Soil Grout Bond Strength

Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

Good Practice in Design of Steel Soil Nails for Soil Cut Slopes
Issue No.: 1 Revision: B Date: 17.04.2007 Page: 1 of 13
1. SCOPE
1.1 This Technical Guidance Note (TGN) provides technical guidance on good practice of
design of steel soil nails for soil cut slopes. It deals with soil nails in the form of steel
bars that are installed using the drill and grout method without pre-stressing. This
TGN does not cover flexible steel strands.
1.2 Any feedback on this TGN should be referred to Chief Geotechnical

Engineer/Standards and Testing of the GEO.
2. TECHNICAL POLICY
2.1 The technical guidance promulgated in this TGN was agreed by the Geotechnical
Control Conference (GCC) in March 2007.
3. RELATED DOCUMENTS
3.1 BSI (1997). Structural Use of Concrete. Part 1 - Code of Practice for Design and
Construction (BS 8110 : Part 1 : 1997). British Standard Institution, 1997.
3.2 CS2 (1995). Construction Standard Carbon Steel Bars for the Reinforcement of
Concrete. Hong Kong SAR Government, 35 p.
3.3 Eyre, D. & Lewis, D.A. (1987). Soil Corrosivity Assessment (Contractor Report 54).
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.
3.4 GEO (1984). Geotechnical Manual for Slopes (Second Edition). Geotechnical
Engineering Office, Hong Kong, 295 p.
3.5 GEO (1988). Guide to Rock and Soil Descriptions (Geoguide 3). Geotechnical
3.6 GEO (1989). Model Specification for Prestressed Ground Anchors (Geospec 1),
Second Edition. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong, 140 p.
3.7 GEO (1999). Application of Prescriptive Measures to Slopes and Retaining Walls
(GEO Report No. 56, Second Edition). Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.
3.8 GEO (2000). Technical Guidelines on Landscape Treatment and

Bio-engineering for Man-made Slopes and Retaining Wall (GEO Publication No.
1/2000). Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.
3.9 GEO (2001). Model Specification for Soil Testing (Geospec 3). Geotechnical

3.10 GEO (2002). Guide to Reinforced Fill Structure and Slope Design (Geoguide 6).
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong, 236 p.
3.11 GEO (2004a). Updating of GEO Report No. 56 Application of Prescriptive

Measures to Slopes and Retaining Walls (Second Edition). GEO Technical Guidance
Note No. 9 (TGN 9), Geotechnical Engineering Office.
3.12 GEO (2004b). Enhancing the Reliability and Robustness of Engineered Soil Cut
Slopes. GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 11 (TGN 11). Geotechnical Engineering
Office, Hong Kong.
3.13 GEO (2004c). Prescriptive Soil Nail Design for Concrete and Masonry Retaining
Walls. GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 17 (TGN 17). Geotechnical Engineering
Office, Hong Kong.
3.14 GEO (2004c). Installation of Soil Nails and Control of Grouting. GEO Technical
Guidance Note No. 19 (TGN 19). Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.
3.15 GEO (2004d). Updating of GEO Publication No. 1/2000 Technical Guidelines on
Landscape Treatment and Bio-engineering for Man-made Slopes and Retaining Walls.
GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 20 (TGN 20). Geotechnical Engineering Office,
Hong Kong.
3.16 GEO (2004e). Design of Soil Nail Heads. GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 21
(TGN 21). Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.
3.17 Schlosser, F. & Guilloux, A. (1981). Le forttement dans les sols. Revue Francaise
de Geotechnique, No. 16, pp 65-77. (in French)
3.18 Watkins, A.T. & Powell, G.E. (1992). Soil Nailing to Existing Slopes as Landslip
Preventive Works. Hong Kong Engineer, March, pp 20-27.
3.19 WBTC (1999). Geotechnical Manual for Slopes Guidance on Interpretation and
Updating (WBTC No. 13/99), Environment Transport & Works Bureau, Hong Kong.
4. BACKGROUND
4.1 Soil nailing has been used for improving soil slope stability in Hong Kong over the last
two decades and is currently the predominant method used for upgrading the stability of
existing soil cut slopes. There has also been increasing use of the technique for
forming new slopes.
4.2 Considerable amount of experience and knowledge has been gained on the design and
construction of soil nails. This TGN aims at consolidating the experience and

