Ground Improvement (2002) 6, No.

4, 153161

153

Elastoplastic analysis of pull-out resistance of soil nails in dilatant soils

S. Q. LUO , S. A. TANy , W. CHEANGy and K. Y. YONGy
Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd, Singapore; y Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore
Soil dilation has signicant effects on soil nail pull-out resistance. The dilation mechanism around a horizontal soil nail is analysed in this paper by treating the soil as a linear elasticperfectly plastic material, using a nonassociated MohrCoulomb yield criterion. Using this approach, closed-form solutions for calculation of the average compression stresses on the soil nail surface are obtained. This analysis theoretically explains a phenomenon commonly observed in experimental and eld tests of dilation effects on soil nail pull-out resistance. It also explains why the apparent friction coefcient inclusive of the dilation effect is higher than the soil internal friction coefcient, but the apparent friction coefcient decreases with the increase of the soil overburden pressure and soil nail diameter. The conditions where the analytical approach can be applied are discussed. The theoretical predictions are compared with test results with good agreement, giving support to its validity. La dilatation des sols a des effets signicatifs sur la ` resistance des clous de sol a lextraction. Nous analysons dans cet expose le mecanisme de dilatation autour dun ` clou de sol horizontal en traitant le sol comme matiere lineaire elastique parfaitement plastique et en utilisant un ` critere delasticite Mohr-Coulomb non associe. En utilisant cette methode, nous obtenons des solutions de forme fermee pour le calcul des contraintes de compression moyennes sur la surface du clou de sol. Cette analyse ` explique theoriquement un phenomene communement observe dans les essais experimentaux et les essais sur le ` terrain, celui des effets de la dilatation sur la resistance a lextraction dun clou de sol. Elle explique aussi pourquoi le coefcient de friction apparent inclusif de leffet de dilatation est plus eleve que le coefcient de friction interne du sol mais le coefcient de friction apparent ` diminue a mesure quaugmentent la pression de surcharge ` du sol et le diametre du clou. Nous discutons des condi tions dans lesquelles la methode analytique peut etre appliquee. Nous obtenons une bonne concordance en comparant les previsions theoriques avec les resultats des essais, ce qui conrme la validite de cette methode. r0 r0 t rp ur u r0 u r0 , uc0 r u rp u _ v r z 9 p , cv _ v 9
p

Keywords : dilation

soil

nails;

pull-out

resistance;

soil

Notation
d50 E Em Es e emax , emin G ID Ks npc p9 o p9 v p9 h q9 q9 , q9r p c mean particle size (mm) Youngs modulus of soil (kPa) pressure modulus of soil (kPa) Youngs modulus of steel reinforcement member of a soil nail (kPa or MPa) void ratio maximum and minimum values of void ratio soil shear modulus (kPa) relative density of soils soil normal stiffness (kN=m3 ) number of particles in particle column in shear band average normal pressure around soil nail in initial status (kPa) vertical effective soil pressure (kPa) horizontal effective soil pressure (kPa) normal average effective stress on soil nail surface (kPa) values of q9 at peak and critical states (kPa)

(GI 1134) Paper received 1 August 2001; last revised 15 June 2002; accepted 21 June 2002

radius of soil nail at initial state (mm) radius of soil nail at time t (m or mm) radius of outer boundary of plastic zone (m) radial displacement of a material point (mm) radial dilation of shear band around a soil nail during shearing (mm) values of u r0 at peak and critical states respectively (mm) radial displacement at outer boundary of plastic zone around a soil nail (mm) circumferential displacements of a material point (mm) volumetric strain rate radial strain circumferential strain strain in z axis, along soil nail axial direction effective unit weight of soil (kN/m3 ) apparent friction coefcient values of at peak and critical states respectively angle from the horizontal, positive anticlockwise (degree) Poissons ratio shear strain rate vertical effective soil stress (kPa)
1365-781X # 2002 Thomas Telford Ltd

S. Q. Luo et al. b 9 9 r 9 90 r r 9 9v , 9 c p max soil limit bearing stress (kPa) radial stress (kPa) circumferential stress (kPa) radial stress or normal stress on soil nail surface (kPa) shear stress (kPa) angle of internal friction degree values of 9 at critical and peak states respectively angle of intergranular friction (degree) angle of dilation (degree) maximum value of (degree) nail in dilatant soils was derived on the assumptions that soil is an elastic medium, and that nails are rigid inextensible rods: 90 r 2Gu r0 2(1 2) p9 cos 2 p9 v v 3 4 r0 (2)

