Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 117
C-1
APPENDIX C
Soil Nail Test Pullout Resistance Database
Introduction was derived from proof tests. For most cases, the maximum
load applied to the nails was 150 percent of DL or less. An
The pullout resistance database is presented in this appen- unexpected pullout failure, occurring before the intended
dix. The information consulted to build the pullout resistance load test level was achieved, was observed in only two proof
database included the following: tests. No unexpected pullout failure was observed in the
verification tests before the intended load test level was
1. Soil Nail Test Results achieved. The nominal bond resistance was established for
• Load applied to the soil nail (P); the selected load tests using methods that are presented in
• Total measured elongation (Δtot); the following subsection.
• Observations made during test (e.g., premature failure, Limitations noted in some of the tests listed in Table C-1
proximity to failure); and included inadequate or missing information related to (i) proj-
• Design Load (DL). ect features (e.g., tested nail not identified in plan or elevation
2. Soil Nail Data views or correlated to a soil condition); (ii) geotechnical data
• Diameter of drill-hole (DDH); (e.g., no geotechnical report, no boring logs, inadequate soil
• Nail total length and bonded length (Ltot, LB); and description); (iii) characteristics of test bars (e.g., missing infor-
• Nail bar diameter (DB). mation on DDH, bonded and unbonded lengths, bar diameter);
3. Geotechnical Data and (iv) installation technique (e.g., information on drilling,
• Site location; casing, or grout strength characteristics were missing). When
• Soil type description; items listed in (i) through (iii) were missing, tests were excluded
• Geotechnical reports including boring logs; from the database.
• Blow count (N) or other field test results; Additional results of soil nail testing may be used to increase
• Groundwater table location; design reliability. In theory, conducting more verification (pos-
• Plans with SNW and boring locations; sibly testing nails to higher loads) should produce a higher
• Description of nail installation method; and degree of reliability in the design.
• Drawings and specifications of soil nails.
Interpretation of Results
Sources of Soil Nail Load-Test Data
The database was organized according to soil type (i.e.,
Soil nail load-test results were obtained from numerous predominantly sand, clay, and weathered rock). The number
sources including: the project team’s database; company mem- of cases pertaining to sandy/gravelly soils was small (i.e., only
bers of ADSC: The International Association of Foundation eight cases); therefore, these data points were combined with
Drilling; soil nail specialty contractors; state departments of those pertaining to sandy soils. In all cases, the bond stress
transportation; and published data. A summary of the available was calculated based on the load (usually expressed in tons),
data organized according to the material type, number of proj- bonded length, and drill-hole diameter. Alternatively, the
ects, and number of tests used is presented in Table C-1. pullout load per unit length, Q, (also previously referred to
The soil nail load-test data was derived from proof load as load transfer, rPO) was calculated. The elastic elongation
and verification tests. Over 95 percent of the data considered of the unbonded bar section was calculated and deducted
OCR for page 118
C-2
Table C-1. Summary of available soil nail tests considered
for database.
Number of
Predominant Number of Number of Used
Available Load
Material Type Projects Load Tests
Tests
Sand 10 168 74
Sand/Gravel 3 31 8
Clay 8 92 45
Weathered Rock 5 67 26
Other 6 88 0
Total 32 446 153
from the total elongation to calculate the net elongation of ultimate condition when the soil nail test was performed in
the bonded length. The net elongation was then divided by clays and clayey sands, when compared to tests in gravel,
the bonded length and the result expressed as a percentage. dense sands, and weathered rock. In the latter cases, soil
Load test results were plotted as mobilized bond stress, q, and nails typically required a significant deformation to mobi-
expressed as a function of the total elongation, net elongation, lize their resistance.
or net elongation/bonded length (defined as the net elonga-
tion divided by the bonded length, and expressed as a percent-
Analysis of Creep Test Data
age). The data was plotted against the total, net, or normalized
net elongations. The usefulness of this approach was limited because none
On average, the curves tended to flatten and exhibited the of the tests showed an excessive deformation rate that indi-
onset of ultimate conditions for a normalized net elongation cated an imminent load failure (or even a nail rejection in the
of B = 0.1 to 0.5 percent (sands), 0.01 to 0.05 percent (clays), U.S. practice). In French soil-nailing practice (Clouterre,
and greater than 0.5 percent (gravel and weathered rock). 2002), deformation rates observed during creep tests at
These trends are consistent with typical soil-strain response increasing loads are analyzed to estimate a “yield” pullout
of these soil types. The data for sand tended to exhibit less load. However, the amount of creep data that was available
variability when the load data was plotted as a function of the for this research project was insufficient for the Clouterre
normalized net elongation. approach to be used.
