290 d + 0.0293 0.00915 c - 0.438 + 0.132 Db
R2 = 77.3%
E(max) = - 2233 + 94.3 H - 883 SV - 7.1 L
+ 212 L/H + 256 h + 0.1 l/h - 127 d 1.03 + 2.68 c + 102 + 2.1 - 69.9
+ 7.3 Db
R2 = 77.4%
R2 = 88.4%
M(max) = 19.3 + 1.99 SV + 0.240 L - 8.77
L/H + 0.501 h - 0.153 d - 0.0115 c 0.457
R2 = 64.8%
E(max) = - 2610 + 86.8 H - 880 SV +

256 h - 127 d + 2.69 c
+ 102
R2 = 88.4%
V(max) = 11.3 + 2.45 SV - 5.46 L/H +
0.402 h - 0.137 d - 0.282
R2 = 78.2%
H- Height of soil nail wall, Sv Vertical nail spacing, L - Nail length, h Height of MSE wall, l Length of MSE reinforcement, d Wall setback
- Terrain slope, c Soil cohesion, - Soil friction, Soil unit weight, nail inclinations, Db Bar diameter (mm)
CHAPTER 5
PROPOSED DESIGN METHOD
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a performance-based design procedure that can be used to
analyze and design the soil nail portion of the hybrid wall system. The basis for proposed
method is derived from the results of finite element analysis described in Chapter 4. The
new method is presented as a series of easy to use design charts. The primary objective of
this design method is to facilitate the design of safe and cost-effective hybrid wall
systems that meet the needs of a broad range of transportation-related projects.
The proposed method will be a performance based procedure which will not only
deal with stability aspects of the wall, but will also help predict the lateral wall
deformation. The method will also provide a means of estimating the tensile forces in the
nails. The method will address the performance of the soil nail wall portion of the hybrid
wall when it is subjected to considerable surcharge loads caused by the MSE wall. The
method may be used in the design of soil nail walls subjected to different types of
surcharge loads such as bridge abutments. In order to use this method, the surcharge load
needs to be converted to an equivalent height of MSE wall before using the design charts.
It is important to note that this proposed method is not intended to replace current
design approach using GOLDNAIL, at least until is fully calibrated with field
observations. Ongoing research is currently being conducted by Texas Tech University to
investigate the performance of an instrumented hybrid wall system which is scheduled for
construction at the end of December, 2006 in San Antonio along I-410. This research
study will provide insight of the accuracy of this method. Data collected will be used to
verify the adequacy of the numerical model and to calibrate the design charts.
Several design examples are presented in this chapter to illustrate the use of this
design methodology. The method will be then validated against other existing design
approaches as well as computer program such as the FHWA method, GOLDNAIL and
SNAIL.
213
5.2 Development of Design Charts

The design charts were developed using the finite element computer program
PLAXIS. Results from the parametric study presented in Chapter 4 were stored in a
database and were used in developing the design charts. In order to generalize the
method, additional analyses were required so that design charts will be complete. The
design charts were developed separately for different categories of soil nail wall heights.
Three wall heights are considered in developing the design charts;
The 13ft wall chart can be used to design short soil nail walls with vertical
nail spacings of 3.3ft as commonly used by TxDOT,
The 26.5ft wall charts can be used to design medium height walls with
vertical nail spacings of 3.3 and 4.5ft
The 40ft wall charts can be used to design tall walls with vertical nail
spacings of 3.3 and 4.5ft
The design charts provide relationships to relate between the global factor of
safety and normalized maximum lateral wall deformation for different L/H ratios and
multiple MSE wall heights. Figures 5.1 though 5.5 show the design charts that can be
used to design nails length based on a specified factor of safety and predefined MSE wall
height. Separate charts were developed to estimate the maximum tensile forces in the
nails. The charts were developed by establishing the relationship between the normalized
lateral wall deformation and the maximum tensile nail forces. These forces will depend
on the predicted lateral wall deformation, length of the reinforcement of the MSE wall
and the height of the MSE wall. Figures 5.6 through 5.10 illustrate these charts for
estimating nail forces based on estimated lateral wall deformation and length of the
reinforcement of the MSE wall.
214
3.5
h = 0 ft
H = 13.2 ft
L/H = 1.4
Sv = 3.3 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
= 00
d /H = 0
L/H = 1.2
3.0
h = 8 ft
L/H = 1.0
h = 12 ft
L/H = 0.8
2.5
h = 16 ft
L/H = 0.6
h = 20 ft
h = 24 ft
2.0
215
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Normalized Maximum Lateral Displacement at Wall Crest, h/H (%)
Figure 5.1: Design chart for short soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 3.3ft (H = 13.2ft)
215
0.7
2.7
H = 26.5 ft
h = 0 ft
L/H = 1.2
2.5
h = 8 ft
h = 12 ft
L/H = 1.0
2.3
Sv = 3.3 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
h = 16 ft
L/H = 0.8
h = 20 ft
2.1
h = 24 ft
L/H = 0.6
1.9
216
1.7
1.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Normalized Maximum Lateral Displacement at Soil-Nail Wall Crest (h/H) (%)
Figure 5.2: Design chart for mid-tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 3.3ft (H = 26.5ft)
216
0.5
2.8
h = 0 ft
2.6
H = 26.5 ft
L/H = 1.2
h = 8 ft
2.4
h = 12 ft
L/H = 1.0
2.2
L/H = 0.8
h = 16 ft
h = 20 ft
Sv = 4.5 ft
= 150
= 380
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
h = 24 ft
L/H = 0.6
1.8
1.6
217
1.4
1.2
1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Normalized Maximum Lateral Displacement at Soil-Nail Wall Crest, h/H (%)
Figure 5.3: Design chart for mid-tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 4.5ft (H = 26.5ft)
217
0.6
2.7
H = 40 ft
h = 0 ft
Sv = 3.3 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
L/H = 1.0
2.5
h = 8 ft
L/H = 0.8
2.3
h = 12 ft
h = 16 ft
2.1
h = 20 ft
L/H = 0.6
h = 24 ft
1.9
218
1.7
1.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.4: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 3.3ft (H = 40ft)
218
0.5
2.4
h = 0 ft
H = 40 ft
L/H = 1.0
Sv = 4.5 ft
= 150
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
h = 8 ft
2.2
h = 12 ft
L/H = 0.8
h = 16 ft
h = 20
L/H = 0.6
1.8
h = 24 ft
219
1.6
1.4
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Normalized Maximum Lateral Displacement at Wall Crest, h/H (%)
Figure 5.5: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 4.5ft (H = 40ft)
219
0.5
1.2
Normalized Nail Force, TN
1.0
l / h = 1.5
l / h = 2.0
l / h = 1.0
l / h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
h = 20 ft
0.8
h = 16 ft
0.6
h = 12 ft
h = 8 ft
0.4
220
0.2
h = 0 ft
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 5.6: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in short soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 3.3ft (H = 13.2ft)
220
0.8
l / h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
0.7
l / h = 1.0
l / h = 1.5
0.6
h = 20 ft
l / h = 2.0
0.5
h = 16 ft
h = 12 ft
0.4
221
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 5.7: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in medium tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 3.3ft (H = 26.5ft)
221
0.6
l /h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
l /h = 1.0
l /h = 1.5
0.5
h = 20 ft
l /h = 2.0
0.4
h = 16 ft
h = 12 ft
222
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Figure 5.8: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in medium tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 4.5ft (H = 26.5ft)
222
0.8
l /h = 0.75
0.7
223
Normalized Nail Forces, TN
h = 24 ft
0.6
l /h = 1.0
h = 20 ft
l /h = 1.5
0.5
l /h = 2.0
h = 16 ft
0.4
h = 12 ft
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 5.9: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 3.3ft (H = 40ft)
223
0.5
l /h = 2.0
0.4
l /h = 1.5
l /h = 1.0
l /h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
h = 20 ft
h = 16 ft
h = 12 ft
h = 8 ft
0.3
224
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 5.10: Chart for estimating maximum nail forces in tall soil nail wall with vertical spacing of 4.5ft (H = 40ft)
224
5.3 Development of Final Design Charts

The final design charts combine two types of plots as described in the previous
section. The upper chart deals with the stability aspect of the wall whereas the lower one
will ensure adequate tensile capacity in the nails. The original charts were modified by
reducing their factors of safety by a magnitude of 0.5. This reduction in the factor of
safety was incorporated to match results obtained from GOLDNAIL as shown in Figure
5.11. By observing the plot, it clearly shows that GOLDNAIL underestimates the factor
of safety when the wall is subjected to significant surcharge. As a result, this adjustment
will incorporate additional factor of safety in the design charts. However, if the field
measurements collected from the two instrumented walls in San Antonio are found to be
consistent with results from PLAXIS prediction, this reduction may be removed.
These new adjusted charts will allow the design of the soil nail wall for nail
length while providing an estimate of the maximum lateral wall deformation as well as
maximum nail forces. Figures 5.12 through 5.16 illustrate the new combined design
charts for different heights of soil nail walls. Interpolation between charts may needed if
the height of soil nail wall is different from the three heights selected.
5.4 Correlation between Lateral and Vertical Displacements
Results from parametric study stored in the project database and presented in
Chapter 4 were used to develop a correlation between lateral and vertical wall
displacements at the soil nail wall crest. The scattergram plotted in Figure 5.17 suggests
that there is a strong relationship between the horizontal and vertical displacements and
as indicated by the correlation coefficient of 0.85. This correlation can be used as a
design tool (Figure 5.18) to predict the overall vertical displacement based on the value
obtained from the predicated lateral deformation.
225
226
Figure 5.11: Comparison of estimated factor of safety between PLAXIS and GOLDNAIL
226
H= 13.2ft - Sv = 3.3ft
2.8
L/H = 1.2
2.6
h = 0 ft
L/H = 1.0
2.4
H = 13.2 ft
Sv = 3.3 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d/H = 0
h = 8 ft
2.2
L/H = 0.8
h = 12 ft
2.0
h = 16 ft
L/H = 0.6
1.8
h = 20 ft
h = 24 ft
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.0
l / h = 1.5
l / h = 2.0
l / h = 1.0
l / h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
h = 20 ft
0.8
h = 16 ft
0.6
h = 12 ft
h = 8 ft
0.4
0.2
h = 0 ft
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Figure 5.12: Design chart for short soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 3.3ft
227
0.7
H= 26.5ft Sv = 3.3ft
2.2
H = 26.5 ft
h = 0 ft
L/H = 1.2
2.0
h = 8 ft
h = 12 ft
L/H = 1.0
1.8
Sv = 3.3 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
h = 16 ft
L/H = 0.8
h = 20 ft
1.6
h = 24 ft
L/H = 0.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.5
l / h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
0.7
l / h = 1.0
l / h = 1.5
0.6
h = 20 ft
l / h = 2.0
0.5
h = 16 ft
h = 12 ft
0.4
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Figure 5.13: Design chart for medium tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 3.3ft
228
H = 26.5ft Sv = 4.5ft
2.4
H = 26.5 ft
h = 0 ft
2.2
Sv = 4.5 ft
= 150
= 380
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
L/H = 1.2
h = 8 ft
2
L/H = 1.0
h = 12 ft
1.8
h = 16 ft
L/H = 0.8
h = 20 ft
1.6
h = 24
L/H = 0.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
l /h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
l /h = 1.0
l /h = 1.5
0.5
h = 20 ft
l /h = 2.0
0.4
h = 16 ft
h = 12 ft
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Figure 5.14: Design chart for medium tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 4.5ft
229
H = 40ft Sv = 3.3ft
2.2
H = 40 ft
h = 0 ft
Sv = 3.3 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
L/H = 1.0
h = 8 ft
L/H = 0.8
1.8
h = 12 ft
h = 16 ft
1.6
h = 20 ft
L/H = 0.6
h = 24 ft
1.4
1.2
1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
l /h = 0.75
0.7
Normalized Nail Forces, TN
h = 24 ft
0.6
l /h = 1.0
h = 20 ft
l /h = 1.5
0.5
l /h = 2.0
h = 16 ft
0.4
h = 12 ft
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.15: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 3.3ft
230
0.5
H = 40ft Sv = 4.5ft
2
h = 0 ft
H = 40 ft
Sv = 4.5 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
L/H = 1.0
h = 8 ft
1.8
h = 12 ft
L/H = 0.8
1.6
h = 16 ft
h = 20 ft
L/H = 0.6
1.4
h = 24 ft
1.2
1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
l /h = 2.0
0.4
l /h = 1.5
l /h = 1.0
l /h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
h = 20 ft
h = 16 ft
h = 12 ft
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.16: Design chart for tall soil nail wall with vertical nail spacing of 4.5ft
231
0.5
Predicted Vertical Displacement

