Soil nails & cutting slopes: Design to

EC7 & BS 8006-2 EC7 & BS 8006-2

Alan Phear
NIGG Seminar on Geotechnical design to EC7
Thursday 11 April 2013
(Val Ferret, Tour de Mont Blanc, 2012)
Soil nails & cutting slopes Design to EC7 &
BS 8006-2 BS 8006 2
CONTENT OF TALK
Unreinforced cutting slopes - design of slope
stability to EC7. stability to EC7.
Design of soil nailing to BS 8006-2.
2
Outline of 1
st
part of talk (on EC7)
Multiple documents to refer to! p
What we used to do
G t h i l i k t i i EC7 Geotechnical risk categories in EC7
Headlines for overall stability in EC7
New principles of designing to EC7
Design requirements Limit states g q
Water pressures & slope drainage
Designapproach& partial factorsfor DA1 Design approach & partial factors for DA1
BS6031: 2009
3
Multiple documents to refer to! (1)
EC7 EC7
BS EN 1997-1:2004. Geotechnical Design
Part 1: General Rules.
BSEN1997 2: 2007 Geotechnical Design BS EN 1997-2: 2007. Geotechnical Design
Part 2: Ground investigation & testing.
Other Eurocodes
BS EN 1990. Basis of structural design
BS EN 1991. Actions on structures
National AnnextoEC7(2006) National Annex to EC7 (2006)
Non-contradictory complementary
Information Information
eg- BS 6031: 2009. Code of practice for
earthworks.
4
Multiple documents to refer to! (2)
Execution standards Execution standards
Published documents
e.g. PD 6694-1 (traffic loading on g ( g
structures)
De facto standards
Highways Agency (HA) DMRB
HA MCDHW(Series 100)
HA IAN 124/11. Use of Eurocodes for the
design of highway structures. (This
doesnt cover earthworks)
Network Rail. NR/L3/CIV/071.
Geotechnical Design. Issue 4.
5
What we used to do
For slope design, there is little change from what we p g , g
used to do!
Design was governed by BS6031 in which a global factor of safety
was applied to cover overall uncertainty
For first time slides with a good standard of investigationa factor of safety between 1.3
and 1.4 should be designed for. For a slide involving an entirely pre-existing slip
surface a factor of safety of 1.2 should be provided [ 6.5.1.2 BS6031: 1981]
Wh h ? Why change?
Think more about inputs to design and therefore should get a more
reliabledesign reliable design
Design to EC7 applies the partial factors as close to the source of
theuncertaintyaspossible
6
the uncertainty as possible
Structured risk management & reporting process
D k t d i l di Desk study, including
walkover (risk
identification))
Ground investigation
(investigating risks) ( g g )
Interpretation of ground
model & geotechnical
parameters
7
Design process Cut slope X-sections
8
Geometry (road or railway cuts) & risk
categories
Road or railway
categories
1. Shallow Cut (EC7 Category 1)
y
2. Conventional Cut - with no
unusual characteristics (EC7
Category 2)
Road or railway
Category 2)
3. Unconventional Cut -
with unusual characteristics
(EC7 C t 3)
Deep cut in
Unusual traffic
conditions at toe
(EC7 Category 3) an
example
Unusual groundwater profile
Deep cut in
Difficult ground
9
Headlines for overall stability in EC7
Overall stability is Section 11 of EC7 but should be the first y
thing checked for a site/structure
Covers soil and rock slopes
Satisfy the GEO and STR limit states for ULSand SLS
UK adopt DA1for slopes UK adopt DA1 for slopes
DA1, combination 1 is A1 & M1 & R1
DA1 bi ti 2i A2& M2 dR1 DA1, combination 2 is A2 & M2 and R1
For slopes, checking GEO and STR limit states, R1 is
alwaysunityfor DA1 always unity for DA1
For slopes, combination 1 is not usually relevant
10
(Embankments are covered by Section 12 of EC7)
Some principles of Geotechnical design to EC7
Be aware of the distinction between permanent/variable
actions and favourable/unfavourable actions
Use of characteristic values with partial factors to form
design values
Application to several aspects of uncertainty rather than a
single lumped factor of safety applied to cover all
uncertainty
11
Design requirements Limit states
ULS and SLS ULS and SLS
Ultimate limit states that apply to slope stability are GEO
and STR and STR
Take into account all relevant modes of failure
GEO = failure or
excessive deformation
f th d of the ground
STR = internal failure or excessive deformation STR = internal failure or excessive deformation
of a structure (due to slope stability failure).