Introduction
In a soil nail pull-out process, the shearing stresses on the interface of a soil nail and its surrounding soils will cause soil particles to slide or roll, resulting in particle re-arrangement, which tends to dilate the soil in the vicinity of the nail in dilatant soils. But the dilation is restrained by the surrounding soils, which leads to an increase of normal pressure on the surface of the nail, and subsequently, increase of the pullout resistance. This signicant soil dilation effect on pull-out resistance has been observed in experimental tests by Alimi et al. (1977), Schlosser and Elias (1978), Wernick (1977), Guilloux et al. (1979), Bacot (1981), Schlosser (1982), Ingold (1983), Schlosser et al. (1983, 1992) and Heymann et al. (1992). It has been recognised that the soilnail interface friction is essentially governed by the dilation behaviour of the soil (Schlosser, 1982). The increased normal pressure can be 210 times the effective overburden pressure (Wernick, 1977; Xanthakos, 1991). If the dilatancy is fully restrained, as demonstrated in the constant volume direct shear tests carried out by Guilloux et al. (1979), the normal stress could be increased by 14 times. However, the increase of normal stress due to soil dilatancy does not result in a proportional increase of the corresponding pull-out resistance. This is because the apparent friction coefcient diminishes when the normal conning pressure increases (Schlosser and Elias, 1978; Cartier and Gigan, 1983; Ingold, 1983; Juran and Elias, 1992). The combination of the dilation effect and the diminishing effect with overburden pressure usually produces an illusion in experimental tests that the shear resistance on a soil nail is independent of depth. There is little theoretical explanation for these effects in the literature. Sobolevsky (1995) suggested the use of the normal stiffness, a concept used in a direct shear box test, similar to the subgrade reaction stiffness, to describe the dilation effect. This was also recommended in Recommendations Clouterre 1991, according to which the normal stiffness, Ks , should be calculated by Ks 2Em r0 (1)

where 90 is the normal stress on soil nail, u r0 is the radial r expansion of the shear band (the dilation) around the soil nail, p9 is the vertical overburden pressure on the soil nail, v is Poissons ratio, and G is the shear modulus of the surrounding soils. As a further development to that by Luo (2001), this study employs a more relaxed assumption for soils: soils are assumed to be linear elastic and perfectly plastic materials. Using concepts from micromechanics, the soil dilation is described by the recently developed theoretical model (Luo, 2001). The analysis details are presented below.

Boundary conditions
The dilation effect around a soil nail can be analysed as a radially expanding rigid rod rmly contained in the elastic perfectly plastic materials. The stress and strain eld around the nail can be described in terms of cylindrical polar coordinates (r, , z). The stresses are characterised by the radial stress, r (the major principal stress), and the cir9 cumferential stress, (the minor principal stress). The 9 strains are described by the radial strain, r , and the circumferential strain, .

Outer boundaries
At far distances from the soil nailthat is, r ! 1the inuence of the soil nail must vanish. The vertical and horizontal compressive stresses, p9 and p9 , at the innite v h boundaries are equal to corresponding in-situ stresses in the soil. The stresses there can be expressed, in terms of polar coordinates, by the following with the sign convention of compression positive: ( 9 ) r1 1( p9 p9 ) 1( p9 p9 ) cos 2 r v v 2 h 2 h ( ) r1 9
1 h 2( p9

(3) (4) (5)

p9 ) v 1( p9 2 h

1 h 2( p9

p9 ) cos 2 v

( r ) r1

p9 ) sin 2 v

Inner boundary
During a shearing process the shear band around a soil nail expands radially with equal radial displacements. Before shear takes place, the radius of the soil nail is r0 . With the dilation u r0 of the shear band, the soil nail expands to r0 u r0 . The magnitude of soil dilation, u r0 , is estimated by the following (Luo, 2001): p 2 p npc d50 tan max At the peak state: 9 max , u r0 p 6 (6) p 2 npc d50 tan max At the critical state: 9 9v , ucv c r0 4 (7) where 9 is the effective soil internal friction angle, 9 and p 9v are its values at the peak and critical states; npc is the c number of particles in a particle column in the shear band around the soil nail, d50 is the mean particle size, max is the p maximum dilation angle, and u r0 and ucv are the shear band r0

where Em is the pressuremeter modulus and r0 is the soil nail radius. The apparent disadvantage of adopting this normal stiffness is that it cannot describe the inuence of soil particle sizes on the dilation. It is too coarse to reect the subtle behaviour of the shear band around the nail. In addition, the value of the normal stiffness is usually difcult to determine as it varies with test method, stressstrain conditions and other factors. Luo et al. (2000) attempted to explain the dilation effect using a critical displacement concept. The critical displacements for different soils are based on statistics. A closedform solution for calculation of the normal stress on a soil 154

