Sei sulla pagina 1di 38

Page 1 of 38

For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Several Types of Soil Nails for


Different Geological Conditions

Y. M. Cheng1, S.K. Au2 and Albert T. Yeung3

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic

University, Hong Kong1 Tel : 852-27666042, Fax : 852-23346389, email :


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

ceymchen@polyu.edu.hk

Benaim (China) Ltd., Hong Kong2

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong3

ABSTRACT: For steep slopes with difficult access or slopes in a corrosive

environment, there are various problems associated with the use of conventional steel

reinforcement bars as soil nails. For loose fill slopes or clay slopes, the development

of adequate nail bond strength is another practical issue which should be considered.

Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)

in several forms and installation methods have been studied as the alternatives to the

classical steel bar. Extensive laboratory tests on the materials and field tests on

different types of soil nails with different methods of installation have been carried

out in Hong Kong, Korea and Australia. The test results have supported the use of

these materials with innovative installation method as soil nails under different

geological conditions, and the suitability and performance of these materials under

different conditions will be assessed in the present study.

Keywords: Soil Nail; Glass Fiber; Stress Transfer; Pullout Test; Numerical Modeling

1. Introduction

Soil nailing is first used in Hong Kong to provide support for highly weathered

zones until the 1980s (GEO, 2008). Currently, high yield steel bars are commonly

used as soil nails to stabilize slopes in Hong Kong and many other countries. However,

1
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 2 of 38

there are several drawbacks for the steel bar nails which are particularly critical in

Hong Kong and some other Asian countries. Soil nailing in very low shear strength

soil may require a very high soil nail density which is uneconomical. The use of steel

soil nails can be difficult or delicate in erosive environment. Extra protection

measures (double corrosion system), which add additional cost to the soil nail are

required to ensure the satisfactory performance of soil nails serving as permanent


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

structures. The use of sacrificial thickness for conventional steel bar is now a general

practice in Hong Kong (GEO and HKIE 2011), and expensive corrosion protection

measures similarly to that for the anchor system are also adopted for corrosive

ground.

In Hong Kong, large diameter steel bars (32 mm to 40 mm) with a length

exceeding 20 m are typically required in steep slopes adjacent to buildings or

highways. Due to the space constraints, it is difficult to maneuver these heavy steel

bars on site. The steel bars are hence divided into several shorter segments (3-5 m) for

easy transportation, and couplers are used to connect the bars to the required total

length. This arrangement is not common in other countries but is quite popular in

Hong Kong. The time and cost of soil nail stabilization are thus extremely high for

slopes with difficult access in Hong Kong. Many engineers also have reservation on

the nail bond stress transfer within loose fill slopes or soft clays. In particular, it is

found that even though good compaction has been carried out in loose fill, the

compacted dry density of the fill can decrease with time, possibly due to washout of

fines by groundwater flow. In views of these concerns, expensive and visually

unpleasing concrete grillage is commonly used in loose fill/clay slopes in Hong Kong,

Taiwan, China, Japan and other places, and this option will further increase the total

cost and time for soil stabilization . Currently, there are many research works in the

use of alternate soil nail materials with different installation methods in different

countries. In particular, for soft ground tunneling in clays where there is only limited

working space, tunnel face stability is difficult to be maintained, and the uses of
2
Page 3 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

alternate materials for face support have also become popular.

The desired features of a good soil nail for a site with difficult access include: (a)

light weight and high strength; (b) a good bond strength can always be maintained in

all types of soil; (c) minimum corrosion problems (for permanent nail); (d) acceptable

cost; and (e) ease of construction – handling, joining and cutting. However, there is
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

not a single material which can fulfill all of the above requirements. To investigate the

various advantages and limitations of different soil nail materials and systems, the

authors have carried out several research studies in different types of soil in Hong

Kong, Korea, China and Australia.

Many works have been carried out in investigating and improving the

performance of soil nails. The direct shear test is used for characterization of the

failure mode of nailed soil mass and the bond between the reinforcement and the

grout (Miller et al. 1999, Chajes et al. 1996, De Lorenzis et al. 2001). In general, they

have found that the controlling factor is the failures at the interface between the

reinforcement and the grout, while the strength and stiffness of the reinforcement are

not usually critical in the tests. De Lorenzis et al. (2001) have reported that the bond

strength is not influenced by the bonded length or by the width of the FRP composite

sheet. Jeffries (2004) has carried out further research and found the bond strength to

be dependent on the surface preparation of the reinforcement. Benmokrane et al.

(1996, 2002) have carried out some pilot works for the bond strengths of FRP and

CFRP bars as rebars and grouted anchor. There are also research works about the

time-dependent behavior of GFRP nail by Li et al. (2013) and Zhang et al. (2015).

Cheng and Wei (2007) and Cheng et al. (2009) have carried out large scale pilot

studies (laboratory and field tests) on the use of glass fiber reinforced polymer pipe

(GFRP) with the Tube a’ Manchette grouting method as a soil nail material in Hong

Kong and Korea. Another large scale study involving conventional steel bar, glass

fiber reinforced plastic rod, carbon fiber reinforced polymer rod (CFRP) and GFRP

pipe has been carried out in Hong Kong, while the use of fracture grouting combined
3
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 4 of 38

with the use of GFRP rod has been applied in the Brisbane Airport Link project in

Australia (Cheng et al. 2013), with Fleming Award in 2011 and Ground Engineering

Award in Technical Excellent in 2012 in Australia for the present project.

Tremendous field and laboratory tests on different soil nail materials and the

performance of the soil nails under different installation methods are summarized and

discussed in the present paper.


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Currently, proprietary GFRP soil nail is available in the market (Aslan 2011 and

other), and the KGC slope in Hong Kong is stabilized by GFRP soil nail using

conventional grouting method. There are however only limited trial study in using

CFRP as soil nail. Based on only laboratory tests, Toufigh et al. (2014) have

suggested that CFRP can be a suitable soil nail material. The preliminary tests by

Cheung and Lo (2005) on CFRP soil nail have indicated that the material is brittle and

care should be exercised in the actual application. Unwin (2001) has commented that

the properties of the CFRP nail may be affected by the potassium ion in the soil, but it

appears that the engineering life of CFRP nail can be as long as 120 years for normal

condition. So far, there are only limited real applications of CFRP soil nail. In general,

these FRP based soil nails are installed using the conventional method, and it is

possible to extend and improve the use of FRP soil nail using refined methods which

are part of the aims of the present research work.