70
v max = 0.92 h max + 2.69
232
Vertical Displacement, v (mm)
60
R2 = 0.85
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Horizontal Displacement, h (mm)

Calculated
Predicted
Figure 5.17: Correlation of between lateral and vertical wall displacement
232
35
40
45
50
Predicted Vertical Displacement
233
Maximum Vertical Displacement, v (mm)
(in)
50
2.0
45
1.8
40
1.6
35
1.4
30
1.2
25
1.0
20
0.8
15
0.6
10
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
(mm)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Maximum Horizontal Displacement, h
Figure 5.18: Prediction plot for vertical wall displacement
233
1.6
1.8
2.0
(in)
5.5 Correction Factors

In many instances, the conditions of the problem being analyzed will differ from
those for which the charts were developed. As a result, the values of the factor of safety,
lateral wall deformation and tensile nail forces obtained from the charts should be
corrected. The correction factors were developed by normalizing results from the
parametric study with results obtained from the baseline wall. Table 5.1 lists all the
correction factors developed to correct factor of safety, lateral wall deformation as well as
maximum tensile force in the nails. The correction factors listed in table 5.1 can be
entered in a spreadsheet and automated for easy retrieval by using the VLookup or
HLookup functions as in Microsoft Excel.
5.6 Modeling Hybrid Wall in GOLDNAIL
Subsequently, the new proposed method was validated against currently available
design approaches for soil nail walls. One of the design methods used for this purpose is
the GOLDNAIL program. The MSE portion of the wall is modeled by using vertical
surcharge load which is placed on top of the soil nail wall. PLAXIS was used to
investigate the adequacy of such modeling. The finite element analysis reveals that
modeling the MSE wall with only vertical component will underestimate the maximum
lateral wall deformation in the soil nail wall. Figure 5.19 shows that in the case in which
the MSE wall was modeled with vertical component, the lateral wall deformation was
underestimated by 40% in comparison to the baseline wall. The figure also shows the
effect of adding a horizontal component to the vertical surcharge load to account for the
thrust caused by the lateral deformation of MSE wall. A horizontal component of 10% of
the vertical surcharge appears to provide adequate lateral deformation in the soil nail
wall. As a result, the MSE wall will be modeled with two components; a vertical
surcharge equivalent to weight of the MSE wall and horizontal load equivalent to 10% of
the vertical load. In SNAIL, the MSE wall will be modeled using a vertical slope with no
reinforcement and will be compared with a similar approach used in GOLDNAIL and the
more conservative results will be used.
234
Table 5.1a: Correction factors

h max
F.S
MSEW H (ft)
T max
12
16
20
24
12
16
20
24
12
16
20
24
0.92
0.96
1.00
1.11
1.26
0.91
0.96
1.00
1.11
1.24
0.93
0.97
1.00
1.10
1.21
0.94
0.97
1.00
1.09
1.20
0.92
0.96
1.00
1.09
1.19
0.94
0.97
1.00
1.10
1.19
2.58
1.26
1.00
0.76
0.61
2.06
1.19
1.00
0.84
0.75
1.78
1.16
1.00
0.82
0.73
1.62
1.15
1.00
0.81
0.73
1.52
1.13
1.00
0.83
0.73
1.44
1.11
1.00
0.82
0.71
1.03
1.09
1.00
0.79
0.61
0.97
1.02
1.00
0.85
0.66
0.94
0.96
1.00
0.87
0.70
1.01
0.94
1.00
0.94
0.75
1.21
1.04
1.00
0.99
0.86
1.32
1.18
1.00
0.89
0.84
30
34
38
42
0.77
0.88
1.00
1.14
0.77
0.88
1.00
1.13
0.77
0.89
1.00
1.13
0.77
0.88
1.00
1.13
0.78
0.89
1.00
1.13
0.80
0.91
1.00
1.15
1.88
1.32
1.00
0.80
1.79
1.29
1.00
0.84
1.72
1.26
1.00
0.83
1.53
1.26
1.00
0.85
1.46
1.27
1.00
0.85
1.44
1.26
1.00
0.84
1.28
1.11
1.00
0.79
1.19
1.11
1.00
0.81
1.16
1.04
1.00
0.83
1.13
1.06
1.00
0.88
1.22
1.20
1.00
0.93
1.32
1.34
1.00
0.90
Unit Weight, (pcf)

110
120
130
140
1.02
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.01
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.01
0.82
0.91
1.00
1.10
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.06
0.91
0.96
1.00
1.04
0.95
0.98
1.00
1.03
0.96
0.99
1.00
1.01
0.97
0.97
1.00
1.01
0.82
0.91
1.00
1.09
0.89
0.94
1.00
1.06
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
0.93
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.01
0.99
1.00
1.01
10
15
20
0.98
1.00
0.91
0.98
1.00
0.94
0.97
1.00
0.98
0.97
1.00
0.99
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.03
0.87
1.00
1.17
1.02
1.00
1.40
1.04
1.00
1.42
1.05
1.00
1.43
1.05
1.00
1.48
1.05
1.00
1.53
0.94
1.00
0.76
0.93
1.00
0.85
0.92
1.00
0.85
0.94
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.02
0.99
1.00
1.06
No. 6
No. 8
No. 10
No. 14
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.19
1.00
0.90
0.82
1.19
1.00
0.89
0.81
1.16
1.00
0.90
0.82
1.15
1.00
0.91
0.83
1.14
1.00
0.93
0.85
1.14
1.00
0.92
0.86
0.92
1.00
1.08
1.15
0.94
1.00
1.06
1.13
0.95
1.00
1.04
1.10
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.17
0.95
1.00
1.14
1.33
0.99
1.00
1.11
1.29
Sloped Surface,
No Slope
0
1V: 1.5H (33.7 )
0
1V:1H (45 )
1.00
0.70
0.64
1.00
0.92
0.92
1.00
0.94
0.94
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.04
1.09
1.00
2.21
2.93
1.00
1.59
1.99
1.00
1.38
1.67
1.00
1.24
1.45
1.00
1.12
1.26
1.00
1.05
1.15
1.00
1.61
1.80
1.00
1.10
1.14
1.00
1.01
1.06
1.00
0.97
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.05
1.00
0.97
1.00

50
100
150
300
500
Friction Angle, ( )
0
235
Bar size
235
Table 5.1a: Correction factors (continue)

h max
F.S
MSEW H (ft)
T max
12
16
20
24
12
16
20
24
12
16
20
24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.01
0.96
0.96
0.97
1.00
1.02
0.94
0.94
0.96
1.00
1.03
0.92
0.92
0.95
1.00
1.04
0.90
0.91
0.93
1.00
1.07
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.06
1.05
1.02
1.00
0.99
1.12
1.11
1.05
1.00
0.97
1.23
1.18
1.08
1.00
0.95
1.52
1.42
1.11
1.00
0.93
1.87
1.70
1.22
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.20
1.17
1.06
1.00
0.99
1.47
1.37
1.12
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.04
1.05
1.00
1.03
1.04
1.06
1.04
1.06
1.00
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.05
1.06
1.00
1.04
1.06
1.09
1.06
1.06
1.00
1.06
1.09
1.12
1.09
1.08
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.87
0.79
1.00
0.88
0.83
0.79
0.76
0.67
1.00
0.84
0.77
0.72
0.68
0.59
1.00
0.80
0.72
0.65
0.61
0.53
1.00
0.74
0.66
0.59
0.54
0.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.82
0.76
0.67
0.58
0.55
1.00
0.83
0.77
0.66
0.53
0.49
1.00
0.86
0.81
0.68
0.52
0.46
1.00
0.90
0.86
0.73
0.55
0.45
1.00
0.78
0.80
0.69
0.56
0.40
MSE Wall, l/h

0.6
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
Wall Setbacks, d/H
0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.1
Table 5.1b: Correction factors for soil nail wall with backslope instead of MSE
236
Backslope Height,
hs (ft)
Backslope angle,
0
No Slope (0 )
0
1V: 1.5H (33.7 )
0
1V: 1H (45 )
h max
F.S
T max
12
16
20
12
16
20
12
16
20
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
0.91
0.92
1.00
0.84
0.85
1.00
0.79
0.78
1.00
0.74
0.70
1.00
0.70
0.64
1.00
1.27
1.37
1.00
1.73
1.89
1.00
2.15
2.41
1.00
2.65
3.09
1.00
3.07
3.93
1.00
3.42
4.86
1.00
0.85
0.93
1.00
1.05
1.14
1.00
1.18
1.29
1.00
1.31
1.46
1.00
1.43
1.65
1.00
1.52
1.85
236
Displacement at Wall Face

MSEW H =20ft

0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
10
15
20
Measured
Baseline Before MSE
Baseline Wall
QH = 0
QH = 0.1Q
25
QH = 0.15Q
30
Figure 5.19: Effect of modeling MSE wall as vertical surcharge load
237
50.0
5.7 Example Problem