Elastoplastic analysis of pull-out resistance of soil nails in dilatant soils dilation magnitudes at the peak and critical states respectively. The number of particles, npc , in the particle columns that determines the shear band thickness can be calculated by the following, based on the micromechanics and test results: npc a 1 b d50 (8) stresses and strains in the plastic region are also independent of . In addition, the boundary conditions described in terms of average quantities are also independent of , as presented below. The average boundary stresses at a relatively far distance are obtained by integrating equations (3)(5): ( 9 ) r1 1( p9 p9 ) p9 r v 0 2 h ( ) r1 1( p9 p9 ) p9 9 v 0 2 h ( r ) r1 0 (11) (12) (13)

The values of parameters a and b are in the following ranges: a 0:3 1 (with average value of 065); b 0 2 for driven nails; b 2 10 for preburied nails; b 10 30 for grouted nails grouted under gravity or low pressure. The value of b is basically determined by the rotational resistance between soil particles, which is in turn governed by the bond developed between particles in the vicinity of the soil nail. The installation method plays a critical role for the formation and development of the bond. In addition, the capillary, particle surface condition and shape also have some effects, in secondary roles. The angle of friction at the critical state, 9v , has the c following correlation with the angle of intergranular friction, , according to Moroto (1988): 1:22 tan (9) sin 9v c tan 0:62 As the most abundant mineral by far is quartz, with small amounts of feldspar (Mitchell, 1993), the angle of intergranular friction for most soils is in the range 24268, which can be treated as a constant for a given soil. The maximum dilation angle can be calculated by the following (Luo, 2001): max 3ID f10 ln[1 2 sin(9v max )] v g 3 9 c 3 with (10)

At the internal boundary, r r0 , the average normal stress at the initial state is 90 p9 r 0 (14)

Since the shear band thickness is likely to be uniform around a soil nail, the radial displacement should be uniform on the internal boundary: u r0 u r0 (15)

These boundary conditions constitute an axisymmetric problem described by the average quantities. In other words, the stresses and strains obtained from the equivalent axisymmetric model are equal to the corresponding average quantities of the original problem.

Relationship of radial dilation and radial reaction stress

Based on the equivalent model described above, the relationship between the radial dilation and radial reaction stress was derived as follows (Luo, 2001):   !  M 1 r0 t 10 (16) R (1 ) M1 r0 in which, where q9 is the average normal stress on soil nail surface, R q9(1 N) 2Np9 0 1 sin 9 1 sin 9

    3(1 ) 5 3(1 ) 1 exp 10 exp 10 , v , 9 1 ID 1 ID

where ID is the relative density of the soil, ID (emax e)= (emax emin ), e is the void ratio, and emax and emin are its maximum and minimum values.

Equivalent model
For many practical problems it is the average normal stress on a soil nail that concerns engineers in evaluating the pull-out resistance of a soil nail. This may be achieved without knowing the normal stress distribution on the soil nail surface. The average value of the stresses or strains on a one-unit-long cylindrical surface of radius r is dened as the sum of the stresses or strains on the surface divided by the surface area. With reference to equation (2), it is easily found that the average stresses on a soil nail based on the elastic analysis are independent of . In fact equation (2) was derived with the assumption that the Airys stress function, U, for elastic stresses was dened by the complex functions (z) and 9(z) with z rei (Luo, 2001). This means that elastic stresses and strains are functions of angle 2 in the forms of sin 2 or cos 2. The integration of these stresses and strain terms over 0 2 for makes them vanish. This suggests that the average quantities of stresses and strains in the elastic regime are independent of . Note that, because plastic strains do not produce additional stresses in a perfectly elasticplastic medium, and the plastic radial and circumferential strains have a linear relationship for a given dilation angle, as discussed later, therefore the average M1

M1 1 sin , M M 1 sin N(1 M) (N 1)M

exp
1 X

(1 )(N 1) p9 0 (1 N)E

! p9 0 (1 M)(1 2) ME

n (R n 1) for n 6 ; and n!(n ) n0

1 X n n0

n!

ln R for n

which is unlikely to be encountered since is not an integer, p9 0 f[(2 )M 3]N (2 3M)g (N 1)EM