The interpretation of load-test results included the esti-
mation of an “ultimate” nail load (equivalently, nominal bond
Analysis of Load-Elongation Curves
resistance). Several procedures were used to estimate the nom-
inal bond resistance, including: (a) field observations of “near” Several criteria were used to analyze the load curves and
or imminent failure; (b) evaluation of test curves; (c) analyses establish an “ultimate” load. Techniques similar to those used
of creep test data; and (d) analyses of loads using a maximum to estimate the ultimate compression and tension loads in deep
deflection criteria. The adequacy of each of these approaches is foundations were considered. Some of the techniques consid-
discussed below. ered included the well-known Davisson (1972) method (graph-
ical estimation of an ultimate load from a load-settlement
curve), the De Beer (1967and 1968) method (graphical estima-
Field Observations
tion of ultimate loads based on the graphical representation
The success of this approach was limited because the great of the logarithms of loads and settlements), and the Brinch-
majority of tests were proof tests, which were loaded up to Hansen (1963) method (graphical estimation of ultimate loads
150 percent of DL, and did not exhibit imminent failure. Con- based on a parabolic approximation of the load-settlement
tractors’ notes during load tests, if available, were reviewed. curve). Only in a few cases were these methods helpful to iden-
tify clearly the ultimate pullout resistance.
Methods commonly used in tension tests of piles were also
Evaluation of Test Curves
considered to estimate the ultimate pullout load. In these
This approach was helpful to estimate the elongation methods (e.g., Hirany and Kulhawy, 2002; Koutsoftas, 2000),
at which the test curve flattened and to establish an ulti- the ultimate load is achieved when the soil/nail interface shows
mate load. Observations provided better estimates of an 0.4 to 0.5 in. of movement.
OCR for page 119
C-3
When the ultimate pullout resistance was not evident from out resistance values are not directly related to any specific
the methods mentioned in items (a) through (d), the maximum design equation but, instead, represent the values selected
load was considered to be achieved when the net is at least 1 in. by design engineers possibly based on a combination of
This criterion is consistent with the practice adopted by some recommended ranges (e.g., Elias and Juran, 1991) and val-
SNW contractors to stop a load test. ues based on local experience. Values predicted using cor-
relations with PMT or SPT values were not used because
PMT data was unavailable and because SPT information
Measured and Predicted Values
was incomplete or not directly associated to the soil nail
of Pullout Resistance
test location.
Measured values of pullout resistance were obtained based The mean, standard deviation, and COV of the bias were
on the various criteria described above and are presented for obtained for the lognormal distribution for each of the soil
each soil type. types. In establishing these parameters, the lognormal distri-
For each of these soil types, the predicted pullout resist- bution was adjusted to match the lognormal distribution with
ance was defined as 200 percent of the design load as is com- the lower tail of the resistance bias data points. The statistical
mon in U.S. practice (see Byrne et al., 1998 and Lazarte et al., parameters for these curves are summarized in Table C-5.
2003). These estimations are also provided in Tables C-2 These factors are to perform the calibration of the pullout
through C-4 for each soil type. Note that the predicted pull- resistance factors.
OCR for page 120
Table C-2. Summary of estimation and prediction of nominal bond resistance—sands.
