Date post: | 16-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | samirsinh-parmar |
View: | 272 times |
Download: | 6 times |
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY FOR COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE LOAD IN COHESIONLESS SOIL BY SOIL NAILING – HORIZONTAL V/S
INCLINED NAILED
Dharmsinh Desai University, Faculty Of Technology
Nadiad
Prof. Samirsinh P ParmarAsst. Professor,
Department of Civil EngineeringMail: [email protected]
OUT LINE OF PRESENTATION
2
Introduction
Literature Review
Analytical Study
Experimental Study
Conclusion
Future Scope
References
INTRODUCTION
Soil nailing is the method of reinforcing the soil with steel bars or other material.
It has been alternative technique to other conventional supporting system as it offers flexibility, rapid construction & competitive cost.
The purpose is to increase the Tensile & Shear Strength of the soil & Restrain its displacements.
Soil nailing is a construction technique used to reinforce soil to make it more stable.
In this technique, soil is reinforced with slender elements such as reinforcing bars which are called as nails. These reinforcing bars are installed into pre-drilled holes and then grouted.
3
Soil nailing technique is used for slopes or excavations alongside highways, railway lines etc.
4Figure:- Soil Nailing In Railway Construction
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
Excavation of Slope
Drilling Nail Holes
Nail Installation and Grouting
Construction of Temporary Shotcrete Facing
Construction of Subsequent Levels
Construction of a Final, Permanent Facing
5
APPLICATIONS Soil Nail Walls for Temporary and Permanent Cut Slopes Retaining Structure under Existing Bridge Abutments Repair and Reconstruction of Existing Retaining Structures
6
ADVANTAGES OF SOIL NAILING
• Economic Advantage10% to 30% saving in cost when compared to an Anchored Diaphragm Wall.
• Simple & Light Construction Equipment- Drilling Ring for nail installation- Guns for shotcrete application
• Adaptability to Site ConditionsIn heterogeneous ground where boulder or hard rocks may be encountered. 7
• SpaceSoil nailing provides an obstruction free working space which can result in
considerable reduction in construction time for basement works and tunnel construction.
• Structure StabilitySoil nailing use large number of nails, so failure of any one nail may not be
determine to the structure stability.
8
LIMITATION OF THE SYSTEM
It requires cuts which can stand unsupported for depths of about 1 to 2 m at least for a few hours prior to shotcreting & nailing. Otherwise a pretreatment such as grouting may be necessary to stabilize the face.
Soil nail walls are not well-suited where large amounts of groundwater seep into the excavation because of the requirement to maintain a temporary unsupported excavation face.
Construction of soil nail walls requires specialized and experienced contractors.
9
COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM
Figure:- Component of Soil Nail Wall10
SCOPE OF WORK
11
This dissertation is divided into two parts.
1) Experimental Work on Soil Nail WallThe main aim of this study is to evaluate, how the soil nailed structure behaves at different Inclination of Nailed Angle i.e. 10°, 15° and different L (length of nail )/H (height of the wall) ratio i.e. 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 in comparison to Horizontal Nailing, i.e. 0° inclination. The Vertical Spacing (Sv) and Horizontal Spacing (Sh) is 10 cm between two nails.
This experimental work has been carried out in a laboratory by using 12 mm dia. Steel Bars (12 nos.) as nail on Cohesionless Soil (Poorly Graded Sand) in a Tank (size: 100 × 50 × 80 cm) at a Relative Density of 50%. Wooden ply board (size: 1.9 × 50 × 80 cm) was used as a Rigid Facing. Maximum ultimate load has been found out by applying the load up to the nailed wall failure.
2) Analysis of Soil Nailed WallAnalysis of soil nail wall using method proposed by Ramlingaraju (1996) and Gupta (2003) are based on Moment Equilibrium Approach assuming the rupture surface as log-spiral meeting the ground at 90°.
The calculation for the Factor of Safety has been shown using Excel tool.
12
LITERATURE REVIEW
ANALYTICAL STUDY
• The design of a soil nail wall should ensure that the system is safe against all of the potential failure conditions are
External Failure ModeInternal Failure ModeFacing Failure Mode
13
• External Failure Modes
Global Failure Mode
Davis Deign Method
German Design Method
Kinematical Limit Analysis
French Multicriteria Analysis
Ramlingaraju and Gupta Design Method
Sliding Failure Mode
Bearing Failure Mode 14
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The methods proposed by Ramligaraju (1996) and Gupta (2003) are based on Moment Equilibrium Approach assuming the rupture surface as log-spiral meeting the ground at 90°.