The objectives of this paper are to investigate the properties of different soil nail

materials, the problems in installation and testing, the effect of different nail

installation/grouting method and bond stress distribution along the nail during pullout

process through vast amount of laboratory and field tests. The soil nails adopted in

this study are made of different materials and configuration which include steel

reinforcement bars, GFRP bars and pipes, and CFRP bars. The soil nails in the present

project can be classified into two major groups: (1) soil nails grouted without applied

4
Page 5 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

pressure and function simply as a classical soil nail and (2) soil nails grouted with

pressure (relatively high to very high pressure) with an additional function in ground

improvement besides enhancing the nail bond stress. For soil nailed grouted under

pressure, the field tests are further divided into two groups : (1) permeable loose

granular fill and (2) impermeable soft clayey soil. Such division is necessary because

of the great difference in the permeability of soil and grouting/soil improvement


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

mechanism. In loose granular fill, permeation grout will be dominant while fracture

grout will be dominant for soft clayey soil. The field evaluations include the

constructability and pullout characteristics of different soil nail materials. The

performances of these materials based on laboratory/field tests and numerical

simulations can help to develop a better understanding of the performance of these

modern soil nail materials.

2. Laboratory tests

Basic laboratory pullout tests carried out in Australia, Hong Kong and Korea are

introduced and discussed in this section. In Hong Kong, the use of expansive grout

has also been considered which is absent in the laboratory tests in Australia and Korea.

Steel bar, GFRP bar and pipe and CFRP bar have been tested in the present study.

Group A and C nails are GFRP nails with normal grout and expansive grout while

group B and D nails are CFRP nails with normal grout and expansive grout. Group E

nails are conventional steel bar nails with normal grout. The test results are shown in

Fig.4 and 5 for reference.

(a) General results from tensile tests

A series of laboratory tensile and pullout tests are carried out for the

conventional steel bar, CFRP bar, GFRP bar and GFRP pipe, and the results of the

laboratory tests are shown in Table 1. For material tests, tensile tests to the vinyl ester

GFRP pipe are performed according to ASTM D638 “Standard Test Method for

Tensile Properties of Plastics”. For tensile test of steel bar, it is tested according to

5
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 6 of 38

Hong Kong standard CS2:2012. It should be mentioned that for the GFRP pipe, it is

made of continuous GFRP mat and continuous fiber by a pultrusion process as

described by Cheng et al. (2009). Furthermore, for the FRP soil nail, it is found from

the laboratory tests that there is not an obvious yield stress and yield strain which is

observed for steel soil nail.


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

During the tensile testing for CFRP and GFRP nails, it is found that slippage will

occur between the relatively smooth CFRP/GFRP surface and the hydraulic jack when

the classical gripping method is used. This problem has been reported by Cheng et al.

(2009) so that slippage will occur before the ultimate yield stress/strain is reached,

and the ultimate yield stress/strain will not be obtained then. To overcome this

problem in laboratory and in field, the FRP are bonded to steel pipes by using epoxy.

The hydraulic jack then applies the loads on the steel pipe instead of adding the load

to the FRP rods directly. Since the steel pipes are stronger than the FRP nail and will

not fail during the test, the ultimate yield stress/strain of the FRP material can then be

obtained. Through such arrangement, the ultimate load on CFRP/GFRP nail is then

determined.

(b) Laboratory pullout test on steel bar in Hong Kong

A test box (2m in length, 2m in width and 1.6m in height) completely filled with

decomposed granite (CGD) as shown in Fig.1 is used for the pullout test. According

to the Proctor Test, in accordance with BS 1377-Part 4-1990, the maximum dry

density of the soil varies from 1801 to 1867 kg/m3. The optimum moisture content

varies between 12 to 15%. Vertical pressure is applied to the box to simulate the

in-situ vertical overburden stress. Different vertical pressure is applied by two

hydraulic jacks mounted on a top rigid plate placed on top of the fill in the test box.

Since CDG has a relatively high permeability (in the order of 3-5x10-6 m/s), the

loading is applied only for half an hour which is sufficient for the soil to stabilize. The

pullout machine is inclined at an angle of 15° (same as the inclination of the soil nail)
during the pullout tests. The embedded length of the soil nail is 1650 mm, and the
6
Page 7 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

length of the soil nail protruded outside the test box is 450 mm. Five Linear Variable

Differential Transformers (LVDT) and seven pressure sensors are installed at the front

plate, as shown in Fig.1. Readings are taken at 15 seconds interval. The pullout rate is

maintained at 0.5 mm per minute. The locations of the strain gauges along the soil

nails are shown in Fig.2. The steel nails are grouted under gravity with cement grout

with a water cement ratio of 0.47.


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

(c) Laboratory tests on GFRP soil nail in Hong Kong

The two important factors controlling the design of GFRP pipe soil nail are the

tensile strength of GFRP and bond strength between the nail and the soil. Lazarte et al.

(2003) state that the pullout capacity of any nail is a function of the ultimate bond

strength, drilled hole diameter and effective pullout length. The pullout capacity (Rp),

is mobilized when the ultimate bond strength is achieved and is expressed as eq.(1):

[1] Rp=Tmax=QuLp

In eq.(1), Lp stands for the effective pullout length beyond the failure surface,

and the unit pullout capacity Qu is written as in eq.(2):

[2] Qu=πquDDH

where qu denotes the ultimate bond strength; DDH is the effective diameter of the drill

hole.

For the material tests, tensile tests for the vinyl ester GFRP pipe are performed

according to ASTM D638 “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics”.

Vinyl ester bonded GFRP pipe is found to fail in a brittle mode. Beyond an axial

strain of 1.8%, the GFRP pipe fails suddenly with a very small increase of the strain.