Equation (16) is the closed-form solution for the average normal reaction stress, q9, on a soil nail corresponding to the dilation of surrounding soils that are elastoplastic materials. 155

S. Q. Luo et al. q9 is the only unknown in this equation, but it is expressed in an implicit form and cannot be calculated directly. A spreadsheet iterative scheme has been developed to solve this equation. The constants can be easily calculated from the basic parameters 9, max , r0 t , G, , p9 and v . 9 0 The pressure p9 is usually much smaller than the soil 0 Youngs modulus, E: the constant is thus a very small value. It can easily be proved that the series for evaluation of the constant converges very rapidly for all values of M and N of soils. Generally the sum of the rst few terms (say four terms) in the series will give satisfactory results. It is worth noting that the internal friction angle varies with stress and strain, and these are different in plane strain and triaxial strain conditions. The restraining conditions on soil near to and inside the shear band around a soil nail are close to those in triaxial strain conditions, whereas, further away from the soil nail, the soil is conned in plane strain conditions. Therefore the angle of friction in this analysis will be based on plane strain conditions, but the dilation effect of the shear band on a soil nail will be evaluated under triaxial strain conditions. The shear modulus, a function of the conning pressure, may not be treated as a constant if the conning pressure varies signicantly. It can be estimated according to the correlation obtained by Chang et al. (1991) for granular materials as 1000(2:17 e) p G p9 (kPa) (17) 0 1e where e is the void ratio. However, for cemented sand, a higher shear modulus may be expected, even at low conning pressure. To obtain reasonable results with this elastoplastic analysis, the ratio of shear modulus to the conning pressure (G= p9 ) should be larger than 75. This is 0 acceptable for the soil conditions in most practical problems. ` Saint-Remy-Les-Chevreuse, France. The soil used is medium dense Fontainebleau sand, having a uniform gradation. The soil properties for this type of sand, based on the publications by Schlosser et al. (1992) and Unterreiner et al. (1997) are listed in Table 1. The angle of internal friction and maximum dilation angle are reported to be 388 and 258 respectively, which are apparently obtained from shear box tests in plane strain conditions. Otherwise, the dilation angle is too high. Since the corresponding connement pressures for these angles are not reported in these publications, it is prudent not to adopt these parameters as constants in the following calculations for the soil nail pull-out resistance, as the dilation angle is stress- and strain-dependent. The angle of friction at critical state, 9v 32:58, is calculated according to equation c (9) with the assumption of 268. The shear modulus is estimated according to equation (17) with the assumption of e 0:6. The number of particles in a particle column in the shear band, npc 4, is obtained by substituting a 0:65, b 2 (as soil nails are driven nails) and the estimated mean particle size, d50 0:32 mm in equation (8). The soil nails used were high tensile strength steel bars, which were driven into the pre-compacted backll sand through short tubes. The diameter of the steel bars was 50 mm and the diameter of the tubes was 71 mm. The soil nail heads were xed to a relatively rigid frame in the front of the wall. The soil nails were pulled out by slowly moving the frame away from the wall. The apparent friction coefcients calculated according to equation (18) are compared with the test results in Fig. 1. In this comparison the shear resistance due to the soil cohesion is not taken into account, as only frictional resistance between grains is being considered here. The comparison illustrates good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the test results.

Soil nail pull-out resistance

Soil nail pull-out resistance is usually expressed by the apparent friction coefcient. The apparent friction coefcients for the peak state and critical states (p and cv ) are given by q9 p p tan (9v max ) c v 9 q9v c tan 9v cv c v 9 (18) (19)

Pull-out tests at a Singapore site for construction of student hostels at National University of Singapore campus
Soil nailing was used to stabilise steep cut slopes for the construction of student hostels at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The cut slope is 240 m in total length and up to 136 m high, with inclination up to 778. In order to investigate the pull-out resistance of soil nails in the eld, four soil nails were installed for the pull-out tests. The details of the site conditions, design and construction of the soil-nailed slope are presented by Luo (2001). Here only the pull-out tests are discussed. The basic soil properties of the second layer of soil where the four test soil nails are located are determined from the soil investigation works and listed in Table 2. The angle of intergranular friction for this type of quartz mineral is estimated to be about 248, that is 248, which gives 9v 3078. c The moduli of the layer of soils where the test nails are located are determined by means of two types of test: the pressuremeter test and the standard penetration test (SPT).
Table 1. Soil properties of medium dense Fontainebleu sand (Schlosser et al., 1992) : kN=m3 161 d min : kN=m3 131 d max : kN=m3 169 ID : % 60 c9: kPa 3 E: MPa 20 033

where q9 and q9v are the average normal stresses on the soil p c nail for the peak and critical states respectively. With reference to equations (9) and (10), the shear resistance on a soil nail can be obtained without knowing the intrinsic internal friction angle.