This section will illustrate the step-by-step the use of the design charts to design
the soil nail wall portion of the hybrid wall system. After illustrating the example
problem in detail, other examples will be presented and their results will be compared
with results obtained from other design approaches such as GOLDNAIL, SNAIL, FHWA
1991, FHWA 1996 and FHWA 2003 as shown in Appendix B. This step will be
necessary to validate the new method and demonstrate its capability for designing soil nail
walls as well as hybrid walls.
Several examples will be used to illustrate the use of the method and its validation
process. The first three examples will demonstrate three soil nail walls with different
geometry and light surcharge loads such as traffic load. Another three examples will
illustrate designing hybrid wall systems with various geometry and soil properties. The
last two examples will illustrate the design of two hybrid wall systems, one with short
MSE reinforcement and another with optimum reinforcement length.
5.7.1 Design of Hybrid Wall System
The first design example consists of a hybrid wall system with a soil nail wall
height of 25ft and an MSE wall height of 16ft. The soil properties consist of c = 100 psf,
= 34 and = 120 pcf. The MSE wall facing is setback 5 ft from the face of the soil nail
wall. The nails are inclined 15 from the horizontal and are spaced 3.3 ft vertically. The
MSE reinforcement length is 24 ft or l/h of 1.5. The original ground has a 1:1 slope
consistent with critical highway embankments near bridge abutments.
It is required to design the soil nail wall for nail length (L) using a factor of safety
of 1.35. After finding L, the maximum lateral wall deformation, maximum vertical
displacement and the maximum tensile nail forces will be estimated. Figure 5.20
illustrates the geometry and soil properties used in the design. The following will
illustrate the design procedure step-by-step:
238
MSEW
5ft
16ft
l = 24ft
45
Existing
ground
L=?
15
25ft
3.3ft
SNW
Drawing Not to Scale

Figure 5.20: Design example for hybrid wall system
239
Medium dense
silty sand
c = 100 psf
= 34
= 120 pcf
Q = 1.9 ksf
1. Since the height of soil nail wall is equal to 25ft, use the design chart for
medium height wall with vertical nail spacing of 3.3ft as shown in Figure
5.21. Interpolate between design charts if the wall height does not fall in
any of the three categories (short, medium height and tall)
2. Determine three sets of correction factors for MSE height of 16ft using
Table 5.1. The first set to correct for factor of safety (F.S.), the second set
to correct for lateral wall deformation (h max) and the third set to correct
for tensile forces ( max).
3. Calculate the composite correction factors by multiplying each set of
correction factors in series.
C F .S . = 1.0 0.97 0.88 0.99 1.0 1.0 0.95 1.05 = 0.843
C h max = 1.0 1.15 1.26 0.98 1.0 1.0 1.45 0.77 = 1.585
CT max = 1.0 0.94 1.06 0.95 1.0 1.0 1.01 0.81 = 0.774
4. Apply the composite correction factor for factor of safety and enter the
design chart as shown in step 1 in Figure 5.22.
Corrected Factor of Safety =
F .S . 1.35
=
= 1.60
C F .S . 0.843
5. From the new corrected value of the factor of safety (FS = 1.6) draw a
horizontal line until it intersects with the h = 16ft curve and find the point
of intersection and determine L/H. (step 2)
6. L/H = 1.14, hence L = 1.14 25 = 28.5 ft
7. Estimate the lateral wall displacement. (step 3)
h max
= 0.175%;
H
Hence
h max = 0.00175 (25 12 ) = 0.525 in = 13.3 mm
8. Correct for lateral wall deformation
Corr. lateral wall deformation = h max C h max = 0.525 1.585 = 0.83 in
240
Table 5.2: Correction factors for different wall parameters

Parameter
Values
Correction Factor
F.S.
1.0
h max
1.0
max
1.0
h = 16 ft
MSE reinf., l/h
1.5
Wall setback, d/H
5/25 = 0.2
1.05
0.77
0.81
Soil cohesion, c
100 psf
0.97
1.15
0.94
Friction angle,
34
0.88
1.26
1.06
Unit weight of soil, 120 pcf
0.99
0.98
0.95
Nail inclination,
15
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bar size
No. 8
1.00
1.00
1.00
Sloped surface,
45
0.95
1.45
1.01
Figure 5.21: Calculation of correction factors

241
2.2
H = 26.5 ft
h = 0 ft
L/H = 1.2
2.0
h = 12 ft
L/H = 1.0
1.8
h = 16 ft
L/H = 0.8
FS = 1.6
h = 20 ft
1.6
Sv = 3.3 ft
0
= 15
0
= 38
c = 150 psf
= 130 pcf
0
=0
d /H = 0
h = 8 ft
L/H = 1.14h = 24 ft
L/H = 0.6
1.4
1.2
h max /H= 0.175%
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.5
h max /H= 0.277% l / h = 0.75
h = 24 ft
0.7
5 l/h
l / h = 1.5
TN = 0.56
0.6
= 1.0
h = 20 ft
l / h = 2.0
0.5
h = 16 ft
h = 12 ft
0.4
h = 8 ft
0.3
h = 0 ft
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.22: Illustration of design steps for hybrid wall system
242
0.5
9. Calculate the corrected
h max
= 100 0.83
(25 12) = 0.277 - Step 4
10. Find point of intersection between corrected h max and l/h = 1.5 - Step 5
11. Determine the normalized maximum tensile forces, TN = 0.56 - Step 6
12. Calculate maximum tensile forces in the nails,
Tmax = TN (H SV S H ) = 0.56 (25 0.120 3.3 3.3) = 18.3 kips
13. Correct for tensile forces
Corr. max . tensile force = Tmax CT max = 18.3 0.774 = 14.2 kips
14. Determine the vertical displacement at the crest of soil nail wall using
Figure 5.18. Hence V max = 0.869 in 0.87 in
5.7.2 Comparison of Results
The results obtained from the design example are compared with results obtained
by GOLDNAIL and SNAIL. The proposed method yields a soil nail length of 28.5 ft, a
maximum lateral wall displacement of 0.83 in, a total settlement of 0.87 in and a
maximum tensile force of 18.3 kips before correction and 14.2 kips after correction.
GOLDNAIL yields a soil nail length of 26.0 ft and a maximum tensile force of 22.2 kips
assuming a pullout capacity of 1.9 ksf and a factor of safety of 1.35. On the other hand,
SNAIL yields a soil nail length of 21.2ft and a maximum tensile force of 10.8 kips
assuming a bond stress of 13 psi with a factor of safety of 1.37.
From the above, it can be noted that the new method gives slightly longer nails
with length comparable to those given by GOLDNAIL. The difference in results is
mainly due to the approach in which the wall is modeled in the two methods. For
instance, in the new method, the construction sequences were taken into account by
considering an existing backslope during the construction of the soil nail wall portion of
the wall. This condition cannot be modeled in GOLDNAIL since the wall geometry is
defined as the end-of-construction situation. SNAIL on the other hand, tends to
underestimate the required soil nail length significantly. Comparison of nail service loads
243
shows that GOLDNAIL over estimates nail forces whereas SNAIL tends to
underestimate these forces significantly. The new method yields a value that falls in
between.
5.8 Validation of Results for 5205 Method
In this section, the proposed method will be validated against current available
methods for designing soil nail walls. Two computer programs, GOLDNAIL and SNAIL
will be used in addition to three FHWA design methods (1991, 1996 and 2003).
Nine cases including the design case presented in Section 5.7 are presented and
their results are examined and compared. Cases 1 through 3 consist of three soil nail
walls subjected to light surcharge loads. Cases 4 through 6 consist of three hybrid wall
systems with different wall geometries and terrain slopes. Cases 7 through 9 consist of
three hybrid wall systems with varying length of MSE reinforcement.
5.8.1 Cases 1 through 3: Soil Nail Wall Examples
Figure 5.23 demonstrates three soil nail walls designed and constructed by Graig
Olden, Inc:
Case I consists of a 16.6ft high soil nail wall located on 5378 State National
Bank building in Fort Worth, TX

Case II consists of a 19ft high soil nail wall constructed along the US 380
highway in Denton County