15
16
MWV = Moment of W (1 ± αv) about ‘O’
MWH = Moment of W*αh about ‘O’
Mqv = Moment of Q (1 ± αv) about ‘O’
Mqh = Moment of Q*αh about ‘O’
Mc = Moment of Cohesion about ‘O’
𝐅 .𝐎.𝐒=∑ 𝐓 𝐢∗ 𝐥𝐢+∑ 𝐓𝐜𝐢∗ 𝐥𝐜𝐢+𝐌𝐜
𝐌𝐰𝐯+𝐌𝐰𝐡+𝐌𝐪𝐯+𝐌𝐪𝐡
MWV = Moment of W (1 ± αv) about ‘O’=
MWH = Moment of W*αh about ‘O’=
17
Mqv = Moment of Q (1 ± αv) about ‘O’
=
Mqh = Moment of Q*αh about ‘o’
=
Mc = Moment of cohesion about ‘O’
18
19
𝐅 .𝐎.𝐒=∑ 𝐓 𝐢∗ 𝐥𝐢+∑ 𝐓𝐜𝐢∗ 𝐥𝐜𝐢+𝐌𝐜
𝐌𝐰𝐯+𝐌𝐰𝐡+𝐌𝐪𝐯+𝐌𝐪𝐡
= Mobilized shear in ith nail.It acts normal to the nail axis
𝐓𝐜𝐢=𝐂∗𝐌𝐩𝐥𝐬𝐢∗𝐒𝐡 [𝟏−( 𝐓 𝐢
𝐓𝐩 )]
Figure:- Forces acting on the Wedge ‘abd’
lciα
20Figure:- Forces acting on the Wedge ‘abd’
= Axial force in the ith nail at the point of maximum bearing moment
𝑻 𝒊= (𝐜+𝝈𝒏𝒊 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝜹 )𝒑𝒊𝑳𝒆𝒊 /𝑺𝒉
𝐅 .𝐎.𝐒=∑𝐓 𝐢∗ 𝐥𝐢+∑ 𝐓𝐜𝐢∗ 𝐥𝐜𝐢+𝐌𝐜
𝐌𝐰𝐯+𝐌𝐰𝐡+𝐌𝐪𝐯+𝐌𝐪𝐡
li
α
= Length of the ith nail behind the failure surface
= Axial force in the ith nail at the point of maximum bearing moment
= Fully plastic axial force
A = c/s area of the nail =
d = Diameter of nail
D = Grout hole diameter
= γ * Depth of nail from top
= Fully plastic moment capacity of nail (depends on nail yield stress and shape of nail).
= Yield stress of nail. = Shear width C = 4 (Range 2 to 5)
21
𝐓𝐜𝐢=𝐂∗𝐌𝐩𝒍𝒔𝒊∗𝐒𝐡 [𝟏−( 𝐓 𝐢
𝐓𝐩 )]
= Axial force in the ith nail at the point of maximum bearing moment
c = Unit cohesion of the soil.
δ = Mobilized soil-nail interface friction angle =
= Perimeter of the ith nail
= Length of the ith nail behind the failure surface
f1 = limit bond stress of the soil nail interface. (ith obtained from pull-out test.)
ϴ = Nail inclination with horizontal
= Normal stress at the mid depth of ith nail in the length.
,
= Coefficient of active earth pressure
Horizontal spacing between two nails 22
𝐓𝐜𝐢=𝐂∗𝐌𝐩𝐥𝐬𝐢∗𝐒𝐡 [𝟏−( 𝐓 𝐢
𝐓𝐩 )]
Illustrative Example
RAMLINGARAJU AND GUPTA METHOD• Height of wall, H = 8 m• Φ = 30⁰• c = 2 kN/m2
• ϒ = 18 kN/m3
• Surcharge, q = 8 kN/m2
• Nail inclination, θ = 10⁰• fy =250000 kN/m2
• Length of Nail = 6.4 m• Log-spiral failure angle, α = 35⁰• Horizontal and Vertical Spacing, Sv & Sh = 0.7 • Number of nail required, n = 11
23
Forces Acting on the Wedge1) Weight W of the wedge ‘abd’ along with vertical seismic force, i.e. W (1 ±)
W = Wt. of ‘Obd’ – Wt. of ‘Oed’ – Wt. ‘aed’
Moment M1 of Wt. W1 of ‘Obd’ about “O”.