Verication
To verify the theory developed in this study, three sets of test results are used for comparison with the theoretical predictions. The tests and comparisons are briey described below.

Pull-out tests in an experimental wall

Schlosser et al. (1992) reported a series of pull-out tests conducted on a 6 m high experimental soil-nailed wall in 156

Elastoplastic analysis of pull-out resistance of soil nails in dilatant soils

3 Experimental test results Apparent friction coefficient Elasto-plastic prediction 2 tan cv Soil properties 32.5
cv

max 1 G d50 npc 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 Overburden pressure: kPa 80 90 100

10

7519 kPa 0.32 mm 4 50 mm

Nail diameter, d

Fig. 1. Comparison of theoretical elastic-plastic prediction with experimental test results by Schlosser et al. (1992)

Table 2. Soil properties for National University of Singapore site : kN=m3 204 w is the water content. w: % 18 c9: kPa 10 d50 : mm 021

The moduli of elasticity determined from SPT values, N, are based on the following empirical relationship as suggested by Blight (1997) for residual soils, which is also commonly adopted in local practice: E N(MPa) (20)

The moduli obtained from pressuremeter tests vary signicantly, even for the same layer of soil. The reasons for this are not clear, but one possible factor may be disturbance to the borehole wall before the pressuremeter probe is lowered into the designated test position. The SPT values are more reliable in this case. Thus the moduli of elasticity estimated from the SPT are adopted: the average value is 4075 MPa. The average shear modulus, G 15:67 MPa is then obtained with the Poissons ratio, 0:3. Since the four test nails were located at depths ranging from 36 to 57 m below the ground surface, in this narrow range of depth the shear modulus does not vary signicantly, and therefore the average value is used to calculate the pull-out resistance for all the test nails. The boreholes for the test nails were drilled by the percussion method. A down-the-hole hammer driven by

high-pressure air was used to advance the bottom of the borehole, while the cuttings were ushed out by compressed air. The test nails were steel bars of diameter 40 mm with 15 mm ribs and yield strength, y 551 N=mm2 . The soil nails were grouted from the bottom of the boreholes after the steel bars had been inserted. The pull-out test on the nails was carried out at least 7 days after installation so that the grout compressive strength exceeded the required minimum 20 N=mm2 , which was the condition to ensure that failure could not occur at the grout/steel bar interface when the tension load was applied during pull-out tests. Based on the soil properties and the soil nail parameters described above, npc 18 is obtained from equation (8) by taking a 0:65 and b 15 for grouted nails. The test results are compared with the theoretical predictions in Fig. 2, which shows reasonably good agreement.

Pull-out tests on driven nails in laboratory

Franzen (1998) conducted a series of laboratory tests for investigation of the pull-out capacities of different types of soil nail. The laboratory tests on driven nails were carried out in a relatively rigid box 4 m long 3 2 m wide 3 1:5 m high made of steel and a wooden frame. The soil used was a completely dry, homogeneous and poorly graded sand with a mean particle size of 016 mm and a coefcient of uniformity of 175. The basic soil properties are listed in Table 3.

3 Experimental test results Elasto-plastic prediction Apparent friction coefficient tan cv 2 Soil properties 30.7
cv

max 1 G d50 npc

8.13

15700 kPa 0.21 mm 18 150 mm

Nail diameter, d 0 70

80

90

100

110

120

Overburden pressure: kPa

Fig. 2. Comparison of theoretical predictions with test results for grouted nails at National University of Singapore

157

S. Q. Luo et al. of the steel bars is 41 mm including the 3 mm thick ribs on both sides. The apparent friction coefcients at the peak and critical states are calculated according to equations (18) and (19). The calculated results are compared with the test data and are shown in Figs 3 and 4 respectively, again demonstrating very good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the experimental results for both states. Franzen (1998) also attempted to study the rib passive earth pressure contribution to pull-out resistance. This effect was studied by checking the displacement required to mobilise the passive earth pressure at the ribs. According to the pull-out tests conducted by Schlosser (1990) using transverse elements on 30 mm steel bars to generate passive earth pressure, the necessary displacement for the mobilisation of passive earth pressure was measured to be greater than 25 mm. However, the measured displacements at failure in the tests by Franzen (1998) ranged from 07 mm to 35 mm, far less than 25 mm. This suggests that the passive resistance is small in the tests. In addition, Franzen also conducted a series of shear box tests on steel plates with ribs at different relative densities. Test results showed that the interface friction angle is of the same order as the angle of internal friction for the soil. He thus concluded that the failure took place on the surface tangential to the tops of the ribs. This can be further explained by the fact that the straight failure surface passing through the top of the ribs has the smallest surface area in comparison with the rest of possible failure surfaces. If the soil nail surface is rough in comparison with the surrounding soils, sliding along the straight failure surface among all possible failure surfaces requires