Case III consists of a 22ft high soil nail wall along the IH 635 highway in
Dallas County
All walls are designed for a global factor of safety of 1.2. The design charts are
used to design the walls in which the surcharge load is converted to an equivalent height
of 4ft of MSE wall. The FHWA design methods were modified slightly to incorporate the
surcharge load. This was done by incorporating the surcharge load into the equation for
calculating the normalized nail forces as shown in following equation;
TNN =
TD [H (SV S H ) + q(SV S H )]
NN
244
(5.1)
where:
TNN = Required nominal nail strength
NN = Nail tendon strength factor
It is important to mention that this modification can only be used for light
surcharge such as traffic load. It cannot be used however, for significant surcharge loads
because it would exceed the range of the design charts presented in the FHWA Manual.
The walls are designed using the default value of 1.35 for the factor of safety.
Table 5.3 summarizes the design results obtained from each method. The new
method predicts nail lengths comparable to SNAIL program. GOLDNAIL and FHWA
1996 methods yield a nail length that is more conservative in comparison with the other
methods. Overall, it can be seen that GOLDNAIL and SNAIL provide an upper bound
and lower bound solutions whereas the proposed method gives results that fall within the
two methods.
In terms of nail forces, the new method predicts large tensile forces in comparison
to the other two methods. This can be attributed to the use of a relatively smaller factor of
safety. A factor of safety of 1.2 would normally yield shorter nails and consequently
would cause larger wall deformation. The excessive deformation of the wall would
eventually cause additional stresses in the nails as predicted by this method.
5.8.2 Cases 4 through 6: Hybrid Wall Examples
Figure 5.24 illustrates three different hybrid wall systems. All three walls are
designed for a global factor of safety of 1.35. The correction factors are used to
incorporate the change in wall geometry, soil properties and other parameters as
described in Section 5.7.1. The MSE wall height was converted into an equivalent
vertical surcharge load. A horizontal load was applied at the wall crest equivalent to 10%
of the vertical load to account for the lateral thrust caused by the MSE wall as per
described in Section 5.6.
Table 5.4 summarizes the design results obtained for three different cases of
hybrid walls using the new design charts, GOLDNAIL and SNAIL. The FHWA methods
245
do not consider significant surcharge loads and therefore were not used in this section. It
can be noted that GOLDNAIL always yields the most conservative nail length except for
Case 4, which was discussed in Section 5.7.2. SNAIL on the other hand tends to yield
less conservative nail length. The predicted maximum lateral deformations at the top of
the wall for Cases 4 and 5 fall within the expected range of 0.1%H to 0.3%H (FHWA,
1996). However, the lateral deformation in Case 6 is slightly over the expected range,
which indicates that the wall should be redesigned with a larger factor of safety.
5.8.2 Cases 7 through 9: Effect of Varying MSE Wall Reinforcement Length
This section demonstrates the significance of varying the length of the MSE
reinforcement on the prediction of the nails length. GOLDNAIL as well as SNAIL cannot
distinguish between these cases since the MSE wall was modeled as surcharge load. The
new method however, is capable of depicting the impact of varying the reinforcement
length. This can be observed from the change in predicted nail length and lateral
deformation as the length of the reinforcement varies. However, the tensile forces in the
nails are unaffected by such variation. This observation is consistent with Figure 4.33,
which shows the l/h is not a significant factor with regard to tensile nail forces. Table 5.5
summarizes the design results for cases 7 through 9.
It is important to note that in order to incorporate the effect of MSE reinforcement
adequately in GOLDNAIL, the horizontal load applied should be increased when using
shorter reinforcement in the MSE wall. The following design guideline can used when
using GOLDNAIL:
-
l/h 0.7 ~ 0.8 use Fh = 0.3 Q
l/h 0.85 ~ 1.0 use Fh = 0.2 Q
l/h > 1.5 use Fh = 0.1 Q
where;
Q = vertical surcharge equivalent to the height of the MSE wall,
Fh = Horizontal load applied at the top of the wall
246
Case1
Case3
Case2
30ft
q = 100psf
6ft
5ft
q = 250psf
q = 250psf
140
100
16.6ft
4ft
247
FS = 1.20
SH = 5ft
Fy = 60ksi
Dg = 8 in
Bar size = 8
10ft
c = 0 psf
= 300
= 120 pcf
Q = 2080 psf
100
19ft
4ft
c = 0 psf
= 300
= 120 pcf
Q = 1600 psf
Drawings Not to Scale
Figure 5.23: Design examples of three soil nail walls
100
22ft
4ft
c = 50 psf
= 300
= 120 pcf
Q = 2827 psf
Table 5.3: Validation of design results for three soil nail walls
Design Method
GOLDNAIL
SNAIL
5205 Method
FHWA 91 (mod.)
FHWA 96 (mod.)
FHWA 2003 (mod.)
L
ft
15.4
11
12.3
13
16
12.5
Case 1
Tmax
kips
14.4
9.1
23.5
9.6
25.2
11.6
h/H
%
------0.420
----------
L
ft
19.8
15
14.3
16.5
22
16.5
248
248
Case 2
Tmax
kips
15.1
9.2
26.0
11.1
25.1
12
h/H
%
------0.364
----------
L
ft
19.7
19
19
21
25
15.4
Case 3
Tmax
kips
23.2
12.5
31.5
18.5
26.1
16
h/H
%
----0.350
---------
Case No.4
MSE
5ft
16ft
Case No.6
Case No.5
24ft
MSE
MSE
12ft
20ft
18ft
Existing
ground
SN
15
25ft
= 45
249
SH = 3.3ft
F.S. = 1.35
Fy = 60 ksi
3.3ft
c = 100 psf
= 34
= 120 pcf
Q = 1.9 ksf
30ft
SN
15
16ft
3.3ft
c = 100 psf
= 34
= 120 pcf
Q = 1.9 ksf
Figure 5.24: Design examples of hybrid walls systems
249
SN
12ft
15
3.3ft
c = 300 psf
= 34
= 120 pcf
Q = 1.9 ksf
Table 5.4: Validation of design results for three hybrid walls
250
Design Method
GOLDNAIL
SNAIL
5205 Method
FHWA 91 (mod.)
FHWA 96 (mod.)
FHWA 2003 (mod.)
L
ft
26.0
21.2
28.8
----------
Case 4
Tmax
kips
22.2
10.8
15.0
----------
h/H
%
------0.290
----------
L
ft
17.5
13.0
13.9
----------
250
Case 5
Tmax
kips
15.7
8.2
13.4
----------
h/H
%
------0.270
----------
L
ft
16.2
13.0
13.2
----------
Case 6
Tmax
kips
15.9
7.6
14.9
----------
h/H
%
----0.360
----------
Case No.7
Case No.8
MSE
5ft
16ft
MSE
5ft
16ft
3.3ft
251
SH = 3.3ft
F.S. = 1.35
Fy = 60ksi
c = 100 psf
= 340
= 120 pcf
Q = 2000psf
24ft
SN
SN
150
MSE
5ft
16ft
16ft
12ft
25ft
Case No.9
150
25ft
3.3ft
c = 100 psf
= 340
= 120 pcf
Q = 2000psf
Figure 5.25: Effect of varying MSE reinforcement length on the design hybrid walls
251
SN
150
25ft
3.3ft
c = 100 psf
= 340
= 120 pcf
Q = 2000psf
Table 5.5: Effect of varying MSE reinforcement length of the design of hybrid walls
252
Design Method
GOLDNAIL
SNAIL
5205 Method
FHWA 91 (mod.)
FHWA 96 (mod.)
FHWA 2003 (mod.)
L
ft
25.1
22
30
----------
Case 7
Tmax
kips
22.8
13.6
12.7
----------
h/H
%
------0.240
----------
L
ft
25.1
22
28.5
----------
252
Case 8
Tmax
kips
22.8
13.6
12.4
----------
h/H
%
------0.220
----------
L
ft
25.1
22
26
----------
Case 9
Tmax
kips
22.6
13.6
12.4
----------
h/H
%
------0.210
----------
5.9 Results Comparison between 5205-Method and PLAXIS

A finite element method study of soil nail and hybrid walls has been conducted
using PLAXIS to investigate the accuracy of the proposed method. The FEM results for
the nine cases considered have been presented in Table 5.6. These results have been
compared with results obtained from the new proposed method in an attempt to verify the
strengths and weaknesses of this procedure and its suitability for use for designing soil
hybrid wall systems with varying geometry and soil conditions.
Comparison of results of cases of conventional soil nail walls with insignificant
surcharge shows that method in three cases (1 through 3) predicts:
-
the lateral wall deformations are slightly greater than those predicted by FEM
with an average difference of 34%
the maximum tensile forces are in most cases greater than those predicted by
FEM with an average deference of 41%
the vertical wall displacements are fairly greater with an average difference
of 22%
Similarly, a comparison of results of cases for hybrid walls (4 through 6) shows

better agreement in terms of lateral wall deformation and maximum tensile forces in the
nails. The method predictions for these cases are as follows:
-
no significant difference in terms of lateral wall deformation with an average

difference of -0.6% from those predicted by FEM
small difference in terms of maximum tensile forces in the nails with an

average of 7%
small difference in terms of vertical displacement with and average of -1%
Overall, the predictions obtained by the proposed method are in most parts
coincide and in good agreement with those obtained from FEM.
253
Table 5.6: Comparison between results obtained by 5205-Method and PLAXIS predictions
Case
No.
5205 Method
FS
PLAXIS
h max
v max
T max
h/H
in
in
kips
FS
% Difference
h max
v max
T max
h/H
FS
h max
v max
T max
h/H
in
in
kips
254
1
2
3
1.680
1.680
1.780
0.84
0.83
0.92
0.88
0.87
0.96
23.5
26.0
31.5
0.420 1.450
0.364 1.543
0.350 1.420
0.54
0.55
0.61
0.66
0.69
0.87
14.7
15.2
17.7
0.269
0.240
0.230
-------
35.7
33.7
33.7
25.0
20.7
9.4
37.4
41.5
43.8
36.0
34.1
34.3
4
5
6
1.607
1.570
1.406
0.87
0.52
0.52
0.91
0.58
0.58
20.8
10.8
15.0
0.290 1.646
0.270 1.550
0.360 1.749
0.87
0.54
0.51
1.04
0.57
0.53
17.1
11.7
13.2
0.290
0.283
0.356
-------
0.0
-3.8
1.9
-14.3
1.7
8.6
17.8
-8.3
12.0
0.0
-4.8
1.1
7
8
9
1.627
1.588
1.534
0.72
0.66
0.63
0.77
0.71
0.69
12.7
12.4
12.4
0.240 2.036
0.220 2.045
0.210 2.139
0.50
0.50
0.52
0.65
0.66
0.70
14.1
13.3
13.1
0.168
0.168
0.173
-------
30.6
24.2
17.5
15.6
7.0
-1.4
-11.0
-7.3
-5.6
30.0
23.6
17.6
Average
---
19.3
8.0
13.4
19.1
254
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction
The use of earth retaining walls allow highway widening to be accomplished
within existing right-of-ways eliminating the additional cost of acquiring separate lands.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and many other DOTs have started to use
existing highway embankments to increase the capacity of their highway systems. The
new technique consists of building a soil nail wall in the lower portion of the
embankment and then constructing an MSE wall on top. This new system is known as the
hybrid MSE/Soil nail wall system.
The advantages that can be achieved by using this practice include but are not
limited to:
1. Widening within exiting rights-of-way
2. Adding a lane of traffic to both side of the roadways
3. Allow construction while keeping the road open to traffic
Even though the use of and confidence in hybrid walls systems is growing, there
is currently no standardized procedure for designing such a retaining wall system.
TXDOT, for instance, implements different design strategies that vary with soil and site
conditions. Their design practices consist of:
1. Design the soil nail wall to the full height of the hybrid wall including the
MSE wall, and then the MSE wall is designed as an independent wall with
a minimum bench equivalent to 70% of its design height.
2. Design each wall for a minimum of L/H ration of 0.7 ~ 1.0
The design of the soil nail portion of such systems is typically accomplished using
computer programs such as GOLDNAIL or SNAIL. These computer codes are based on
limit-equilibrium methods and are commonly used as design tools for conventional wall
systems in which some degree of wall deflection is tolerated. These methods do not
necessarily address large deflections due to significant surcharge loads that occur in
hybrid walls due to MSE wall. Moreover, these methods do not account for the additional
255
outward thrust expected to occur at the soil nail/MSE wall interface. Therefore, safe
performance of hybrid wall systems cannot be guaranteed if their design has relied on
conventional limit equilibrium analysis. Independent analysis that examines not only
stability but also deformation is necessary.
In this study, a geotechnical finite element program was used to investigate the
effect of the MSE wall surcharge on the soil nail wall during and after construction. The
objectives of this research can be summarized as the following:
1. To review the current state-of-practice design methods used to analyze and
design soil nail walls
2. To develop a finite element model capable of simulating the complex soilstructure interaction that occurs within the hybrid wall system
3. To conduct a thorough parametric study to investigate the effects of a
variety of wall parameters on the overall performance of the wall
4. To develop a simplified design methodology for designing the soil nail
portion of the wall with the capability of estimating lateral wall
deformation and vertical displacement at the wall crest as well as
maximum tensile forces in the nails.
6.2 Conclusions
Based on the results of this research the following conclusions can be made:
1. Review of the literature revealed that at the present time there is no
established method for designing soil nail walls subjected to significant
surcharge loads
2. Current design methods are largely empirical and based on successful past
experiences which do not necessarily provide the optimum design
3. The finite element analysis was found to be very useful as a design tool to
predict wall performance once the model is calibrated
4. To ensure successful execution of finite element analysis using PLAXIS,
published data along with data generated by instrumented walls during the
256
course of this study was used to develop a stable methodology for