The stress-strain characteristics of the GFRP pipe are, however, dependent on the

resin used to embed the glass fibers. The failure mode of urethane bonded GFRP pipe

(more expensive) which has higher tensile strength is much more ductile than that of

the vinyl ester bonded GFRP pipe from the laboratory tests in Korea, but it is not
7
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 8 of 38

considered in the present study due to the cost consideration (unlikely to be adopted

for normal engineering application).

For the laboratory pullout tests of the pressure grouted residual soil Seoul granite

in Korea which is shown in Fig.3, the length of the sample adopted is 250 mm while

the centre grout hole is 90 mm in diameter. The injection pressure is maintained at


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

around 10 bars during grouting. Different confining pressures are applied to the

samples to model the effect of different overburden stress.

Some of the non-destructive laboratory pullout tests in Hong Kong are given in

Fig. 4. Compared with Fig.4a and 4b, it is noticed that the use of expansive grout has

greatly improved the ultimate bond strength as well as the elastic range with little

plastic deformation under pull-out test. The gradients of the pullout force against

pullout displacement however appear to be not strongly related to the use of expansive

grout (see Fig.4a, 4b and 4c), and this relation is probably mainly controlled by the

elastic property of the surrounding soil. On the other hand, this gradient appears to be

strongly influenced by the use of expansive grout if CFRP nail is used. This is

possibly due to the fact that CFRP bar is much smaller in size, and the percentage

effect of the grout expansion on the compaction of the surrounding soil will be more

appealing if the initial volume under consideration is smaller in size. This new finding

is interesting and should be considered in the analysis of FRP nailed structures.

(d) Laboratory tests on CFRP nails in Hong Kong

In this group of tests, nails A and B are CFRP bars while nails C and D are steel

bars. The surface of nails B is roughened in order to increase the bond stress. For

material testing, the CFRP is also tested in accordance with ASTM D638. The CFRP

bar in test has a diameter of 12 mm with sand coated surface, and each bar is cut into

2000 mm in length. Two types of grout mix were used in the test: ordinary cement

grout with a water-cement ratio of 0.45 and expansive cement grout with a

water-cement ratio of 0.4 (on nail C as shown in Fig.5 and 6). The pullout tests are

8
Page 9 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

carried out in typical Hong Kong sandy soil CDG using a destructive pullout test and

non-destructive pullout test. In the destructive pullout test, the soil nail is allowed to

move for 25 mm to determine the maximum pullout forces. The non-destructive tests

are divided into 3 stages according to the typical soil nail testing procedure in Hong

Kong. The first cycle is 1/3 of the estimated maximum pullout force and the test load

is held with an hour. The second cycle is 2/3 of the maximum pullout force and the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

load is also maintained for an hour. Finally, the designed maximum pullout force is

applied and the load is held for another one hour before it is released. The results of

the laboratory pullout comparisons are shown in Fig. 5 to 7.

The results for the destructive pullout tests for Soil nails A and C given in Fig.5.

From observation, it is clear that there is no slippage between the CFRP rod and the

cement grout. Failure is observed at the connection between the anchorage tube and

the weakened CFRP connection. As such a connection is used only for laboratory test

and will not be used for actual site implementation, the pullout strength of the CFRP

rod can be much greater than the test results of 40 to 50kN (nail C) as obtained in the

laboratory test. The bond strength between the CFRP rod and cement grout is strong

and the failure mode is the same as the steel soil nail where failure is initiated at the

interface between the soil and cement grout. There are, however, differences in the

development of skin friction between the two groups of nails, which will be discussed

in a later section.

For the non-destructive testing of nails as shown in Fig.6, it is noticed that soil

nail D which is subjected to the cycled pullout test in a saturated situation gives lower

strength as compared with nail E in unsaturated condition. The stiffnesses of nail D

(saturated) and nail E (unsaturated) are however basically the same, which indicate

that saturation alone has only limited effect on the stiffness of the soil nail system.

Nail D exhibits higher pullout strength as compared with nail E, and this is possibly

due to the fact that unsaturated soil exhibits higher apparent soil parameters. This

result also indicates that the stabilization effect of soil nail will depreciate with soil
9
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 10 of 38

saturation, which is a phenomenon seldom addressed in other research works.

In order to examine the axial load distribution, the corresponding data are taken

and summarized in Fig. 7. For both steel and CFRP nails, the axial stress is mobilized

from the nail head. However, the load distribution along the first 20 percent length
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

varies a lot among different nails: stress keeps at a “nearly” constant value for nails C

and E, while the stress drops rapidly for CFRP nails. This special phenomenon is

possibly due to the high elastic modulus for steel soil nail. It is also noticed from Fig.5

that the pullout force experienced by Nail A (steel) is greater than Nail C (CFRP)

under the same pull-out displacement, which is due to the higher elastic modulus of

steel as compared with CFRP as shown in Table 1. It is interesting to note that even

though the elastic modulus of steel is about twice that for CFRP, the results between

the steel nail and CFRP nail do not differ by twice in Fig.5. The elongation actually

depends on the combined modulus of the nail and the effective grouted zone, and the

smaller CFRP nail has a higher percentage effective zone which is possibly due to the

expansion action of the grout. The peak pullout force of Nail C can reach over 50kN

which is about 25% more than that in Nail A (Fig. 5), which is also possibly due to

the expansive action of the grout compacting the surrounding soil so that a larger

mass is required to be pulled out at failure. The importance of expansive action of the

grout compared with the contractive action of normal grout is clearly illustrated in the

present results.

If the elastic and plastic elongation is considered, it is found that the CFRP nail

actually gives lesser permanent elongation even though the elastic elongation is

greater than the steel nail, as indicated in Table 2. In this respect, CFRP nail appears to

perform even better than steel nail from the results in Table 2 and Fig.5, even though

the displacement with CFRP nail will be slightly greater than

3. Field Tests in Hong Kong


10
Page 11 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

After the laboratory tests, a series of field pullout tests are carried out in Hong

Kong, Korea and Australia in sandy soil and clay using different types of nails

(Steel/CFRP/GFRP) and grouting methods. The objective of the field pullout and soil

strength tests are to verify the design assumptions about the bond strength at the

interface between the ground and the cement grout and the improvement in the soil

properties, so that a better and more economic design of soil nails can be obtained.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Soil nails for field pullout tests require partial grout to form the bonded length.