= 4039.21 kN m/m
Moment M2 of Wt. W2 of ‘Oed’ about “O”.
24
Moment M3 of Wt. W3 of ‘aed’ about “O”.
2) Moment of W * about “O”.Moment M4 of W1 * about “O”.
Moment M5 of W2 * about “O”.
Moment M6 of W3 * about “O”.
25
3) Moment at Q about “O”.
Moment of Q * (1 ±) about “O”.
Moment of Q * about “O”.
4) Moment of Cohesion force c about “O”.
26
From trial and error, we get
5) Moment due to pull-out resistance of the length of nails behind the slip surface
27
6) Moment of the mobilized shear acting in the nail normal to their axis
28
29
30
Excel Sheet
8 m α 35 degree8 kN/m2 θ 10 degree2 kN/m2 Sv 0.70 m30 degree Sh 0.70 m18 kN/m3 αh 0.10
αv 0.05fy 250 N/mm2
25 mm n 1125 mm i 1
6.40 m C 4
RAMLINGRAJU & GUPTA METHOD, Vertical Wall
Height of nailed wall, H
Ka
Length of Nail, L
0.33Nail Diameter, d
Groute Diameter, D
INPUTS
Unit weight of soil, γδ 20
Surchrge, qcɸ
Ramlingaraju and Gupta Method
M1 =4278.27 kN-m
δ =12.29 deg
M2 =1095.21 kN-m
M3 =1298.74 kN-m
Mwv =1978.54 kN-m
{γ*H3*x3/[3(1+9*tan2ϕ)]} * [e3*α*tanϕ{3*tanϕ*cos(ϕ+α)+sin(ϕ+α)} - 4*sinϕ]
cot-1[(1/sinϕ)*(2*sin(ϕ+α)/sinα) - cosϕ]
1/12*γ*H3*x3*{sin3α/sin3(ϕ+α)}*{sin(ϕ+δ)*sin2ϕ*cos(ϕ+δ)/sin2δ}
1/2*γ*H3*cot(ϕ+α)*[x*cosϕ - y - (cot(ϕ+α)/3)]
(1±αv)*(M1 - M2 - M3)
M4 =519.87 kN-m
M5 =99.62 kN-m
M6 =208.07 kN-m
Mwh =212.18 kN-m
1/2*γ*H3*αh*cot(ϕ+α)*[x*sinϕ + 1/3)]
M4 - M5 - M6
{γ*H3*x3*αh/[3(1+9*tan2ϕ)]}*[e3*α*tanϕ{3*tanϕ*sin(ϕ+α)-cos(ϕ+α)}-3*tanϕ*sinϕ+cosϕ]
1/12*γ*H3*x3*αh*{sin3α/sin3(ϕ+α)}*{sin2(ϕ+δ)*sin2ϕ/sin2δ}
31
32
Mqv = Mqh =169.96 kN-m 11.05 kN-m
Mc =183.19 kN-m(c*H2*x2/2*tanϕ)*(e2*α*tanϕ - 1)
q*H2*y*[x*cosϕ - y/2]*[1±αv] q*H2*αh*x*y*sinϕ
li = lci =4.30 m 9.16 m
Ti = Tp = fy*A2.77 kN 122.5 kN
Tci =1.80 kN
Mpi = Msc =11.91 kN-m 16.49 kN-m
{(C*Mp)/(lsi*Sh)}*[1-(Ti/Tp)]
Ti * li Tci * lci
On*sin(ϕ+αi-θ)
(c + σni*tanδ)*Pi*lei / Sh
On*cosϕ
33
n = 11 αi li lci Ti Tci Mpi Msc1 4.00 4.30 9.16 2.77 1.80 11.91 16.492 7.20 4.99 9.46 4.57 2.45 22.8 23.183 10.20 5.66 9.75 6.43 2.93 36.39 28.574 13.20 6.36 10.05 8.53 3.36 54.25 33.775 16.10 7.04 10.35 10.82 3.68 76.17 38.096 19.00 7.74 10.65 13.45 3.98 104.1 42.397 21.80 8.44 10.96 16.36 4.23 138.08 46.368 24.50 9.12 11.27 19.59 4.46 178.66 50.269 27.20 9.80 11.57 23.29 4.63 228.24 53.57
10 29.90 10.50 11.89 27.49 4.80 288.65 57.0711 32.50 11.19 12.21 32.12 4.89 359.42 59.71
1498.67 449.46
i =
0.9۴ = S۽����σ ܔ�܂ �ܖ�స ା�σ ܋ܔ܋܂ ା� ܖ܋ۻ�
�స� ା� � ା� ା� ൌ��
34
6 m α8 kN/m2 i2 kN/m2 αh
38 degree αv
18 kN/m3 λ (+) ve sign (-) ve sign250 kN/m2 5.44 6.01
Kad 0.286 0.265Max. Kad
250000 kN/m2
Bearing Capacity of soil
Static Case Seismic CaseHeight of nailed wall, H 0
Surchrge, q 0c 0.10ɸ 0.05
Unit weight of soil, γ