Table 3. Basic soil properties (Franzen, 1998) emin 056 emax 082 d min : kN=m3 146 d max : kN=m3 170 d50 : mm : kN=m3 016 166 ID : % 84

The number of particles to constitute a particle column in the shear band is obtained (npc 4) by substituting d50 0:16 mm into equation (8) with the constants a 0:65 and b 0 on the basis that sand is completely dry, homogeneous and poorly graded, without capillary and cementation effect for driven nails. The angle of internal friction for very loose state was found to be 318 based on test results on 11 samples. This angle is equal to the angle of friction at the critical state of the corresponding dense sand, that is 9v 318. The interc granular friction angle is back-calculated to be 2458 according to equation (9). The maximum dilation angles at different stress levels are obtained by substituting the above data in equation (10). The modulus of elasticity evaluated from horizontal CPT test results increases linearly from 146 to 209 MPa for vertical stress changes from 25 to 125 kPa. The shear moduli at different overburden pressures from 25 to 125 kPa are then calculated from the measured moduli of elasticity at the corresponding pressure with Poissons ratio equal to 0:34, estimated from the average measured lateral earth pressure coefcient at rest (K0 0:51) measured in the six pull-out tests. The soil nails are circular ribbed bars, made of highstrength steel with a yield stress of 1030 MPa. The diameter

3 Test results (Franzen, 1998) Apparent friction coefficient Elasto-plastic prediction 2 tan cv Soil properties cv 1 G d50 npc 0 20 31 6850 kPa 0.16 mm 4 41 mm

Nail diameter, d 40 60 80 100 120 140

Overburden pressure: kPa

Fig. 3. Comparison of elastoplastic analytical prediction with experimental results at peak state for driven nails

3 Overburden vs test Apparent friction coefficient Elasto-plastic prediction 2 tan cv Soil properties cv 1 G d50 31 6850 kPa 0.16 mm 41 mm

Nail diameter, d 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Overburden pressure: kPa

Fig. 4. Comparison of analytical elastic prediction with experimental results at critical state for driven nails

158

Elastoplastic analysis of pull-out resistance of soil nails in dilatant soils the least energy. Therefore it is likely that shear failure occurs along the straight surface for the ribbed bars commonly used for soil nails (rib thickness normally less than 3 mm). at peak state against nail diameter for this case is plotted in Fig. 6. Both cases clearly show that the apparent friction coefcients decrease with increase of the soil nail diameter. In the rst case (very loose sand), when the soil nail diameter increases to 100 mm the curve of the apparent friction coefcient reaches the friction coefcient without dilation effects (see Fig. 5), which means that the dilation effect is not signicant for soil nails of diameter greater than 100 mm. Similarly, as shown in Fig. 6 for the second case (very dense sand), the dilation effect is insignicant when the soil nail diameter exceeds 300 mm, and there is virtually no effect for soil nail diameters greater than 600 mm. As the conditions in the second case represent the upper bound of the dilation effect in very dense sands, this implies that the dilation effect is signicant only for the pull-out resistance of soil nails with diameters less than 300 mm. In fact, soil nail diameters in common practice are less than 300 mm. In other words, soil dilation basically works only for reinforcement members of small diameters (less than 300 mm) such as soil nails, ground anchors and small-diameter micropiles, but not for large-diameter bored piles. This theoretical nding agrees with the eld test results on small-diameter piles, anchors and larger bored piles by Ostermayer (1974) and Kempfert (1982). This is probably one reason why the soil dilation effect, commonly observed in soil nail and ground anchor pull-out tests, is not reported in tests on largediameter bored piles. Equation (16) also suggests that the apparent friction coefcient increases with the shear band thickness and the angle of dilation but decreases with the overburden pressure. As shown in equation (8), grouted soil nails have the thickest shear band and driven nails the thinnest shear band, while the thickness of the shear band of preburied nails lies in between. Therefore, if other conditions are unchanged, the theoretically calculated apparent friction coefcients will be in the following order from high to low: grouted nails . preburied nails . driven nails. This agrees with the laboratory test results by Juran and Elias (1992). It is further demonstrated by the following example. In this example, the soil modelled is medium to dense sand. The assumed properties are listed in Table 4. The shear modulus is obtained from equation (17) for different conning pressures. The soil nail diameter is assumed to be 50 mm, and its surface is very rough. The apparent friction coefcients for overburden pressures of 20250 kPa are shown graphically in Fig. 7 for both preburied and grouted nails. The results for driven nails are not presented here, as they are very close to the horizontal line that represents the apparent friction without dilation. This plot shows that the apparent friction coefcient decreases with increase of