Test
Estimated
Design
Type of Bonded Unbonded Drill-Hole Nail Bar Design Predicted Measured
Pullout
Natural Length, Length, Diameter, Diameter, Load, DL Load, Resistance Resistance
No. Soil/RockType Project Location Test ID
Resistance,
Material LB (ft) LU (ft) DDH (in.) DB (in.) (kip) DL (kips) (kips)
Q (kip/ft)
(kip)
1 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA 4 12 3 NA 1 24 24.0 2.0 48 29
2 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA 1 12 3 NA 1.25 24 24.0 2.0 48 31
3 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA 6 12 3 NA 1 24 24.0 2.0 48 33
4 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA Proof #1 5.2 9.3 6 0.75 9.8 9.8 1.88 19.6 14.3
5 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 11 11 20 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 33
6 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-1-7 9 11 6 1 13.5 13.5 1.5 27 20.5
7 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 8 11 18.5 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 34
8 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 12 11 20 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 34.5
9 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 9 11 20 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 35
10 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 5 11.4 20 6 1.24 22.8 22.8 2.0 45.6 38
11 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA 2 12 3 NA 1 24 24.0 2.0 48 40
12 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-1-5 7.5 7.5 6 1 11.3 11.3 2 22.6 19.2
13 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-1-4 8 7 6 1 12 12 1.5 24 20.4
14 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA 5 12 3 NA 1 24 24.0 2.0 48 41
15 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 7 11 20 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 38
16 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-1-2 5 10 6 1 7.5 7.5 1.5 15 13
17 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 16 11.4 19 6 1.24 22.8 22.8 2.0 45.6 40
18 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 21 11 20 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 39
19 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-2 16 4 3.5 0.875 15.8 25.28 1.6 50.56 45
20 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 20 11.4 20 6 1.24 22.8 22.8 2.0 45.6 41
21 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-1-1 10 15 6 1 15 15 1.5 30 27
22 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-1 14 6 3.5 0.875 15.8 22.12 1.6 44.24 40
23 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 18 11.4 19 6 1.24 22.8 22.8 2.0 45.6 41.5
24 Cohesionless Sand Roseville, CA D-2-1 10 12 6 0.875 18.1 18.1 1.8 36.2 33
25 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 19 11.4 20 6 1.24 22.8 22.8 2.0 45.6 42
26 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 17 11.4 19 6 1.24 22.8 22.8 2.0 45.6 42.5
27 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA 3 12 3 NA 1 24 24.0 2.0 48 45
28 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-3 10 10 3 1.181 29.23 29.23 2.9 58.46 55
29 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-2-1 5.2 9.3 6 0.75 9.8 7.8 1.5 15.6 14.8
OCR for page 121
Table C-2. (Continued).
Test
Estimated
Design
Type of Bonded Unbonded Drill-Hole Nail Bar Design Predicted Measured
Pullout
Natural Length, Length, Diameter, Diameter, Load, DL Load, Resistance Resistance
No. Soil/RockType Project Location Test ID
Resistance,
Material LB (ft) LU (ft) DDH (in.) DB (in.) (kip) DL (kips) (kips)
Q (kip/ft)
(kip)
30 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-3 10 10 3.5 0.875 15.8 15.8 1.6 31.6 30
31 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 15 11 19 6 1.13 27.5 27.5 2.5 55 53
32 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 10 11 14 6 1.00 22 22 2.0 44 43
33 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 14 11 19 6 1.13 27.5 27.5 2.5 55 54
34 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-1-3 7 13 6 1 10.5 10.5 1.5 21 21
35 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 6 11.4 20 6 1.24 22.8 22.8 2.0 45.6 46
36 Cohesionless Sand Roseville, CA D-2-2 10 12 6 0.875 18.1 18.1 1.8 36.2 37
37 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-2 10 10 3 1.181 29.23 29.23 2.9 58.46 60
38 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA 7 12 3 NA 1 24 24.0 2.0 48 50
39 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 13 11 19 6 1.00 22 22 2.0 44 46
40 Cohesionless Sand Milledgeville,GA H-1-6 4 16 6 1 6 6 1.5 12 13
41 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-4 10 10 6 1 15.8 15.8 1.6 31.6 35
42 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-6 10 10 3 1.181 29.23 29.23 2.9 58.46 65
43 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 2 11.5 18.5 6 1.24 23 23 2.0 46 52
44 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 22 11 6 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 50
45 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 4 10.5 19.5 6 1.24 21 21 2.0 42 48
46 Cohesionless Sand Cobb, GA D-3-20 14.4 8.5 8 1.41 36.2 25.92 1.8 51.84 60
47 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 23 11 6 6 1.24 22 22 2.0 44 51
48 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 3 10.5 19.5 6 1.24 21 21 2.0 42 49
49 Cohesionless Sandy Silt San Diego, CA 1 10.5 18 6 1.24 21 21 2.0 42 50
50 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-6 10 24 6 1 15.8 15.8 1.6 31.6 38
51 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-8 10 25 6 1 15.8 15.8 1.6 31.6 39
52 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-8 10 10 2.5 1.181 20 20 2.0 40 50
53 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-21 14.3 8.5 8 1.41 36.2 25.74 1.8 51.48 66
54 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-1 10 10 3 1.181 29.23 29.23 2.9 58.46 77
55 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-4 10 10 3 1.181 29.23 29.23 2.9 58.46 79
56 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-5 10 10 3 1.181 29.23 29.23 2.9 58.46 80
57 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-5 10 10 6 1 15.8 15.8 1.6 31.6 44
58 Cohesionless Gravelly Sand Squaw Valley, CA D-4-7 10 10 2.5 1.181 20 20 2.0 40 57
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 122
Table C-2. (Continued).