Ground structure interaction shall be considered
by allowing for the difference in relative by allowing for the difference in relative
stiffnesses [11.5.1(11)]
Deep and shallow
failures failures
BS EN 1990:2002+A1 permits variation of BS EN 1990:2002+A1 permits variation of
relevant partial factors where consequence
of failure is either higher or lower than normal
does this apply here for shallow failures? -
13
does t s app y e e o s a o a u es
as the consequences of failure are usually
only increased maintenance.
Water pressures
Water pressures in EC7 should not be factored [A.2.1, NA] p [ , ]
For ULS design values of groundwater pressure shall
represent the most unfavourable values (~condition) that could
occur during the design lifetimeof the structure [2.4.6.1 (6)P]
For SLS design values shall be the most unfavourable values
(~condition) which could occur in normal circumstances
[2.4.6.1 (6) P]
C id d l id d d t N t d Consider seepage down slope, rapid drawdown etc. Noted
in code w.r.t slopes along waterfronts [11.3 (5)], choice of
calculation method [11.5.1 (3)] and joints and fissures in rock
[11.5.2 (1) P]
14
Slope drainage
Examples of how pore pressures can be limited by Examples of how pore pressures can be limited by
drainage:
Crest drain or ditch
t d i h l toe drain or v channel
Slope drains
Deep sub-horizontal
drains
Drainage needs
to be maintained to be maintained
(which is an
operational cost
& is only done y
sometimes!)
EC7 2.4.6.1 (11)
15
(from CIRIA C591)
addresses this topic.
Partial factors for GEO and STR, DA1
ACTION
Symbol Set
A1 A2
P t U f bl G 1 35 1 00 Permanent Unfavourable G 1.35 1.00
Favourable G 1.00 1.00
Variable Unfavourable Q 1.50 1.30
Favourable Q 0 0
SOIL PARAMETER
Symbol Set
M1 M2
Angle of shearing resistance

1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion
c
1.0 1.25
Undrained shear strength
cu
1.0 1.4
Unconfined strength
qu
1.0 1.4
RESISTANCE
Earth resistance
R;e
R1 = 1.0 a es s a ce
R;e
0
Watch-its (1)
Different partial factors are applied to c
u
and for p pp
u

M2 material e.g. temporary works design for cut slope
in Lambeth Clay over Thanet Sand (however this
wouldbeSLSdesign) would be SLSdesign)
EC7 makes no distinction between temporary
works or permanent works =>thechoiceof partial works or permanent works > the choice of partial
factors is pertinent to the limit state being considered
however risk assessment is recommended [ 2.4.7.1
(4)(5)] (4)(5)]
Slope stability problems are in many ways about
geometry; consider sensitivityanalysisof design geometry; consider sensitivity analysis of design
values of geometrical data [2.4.6.3] and consider 3D
failure surface if appropriate [11.5.1(9)]
17
Watch-its (2)
Overall stability of specific structures (spread foundations, piles,
anchorages, retaining walls and embankments) should be accounted
for [111(2)] for [11.1 (2)]
V if bili f l i l di i i ff d l d Verify stability of slope including existing, affected or planned
structures in ULSfor GEO and STR [11.5.1(1)]
For existing failed slopes, consider circular as well as non-circular
failure Partial factorsnormallyusedmaynot beappropriate failure. Partial factors normally used may not be appropriate
[11.5.1(8)]
18
Watch-its (3)
Favourable & unfavourable gravity loads: Since a
distinction between favourable and unfavourable gravity
loadsisnot possibleinassessingthemost adverseslip loads is not possible in assessing the most adverse slip
surface, any uncertainty about weight density of the ground
should be considered by applying upper and lower
characteristic values of it [11.5.1(12)]
Acceptable analysis methods: A slope analysis should
if th ll t d ti l t bilit f th lidi verify the overall moment and vertical stability of the sliding
mass. If horizontal equilibrium is not checked, inter-slice
forces should be assumed to be horizontal => Swedish
Circle Method (Fellenius) (1927) and J anbu(1957) with
horizontal interslicesforces are NOT acceptable
[1151(10)]
19
[11.5.1(10)]
BS 6031: 2009
Code of Practice for Earthworks
Non-contradictory complementary information (NCCI)
7 is called Design of earthworks and gives guidance on how to
applyEC7toslopestabilitydesign apply EC7 to slope stability design.
Lots of other useful advice.
20
Soil nails & cutting slopes Design to EC7 &
BS 8006-2 BS 8006 2
CONTENT OF TALK
Unreinforced cutting slopes - design of slope stability
to EC7.