δKa 0.286fy
25.340.217
ANALYSIS OF SOIL NAIL WALL
Swami Saran
Paϒ = Paϒi =70.31 kN/m 22.36 kN/m
Paq = Paqi =10.42 kN/m 3.32 kN/m
Pac = PTs =11.18 kN/m 25.68 kN/m
PTst =69.55 kN/m
Maϒ = Maϒi =140.62 kN-m/m 67.08 kN-m/m
Maq = Maqi =31.26 kN-m/m 13.28 kN-m/m
Mac = MTs =33.54 kN-m/m 80.36 kN-m/m
MTst = 138.34 kN-m/m
(Kad - Ka) * q * H
Paϒ + Paq - Pac
Paϒi + Paqi2*c*Ka1/2*H
Total Earth Pressure & Moments Dynamic Increment & Moment
Paϒ * H/3
Maϒ + Maq - Mac
Paϒi * H/2
Maϒi + Maqi
Paq * H/2 (2/3) * Paqi * H
0.5 * Ka * ϒ * H2 0.5 * (Kad - Ka) * ϒ * H2
Ka * q * H
c*Ka1/2*H2
25 mm μ 0.54.8 m L/H 0.8
Ww = ϒ * H * L Wswh = Ww * αh Wswv = ± Ww * αv
kN/m 518.40 51.84 25.92Mw = Ww * L/2 Mswh = Ww * H/2 *αh Mswv = ± Ww * L/2 * αv
kN-m/m 1244.16 155.52 62.21Q = q* L Psqh = q * L * αh Psqv = ± q * L * αv
kN/m 38.40 3.84 1.92Mq = q * L2/2 Msqh = Q * H * αh Msqv = Q * L/2 * αv
kN-m/m 92.16 23.04 4.61
Diameter of nails, d
Static Case
Force & Moments related Nail Soil Excavation
Seismic Case
Assume Length of nails, L
35
36
External Stability Sliding
Static Case Seismic Case
Fs =μ (Ww + Q)/PTst Fs =μ (Ww + Q)*(1 ± αv)/(PTst + Paϒi + Paqi + (Ww + Q)*αh
4.00 > 2, Safe 1.94> 1.5, Safe Overturning
Static Case Seismic Case
Fo =(Mw + Mq) / MTst Fo =(Mw + Mq + Mswv + Msqv)/(MTst + Maϒi + Maqi + Mswh +Msqh)
9.66 > 2, Safe 3.54> 1.5, Safe Tilting / Bearing Failure
Static Case Seismic Case SBC (kN/m2)=250
σmax = [(Ww + Q)/L] + (MTst * 6/L2) σmax =[(Ww+Q)*(1±αv)/L] + ((MTst + MTs + Mswh + Msqh) * 6/L2)
152.03< SBC, Safe 225.26< SBC, Safe
σmin = [(Ww + Q)/L] - (MTst * 6/L2) σmin =[(Ww+Q)*(1±αv)/L] - (MTst + MTs + Mswh + Msqh) * 6/L2)
79.98> 0, Safe 18.35> 0, Safe
37
hi 6 mσvi = σvi =
152.03 kN/m2 248.21 kN/m2
M1 = M1 =
138.33 kN-m/m 226.52 kN-m/m
Assume Ma iϒ = ϒ(Kad-Ka) hi3
(2H-hi) / 4HMaqi =
q(Kad-Ka) hi2
(3H-hi) / 3HFnail = 67.07 kN-m/m 13.25Fmax = M3 =
31.13 * Sv2 485.4 kN-m/m
Tstress = Fmax =137500 kN/m2 70.99 * Sv
2
Tforce = Tforce =67.496 kN 84.369 kN
Fmax = Tforce Fmax = Tforce
Sv = 1.5 m Sv = 1.1 m
(Ka * σvi - 2c*Ka1/2) * Sv * Sh
M1 + Maϒi + Maqi + αh(ϒ*L*hi2/2) + αh*q*L*hi
(ϒi * hi + q) ± αv*(ϒi * hi + q )+ M3 * 6/L2
In Limiting Case In Limiting Case
(ϒ * hi + q) + M1 * 6/L2
1/6*ϒ*Ka*hi3 + (Ka*q*hi
2/2) - (c*Ka
1/2*hi2)
1/6 * ϒ * Kad *hi3 + (Kad *q * hi
2 / 2)
0.55 * fy
Tstress * π/4 * d2
(Ka * σvi - 2c*Ka1/2) * Sv
2
Take hi = H
Sv = Sh
1.25 * Tstress * π/4 * d2
Kad * σvi * Sv2
Tension FailureStatic Case Seismic Case
Internal Stability
Figure : (a) The Cross-Section of the Soil Nailed Wall with a Planar Failure Surface
(b) The Most Efficient Installation Angle of a Nail