Parametric study of soil nails

Based on the foregoing analysis, the shear resistance on the soilnail interface is determined by the following factors: (a) installation method, which is one of the main factors determining shear band thickness, reected by npc (b) soil nail diameter, 2r0 (c) mean particle size, d50 (d ) angle of intergranular friction, 9 (e) relative density, ID ( f ) shear modulus, G ( g) in-situ vertical stress, v . 9 These are the important factors that inuence the shear behaviour of the soilnail interface. In relative terms, the soil nail diameter and the overburden stress have a more signicant inuence on the apparent friction coefcient than the other factors for the given soil conditions and installation method. These are further illustrated below. The above analysis suggests, in theory, that the apparent friction coefcient diminishes with increase of the soil nail diameter. This can be demonstrated by the following two typical cases. For very loose to very dense sands the relative density is in the range 3585% and the shear modulus is in the range 220 MPa (Bowles, 1997). Therefore, for the rst case of very loose sand, the soil shear modulus is chosen to be 6 MPa and the relative density 35%. The overburden pressure is assumed to be 50 kPa. Since the shear band thickness depends mainly on the mean particle size and the installation methods, the mean particle size is assumed to be 03 mm, which is a common size for silty sand, and the number of particles involved in the shear band is set to be seven for preburied nails. Poissons ratio is equal to 033. Based on these parameters the apparent friction coefcient at peak state is plotted in Fig. 5 against the soil nail diameters calculated according to equation (18). For the second case the shear modulus is chosen as 20 MPa, the relative density as 85%, corresponding to very dense sand, and the overburden pressure as 100 kPa. As the Poissons ratio, , varies over a very small range, it is again assumed to be 0:33. The soil particle size remains the same. The number of particles in the shear band is calculated to be 32 by using the maximum value of b 30 for grouted nails. The curve of apparent friction coefcient

Apparent coefficient of friction

Apparent coefficient of friction

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 20 Elasto-plastic model tan cv

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Nail diameter: mm

Elasto-plastic model tan cv

30

40

50 60 70 Nail diameter: mm

80

90

100

600

700

800

Fig. 5. Inuence of nail diameter on the apparent coefcient of friction: very loose sand

Fig. 6. Inuence of nail diameter on the apparent coefcient of friction: very dense sand

159

S. Q. Luo et al.

Table 4. Soil properties for medium dense sand ID : % 60 d50 : mm 032 : degree 26 npc (for preburied nail) 4 npc (for grouted nail) 15

Apparent coefficient of friction

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 Overburden pressure: kPa

Grouted Preburied tan cv

250

300

Fig. 7. Apparent coefcient of friction plotted against overburden pressure

the overburden pressure, and that the grouted nail has the highest shear resistance. This agrees in general with the tests results by Juran and Elias (1992), Standing (1997), Ramalinga (1996) and Franzen (1998). Note also that, at very low stress levels, measurement of the dilation angle becomes unreliable, as indicated by Bolton (1986). The range of conning pressures that are applicable in the theoretical model developed in this study is:     5 1 exp 10 , v , exp 10 9 (21) ID ID

Conclusions
An analytical approach has been developed to describe the relationships of the normal pressure on and soil dilation around a horizontal soil nail, based on the equivalent average stress model in an elasticperfectly plastic Mohr Coulomb soil. The closed-form solutions for the relationships between the normal stress and the soil dilation for both analytical approaches have been obtained. The analytical approach can be used to explain the effect of soil dilation on soil nail pull-out resistance. In addition, it demonstrates the following important characteristics of soil nail pull-out behaviour: (a) The soil dilation has a signicant effect on the soil nail pull-out resistance. Typically, the apparent friction coefcient is much larger than the soil internal friction coefcient. (b) The apparent friction coefcient decreases with increase of the overburden pressure. (c) Soil dilation has a signicant effect on the shear resistance for soil nails whose diameters are smaller than 100 mm in loose sand, and less than 300 mm in dense sand. The good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the test results supports the validity of the analytical approach developed.