A field pullout test programme is carried out at four existing slopes in Hong

Kong which is approximately 65m in length and 36m in height. The cut slope is

dipping towards the northeast: two lower faces are inclined at approximately 55° to

the horizontal; two upper faces are inclined at approximately 45° to the horizontal.

Site investigation results reveal that the slope is composed of completely decomposed

granite (CDG) and localized colluvial deposits at the slope crest, and their properties

are tabulated in Table 3.

The average value of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) for colluvium is

approximately 10, while for completely decomposed granite, the value varies between

8 to 65. Two types of cement and two kinds of FRP rod are tested separately in this

test programme. Details of the cement mixes are summarized in Table 4 while the

basic properties of the FRP nails are summarized in Table 5. The field test results of

the soil nails are summarized in Table 6. The strain gauges are installed at 0.2, 0.6,

1.0, 1.4, 1.8 and 2.6 m from the lower end of each nail as shown in Fig. 8. It should be

noted that some strain gauges are not working properly during the measurement as

shown in Table 6, which are possibly due to the relatively poor workmanship in strain

gauges fixing and the disturbance effect of grouting. In fact, this problem is

commonly encountered in many field pullout tests in Hong Kong.

The multi-stage pullout test is carried out in accordance with the typical
11
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 12 of 38

procedures as shown in Fig.9. Five percents of the maximum proposed test load (Ta)

is originally applied to the nail. Then, the soil nails are loaded in three equal stages to

the maximum test load. In each stage, the load is maintained constant for 60 minutes.

The outwards displacement near the nail head and the strain gauge readings are

recorded at a 5-minute interval. The maximum testing loads for the soil nails are

tabulated in Table 6. Besides that, another group of field tests on GFRP pipe nails has
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

also been carried out by Cheng et al. (2009), and the advantages and limitations of

these GFRP pipe nails have been discussed. Summing up the experience gained in

Hong Kong, the use of CFRP as soil nail is not considered to be a good solution

because:

1. Cost is high as compared with steel and GFRP nails.

2. For CFRP, as the bar diameter is small and the surface is relatively smooth, it is

not easy to maintain a good bonding between cement grout and the CFRP.

Furthermore, to achieve the same tensile load as a steel nail, up to 4 CFRP bars

may have to be used. It is also found that different CFRP bar has taken up

different portions of the nail load during the pullout testing. It can be concluded

that it is not easy to ensure a uniform distribution of loading among these four

nails during pullout test or under working condition

3. The shear strength of the CFRP bar is low, and there is shattering of the bar with

the fibers separated from each other in one of the unsuccessful pullout test. It

appears that the shear failure of CFRP has not been reported previously, but it has

been found from the present study. For this case, it is believed that the pullout

load is not uniformly distributed during stressing, and there is an eccentricity in

the setup of the equipment which has generated a shear force during stressing.

The axial force distributions along some of the soil nails (with a constant 2.6m

grouted length) in field pullout tests are shown in Fig. 10. The soil nail forces remain

constant initially, as there is no grout for the initial portion of the soil nails. It should
12
Page 13 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

be noted that the grout is applied by simple gravity flow without the use of any

pressure in this test programme. It is interesting to note that X1 and X2 with a smaller

inclination of 20° have the highest pullout strength while X3 and X4 with higher

inclination of 30° have the lowest pullout strength. Nail X8 with an inclination of 30°
also has a high pullout strength, which is possibly due to the use of expansive grout in

the installation.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

4. Field Tests in Korea and Australia

Field pullout tests have also been conducted on silty sandy soils in Korea and

Hong Kong using GFRP pipes and two-stage grouting. Specifically, conventional

gravity grouting is used in stage one, and pressure grouting in stage two. The system

in Korea utilizes GFRP pipes of 37 mm internal diameter and 5 mm thick fabricated

by a pultrusion process. As discussed by Cheng et al. (2009), it is found that there is

an average increase of the cohesive strength to the soil by 18 kPa, which is a major

improvement to the soil properties. Besides that, Cheng et al. (2009) have also noted

that there is a major increase in the elastic modulus “E” and one-dimensional

deformation modulus/constrained modulus of the grouted soil mass. These results

reflect that the use of Tube a’ Manchette grouting has a very major improvement in

the soil properties and the nail bond strength.

Fracture grouting combined with the use of GFRP soil nails (Geonail system) for

maintaining the tunneling face stability is first proposed and adopted by the authors in

the Airport Link tunnel project in Brisbane, Australia (Cheng et al. 2013). Using this

innovative fracture grouted GFRP soil nail, the tunnel has been constructed through

soft clay while maintaining the train passage above the clay embankment with

controlled settlement during construction. This project has received two technical

awards for the satisfactory performance under such a difficult condition.

For the GFRP bar nails in Australia (Cheng et al. 2013), the bar has a nominal

13
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 14 of 38

dimensions of 12.7 mm x 6.4 mm and a special “D” shape (instead of being circular

as used in Hong Kong) to enhance the bond strength. The basic properties of the

GFRP nails are: density 1.7~1.9g/cm3; glass content 50%~80% in weight;

compressive strength 300MPa; tensile strength 300~550MPa. The nails are casted in

concrete and tested according to the guidelines of American Concrete Institute, ACI

440.3R-04, for bond strength of FRP reinforcement in concrete.


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Besides various laboratory tests, six GFRP test nails are also installed and tested

on site in either firm or soft soils. The pullout resistances of the 4 pullout tests with

fracture grouting in soft clay (average pullout resistance of the Geonails is 85kN/m)

are found to be higher than the design requirement. On the other hand, the pullout

resistance of the geonail without fracture grouting is 12% less than that of the design

pullout resistance of the grouted Geonail. The result has clearly demonstrated the

importance of fracture grout in the Geonail system. There are dual effects of the

Geonail system which are improvement to the soil properties and stabilization of

tunnel face by the nail and grout finger. Compared with the field installation method

in Hong Kong where only the effect of stabilization can be achieved, the use of high

pressure fracture grouting at increased expenses may require less nail for stabilization.