1. The Effect of Upward Nail Inclination to the Stability of Soil Nailed Structure (2004)
By: Erol Güler and Cemal F. Bozkurt
38
Previous work on Topic
(a) (b)
Downward Nailing,
Upward Nailing,
Where,
L = Length of the failure surface,
w = The weight of the soil portion in the left part of the failure surface,
c = Cohesion of the soil,
Φ = Internal friction angle of the soil,
T = Mobilized tension on the nail,
β = The angle of the nail with the failure surface,
H = Height of the wall,
ϒ = Unit weight of the soil.
39
c
(kN/m2)
ϕ
( ° )
Factor of Safety (F.S.1) for nails
inclined 15° below horizontal
Factor of Safety (F.S.2) for nails
inclined 5° above horizontal
%difference
5 20 0.68 0.77 13%
5 30 0.94 1.07 13%
100 10 4.99 5.66 13%
150 10 7.41 8.41 13%
40
Table: Comparison of Factor of Safeties for soil nailed walls with different nail inclinations (ϒsoil = 19 kN/m3)
Depth of excavation (m) Nails inclined (-5°) Nails inclined (15°)
0.0 0 0
2.4 5 5
3.4 5 10
4.4 5 15
5.4 10 20
6.4 15 25
41
Table: Total horizontal lateral displacement at the top of the wall (δh in mm)
2. An Experimental Study on Horizontal and Inclined Soil Nails in Sand (2013)By: Dr. A. K. Verma, Dr. D. R. Bhatt and Vaibhav Javia
Experimental Setup
Tank:-Size: 100 cm X 50 cm X 80 cm (One side wall and both end walls - 5 mm thick mild steel, remaining side of the -10 mm thick Perspex sheet )
Materials
Soil:-Poorly graded sand (SP)
Nails:-Steel bars - 12 mm diameter
42
Figure(a): Horizontal Nailing
Figure(b): Inclined Nailing
(a)
(b)
43
The equation of factor of safety,
44Figure:- Load v/s Settlement
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Identification of Soil Grain Size Analysis Specific Gravity Test Relative Density Direct Shear Test
Experimental Set-up for Laboratory Load Test Model Tank Model Wall Facing Preparation of Nails Testing Procedure
45
Grain Size Analysis:
46
From graph: D10 = 0.40, D30 = 0.65, D60 = 1.80Cu = 4.50, CC = 0.094
Type of soil: Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
0.01 0.1 1 100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Series1
Sieve Dia. (mm)
N (%
)
Sr. No. Properties of Sand Tested Values
1 Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu 4.50
2 Coefficient of Curvature, Cc 0.094
3 Type of Soil Poorly graded sand
4 ρmax 1.89 gm/cm3
5 ρmin 1.49 gm/cm3
6 Specific Gravity, G 2.63
7 Angle of internal friction, ϕ 38.57°
8 Relative Density, Rd 50 %
9 Field Density, ρd 1.67 gm/cm3 47
Experimental Set-up For Laboratory Load Test
Model Tank:• Experiments on model wall were conducted in a rigid steel tank directly rested on
base frame of steel channels which in turn rested on cement concrete floor.