References
Alimi I., Bacot J., Lareal P., Long N. T. and Schlosser, F. (1977) Etude de ladherence sol-armature. Proceedings of the 9th Interna-

tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 1, 1114. Bacot J. (1981) Contribution a lEtude du Frottement entre une Inclusion ` Souple et un Materiau Pulverulent: Cas de la Terre Armee. These de Doctorate dEtat, Lyon. Blight, G. E. (ed.) (1997) Mechanics of Residual Soils. Balkema. Bolton, M. D. (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique, 36, No. 1, 6578. Bowles J. E. (1997) Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill, Singapore. Cartier G. and Gigan J. P. (1983) Experiments and observations on soil nailing structures. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 2, 473476. Chang C. S., Misra A. and Sundaram S. S. (1991) Properties of granular packing under low amplitude cyclic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 10, No. 4, 201211. Franzen G. (1998) Soil Nailing: A Laboratory and Field Study of PullOut Capacity. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. Guilloux A., Schlosser F. and Long N. T. (1979) Etude du frottement sable-armature en laboratoire. Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil Reinforcement, Paris, pp. 3540. Heymann G., Rohde A. W., Schwartz K. and Friedlaender E. (1992) Soil nail pull-out resistance in residual soils. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Fukuoka, Kyushu, pp. 487492. Ingold T. S. (1983) Laboratory pull-out testing of grid reinforcements in sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 6, No. 3, 101111. Juran I. and Elias V. (1992) Ground anchors and soil nails in retaining structures. In Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand, New York, pp. 6895. Kempfert H. G. (1982) Report about Load Tests on Small-Diameter Pressure-Grouted Piles. Institut fur Grundbau und Boden mechanik, Technische Universitat Munchen. Luo S. Q. (2001) Soil Nail Behaviour in Cohesionless Soil. PhD thesis, National University of Singapore. Luo S. Q., Tan S. A. and Yong K. Y. (2000) Pull-out resistance mechanism of a soil nail reinforcement in dilative soils. Soils and Foundations, 40, No. 1, 4756. Mitchell J. K (1993) Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York. Moroto N. (1988) Some considerations on shearing resistance angles of sand. In Micromechanics of Granular Materials (eds M. Satake and J. T. Jenkins). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 4754. Ostermayer H. (1974) Construction, carrying behaviour and creep characteristics of ground anchors. Proceedings of the conference on Diaphragm wall and anchorages, 1820 Sep., 1974, Institute of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 141151. Ramalinga Raju G. V. (1996) Behaviour of Nailed Soil Retaining Structures. PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University. Schlosser F. (1982) Behaviour and design of soil nailing. Proceedings of the International Symposium on soil and rock improvement techniques, Bangkok, pp. 399419. Schlosser F. (1990) Mechanically stabilized earth retaining structures in Europe: General report. Proceedings of a Special Conference on Design and Performance of Retaining Structures, Cornell, pp. 347375. Schlosser F. and Elias V. (1978) Friction in reinforced earth. Proceedings of a Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE Annual Convention, Pittsburgh, pp. 735763. Schlosser F., Jacobsen H. M. and Juran I. (1983) Soil reinforcement. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 3, 11581197. Schlosser F., Plumelle C., Unterreiner P. and Benoit J. (1992) Failure of full scale experimental soil nailed wall by reducing the nails lengths (French research project CLOUTERRE). Proceedings of an International Conference on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Fukuoka, pp. 531535. Scientic Committee of French National Project Clouterre (1991) Soil nailing recommendations-1991. FHWA (with the permission of Presses de lENPC, Paris). Sobolevsky Y. (1995) Strength of Dilating Soil and LoadingHolding capacity of Deep Foundations. Balkema, Rotterdam. Standing J. R. (1997) Studies of the Interface Resistance of Soil Nails. PhD thesis, University of London.

160

Elastoplastic analysis of pull-out resistance of soil nails in dilatant soils

Unterreiner P., Benhamida B. and Schlosser F. (1997) Finite element modelling of the construction of a full-scale experimental soil-nailed wall. French National Research Project Clouterre. Ground Improvement, 1, 18. Wernick E. (1977) Stress and strain on the surface of anchors. Proc. of 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., Session 4, Tokyo, pp. 113119

Xanthakos P. P. (1991) Ground Anchors and Anchored Structures. John Wiley, New York.

Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by 1 April 2003

161