A direct comparison of the cost benefit cannot be carried out at present because there

are other factors contributing to the overall cost of construction. Nevertheless, it is

expected that the overall cost of construction will be similar for the two systems, even

though the Geonail in Australia will be more expensive than a traditional nail using

simple grouting method if only a single nail is considered. The use of fracture

grouting however has the advantage that in very loose/soft material, it is possible to

eliminate the use of concrete grillages as the soil properties are improved. For the

Tube a’ Manchette grouting method as used in Korea and the fracture grouting

method as used in Australia, the former grouting method is more suitable for sandy

soil while the later method will be better for clayey soil. The simple grouting method

as used in Hong Kong is more suitable for good and stable sandy soil. The suitability
14
Page 15 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

of the grouting method depends more on the permeability and strength of soil, and

based on this issue, engineers can choose a suitable grouting method and type of

GFRP nail for soil stabilization.

The actual measured bond resistances of 73 kN/m and 55 kN/m in firm clay and

soft clay are higher than the prediction, despite the fact that the improved soil
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

strengths are generally slightly less than that as predicted. The greater improvement in

the nail bond resistance is attributed to the contribution of the grout network. Nail

pullout test results indicate that most of the nails satisfy the acceptance criteria under

the designed ultimate load condition. From the results using Tube a’ Manchette

grouting in GFRP pipe nail in Korea as given by Cheng et al. (2009) and the present

results using fracture grouting in Australia, it is clear that the use of pressure in

grouting can improve the soil properties which can reduce the number of nails to be

used for soil stabilization by turns.

5. Back Analysis in Numerical Modeling and analysis of nail load distribution

Besides the laboratory and field tests, vast amount of numerical modeling for the

pullout tests have also been carried out, and only limited results will be discussed in

this section. The method of numerical modeling for some of the selected nails from

the present study is basically similar to that by Cheng et al. (2009) and Wei and

Cheng (2010) using the program FLAC3D, and the details of the numerical modeling

will not be repeated here. The slope and the soil are modeled by brick elements

according to the field geometry, and a typical example is shown in Fig.11. Since the

soil nail is small in the actual size, a domain width of 1m as shown in Fig.11 will be

sufficient to model the side effect (as adopted by Cheng et al. 2009 and Smith and Su

1997 and others). The actual nail spacing is usually around 1.5m which is much

greater than the size of nail by more than 10 times, nail-nail interaction is hence

usually not required to be considered. The input parameters include the nail material

15
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 16 of 38

properties (GFRP/CFRP), grout material properties which are described in Table 7 as

well as the soil parameters for individual nail location. It should be noted that the

grout properties are only assigned to the grouted portion. The grout stiffness and grout

cohesive strength are the properties that relate to the shear interaction between the

grout and the soil. Therefore, for the ungrouted portion, only air exists instead of grout

between the bar and the soil. The grout stiffness and grout cohesive strength in these
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

portions are therefore set to a negligible value.

For the modeling of the pullout tests, a uniaxial velocity is applied to the nail

head. By increasing the time steps (cycles), the pullout rate of the nail increases

steadily at a magnitude of 1x10-6 m per step. With the development of nail head

displacement, axial force in the nail is increased and bond stress is transferred to the

surrounding soil. Results obtained at the intermediate load stages are recorded and

compared with those from field pullout tests. Since many comparative results are

available, only limited results for steel bar, CFRP and GFRP nails are shown in Fig.

12 and 13 for illustration. From these two figures, it can be observed that if reasonable

material parameters are used, the results from numerical simulation can reasonably

match well with the experimental outputs. It should be noted that a perfect match

between the numerical and experimental result is rare in reality, due to the variations

in site conditions, limitations of the input parameters, simplifications of the modelling

with only limited regions of constant parameters and other factors. It is however noted

that there are some minor fluctuations of measured results near to the end of the nail.

Such minor fluctuations are possibly due to: (1) measurement error, in particular, the

strain level is usually small near to the end of the nail and percentage of measurement

error is usually great and (2) adhesion problem of the strain gauges, and some

unsuccessful tests not shown in this paper are also due to this adhesion problem of

strain gauges. Furthermore, since an axial force is applied at the nail head, all

movements should be in the same direction, hence the nail load cannot increase within

a short region near to the end of nail. This kind of measurement error can be
16
Page 17 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

determined by simple sense of engineering.

From numerical modeling and field test, the skin friction at the grout/soil

interface is determined from

Fi − Fi +1
τs =
[3] l × ∆x
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

where F is the axial force within the nail, ∆x is a small distance along the nail and l is
the circumference of the grouted zone. It can be observed that the maximum skin

friction occurs at a small distance after the start of the grouted zone which is shown in

Figs. 15 to 17. When a load is applied to the nail bar, a small distance is needed for

the mobilization of the skin friction. The results are in agreement with the previous

findings by Hyett et al. (1996).

Looking at the skin friction development within steel, GFRP and CFRP nails, an

interesting phenomenon is found as follows. For steel nails, there is a rapid increase of

the skin friction with distance within the grouted zone. After the peak skin friction,

the skin friction decreases rapidly with distance for the steel nail. On the other hand,

for CFRP and GFRP where the Young’s modulus of the material is lower than steel,

this phenomenon appears only when the axial load is small (46.47 kN in Fig.15). For

higher nail axial load, the peak skin friction appears to maintain for some distance

before the skin friction drops for CFRP and GFRP. The clear drop in the skin friction

after the peak stress for the steel nail as shown in Fig.16 is not obvious for the CFRP

and GFRP nails. This phenomenon which is not mentioned in other previous studies

previously should be induced by the lower stiffness and greater displacement of

GFRP/CFRP so that the skin friction can be fully mobilized over some distance after

the peak. The present analysis has also demonstrated the applicability in using

numerical method to carry out the initial assessment and design of FRP nails.

Although the basic stress distribution from field tests can match with that from

numerical analysis, there are also noticeable differences between the two results. Such
17
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 18 of 38

discrepancies are actually normal due to various reasons: nonhomogenity of the soil

medium, the precise values of the input parameters, the constitutive model of the soil

and the contacts and the negligence of the grout finger in field. Nevertheless, based on

the numerical analysis on pullout stress analysis, reasonable input parameters can be

defined so that a satisfactory and complicated three-dimensional finite element

analysis of a tunnel project has been carried out with satisfaction (Cheng et al. 2013).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

The numerical pullout analysis can be used to confirm the suitability of the soil

parameters/constitutive model which are required for complicated projects, while the

field pullout test can be used to confirm the nail capacity and the quality of the nail

installation.