selecting parameters values to be input in PLAXIS.
5. Model calibration was performed by using published and instrumented
data from five case studies. Three soil nail walls were considered; the
CLOUTERRE wall No.1 in France, the Polyclinic wall in Seattle and A-2
wall in Comal County, TX. In addition, two MSE walls were used; the
FHWA Wall No.3 in Illinois and the Hayward wall in California.
6. Reasonable quantitative agreement was obtained between computed
results from finite element analysis and the measured values. However, the
agreement was not as good for nail forces. The finite element predictions
tend to show opposite trend in which the lower nails carry the larger
tensile forces.
7. Success in the application of PLAXIS for cases in which its accuracy
could be checked allowed to create an analytical model to study the
influence of different parameters on the behavior of the hybrid wall
structures.
8. A parametric study of hybrid wall systems was conducted to investigate
several combinations of parameters. These parameters included both
absolute and relative heights of the soil nail and MSE wall sections, nail
length, reinforcement length, setback of the MSE wall face from the soil
nail wall face. Results for the soil nail wall sections were cross-checked
with GOLDNAIL.
9. Results from parametric study were compiled to develop a performance
based design procedure for hybrid walls. The proposed method is
presented in the form of a series of easy to use design charts. In
conjunction with currently used design procedures, the objective of this
method is to facilitate the design of hybrid wall systems that are both safe
and cost effective. In addition, the new method will provide a means for
estimating lateral and vertical wall displacements.
257
10. The current method recommended by TxDOT is largely conservative and

produce excessive nail lengths. The finite element analysis showed that an
optimum nail length exists beyond which no benefits is gained from
extending the nails length. Figure 6.1 clearly shows that an L/H for soil
nail wall in the range of 0.8 to 1.0 yields the optimum factor of safety and
smallest lateral wall deformation. Moreover, the optimum l/h for MSE
wall was also found to between 0.8 and 1.0 as illustrated in Figure 6.2.
11. The proposed method is designed to provide the optimum length required
to stabilize the structure and minimized the lateral wall deformation when
an adequate factor of safety is used.
6.3 Recommendations
1. The validity of the new procedure has been verified by comparisons to
other design methods; however, field data and case studies are still needed
to further calibrate the method.
2. Results from a parametric study suggest that additional research is needed
to investigate in detail the effect of parameters not considered in this
research study such as effect of ground water, and wall batter.
3. Additional correction factors are needed to incorporate pullout-testing,
ground water and face batter.
4. The finite element prediction using the Mohr-Coulomb model was
acceptable. However, it is recommended to use an advanced soil model
such as the Hardening Soil model coupled with laboratory testing program
to achieve better agreement between predicted and measured behavior.
5. The new method needs to be validated and calibrated against data from
field measurements. The calibration should be performed after collecting
enough data from the two new-instrumented hybrid walls in San Antonio.
6. New correction factors need to be included to account for pore water
pressure and face batter.
258
Effect of L/H Ratio on Lateral Wall Deformation
Effect of L/H ratio on Factor of Safety

3
50
2.5
Factor of Safety
45
40
MSE WALL
h = 20 ft
35
Wall Height (ft)
30
2
1.5
1
H = 26.5 ft
(l/h )MSE = 0.7
0.5
0
l / h = 0.7
0.6
MSE H = 0ft
L
20
259
10
0
20
Lateral Wall Deformation (mm)

L/H = 0.6
L/H = 0.8
L/H = 1.0
1.6
1.8
MSE H = 8ft
MSE H = 20ft
L/H = 1.4
60
H = 26.5 ft
( l /h ) MSE = 0.7
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 in = 25.4 mm
L/H = 1.2
1.4
70
SOIL NAIL WALL

H = 26.5 ft
40
1.2
Effect of L/H ratio on Lateral Wall Displacements
15
60
L/H ratio (SNW)
25
80
0.8
0.6
0.8
L/H = 1.6
MSE H = 0ft
Figure 6.1: Effect of increasing the length of soil nails on hybrid wall deformation
259
1.2
1.4
L/H ratio (SNW)
MSE H = 8ft
1.6
MSE H = 20ft
1.8
Effect of l /h Ratio on Lateral Wall Deformation
Effect of l / h ratio on Factor of Safety

2.6
45
2.2
40
MSE WALL
h = 20 ft
35
1.8
1.4
H = 26.5 ft
(L/H) SN = 1.0
30
Wall Height (ft)
Factor of Safety
50
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
l / h ratio (MSEW)
25
MSE H = 8ft
MSE H = 20ft
MSE H = 4ft
MSE H = 16ft
MSE H = 0ft
MSE H = 12ft
L/H = 1.0
Effect of l / h ratio on Lateral Wall Displacements
20
SOIL NAIL WALL
15
260
H = 26.5
10
50
0
80
60
40
20
Lateral Wall Deformation (mm)

l/h = 0.6
l/h = 0.75
30
20
10
0
0.6
1 in = 25.4 mm
l/h = 1.0
H = 26.5 ft
(L/H) SN = 1.0
40
l/h = 1.5
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
l / h ratio (MSEW)
l/h = 2.0
MSE H = 0ft
MSE H = 12ft
MSE H = 4ft
MSE H = 16ft
Figure 6.2: Effect of increasing the length of MSE wall reinforcement on hybrid wall deformation
260
MSE H = 8ft
MSE H = 20ft
2.2
REFERENCES
Adib, M. (1988). Internal Lateral Earth Pressure in Earth Walls, Doctoral Thesis
Submitted to the University of California, Berkeley, California, 376 pp.
Adib, M., Mitchell, J. and Christopher, B. (1990), Finite Element Modeling Of
Reinforced Soil Walls And Embankments, Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, No
25, New York, pp. 409-423
Allen, T., Christopher, B., Elias, V., DeMaggio, J. (2001). Development of the
Simplified Method for Internal Stability Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls,
FHWA Publication No. WA-RD 513.1, pp.79
Banerjee, S., Finney, A., Wentworth, T. and Bahiradhan, M. (1998). Evaluation of
Design Methodologies for Soil-Nailed Walls, Volume 3: An Evaluation of Soil-Nailing
Analysis Packages, FHWA Publication No. WA-RD 371.1, pp. 154
Barrows, R. J. (1994). Two Dimensional Finite Element Modeling of Swift Delta Soil
Nail Wall by ABAQUS, Master Thesis Submitted to the Portland State University
Briaud, J.-L. and Lim, Y. (1997). Soil-Nailed Wall under Piled Bridge Abutment:
Simulation and Guidelines, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 123, No. 11, pp. 1043-1050.
Bridle, R. J. (1989). The analysis and Design of Soil Nails, Performance of Reinforced
Soil Structures: Proceedings of the International Reinforced Soil Conference, British
Geotechnical Society, 249-254.
Brinkgreve, R. B. (2005). Selection of Soil Models and Parameters for Geotechnical
Engineering Application, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 128, ASCE, 69-97.
Budek, A. (2004). Research Proposal for TxDOT Project No. 0-5205: Design Procedure
for MSE/Soil Nail Hybrid Retaining Wall Systems, Lubbock, Texas Tech University,
Dept. of Civil Engineering.
Byrne, R.J., Cotton, D., Porterfield, J., Wolschlag, C., and Ueblacker, G. (1998). Manual
for Design and Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls, Report FHWA-SA-96-69R,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
261
CALTRANS (1991). A Users Manual for the SNAIL Program, Version 5.01 Updated
PC Version, California Department of Transportation, Division of New Technology,
Material and Research, Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Sacramento, California.
Chassie, R.G. (1994). FHWA Ground Nailing Demonstration Project, Guideline Manual
and Workshop, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Chew, S. H. (1990). Reinforced Soil Wall Deformations by Finite Element Method,
Performance of Reinforced Soil Structures: Proceedings of the International Reinforced
Soil Conference, British Geotechnical Society, 35-40.
Christopher, B., Gill, S., Giroud, J., Juran, I., Mitchell, J., Schlosser, F., and Dunnicliff,
J. (1990), Reinforced Soil Structures, Vol. 1 Design and Construction Guidelines,
FHWA Report FHWA-RD-89-043, 285 pp.
Collin, J.G. (1986). Earth Wall Design, Doctoral Thesis Submitted to the University of
California, Berkeley, California, 440 pp.
Ebert, K. B. (1994). Validation and Verification of the Commercial Finite Element Code
PLAXIS for Non-Linear Geomechanics, Master Thesis Submitted to the University of
Colorado, 229 pp.
Elias, V. (2000). Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Federal Highway Administration,
Publication FHWANHI- 00-044, Washington, D.C.
Elias, V. and Juran, I. (1991). Soil Nailing for Stabilization of Highway Slopes and
Excavations, Publication FHWA-RD-89-198, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington D.C.
Elias, V., and Christopher, B. (1997). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway
Administration, No. FHWA-SA-96-071.
Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R. (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway
Administration, Publication FHWA-NHI-00-043, Washington, D.C., 394 pp.
FHWA (1993). French National Research Project CLOUTERRE, 1991-Recomandations
CLOUTERRE 1991, (English Translation) Soil Nailing Recommendations, Publication
FHWA-SA-93-026, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
262
Golder (1993). GOLDNAIL Soil Nailing Design Program, Golder Associates, Seattle,
Washington.
Ingold, T. (1982). Reinforced Earth, Thomas Telford Ltd, London.
J. Michell, J., Christopher, B., et al. (1990). North American Practice in Reinforced Soil
Systems, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.25, pp 347-378
Jewell, R. and Pedley, M. (1992). Analysis for Soil Reinforcement with Bending
Stiffness, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASC, Vol. 118, pp 1505-1528
Juran, I. (1990).Behaviour and Working Stress Design of Soil Nailed Retaining
Structures, Performance of Reinforced Soil Structures: Proceedings of the International
Reinforced Soil Conference, British Geotechnical Society, 207-217.
Juran, I., and Schlosser, F. (1978). Theoretical Analysis of Failure in Reinforced Earth
Structures, Proceedings, ASCE Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Pittsburgh, pp.
528-555.
Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Farrag, K. (1990). Design Of Soil Nailed Retaining Structures,
Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, No 25, New York, pp. 644-659
Juran, I., Baudrand, G., Farrag, K., and Elias, V. (1990). Kinematical limit analysis for
design of nailed structures, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 54-72.
Kim, W. C. (1998). The Effect of Nail Stiffness and Inclination in Soil Nailing by Finite
Element Method, Doctoral Thesis Submitted to the Utah State University, 217 pp.
Lade, P. V. (2005). Overview of Constitutive Models for Soils, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 128, ASCE, 1-34.
Landau Associates Inc. (1999) Monitoring of Soil Nailed Walls at the Highway 217 and
Highway Interchange Final Report, FHWA Report FHWA-OR-RD-00-05, pp.42
Lazarte, C., Elias, V., Espinoza, D. and Sabatini, P. (2003). Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No.7: Soil Nail Walls, Report No. FHWA0-IF-017, 182pp.
Liang, R. (2004). MSE Wall and Reinforcement Testing, Final Report, FHWA
Publication No. FHWA/OH-2004/015, pp.360
Long, J., Sieczkowski, W., Show, E., and Cording, E. (1990). Stability Analysis For Soil
Nailed Walls, Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, No 25, New York, pp. 676-691.
263
Mitchell, J. and Villet, W. (1987). Reinforcement of Earth Slopes and Embankments,