Test
Estimated
Design
Type of Bonded Unbonded Drill-Hole Nail Bar Design Predicted Measured
Pullout
Natural Length, Length, Diameter, Diameter, Load, DL Load, Resistance Resistance
No. Soil/RockType Project Location Test ID
Resistance,
Material LB (ft) LU (ft) DDH (in.) DB (in.) (kip) DL (kips) (kips)
Q (kip/ft)
(kip)
59 Cohesionless Clayey Sand San Luis Obispo, CA D-1-7 10 10 3.5 0.875 15.8 15.8 1.6 31.6 46
60 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-27 15.7 7.8 8 1.41 36.2 28.26 1.8 56.52 85
61 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-30 17.4 6 8 1.41 36.2 31.32 1.8 62.64 95
62 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-26 14.75 8.5 8 1.41 36.2 26.55 1.8 53.1 83
63 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-17 14.8 15.2 8 1.41 36.2 26.64 1.8 53.28 84
64 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-16 14.5 12.5 8 1.41 36.2 26.1 1.8 52.2 84
65 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-10 15.9 7.3 8 1.41 36.2 28.62 1.8 57.24 94
66 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-28 14.2 8.5 8 1.41 36.2 25.56 1.8 51.12 86
67 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-22 11 4 8 1.41 36.2 19.8 1.8 39.6 68
68 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-18 14 8.5 8 1.41 36.2 25.2 1.8 50.4 89
69 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-24 12.3 4.5 8 1.41 36.2 22.14 1.8 44.28 79
70 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-19 15.3 9.7 8 1.41 36.2 27.54 1.8 55.08 100
71 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-9 15 7.5 8 1.41 36.2 27 1.8 54 100
72 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-23 14.8 8 8 1.41 36.2 26.64 1.8 53.28 100
73 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-33 11 4 8 1.41 36.2 19.8 1.8 39.6 75
74 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-4 14.5 7.3 8 1.41 36.2 26.1 1.8 52.2 100
75 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-25 14.2 11.5 8 1.41 36.2 25.56 1.8 51.12 100
76 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-32 14 9 8 1.41 36.2 25.2 1.8 50.4 100
77 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-14 12.4 16.7 8 1.41 36.2 22.32 1.8 44.64 90
78 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-13 13.5 3.2 8 1.41 36.2 24.3 1.8 48.6 99
79 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-6 13.5 7 8 1.41 36.2 24.3 1.8 48.6 100
80 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-12 13.2 3.6 8 1.41 36.2 23.76 1.8 47.52 99
81 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-11 12.2 4.5 8 1.41 36.2 21.96 1.8 43.92 93
82 Cohesionless Sand Cobb County, GA D-3-29 9.1 6 8 1.41 36.2 16.38 1.8 32.76 70
OCR for page 123
Table C-3. Summary of estimation and prediction of nominal bond resistance—fine-grained soils.
Drill- Design Test Estimated
Type of Bonded Unbonded Nail Bar
Test Hole Load, Design Pullout Predicted Measured
Natural Length, Length, Diameter,
No. Soil Type Location
ID Resistance (kips) Resistance (kips)
Diameter, DL Load, DL Resistance, Q
Material LB (ft) LU (ft) DB (in.)