6. Discussions

In the past, the conventional steel bar has been a good solution to stabilize the

sandy soil. There are however also many cases where there is difficulty in access and

transportation, or the soil is too soft and impermeable to grouting so that the use of

alternative soil nail is required. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the

applicability and performance of different types of soil nails in different geological

materials. The geological materials include loose granular soil as well as clayey soil,

and it is proposed that further works will be carried out for fractured rock in the future.

To achieve the aims of the present work, both laboratory and field tests on steel and

FRP soil nails are carried out together with the corresponding in-situ soil

improvement determination. Vast amount of laboratory and field tests for FRP and

steel nails have been carried out in Hong Kong, Korea and Australia, and only small

amount of important data can be given in the present paper. Based on vast amount of

laboratory and field test results, some results can be drawn as follows:

(a) Generally, the GFRP and CFRP nails exhibit similar behaviors as ordinary steel

bars, except for the brittleness beyond peak load from the present study. The strength

18
Page 19 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

of FRP nails is less than the steel nails, but the modulus is significantly less. While

flexible nail may be beneficial for the mobilization of the shear strength for soil

stabilization in some cases, the acceptability of the soil movement must also be

considered. With regards to the control of soil movement, the authors suggest that a

slightly higher factor of safety may be applied to FRP nail as compared with the

conventional steel soil nail.


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

(b) From the present work, it is clear that the use of expansive grout can help to

increase the bond stress and the elastic range, and this is particularly useful for loose

sandy soil. From the present works, the uses of Tube a’ Manchette for sandy soil in

Hong Kong and fracture grouting for clayey soil in Australia have been demonstrated

to provide great benefit in the overall stabilization, and the combined use of the

pressure grouting and FRP can provide an alternative soil nail installation method

which can overcome the limitations of classical steel nail and installation method.

(c) It is found from the present study that the development of the nail axial load and

skin friction is different between steel and FRP nail, and it appears that this result has

not been reported in previous works. Through the field tests and actual applications in

Hong Kong, Australia and Korea, it appears that this factor alone this is not critical

towards the practical application of FRP nails.

(d) Contrary to the support of using CFRP as soil nail material based on laboratory

tests by Toufigh et al. (2014), the use of CFRP nail (which is usually small in

diameter size and has to be used in group form) is not encouraged for normal

application. Besides the material is expensive in cost, there are several technical field

issues which have been noted from the present study. The authors adopt 4 CFRP bars

in the trial tests in order to achieve the required nail strength comparable to that of the

steel nail used in Hong Kong, as each CFRP bar in the market is small in diameter.

Based on field test, it is found that it is difficult to maintain even load sharing among

different CFRP bars if there is more than one CFRP bars for each nail, and it is not

19
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 20 of 38

easy to transfer the load from the bearing plate to the CFRP nails due to the surface

condition and the size of CFRP nails. The shear failure of one CFRP bar in one of the

pullout test also warns that eccentricity in load sharing among different CFRP bars

can be very critical and must be avoided.

(e) The use of numerical modeling by FLAC3D or similar software can provide good
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

modelling of the field pullout tests, and this has also been reported in other previous

works. The load-displacement relation, axial load and friction distribution from

numerical modelling are similar to those obtained from the test if suitable parameters

are used for the analysis. Since numerical modeling is much cheaper than field test,

the use of numerical modeling of FRP nail in routine design may be sufficient for

normal problems, while trial tests on site can be limited to a few numbers as a control

test to confirm the suitability of the design parameters.

(f) Although there are some previous long term monitoring of FRP nails, there is not

enough database for general soil condition. The long term behavior of FRP soil nails

under stress should be studied, which is part of the works that the authors are working

on. On one hand, creep may lower the capacity of FRP nail. On the other hand, the

soil arching effect may disappear when there is enough time for the system to stabilize

so that the actual vertical stress acting on the soil nail will become the effective

overburden stress with an increase in the nail capacity.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, the laboratory and field tests have demonstrated the applicability

of using FRP as a competitive alternative to the steel soil nail for sites with difficult

access. FRP is much lighter than steel and is easier to manipulate on site with limited

working space and difficult access which is particularly important in many congested

cities in Asian, and less labors are required for FRP nail installation as compared with

steel nail installation. Furthermore, the use of expansive grout or pressure/fracture


20
Page 21 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

grouting which can give higher bond stress has been demonstrated to be useful for

normal GFRP/steel soil nails in loose sand. The authors would recommend the use of

GFRP nail combined with pressure grouting as a competitive alternative to the

classical steel nail for normal application. On the other hand, CFRP which has a very

high tensile strength but low shear strength has demonstrated some practical problems

in both installation and pullout test. In views of the high cost for CFRP and the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

difficulty to construct a good nail head for load transfer, CFRP is not recommended to

be used as soil nail for normal application.

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the project “Evaluation of Different Types of Soil

Nails for Slopes with Poor Access & Mechanism” (account YBBY) funded by the

Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Reference

Aslan (2011), http://aslanfrp.com/Aslan100/aslan100_papersr.html.

Benmokrane, B., Tighiouart, B., and Chaallal, O. 1996. Bond strength and load

distribution of composite FRP rebars in concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 93 (3),

pp. 246-253.

Benmokrane, B., Zhang, B., and Chennouf, A. C. 2000. Tensile properties and pullout

behaviour of AFRP and CFRP rods for grouted anchor applications,

Construction and Building Materials 14, pp.157-170.

Cheng, Y.M., and Wei, W.B. 2007. Application of Innovative GFRP Pipe Soil Nail

System in Hong Kong, Key Engineering Materials Vols. 353-358, pp.

3006-3009.

Cheng, Y.M., Choi, Y.K., Yeung, T., Tham, L.G., Au, S.K., Wei, W.B., and Chen, J.
21
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 22 of 38

2009. New soil nail material-pilot study of grouted GFRP pipe nails in Korea and

Hong Kong, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 21(3):93-102.