NCHRP Report 290, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC., 323 pp.
Morrison K., Harrison, F., Collin, J., Dodds, A. and Arndt, B. (2006). Shored
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (SMSE) Wall Systems Design Guidelines, Report No.
FHWA-CFL/TD-06-001, FHWA, Lakewood, CO.
NCMA (1997). "Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls," NCMA, Herndon, VA,
Second Edition.
PLAXIS b.v. 2002. PLAXIS 2D [software]. (Version 8, Finite Element Code for Soil
and Rock Analyses). P.O. Box 572, 2600 AN DELFT, Netherlands.
Plumelle, C. Schlosser, F., Oclage, P., and Knochenmus, G. (1990). French National
Research Project on Soil Nailing: CLOUTERRE, Geotechnical Special Publication No.
25, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 660-675.
Porterfield, J. A., Cotton, D.M., and Byrne, R.J. (1994). Soil Nailing Field Inspectors
Manual, Project Demonstration 103, Publication No. FHWA-SA-93-068, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Schlosser, F. (1990). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Structures in Europe,
Geotechnical Special Publication No.25, pp 322-346
Schlosser, F. (1990). Theory and Design related to the performance of Reinforced Soil
Structures, Performance of Reinforced Soil Structures: Proceedings of the International
Reinforced Soil Conference, British Geotechnical Society, 1-14.
Schmertmann, G., Chew, S., Mitchell, J. (1989). Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced
Soil Wall Behavior, Department of California, Berkeley, 183pp.
Sheahan, T.C. and T. Oral (1998). Monitoring and Failure Analysis of a Soil Nailed
Clay Wall Final Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Northeastern University
Sheahan, T.C., T. Oral, and C.L. Ho (2002). A Simplified Trial Wedge Method for Soil
Nailed Wall Analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 129(2), 117-124
Shen, C., Bang, S. and Herrman, M. (1981). Ground Movement Analysis of Earth
Support System, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASC, Vol. 118, pp 1609-1624
264
Soil Screw Retention Wall System. (2005). Soil Screw Design Manual. Retrieved March
22, 2005. www.abchance.com/ch_tech/soilscrew_designman/contents_table.htm
ISSMFE-TC-17
(2005),
http://tc17.poly.edu/sn.htm
Soil
Nailing.
Retrieved
July
15,
2005.
Stocker, F. and Riedinger G. (1990). The Bearing Beaviour Of Nailed Retaining

Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE, No 25, New York, pp. 612-628
Thompson, S.R. and I.R. Miller (1990). Design, Construction and Performance of a Soil
Nailed Wall in Seattle, Washington, Design and Performance of Earth Retaining
Structures (P.C. Lambe and L.A. Hansen, Eds.), Geotechnical Special Publication No. 25,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 629-643.
Turner, J., Jensen, W. (2005). Landslide Stabilization Using Soil Nail and Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls: Case Study, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 131(2), 141-150.
Woodward, S. J. (1990). Modification of Soil Nailed Wall Deflections, Performance of
Reinforced Soil Structures: Proceedings of the International Reinforced Soil Conference,
British Geotechnical Society, 231-234.
Wright, S. (2005). Design Procedures for Multi-Tiered Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls, Geo-Frontiers 2005, Austin, Texas. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication GRI
Yoo C. (2004). Design of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall in a
Tiered Arrangement Use of Numerical Modeling as a Design Aid, Geo-Asia 2004,
Seoul, Korea, 173-182
265
Appendix A
Regression Analysis
Regression Analysis: h(max)

The regression equation is
dh(max) = 26.8 + 0.261 H + 1.04 MSEH + 3.92 Sv + 0.115 Backslope + 0.580 Alpha
- 0.200 Bar_size - 11.9 L/H - 0.0156 c - 0.828 phi
- 0.275 WallSetback
Predictor
Constant
H
MSEH
Sv
Backslop
Alpha
Bar_size
L/H
c
phi
WallSetb
Coef
26.825
0.26142
1.04183
3.9199
0.11544
0.5800
-0.20024
-11.879
-0.015591
-0.8285
-0.27483
S = 3.765
SE Coef
7.707
0.04255
0.02714
0.4160
0.02790
0.2174
0.07671
1.826
0.004049
0.1580
0.04199
R-Sq = 83.7%
T
3.48
6.14
38.38
9.42
4.14
2.67
-2.61
-6.51
-3.85
-5.24
-6.55
P
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 83.3%
Analysis of Variance
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
10
399
409
SS
29053.0
5655.6
34708.6
MS
2905.3
14.2
F
204.97
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: h(max) - Reduced

dh(max) = 30.4 + 0.261 H + 1.04 MSEH + 3.99 Sv + 0.117 Backslope - 11.9 L/H
- 0.0154 c - 0.835 phi - 0.271 WallSetback
Predictor
Constant
H
MSEH
Sv
Backslop
L/H
c
phi
WallSetb
Coef
30.436
0.26148
1.04178
3.9857
0.11741
-11.877
-0.015361
-0.8350
-0.27113
S = 3.820
SE Coef
6.805
0.04318
0.02754
0.4214
0.02830
1.853
0.004108
0.1603
0.04258
R-Sq = 83.1%
T
4.47
6.06
37.82
9.46
4.15
-6.41
-3.74
-5.21
-6.37
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 82.8%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
8
401
409
SS
28855.5
5853.1
34708.6
MS
3606.9
14.6
A1
F
247.11
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: FS
FS = 2.63 - 0.0582 H - 0.701 Sv + 0.00219 c + 0.0315 phi + 0.0196 WallSetback
- 0.0242 MSEH - 0.00174 dh(max) + 0.0655 L
Predictor
Constant
H
Sv
c
phi
WallSetb
MSEH
dh(max)
L
Coef
2.635
-0.05816
-0.70111
0.0021940
0.03149
0.019566
-0.02422
-0.001745
0.06551
S = 0.7592
SE Coef
1.265
0.01301
0.09132
0.0008299
0.03287
0.008866
0.01157
0.009785
0.01518
R-Sq = 31.4%
T
2.08
-4.47
-7.68
2.64
0.96
2.21
-2.09
-0.18
4.32
P
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.339
0.028
0.037
0.859
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 30.1%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
8
401
409
SS
105.907
231.149
337.056
MS
13.238
0.576
A2
F
22.97
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: T(max)

T(max) = - 18.2 + 0.265 H + 0.713 MSEH + 8.00 Sv - 0.293 L/H - 0.0115 L/H_MSE
- 0.0342 Alpha + 0.131 Bar_size - 0.00921 c - 0.436 phi
+ 0.0424 gama - 0.291 WallSetback + 0.0106 z + 0.0288 Backslope
3180 cases used 8 cases contain missing values
Predictor
Constant
H
MSEH
Sv
L/H
L/H_MSE
Alpha
Bar_size
c
phi
gama
WallSetb
z
Backslop
Coef
-18.192
0.26527
0.712501
7.9971
-0.2927
-0.01149
-0.03421
0.13098
-0.009214
-0.43615
0.04238
-0.29072
0.010555
0.028755
S = 3.664
SE Coef
3.880
0.01493
0.009512
0.1575
0.6657
0.01862
0.07480
0.02642
0.001395
0.05439
0.02176
0.01449
0.007619
0.009617
R-Sq = 77.4%
T
-4.69
17.76
74.90
50.77
-0.44
-0.62
-0.46
4.96
-6.61
-8.02
1.95
-20.07
1.39
2.99
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.660
0.537
0.647
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.052
0.000
0.166
0.003
R-Sq(adj) = 77.3%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
13
3166
3179
SS
145193
42514
187706
MS
11169
13
F
831.73
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: T(max) - Reduced

T(max) = - 11.5 + 0.272 H + 0.713 MSEH + 7.95 Sv - 0.436 phi
- 0.291 WallSetback
Predictor
Constant
H
MSEH
Sv
phi
WallSetb
Coef
-11.494
0.27157
0.712793
7.9540
-0.43644
-0.29055
S = 3.707
SE Coef
2.128
0.01138
0.009596
0.1518
0.05497
0.01460
R-Sq = 76.8%
T
-5.40
23.87
74.28
52.41
-7.94
-19.91
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 76.8%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
5
3182
3187
SS
144768
43718
188486
MS
28954
14
A3
F
2107.39
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: dv(max)

dv(max) = 4.82 + 0.398 H + 3.79 Sv + 0.042 L - 2.88 L/H + 0.897 MSEH
- 0.0325 L/H_MSE - 0.370 WallSetback + 0.151 Backslope - 0.0221 c
- 1.24 phi + 0.0851 gama + 1.63 Alpha - 0.141 Bar_size
Predictor
Constant
H
Sv
L
L/H
MSEH
L/H_MSE
WallSetb
Backslop
c
phi
gama
Alpha
Bar_size
Coef
4.819
0.3983
3.7868
0.0418
-2.880
0.89677
-0.03251
-0.36989
0.15148
-0.022123
-1.2423
0.08510
1.6272
-0.14106
S = 3.109
SE Coef
9.566
0.1214
0.3455
0.1228
3.143
0.02248
0.04468
0.03477
0.02308
0.003348
0.1305
0.05222
0.1795
0.06340
R-Sq = 86.8%
T
0.50
3.28
10.96
0.34
-0.92
39.90
-0.73
-10.64
6.56
-6.61
-9.52
1.63
9.06
-2.23
P
0.615
0.001
0.000
0.734
0.360
0.000
0.467
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.104
0.000
0.027
R-Sq(adj) = 86.4%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
13
395
408
SS
25105.0
3818.6
28923.6
MS
1931.2
9.7
F
199.76
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: dv(max) Reduced Model

dv(max) = 8.45 + 0.468 H + 3.92 Sv + 0.897 MSEH - 0.364 WallSetback
+ 0.155 Backslope - 0.0218 c - 1.25 phi + 1.63 Alpha
Predictor
Constant
H
Sv
MSEH
WallSetb
Backslop
c
phi
Alpha
S = 3.123
Coef
8.451
0.46768
3.9173
0.89680
-0.36420
0.15450
-0.021769
-1.2525
1.6272
SE Coef
5.762
0.02657
0.3426
0.02252
0.03481
0.02314
0.003358
0.1310
0.1803
R-Sq = 86.5%
T
1.47
17.60
11.43
39.83
-10.46
6.68
-6.48
-9.56
9.02
P
0.143
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 86.3%
Source
Regression
DF
8
SS
25113.0
MS
3139.1
A4
F
321.81
P
0.000
Residual Error
Total
401
409
3911.6
29024.6
9.8
A5
Regression Analysis: E(max)