• Test tank size was 100 cm × 50 cm × 80 cm.
• Three sides of tank was built by 5 mm thick mild steel. The remaining fourth side of the tank was built by 10 mm thick Perspex sheet.
• The total inside length of the tank behind the facing was 60 cm.
• Vertical load is applied gradually by hydraulic pressure.
48
49Figure:- Model Tank and Nail Arrangement
Figure :- Play Board
Preparation of Nails:• Steel bars is used Fe 415 and diameter of 12 mm.• Steel bars was cut according to design (L/H) and then threading is done on the end
part of the nails and then front part is grind for easy penetration in sand. • The threading was to facilitate to tighten the nuts on it (nail) to fit with ply board.
Steel bars used were Fe 415 and diameter of 12 mm.
Model Wall Facing:• A 19 mm thick ply board (80 cm high and 48 cm wide) is used as a pre-placed
continuous facing. Circular holes of diameter 16 mm was made on pre-placed continuous facing at the horizontal and vertical spacing.
50Figure :- Nails
Loading Frame
51
Dial Gauge
Proving Ring
40 cm
100 cm
50 cm
20 cm
19 mm
80 cm
48 c
m
Steel Plate
Ply Board
Setup for Load Test
Testing procedure:-• Ply board facing was placed vertically across the tank at a distance of 60 cm from
rear end of tank.
• Initially load test was perform on plate size (48 cm × 8 cm × 2 cm) without nailing condition.
• Initially sand was filled on both sides of facing with same soil and density. Then other side of tank will empty step by step as nailing was done so it could be similar to actual practice.
• Plate was place at 20 cm from the inner side of facing. Two dial gauges will fit diagonally on strip footing to get average deflection.
• The load was apply gradually by means of loading frame. The load was measure by proving ring.
• Ultimate load have been found out using double tangent method.52
Table: List of Experimental Trials
53
Trial No.
Length of nail
L (cm)
Height of sand fill
H (cm)L/H
Horizontal Spacing
Sh (cm)
Vertical Spacing
Sv (cm)
Nail Pattern
Nail Angle
θ (deg.)
1 24 40 0.6 10 10 3 x 4 0°
2 24 40 0.6 10 10 3 x 4 10°
3 24 40 0.6 10 10 3 x 4 15°
4 28 40 0.7 10 10 3 x 4 0°
5 28 40 0.7 10 10 3 x 4 10°
6 28 40 0.7 10 10 3 x 4 15°
7 32 40 0.8 10 10 3 x 4 0°
8 32 40 0.8 10 10 3 x 4 10°
9 32 40 0.8 10 10 3 x 4 15°
RESULTS
54
L/H θ⁰Inclination
Ultimate Load(N)
Settlement(mm)
0.8
0 1700 1.8
10 1900 1.8
15 1300 2
0.7
0 1200 3
10 1350 2.4
15 1150 3.5
0.6
0 700 1.8
10 1100 1.8
15 650 2.2
1. Effect of L/H ratio
From the figure shows that the value of Ultimate Load carrying capacity is maximum for L/H = 0.8 in sand for driven nails.
55
0.6 0.7 0.8600
1100
1600
2100
0⁰ 10⁰ 15⁰L/H Ratio
Ulti
mat
e L
oad
(N)
Fig.: L/H ratio v/s Ultimate Load Curve for Different Nail Inclination
2. Effect of Nail Inclination
From figure shows that the value of ultimate load is maximum for 10 inclination ⁰and it is reduced for the 15 inclination of nail in comparison to horizontal nail.⁰
56
0 5 10 15600
1100
1600
2100
0.8 0.7 0.6Nail Inclination, θ ( )⁰
Ulti
mat
e L
oad
(N)
Fig.: Nail Inclination v/s Ultimate Load Curve for Different L/H ratio
57
CONCLUSION
From the experimental study load carrying capacity is maximum for L/H = 0.8.