DDH (in.) (kips) (kips) (kips/ft)
1 Fine-grained Sandy Clay San Luis Obispo, CA 1.6
D-5-1 11 18 6 1(6) 15.8 17.6 35.2 31
2 Fine-grained Sandy Clay San Luis Obispo, CA 1.6
D-5-2 13 13 6 0.875 15.8 20.8 41.6 37
3 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-1 15.3 6.5 8 1 22 16.83 33.66 31
4 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-2 17 4 8 1 22 18.7 37.4 35.7
5 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-3 16 7.5 8 1 22 17.6 35.2 33.8
6 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-4 16.75 6.5 8 1 22 18.425 36.85 35.6
7 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-5 16.8 6.5 8 1 22 18.48 36.96 35.9
8 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-6 15.4 6.5 8 1 22 16.94 33.88 33.0
9 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-7 16.4 12.5 8 1 22 18.04 36.08 35.4
10 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-8 15.25 13.5 8 1 22 16.775 33.55 33.0
11 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-9 13 14 8 1 22 14.3 28.6 28.3
D-10-
12 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
20 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 27
13 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-10 13 8 8 1 22 14.3 28.6 28.5
14 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-11 14.5 12 8 1 22 15.95 31.9 31.9
15 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-12 14.2 8.8 8 1 22 15.62 31.24 31.4
16 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-13 14.2 9.3 8 1 15.6 15.62 31.24 31.6
17 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-14 15 8.2 8 1 22 16.5 33 33.5
18 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-15 15.4 17.8 8 1 22 16.94 33.88 34.6
19 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-16 16.75 6.5 8 1 22 18.425 36.85 37.8
20 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-17 12 10.5 8 1 22 13.2 26.4 27.2
21 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-18 15.5 7.7 8 1 22 17.05 34.1 35.3
22 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-19 15.5 8 8 1 22 17.05 34.1 35.5
23 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-20 17.8 5 8 1 22 19.58 39.16 40.9
24 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-21 17.3 5.7 8 1 22 19.03 38.06 40.0
25 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-22 16.8 6.25 8 1 22 18.48 36.96 39.0
26 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-23 17.25 5.7 8 1 22 18.975 37.95 40.2
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 124
Table C-3. (Continued).
Drill- Design Test Estimated
Type of Bonded Unbonded Nail Bar
Test Hole Load, Design Pullout Predicted Measured
Natural Length, Length, Diameter,
No. Soil Type Location
ID Resistance (kips) Resistance (kips)
Diameter, DL Load, DL Resistance, Q
Material LB (ft) LU (ft) DB (in.)
DDH (in.) (kips) (kips) (kips/ft)
27 Fine-grained Clay Solana Beach, CA 1.1
D-6-24 16.8 6 8 1 22 18.48 36.96 39.4
28 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-8 7.5 15 8 0.875 13.6 10.2 20.4 22
29 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-2 10 20 6 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 30
30 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-9 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 31
D-10-
31 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
19 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 32
32 Fine-grained Silty Clay Chattanooga, TN 2.0
1 8 NA 6 1 16 16 32 38
33 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-1 10 20 6 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 33
34 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-5 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 33.5
35 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-6 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 34
36 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-3 10 20 6 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 35
D-10-
37 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
13 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 36
38 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-4 10 15 8 ` 13.6 13.6 27.2 37
39 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
D-10-7 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 38
Sandy Lean
40 Fine-grained San Luis Obispo, CA 1.6
Clay D-5-4 10 10 6 0.875 15.8 16 32 46
D-10-
41 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
10 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 40
D-10-
42 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
11 10 20 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 41
D-10-
43 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
14 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 42
D-10-
44 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
17 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 43
D-10-
45 Fine-grained Clay Guadalupe River, CA 1.4
16 10 15 8 0.875 13.6 13.6 27.2 44
OCR for page 125
Table C-4. Summary of estimation and prediction of nominal bond resistance—rock.
Drill- Design Test Estimated
Type of Bonded Unbonded Nail Bar
Soil Test Hole Load, Design Pullout Predicted Measured
Natural Length, Length, Diameter,
No. Location
Type ID Resistance (kips) resistance (kips)
Diameter, DL Load, DL Resistance, Q
DB (5) (in.)