E(max) = - 2233 + 94.3 H - 883 Sv - 7.1 L + 212 L/H + 256 MSEH + 0.1 L/H_MSE
- 127 WallSetback - 1.03 Backslope + 2.68 c + 102 phi + 2.1 gama
- 69.9 Alpha + 7.3 Bar_size
Predictor
Constant
H
Sv
L
L/H
MSEH
L/H_MSE
WallSetb
Backslop
c
phi
gama
Alpha
Bar_size
Coef
-2233
94.33
-882.73
-7.08
212.2
255.853
0.08
-127.174
-1.030
2.6833
102.13
2.10
-69.87
7.34
S = 711.1
SE Coef
2188
27.76
79.02
28.09
718.8
5.140
10.22
7.951
5.278
0.7656
29.85
11.94
41.05
14.50
R-Sq = 88.4%
T
-1.02
3.40
-11.17
-0.25
0.30
49.78
0.01
-15.99
-0.20
3.51
3.42
0.18
-1.70
0.51
P
0.308
0.001
0.000
0.801
0.768
0.000
0.994
0.000
0.845
0.001
0.001
0.861
0.090
0.613
R-Sq(adj) = 88.1%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
13
395
408
SS
1526710512
199712512
1726423024
MS
117439270
505601
F
232.28
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: E(max) - Reduced

E(max) = - 2610 + 86.8 H - 880 Sv + 256 MSEH - 127 WallSetback + 2.69 c
+ 102 phi
Predictor
Constant
H
Sv
MSEH
WallSetb
c
phi
Coef
-2610
86.814
-880.19
256.359
-127.144
2.6852
102.08
S = 708.6
SE Coef
1154
6.027
77.42
5.109
7.888
0.7615
29.72
R-Sq = 88.4%
T
-2.26
14.40
-11.37
50.18
-16.12
3.53
3.43
P
0.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
R-Sq(adj) = 88.2%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
6
403
409
SS
1534771619
202330690
1737102309
MS
255795270
502061
A6
F
509.49
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: M(max)

M(max) = 21.1 - 0.184 H + 2.13 Sv + 0.417 L - 13.2 L/H + 0.501 MSEH
- 0.461 phi + 0.0135 gama - 0.070 Alpha + 0.0728 Bar_size
Predictor
Constant
H
Sv
L
L/H
MSEH
L/H_MSE
WallSetb
Backslop
c
phi
gama
Alpha
Bar_size
Coef
21.102
-0.1841
2.1276
0.4169
-13.210
0.50139
-0.00997
-0.15141
0.04847
-0.011386
-0.4606
0.01352
-0.0700
0.07276
S = 3.134
SE Coef
9.642
0.1223
0.3483
0.1238
3.168
0.02265
0.04504
0.03504
0.02326
0.003374
0.1316
0.05263
0.1809
0.06390
R-Sq = 65.5%
T
2.19
-1.50
6.11
3.37
-4.17
22.13
-0.22
-4.32
2.08
-3.37
-3.50
0.26
-0.39
1.14
P
0.029
0.133
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.825
0.000
0.038
0.001
0.001
0.797
0.699
0.256
R-Sq(adj) = 64.3%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
13
395
408
SS
7358.06
3879.01
11237.07
MS
566.00
9.82
F
57.64
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: M(max) - Reduced

M(max) = 19.3 + 1.99 Sv + 0.240 L - 8.77 L/H + 0.501 MSEH - 0.153 WallSetback
- 0.0115 c - 0.457 phi
Predictor
Constant
Sv
L
L/H
MSEH
WallSetb
c
phi
Coef
19.279
1.9917
0.23983
-8.767
0.50072
-0.15341
-0.011510
-0.4571
S = 3.140
SE Coef
5.388
0.3439
0.03590
1.156
0.02264
0.03496
0.003375
0.1317
R-Sq = 64.8%
T
3.58
5.79
6.68
-7.58
22.12
-4.39
-3.41
-3.47
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
R-Sq(adj) = 64.2%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
7
402
409
SS
7292.0
3963.3
11255.3
MS
1041.7
9.9
A7
F
105.66
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: V(max)

V(max) = 8.02 - 0.0410 H + 2.34 Sv + 0.161 L - 5.93 L/H + 0.402 MSEH
- 0.279 phi + 0.0163 gama - 0.183 Alpha + 0.0830 Bar_size
Predictor
Constant
H
Sv
L
L/H
MSEH
L/H_MSE
WallSetb
Backslop
c
phi
gama
Alpha
Bar_size
Coef
8.024
-0.04104
2.3425
0.16064
-5.932
0.40198
-0.01082
-0.13959
0.00612
-0.003450
-0.27863
0.01632
-0.18333
0.08300
S = 1.633
SE Coef
5.025
0.06376
0.1815
0.06451
1.651
0.01180
0.02347
0.01826
0.01212
0.001758
0.06856
0.02742
0.09428
0.03330
R-Sq = 80.9%
T
1.60
-0.64
12.91
2.49
-3.59
34.05
-0.46
-7.64
0.51
-1.96
-4.06
0.60
-1.94
2.49
P
0.111
0.520
0.000
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.645
0.000
0.614
0.050
0.000
0.552
0.053
0.013
R-Sq(adj) = 80.3%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
13
395
408
SS
4463.28
1053.42
5516.70
MS
343.33
2.67
F
128.74
P
0.000
Regression Analysis: V(max) - Reduced

V(max) = 11.3 + 2.45 Sv - 5.46 L/H + 0.402 MSEH - 0.137 WallSetback - 0.282 phi
Predictor
Constant
Sv
L/H
MSEH
WallSetb
phi
Coef
11.302
2.4492
-5.4602
0.40176
-0.13749
-0.28237
S = 1.728
SE Coef
2.901
0.1878
0.6308
0.01246
0.01922
0.07247
R-Sq = 78.2%
T
3.90
13.04
-8.66
32.25
-7.15
-3.90
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 77.9%
Source
Regression
Residual Error
Total
DF
5
404
409
SS
4326.77
1206.39
5533.16
MS
865.35
2.99
A8
F
289.79
P
0.000
Appendix B
Design Example
Case Example No. 1
1 Goldnail
2 Snail
3 FHWA 1991
4 FHWA 1996
5 FHWA 2003
1- Goldnail
Input File Version = 311
Case No. I
5378 State National Bank Bldg - Ft. Worth, Texas
|__________________________
| General Data
|
|__________________________|_________________
| File Indentifier
| 166D_C1.GNI
|
| Unit weight of water
| 62.4
|
| Base depth for analysis | 16.6
|
| Seismic Coefficient
| 0.0
|
| Minimum Base Exit Angle | 0.0
|
| X Search limit (left)
| 10.01
|
| X Search limit (right)
| 50.0
|
| Number of slip circles
| 250
|
| No. of slip circle exits | 40
|
|__________________________|_________________|
|_________________________________________________
| LRFD and Safety Factor Data
|
|_________________________________________________|_______
| Analysis Mode: (L)RFD or (S)LD (specify L or S) | S
|
|_ SLD Safety and Strength Factors (mode S only) _|_______
|
FS for Soil Cohesion
| 1.2
|
|
FS for Soil Friction
| 1.2
|
|
Strength Factor for Head Strength
| 0.67 |
|
Strength Factor for Nail Tendon Strength
| 0.55 |
|
Strength Factor for Nail Pullout Resistance | 0.5
|
|_ LRFD Load Factors (mode L only) _______________|_______
|
LF for Unit Weight of Water
| 1
|
|
LF for Unit Weight of Soil
| 1.5
|
|
LF for Surcharge Loads
| 1.75 |
|
LF for Seismic Loads
| 1
|
|_ LRFD Resistance Factors (mode L only) _________|_______
|
RF for Soil Cohesion
| 1
|
|
RF for Soil Friction Angle
| 0.85 |
|
RF for Head Strength
| 0.9
|
|
RF for Nail Pullout Resistance
| 0.7
|
|
RF for Nail Tendon Strength
| 0.9
|
|_________________________________________________|_______|
|________________________
| Nodal Data
|
|_______|_______|_______||
|Node No|X-Value|Y-Value||
|_______|_______|_______||
| 1
|10
|16.6
||
| 2
|10.01 |0
||
| 3
|50
|0
||
|_______|_______|_______||
B1
|___________________________________
| Wall Segment Data
|
|______|______|______|______|_______|
| Seg. | Node | Node | Soil |Pullout|
| No. | 1
| 2
| ID |Res. ID|
|______|______|______|______|_______|
| 1
|1
|2
|1
|1
|
| 2
|
|
|
|
|
|______|______|______|______|_______|
|___________________________
| Surface Segment Data
|
|______|______|______|______|
| Seg. | Node | Node | Soil |
| No. | 1
| 2
| ID |
|______|______|______|______|
|
1 | 2
| 3
| 1
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|______|______|______|______|
|________________________________________
| Soil Strength & Pullout Resist. Data
|
|________|_______|_______|_______|_______
|Material|
|
| Unit |Pullout|
| ID No. |
c
|
_
| Weight| Res. |
|________|_______|_______|_______|_______
|
1
| 0
| 30
| 120
| 2080 |
|________|_______|_______|_______|_______|
|_______________________________
| Surcharge Pressure Data
|
|_______|_______|_______|_______
|Load No|X-value| Vert. | Horiz.|
|_______|_______|_______|_______
|
1
| 16
| 0
| 0
|
|
2
| 50
| 250
| 0
|
|_______|_______|_______|_______|
|__________________|_________|________|________|________|________
|
| Nail
| Nail
| Tendon | Head | Fixed |
|
Nail Data
| Depth | Length |Strength|Strength| Nail? |
|__________________|_________|________|________|________|________
|
Nail Row 1
| 3
| 15.45 | 56000 | 32900 |
|
|
Nail Row 2
| 7
| 15.45 | 56000 | 32900 |
|
|
Nail Row 3
| 11
| 15.45 | 56000 | 32900 |
|
|
Nail Row 4
| 15
| 15.45 | 56000 | 32900 |
|
|__________________|_________|________|________|________|________|
| Horiz. Spacing | 5
|
| Nail Declination| 10
|
|__________________|_________|
B2
|__________________________
| Facing Data
|
|__________________________|_________________
| Maximum Facing Pressure | 0.0
|
| Facing Pressure angle
| 10.0
|
| Press. Distribution type | 3
|
| Press. Distribution type | Triangular
|
|__________________________|_________________|
|__________________________
| Analysis Options
|
|__________________________|_________________
| Analysis Mode
| Loads
|
| Soil Model
| Linear
|
| Analysis with nails?
| Yes
|
|__________________________|_________________|
-------------------
| Nail Forces
|
|------------|-------------|--------------------
| Nail No. | Circle No. |
Nail Force
|
|------------|-------------|--------------------
|
1 |
40 |
8462.92
|
|
2 |
93 |
9308.95
|
|
3 |
131 |
11460.94
|
|
4 |
155 |
14391.75
|
------------------------------------------------
B3
2- Snail
File: 166des_4
Page - 1
***************************************************
*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
*
*
ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER
*
*
DIVISION OF MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS
*
*
Office of Roadway Geotechnical Engineering
*
*
Date: 11-01-2006
Time: 01:20:15
*
***************************************************
Case No.1
Project Identification - 5378 State National Bank Bldg - Ft. Worth,
Texas
--------- WALL GEOMETRY --------Vertical Wall Height
Wall Batter
=
=
First Slope from Wallcrest.