For the nail inclination of 10 the load carrying capacity is maximum and settlement ⁰reduces as compared to horizontal nails.
When nail inclination is 15 the load carrying capacity and settlement reduction ⁰reduce as compared to horizontal nails. So, inclined nail up to 10 are more effective ⁰as compared to horizontally inserted nails for same configuration.
58
REFERENCES
• Bowles J. E., “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 5th edition, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company, 668.
• BS 8009: 1995 [Strengthened / reinforced soil and other fills]
• C. R. I. Clayton, R. I. Woods, A. J. Bond, J. Milititsky, “Earth Pressure & Earth Retaining Structures”, 3rd Edition, CRC Press, 443.
• D. A. Bruce, “Soil Nailing: Application and Practice – Part 1 & 2”.
• Dhameliya K. B., (2014), “Analysis of Soil Nailed Surface”, M. E. Thesis, GTU.
• Dr. Verma A. K., Dr. Bhatt D. R. & Javia Vaibhav, (2013), “An Experimental Study on Horizontal and Inclined Soil Nails in Sand”, Global Research Analysis, Volume 2, ISSN No 2277-8160.
• Dr. Verma A. K., Patel D. D., Joshi V. H. & Javia V. M., (2015), “A Study of Soil Nailing in Sand”, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 33(3),71-72.
• Erol Güler and Cemal F. Bozkurt, (2004), “The Effect of Upward Nail Inclination to the Stability of Soil Nailed Structure” Geo Trans, ASCE, 2213-2220. 59
• FHWA, (2003), “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7: Soil Nail Walls”, Publication No. FHWA-IF-03-017.
• FHWA, (2003), “Manual for design & Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls”, Publication No. FHWA-IF-03-017.
• G. L. Sivakumar Babu and Singh Vikas Pratap, “Stabilization of vertical cut using soil nailing”, Plaxis Practice.
• IS 1888: 1982 [Bearing capacity of soil by plate load bearing test]
• IS 2720: Part 3: Sec 2: 1980 [Test for Soils - Part 3: Determination of Specific Gravity - Section 2: Fine, Medium and Coarse Grained Soils]
• IS 2720: Part 4: 1985 [Methods of Test for Soils - Part 4: Grain Size Analysis]
• IS 2720: Part 13: 1986 [Methods of Test for Soils - Part 13: Direct Shear Test]
• IS 2720: Part 14: 1983 [Methods of Test for Soils - Part 14: Determination of Density Index (Relative Density) of Cohesionless Soils]
• K. Premalatha, M. Muthu Kumar, D. Mohan Babu, (2009), “Analysis and Design of Nailed Soil Wall - A Case Study”, IGC, Guntur, 574-577.
60
• K. Premalatha, M. Muthukumar and A. Amala Raju Arul, (2010), “Simplified Method of Design of Nailed Soil wall”, GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199), ASCE, 2271-2280.
• Mittal S., Gupta R. P. and Mittal N., (2005), “Housing Construction on Inclined Cuts”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) Vol. 6, No. 4, 331-346.
• Patra C. P. and Basudhar P. K., (2001), “Nailed Soil Structure: An Overview”, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 31(4), 331-367.
• Shivakumar Babu, “Soil Reinforcement and Geosynthetics”, Universities Press, 118-134.
• Swami Saran, “Reinforced Soil and its Engineering Applications”, 2nd Edition, I. K. International Publication House Pvt. Ltd., 261.
• T. Aishwarya and K. Ilamparuthi, (2013), “Study on Soil Nailing Based on Parametric Analysis”, Indian Geotechnical Conference December 22-24, Roorkee.
• Wei Yiqing, (2013), “ Development of Equivalent Surcharge Loads for the Design of Soil Nailed Segment of MSE/Soil Nail Hybrid Retaining Walls Based on Results from Full-Scale Wall Instrumentation and Finite Element Analysis”, Texas Tech University.
• Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/soil_nailing.61
Thank You
62