Cheng, Y.M., Au, S.K., Pearson, A.M. and Li, N. 2013. An innovative Geonail

System for soft ground stabilization, Soils and foundation, 53(2):282-298.

Cheung, W.M., and Lo, D.O.K. 2005. Use of carbon fibre reinforced polymer
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

reinforcement in soil nailing works. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Seminar.

pp175-184. The Geotechnical Division, The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers.

Hong Kong.

De Lorenzis, L., Miller, B., and Nanni, A. 2001. Bond of FRP laminates to concrete,

ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 3, May-June, pp. 256-264.

GEO 2008. Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction. GEO, HK SAR Government,

Hong Kong.

GEO and HKIE 2011. Design of soil nails for upgrading loose fill slopes,

Geotechnical Engineering Office and Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong

Kong.

Hyett, A.J., Moosavi, M., and Bawden, W.F. 1996. Load distribution along fully

grouted bolts, with emphasis on cable bolt reinforcement, International Journal

for Numerical and Analytical methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 20, pp.517-544.

Jeffries, J. M. 2004. Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer laminates to concrete

subjected to varied surface preparation, Masters of Science Thesis, University of

Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Missouri.

Lazarte, C.A., Elias, V., Espinoza, R.D., and Sabatini, P.J. 2003. Soil Nail Walls,

Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7, Pub. No. FHWA-IF-03-017, FHWA,

Washington, DC

Li, G.W., Ni, C., Pei, H.F., Ge, W.M., and Ng, C.W.W. 2013. Stress relaxation of

22
Page 23 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

grouted entirely large diameter B-GFRP soil nail. China Ocean Engineering,

27(4), 495-508.

Smith, I.M., and Su, N. 1997. Three-dimensional FE analysis of a nailed soil wall

curved in plan, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in

Geomechanics, 21(9):583-597.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Toufigh, V., Desai, C.S., Saadatmanesh, H., Toufigh, V., Ahmari, S. and Kabiri, E.

2014. Constitutive Modeling and Testing of Interface between Backfill Soil and

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer, International Journal of Geomechanics, Volume 14, p.

1-8.

Unwin, H. 2001. Carbon fibre soil nailing for railway embankments, Proceedings of

the International Conference Railway Engineering, London, UK, p.697-706.

Wei, W.B., and Cheng, Y.M. 2010. Soil nailed slope by strength reduction and limit

equilibrium methods. Computers and Geotechnics, 37, pp. 602–618.

Zhang, C.C., Zhu, H.H., Xu, Q., Shi, B., and Mei, G.X. 2015. Time-dependent pullout

behavior of GFRP soil nail in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52(6),

670–681.

Zhang, C.C., Zhu, H.H., Shi, B, Wu, F.D., and Yin, J.H. 2015. Experimental

investigation of pullout behavior of fiber reinforced polymer reinforcements in

sand. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 19(3), 04014062.

23
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 24 of 38

Figure Captions

Figure 1 Location of the earth pressure sensors at 100mm above the centre of the

holes (800mm above bottom), with 4 LDTV at the corners and 1 LDTV at the centre

Figure 2 Location of the strain gauges along the soil nails (units in mm)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Figure 3 Laboratory pull-out test for bond strength of FRP pipe

Figure 4 Results of laboratory pull-out tests on FRP nail

Figure 5 Destructive pullout test for CFRP nail A and five steel nails type C at

different vertical pressure (from 1 to 5). The grout pressures for the five groups of

tests are given in the figure.

Figure 6 Non-destructive pullout test for CFRP nail A, steel nail D and E

Figure 7 Axial force distributions along soil nail at vertical stress 50kPa in laboratory

(the data points represent the locations of the strain gauges)

Figure 8 Strain gauges locations on soil nails (some strain gauges are not functioning

properly for X5 and X9)

Figure 9 Schematic diagram of load-deformation cycles of pull-out test

Figure 10 Axial force and friction along soil nails from field test (with same grout

length 2.6m), X11 is CFRP, others are steel

Fig. 11 Three-dimensional finite element mesh for X6

24
Page 25 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

Figure 12 Comparison of field test and simulation results (X3 and X4 are steel nail

and X11 is CFRP) (EXP means experimental results)

Figure 13 Comparison of field test and simulation results for X6 (GFRP nail)

Figure 14 Skin friction development for X6 (GFRP nail)


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Figure 15 Skin friction development for X10 (CFRP nail)

Figure 16 Skin friction development for T6 (steel nail)

25
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 26 of 38

0.3 0.7 0.8m 0.2

Position of Nail A
0.3 EPS 1 EPS 2 EPS 3

Position of Nail B
0.3
Position of Nail C EPS 7 1.6 m
0.3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Position of Nail D
0.3 EPS 4 EPS 5 EPS 6
Position of Nail E

2.0 m

Figure 1 Location of the earth pressure sensors at 100mm above the centre of the

holes (800mm above bottom), with 4 LDTV at the corners and 1 LDTV at the centre

Figure 2 Location of the strain gauges along the soil nails (units in mm)

1
Page 27 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Figure 3 Laboratory pull-out test for bond strength of FRP pipe

43kPa 43kPa

(a) Pullout force – displacement curve for 25mm (b) Pullout force – displacement curve of
GFRP nail using ordinary cement grout 25mm GFRP nail using expansive grout

(c) Pullout force-displacement relations of CFRP


and GFRP nails (Virgin Pull)

Figure 4 Results of laboratory pull-out tests on FRP nail

2
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 28 of 38

Steel Bar at 20kPa


CFRP rod at 20kPa
Steel Bar at 35kPa
CFRP rod at 50kPa Steel Bar at 50kPa
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

0 10 20 0 10 20 0 10 20 0 10 20 0 10 20

Figure 5 Destructive pullout test for CFRP nail A and five steel nails type C at

different vertical pressure (from 1 to 5). The grout pressures for the five groups of

tests are given in the figure.