Material LB (ft) LU (ft)
DDH (in.) (kips) (kips) (kips/ft)
1 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-10 15 5 6 NA 27.1 40.5 2.7 81 55
2 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-7-5 10 10 6 1 34 34 3.4 68 47
3 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-7-4 10 10 6 1 34 34 3.4 68 50
4 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-7-3 10 10 6 1 34 34 3.4 68 53
5 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-1 9 15 6 NA 27.1 24.3 2.7 48.6 40
6 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-3 10 10 6 NA 27.1 27 2.7 54 47
7 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-7-6 10 10 6 1 34 34 3.4 68 62
8 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-7-1 10 10 6 1.27(6) 34 34 3.4 68 65
9 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-7-2 10 10 6 1.27(6) 34 34 3.4 68 67
10 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-7 9.8 26.2 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 84
11 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-12 10 19 6 NA 27.1 27 2.7 54 54
12 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-2 9.8 29.5 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 85
13 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-5 10 10 6 NA 27.1 27 2.7 54 55
14 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-8 9.8 19.7 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 86
15 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-1 9.8 26.2 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 88
16 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-5 9.8 19.7 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 89
17 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-3 9.8 31.2 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 90
18 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-6 9.8 31.2 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 91
19 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-4 9.8 14.8 4 1.128 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 94
20 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-10 9.8 4.9 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 95
21 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-6 9 17 6 NA 27.1 24.3 2.7 48.6 55
22 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-9 9.8 29.5 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 99
23 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-12 9.8 19.7 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 102
24 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-4 9 11 6 NA 27.1 24.3 2.7 48.6 60
25 Rock Shale Pike County, KY P-1-11 9.8 4.9 4 1.27 42.15 42.14 4.3 84.28 105
26 Rock Mélange Marin County, CA D-8-2 7 13 6 NA 27.1 18.9 2.7 37.8 48
OCR for page 126
C-10
Table C-5. Statistics of bias for nominal bond strength.
Resistance Parameters
Number
Coefficient Log Log
of Points Mean of Standard
of Mean of Standard
Material Distribution
in Bias Deviation
Variation Bias Deviation
Type
Database
λR σR μln σln
N COVR
Sand and
82 Lognormal 1.050 0.25 0.24 0.02 0.24
Sand/Gravel
Fine-
45 Lognormal 1.033 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05
Grained
Rock 26 Lognormal 0.920 0.18 0.19 -0.10 0.19
All 153 Lognormal 1.050 0.22 0.21 0.03 0.21
Tijdshift der Openbar Verken van Belgie, No. 6 (1967) and No. 4, 5,
References
and 6 (1968).
Brinch-Hansen, J. (1963). “Discussion of ‘Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Elias, V. and I. Juran (1991). “Soil Nailing for Stabilization of Highway
Response: Cohesive Soils,’ ” Journal for Soil Mechanics and Foun- Slopes and Excavations.” Publication FHWA-RD-89-198, Federal
dation Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 89, Highway Administration, Washington D.C.
No. 4, pp. 241–242. Hirany, A. and F.H. Kulhawy (2002). “On the Interpretation of Drilled
Byrne, R. J., D. Cotton, J. Porterfield, C. Wolschlag, and G. Ueblacker Foundation Load Test Results.” In Deep Foundations 2002 (GSP
(1998). “Manual for Design and Construction Monitoring of 116), M.W. O’Neill and F.C. Townsend (Eds.), ASCE, Reston, VA.,
Soil Nail Walls.” Report FHWA-SA-96-69R, Federal Highway pp. 1018–1028.
Administration, Washington, D.C. Koutsoftas, D.C. (2000). “High Capacity Steel H-Piles in Franciscan
Clouterre (2002). “Additif 2002 aux recommandations Clouterre 1991” Rock.” In Proceedings of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colorado,
(Trans.: 2002 Addenda to Recommendations Clouterre 1991), In August 5-8, N.D. Dennis, Jr., R. Castelli, and M.W. O’Neill (Eds.),
French, Presses de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 158-177.
France. Lazarte, C. A., V. Elias, R. D. Espinoza, and P. J. Sabatini (2003).
Davisson, M. T. (1972). “High Capacity Piles,” Proceedings of Lecture
“Soil Nail Walls.” Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7, Pub-
Series on Innovations in Foundation Construction, American Society
lication FHWA-IF-03-017, Federal Highway Administration,
of Civil Engineers, Illinois Section, Chicago, pp. 81–112.
Washington, D.C.
DeBeer, E. E. (1967 and 1968) “Proefondervindlijke bijdrage tot de studie
van het grensdraag vermogen van zand onder funderingen op staal.”