Design of soil nailing to BS 8006-2.
21
Soil nails & cutting slopes Design to EC7 &
BS 8006-2 BS 8006 2
BS 8006-2 was published in late 2011 and addresses the design
f il ili of soil nailing.
It should be read in conjunction with the Execution standard for
il ili BSEN14490 2010 soil nailing, BS EN 14490: 2010.
It has partial factors which are compatible with EC7.
Parts of it are based on the CIRIA book on soil nailing, CIRIA
C637.
h f ll i lid ill di f In the following slides, I will discuss some aspects of BS 8006-
2.
22
Topics in BS 8006-2 (soil nail design)
A li i & i Applications & construction
considerations
S it bilit f d& Suitability of ground &
groundwater conditions
Basisfor design(includingsoil Basis for design (including soil
nails, durability, facings)
Serviceability& movements Serviceability & movements
Design verification
Maintenance
23
Reinforced soil & soil nailing
BSEN1997-1Geotechnical Designdoesnot cover the BS EN 1997 1 Geotechnical Design does not cover the
design and execution of reinforced soil structures nor soil
nailing.
In the UK, the design and execution of reinforced fill
structures should be carried out in accordance with BS
8006 1 and BS EN 14475 The partial factors set out in BS 8006-1 and BS EN 14475. The partial factors set out in BS
8006-1 should not be replaced by similar factors from
Eurocode 7. (NA.4)
In the UK, the design and execution of soil nailing should
be carried out in accordance with BS 8006-2 and BS EN
14490 Th i l f i BS 8006 2 ibl 14490. The partial factors in BS 8006-2 are compatible
with EC7.
24
Drilled then grouted nails
Photo courtesy of AD Barley Photo courtesy of AD Barley
Photo courtesy of Cementation Foundations Skanska Ltd
Self-drilled nails
sacrificial hollow
h d
Self-drilled nails
sacrificial
drill bit
hollow
bar
coupler
head
plate
nut
Self drilled nails
Photo courtesy of Dywidag Systems International
26
Photos courtesy of Ischebeck TITAN Ltd
Basis of design
Design method
Analysis of stability Analysis of stability
Soil nail pullout resistance
Soil nail element design
Durability & degradation
Facing design g g
Drainage design
Materials for soil nail tendons
Uncoated steel U co ed s ee
Galvanised steel
C t d t l Coated steel
Stainless steel
Fibre reinforced plastic
Glass fibre
Carbonfibre Carbon fibre
Polyester composites
Vinylester composites
Photos courtesy of Tony Barley
& St i l St l Ltd
28
& Stainless Steel Ltd
Corrosion protection guidance for soil nails
LOWRISK MEDIUM RISK HIGH RISK LOW RISK
CATEGORY
MEDIUM RISK
CATEGORY
HIGH RISK
CATEGORY
T or P T in P in T or P T in P in T or P T in P in o
in
SCE
HCE HCE
o
in
SCE
HCE HCE
o
in
SCE
HCE HCE
Each category has temporary nails or permanent nails
inaslightlycorrosiveor highlycorrosiveenvironment in a slightly corrosive or highly corrosive environment
Summary of corrosion protection guidance
for soil nails for soil nails
MOST corrosion protection
systemsareappropriate withmost systems are appropriate with most
risk categories and SLIGHTLY
CORROSIVE ground conditions or
i environments.
ONLY A FEWcorrosion
protection systems are appropriate
for HIGH RISK category with
HIGHLY CORROSIVE ground HIGHLY CORROSIVE ground
conditions or environments
R f T bl 9 f BS8006 2 Refer to Table 9 of BS 8006-2.
Guidance on design of facings
Hard
Soft Soft
Flexible
Image courtesy of Mott MacDonald
Photo courtesy of
A & AMEC
31
Arup & AMEC
Image courtesy of Arup)
Design verification
Approach
BS 8006-2 follows the approach
tosoil nail testinggiveninthe to soil nail testing given in the
Execution standard (BS EN 14490)
Number of Tests Number of Tests
Related to Geotechnical Risk
Category Category
Philosophy
Th h il i d d The way the nail is tested needs to
model the way it is actually loaded
in practice. p
Summary
EC7 has resulted in only limited changes to the way
slope stability design is carried out in the UK. p y g U
I have talked about some of these changes & have
have noted a few Watch-its.
I have briefly introduced BS 8006-2 Soil nailing
design. g
I would welcome views in the discussion on some
of the questions I have raised.
33