Steel Soil Nail

Steel Soil Nail


With Saturation

CFRP Soil Nail

Figure 6 Non-destructive pullout test for CFRP nail A, steel nail D and E

3
Page 29 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Figure 7 Axial force distributions along soil nail at vertical stress 50kPa in laboratory

(the data points represent the locations of the strain gauges)

2.6 m
1.8 m
1.4 m
1.0 m
0.6 m
0.2 m

0.2 m 0.4 m 0.4 m 0.4 m 0.4 m 0.8 m

Figure 8 Strain gauges locations on soil nails (some strain gauges are not functioning

properly for X5 and X9)

4
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 30 of 38
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Figure 9 Schematic diagram of load-deformation cycles of pull-out test

X1 X2 X3 X4 X8 X11
250

200
Force(kN)

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance from upper nail end (m)

Figure 10 Axial force and friction along soil nails from field test (with same grout

length 2.6m), X11 is CFRP, others are steel

5
Page 31 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Fig. 11 Three-dimensional finite element mesh for X6

EXP force X3 Model force X3


EXP force X4 Model force X4
EXP force X11 Model force X11
200

150
Force(kN)

100

50

-50
0 2 4 6 8 10
Dista nce from upper nail end (m)

Figure 12 Comparison of field test and simulation results (X3 and X4 are steel nail

and X11 is CFRP) (EXP means experimental results)

6
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 32 of 38

EXP force
Axial Load Comparsion at Different Loads for X6
model force
300 EXP force
model force
250 EXP force

Axial Load(kN)
model force
200

150

100

50
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Location(m)

Figure 13 Comparison of field test and simulation results for X6 (GFRP nail)

Force(kN) 99.29 Force(kN) 200.8 Force(kN) 275


EXP force 100 EXP force 200 EXP force 277
350

300

250
Skin friction (kN/m2)

200

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from nail head

Figure 14 Skin friction development for X6 (GFRP nail)

7
Page 33 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

Force(kN) 102.3 Force(kN) 121.5


Force(kN) 139.8 Force(kN) 46.67
150

Skin friction( kN/m2)


125
100
75
50
25
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Distance from nail head

Figure 15 Skin friction development for X10 (CFRP nail)

Force(kN) 93.28 Force(kN) 184.4


Force(kN) 93.28 Force(kN) 394.1
EXP force 105.6 EXP force 196.8
EXP force 288 EXP force 395
180
160
140
Skin friction( kN/m2)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from nail head

Figure 16 Skin friction development for T6 (steel nail)

8
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 34 of 38

Table 1 Summary of the average strength test results on soil nails

Bar diameter Ultimate stress Elastic modulus Ultimate Yield stress Yield
Bar type
(mm) (MPa) (GPa) strain (%) (MPa) strain (%)

CFRP Bar 12 2355 124 0.01496


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

GFRP Bar 13 654.2 47.2 0.0163

GFRP pipe* 37 387 22 0.018

D shape GFRP
10 425 30 1150
Bar**

Steel Bar 16 688.3 229.6 0.0297 525.9 0.0028

Steel Bar 12 590.5 231.4 0.0277 491.6 0.0023

* GFRP pipe, internal diameter=37mm, external diameter=47mm, FRP bonded with vinyl resin

to manufacture the GFRP pipe

**”D” shaped GFRP bar with a cross section area of 58mm2

*** Tensile test for CFRP and GFRP bar is in accordance with BS 2872:Part10 method

1003:1997. Tensile test for steel reinforcement bar is in accordance with BS

4449:1997/2005.
Page 35 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

Table 2 Elastic and permanent elongation of soil nails C (CFRP) and B (steel)

Steel bar CFRP rod

Pullout force Elastic Permanent Elastic Permanent

(kN) Elongation Elongation Elongation Elongation

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

15 0.315 0.305 2.78 0.48

30 2.125 1.475 6.1 1.285

45 6.945 5.425 11.025 3.835

Note : Overburden pressure = 30kPa

Table 3 Basic soil properties in field (shear strength parameters are measured by triaxial tests)

Bulk Water Liquid Plastic Effective Shear

Soil Type Density ρ Content wn Limit LL Limit PL Strength Parameters

(kg/m3) (%) (%) (%) c' (kPa) φ' (°)

Colluvium 1,750 19 64 30 3.4 35.3

CDG 1,810 27 41 25 6.2 36.1


For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 36 of 38

Table 4 Basic parameters for cement grout

Superplasticiser Combex 100 Compressive


Cement Water Bleeding (at Expan
(150ml per 50kg (454g per Strength (at
Type ratio 180mins) -sion
cement) 50kg cement) 7th day)

Ordinary 42% 0 0 0 0 37.5 MPa


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Expansive 39% 15.38 ml 46.56g 6.2 ml 4.94% 34.5 MPa

Note : Long term strengths of ordinary and expansive grout are similar

Table 5 Summary of tensile test results for FRP nails

Diameter Maximum Stress at max. Young’s


Nail Type
(mm) Load (kN) Load (MPa) Modulus (GPa)

Fiberglass/1 9.36 46.2 671 34.7

Fiberglass/2 9.36 41.9 609 38.1

Carbon fiber/1 10.67 97.1 1068 98.7

Carbon fiber/2 10.57 96.2 1096 101.5


Page 37 of 38
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.

Table 6 Detailed descriptions of soil nails for field tests in Hong Kong

Adjusted
Total Inclination to Type of soil Max. load
No. grout Length Cement
Length (m) horizontal nail (kN)
(m)

X1 10 2.6 20° Steel Ordinary 276


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

X2 10 2.6 20° Steel Ordinary 200

X3 10 2.6 30° Steel Ordinary 134

X4 6 2.6 30° Steel Ordinary 110

X6 6 2.0 30° GFRP Ordinary 277

X7 6 2.0 30° GFRP Ordinary 231

X8 6 2.6 30° Steel Expansive 161

X10 6 2.0 30° CFRP Ordinary 139

X11 6 2.6 30° CFRP Ordinary 173


For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 38 of 38

Table 7 Properties of cable elements for modeling

Reinforcement Type
Element Parameter
Steel Carbon Fiber Glass Fiber

Element Area (m2) 1.2567x10-3 2.01062x10-4 1.9635x10-3


Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Otago on 10/19/15

Young’s Modulus
205 100 36.4
Cable (GPa)

Cable tensile
460 1096 671
strength (MPa)

Grout Stiffness per


Grout 14.2 8.4 17.1
unit length (GPa)

Potrebbero piacerti anche