Second Slope from 1st slope.
Third Slope from 2nd slope.
Fourth Slope from 3rd slope.
Fifth Slope from 3rd slope.
Sixth Slope from 3rd slope.
Seventh Slope Angle.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
16.6 ft
0.0 degree
Angle
Length
(Deg)
(Feet)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
--------- SLOPE BELOW THE WALL --------First Slope Angle below Toe.
First Slope Distance from Toe.
Second Slope Angle.
Second Slope Distance from Toe.
Vertical Depth of Search.
Number of Searches below wall Toe.
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
degrees
ft
degrees
ft
ft
--------- SURCHARGE --------There is NO SURCHARGE imposed on the system.
--------- OPTION #1 --------Factored Punching shear, Bond & Yield Stress are used.
B4
File: 166des_4
Page - 2
--------- SOIL PARAMETERS ---------
Soil
Layer
1
Unit
Weight
(Pcf)
Friction
Angle
(Degree)
120.0
30.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(Psf)
0.0
Bond*
Stress
(Psi)
7.2
Coordinates of Boundary
XS1
YS1
XS2
YS2
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
* Bond Stress also depends on BSF Factor in Option #5 when enabled.
--------- WATER SURFACE ---------
NO Water Table defined for this problem.
--------- SEARCH LIMIT ---------
The Search Limit is from
0.0 to
50.0 ft
You have chosen TO LIMIT the search to the following nodes:

BEGIN search at node
END search at node
- 1
- 10
--------- REINFORCEMENT PARAMETERS ---------
Number of Reinforcement Levels

Horizontal Spacing
Yield Stress of Reinforcement
Diameter of Grouted Hole
Punching Shear
=
=
=
=
=
4
5.0
33.0
8.0
16.5
ft
ksi
in
kips
---------- (Varying Reinforcement Parameters) ---------
Level
1
2
3
4
Length
(ft)
Inclination
(degrees)
Vertical
Spacing
(ft)
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
B5
Bar
Diameter
(in)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bond Stress
Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
File: 166des_4
Page - 3
DEPTH
BELOW
WALL TOE
(ft)
Toe
MINIMUM
SAFETY
FACTOR
1.24
DISTANCE
BEHIND
WALL TOE
(ft)
20.0
Reinf. Stress at Level
1
2
3
4
=
=
=
=
LOWER FAILURE
PLANE
ANGLE LENGTH
(deg)
(ft)
UPPER FAILURE
PLANE
ANGLE LENGTH
(deg)
(ft)
29.0
43.5
0.000
0.535
10.518
24.257
6.9
19.3
Ksi
Ksi (Pullout controls...)
********************************************************************
*
For Factor of Safety = 1.0
*
*
Maximum Average Reinforcement Working Force:
*
*
9.086 Kips/level
*
********************************************************************
B6
3- FHWA 1991- Kinematical Limit Analysis Method

http://www.classes.ce.ttu.edu/CE5331%5F013/other/Excel/Kinematical Limit Analysis Method.xls
B7
B8
4- FHWA 1996
http://www.classes.ce.ttu.edu/CE5331%5F013/other/Excel/FHWA Design for SN Walls - SLD Method.xls
B9
B10
B11
B12
5- FHWA 2003
L/H = 0.9
tmax-s = 0.182
=
=
B13
qa DDH
FS p [(S H SV ) + (qS H )]
2080( psf ) 0.5(in)

= 0.143
2[(120 5 4) + (250 5)]
L
= 0.82 1.09 0.924 0.9 = 0.743 L = 13.4 12.5 ft

H correct.
L = 0.743 16.6 = 12.4 ft 12.5 ft
(t max s )correct. = 1.47 1.09 0.182 = 0.292

Tmax = t max s S H S V H
= 0.292 0.12 5 4 16.6 = 11.6 kips
C1L = 0.82
C1F = 1.47
C 2 L = 4.0 (0) + 1.09 = 1.09

C 2 F = 4.0 (0) + 1.09 = 1.09
C3 L = 0.52 (1.2) + 0.30 = 0.924
B14
note : c = 0 psf
Appendix C
Instrumentation Plan for W7 Wall in San Antonio
Location of W7 Wall:
I.H. 410 Overpass at Ingram Road,
San Antonio - Texas
W7 Wall Schematic Diagram

2 Vertical Inclinometers (continuous to 20 ft depth)
Control panel
MSE Wall
Vertical Inclinometer
10.0ft
2ft
Tiltmeter
Survey reference points

min 2
Nail strain gauge

Grout strain gauge
Horizontal Inclinometer
28ft
B-B A-A
A-A
150
16.4ft
Centralizer
3.3ft
Not to scale
B-B
Soil Nail Wall
8in
in thick plate
15 metallic ruler
8in
Steel rod (# 8 bar)

Reflective parallel prism tape
Rebar vibrating strain gauge
Drill holes 5/16
Survey reference marker
28ft
3ft
7ft
7ft
7ft
4ft
Grout embedment strain gauge

9ft
7ft
7ft
Instrumented soil-nail
Not to scale
Section W7A
Soil Nail
Location
A
Soil Nail
Location
B
Soil Nail
Location
C
Soil Nail
Location
D
Sub Total
Total
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
Section W7B
Strain Gage Locations

Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
38
32
32
39
39
45
46
46
52
53
53
170
170
135
Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
30
30
37
37
44
44
51
51
162
162
Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
35
30
30
37
37
42
44
44
49
51
51
162
162
126
Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
32
32
39
39
46
46
53
53
170
170
664
1328
664
261
261
Soil Nail
Location
A
Soil Nail
Location
B
Soil Nail
Location
C
Soil Nail
Location
D
Soil Nail
Location
E
Sub Total
Total
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d

Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
36
36
42
43
43
49
50
50
56
57
57
186
186
147
Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
33
33
40
40
47
47
54
54
174
174
Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
29
29
38
36
36
45
43
43
52
50
50
158
158
135
Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
43
32
32
39
39
50
57
46
46
53
53
170
170
150
Rebar gage
Embedment Gage
Top
Bottom
37
37
44
44
51
51
58
58
190
190
878
1756
878
432
432
W7 A
16 Spot-weldable strain gages
16 Temperature sensors
--16 x 4 MP
32/32
A-A
MP
MP
MP
MP
1 Tiltmeter
6 Embedment strain gage
--23/32
32 MP
A-A
W7B

--32/32
16 x 4 MP
A-A

--16 x 4 MP
32/32
MP
MP
MP
MP
1 Tiltmeter
9 Embedment strain gages
--32 MP
18/32
MP
MP
CP
CP
2 MP @ W7A
3 MP @ W7B
--5
A-A
MP1
2
MP
16 x 4 Multiplexer
32 Multiplexer
CP
Data logger
Total of Five Multiplexers
Three 16x4 channel multiplexers
Two 32-channel multiplexers

Wall Nail Retaining

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wall Nail Retaining

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINITE ELEMENT BASED DESIGN PROCEDURES

FOR MSE/SOIL-NAIL HYBRID RETAINING

Copyright 2006, Abdulrahman Alhabshi

3.5.2.2.2 Prediction of Nail Forces ............................................................................... 97

3.1: Parameters input of CEBTP No.1 Wall .................................................................... 53

4.3b: Results from parametric study (continue)............................................................. 205

1.1: Schematic diagram of a cross section in a hybrid wall system................................... 3

3.8: Geometry of the Polyclinic wall in Seattle ............................................................... 55

3.40: Locus of maximum tensile line............................................................................. 101

4.38: Effect of wall setback on lateral wall pressure ..................................................... 172

4.67: Effect of nail inclination on vertical displacements.............................................. 194

5.22: Illustration of design steps for hybrid wall system............................................... 242

Widening within existing rights-of-way

Adding a lane of traffic

Adding a turn-around lane under a bridge abutment

Repairing failed slopes and retaining structures

1.2 Problem Statement

Conduct a comprehensive review of pertinent literature

Examine the adequacy of the design method currently used by TxDOT

Build a numerical model in which simulation of field conditions will be

Instrument and monitor selected hybrid walls under constructions

Calibrate the numerical model against available field measurements

Develop recommendations for design and construction methodology for

a. Soil nailed structure behaves as a gravity wall

Slip surface (line of maximum tension)

SF1: Factor of safety with respect to pullout resistance (1.75 ~ 2.0)

'r = Normal effective stress acting on the circumference of the nail

= unit weight of the soil

Tc can be evaluated using the following relationship:

Figure 2.4: Elastic analysis for soil-nail interaction (Schlosser, 1983)

2.2.3 Modes of Failure of Soil-nailed Structures

EXTERNAL FAILURE MODES

INTERNAL FAILURE MODES

FACING FAILURE MODES

2.2.3.1 Internal Failure Modes

Figure 2.8: Internal failure modes (Plumelle et al., 1990)

A slip surface may be

2.2.4 Deformation of Soil Nail Walls

Figure 2.9: Deformation of soil nail walls (CLOUTERRE, 1991)

Soil Nail Wall

Limit-equilibrium design methods or modified slope stability analyses:

Working-stress design methods: These methods try to estimate nail forces,

c. Normal interaction between the soil and the nails

M max = 0.16 pD l0 < M p

SNAIL : California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), CA,

GOLDNAIL: Golder Associates, Redmond, Wash, USA

TALRENS: Terrasol, Montreuil, France

The program can run in three modes of

2.3 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls (MSE)

i. Linear unidirectional such as ribbed steel strips, or coated geosynthetic strips

= shear stress along soil-reinforcement interface

* = tan = (0.5 0.8) tan

= friction between the soil and smooth surface

3.2 Case Studies

Figure 3.1: Wall geometry of CEBTP Wall No.1 (Plumelle, 1990)

Figure 3.4: Instrumentation details of the grouted bars

Soil modulus, E (kPa)

Angle of internal friction ()

Nail length (m)

Vary (see Fig 3.4)

Vertical spacing (m)

Horizontal spacing (m)

Nail diameter (mm)

Vary (see Fig 3.4)