knowledge gained on various aspects of soil nail design and provides guidance on good
practice of soil nail design.
4.3 Soil nails are designed analytically but they can also be designed prescriptively.
Guidelines on prescriptive design using soil nails as upgrading or preventive
maintenance works for soil cut slopes and retaining walls are presented in GEO Report
No. 56 (GEO, 1999) and GEO TGN 9, and that for concrete and masonry retaining
walls are presented in GEO TGN 17.
4.4 Guidance on the installation, testing and acceptance of soil nailing works during
construction is given in GEO TGN 19.
4.5 Guidance on means to enhance the reliability and robustness of engineered cut slopes is
given in GEO TGN 11.
5. TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
5.1.1 Technical recommendations given in Sections 5.2 to 5.10 below are applicable to soil
nails that are required to carry transient design loads. An example of nails carrying
transient load is those that are used for improving the stability of an existing slope
irrespective of the theoretical factor of safety under the design ground and groundwater
conditions.
5.1.2 The technical recommendations given in Sections 5.2 to 5.10 below are also generally
applicable to soil nails that are expected to carry sustained loads during their design life.
An example of nails expected to carry sustained loads is those that are used to support
excavations or new steep cut slopes. As long-term loading of soil nails may cause
creeping of the nail bond and ground deformations with time, additional requirements
given in Section 5.11 should also be satisfied in order to safeguard the use of the nails
under such loading condition.
5.2 Failure Modes and Factors of Safety
5.2.1 Both internal and external modes of failure need to be considered for analytical design
of soil nails.
5.2.2 The design for external stability should be carried out such that there is an adequate
margin of safety against overall instability of the feature. The guidelines given in the
Geotechnical Manual for Slopes on design shear strength parameters and groundwater
should be followed. The recommended minimum factors of safety on external stability
for existing slopes and new cut slopes are presented in Tables 1 and 2 of WBTC No.
13/99 (WBTC, 1999).

5.2.3 Internal stability should be checked for four possible modes of failure: (i) pull-out
failure of soil nails from the resistant zone, (ii) tensile failure of soil nails, (iii) pull-out
failure of the active zone, and (iv) bearing capacity and structural failures of soil nail
heads.
5.2.4 For checking against pull-out failure of soil nails from the resistant zone, the design
pull-out resistance should be determined based on the allowable grout/steel bond
strength or allowable soil/grout bond strength in the resistant zone, whichever is smaller.
A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied to the ultimate grout/steel bond
strength to obtain the allowable grout/steel bond strength. For soil nails carrying
transient loads and bonded in weathered granite or volcanic rocks, a minimum factor of
safety of 1.5 should be applied to the ultimate soil/grout bond strength to obtain the
allowable soil/grout bond strength. For any other case, a minimum factor of safety of
2.0 should be applied to the ultimate soil/grout bond strength to obtain the allowable
soil/grout bond strength.
5.2.5 For checking against tensile failure of reinforcement, allowable tensile stresses in the
steel bars should be restricted to two-thirds of the characteristic strength of the steel (CS
2 (1995)).
5.2.6 To guard against pull-out failure of the active zone, nail heads should be designed
against bearing capacity failure and structural failure. GEO TGN 21 provides
guidelines on nail head design.
5.3 Method of Analysis
5.3.1 Limit equilibrium methods of slices that consider both moment and force equilibrium,
such as Morgenstern & Price, can be used for slope stability analysis and determination
of total nail force to provide the required factor of safety. When the nails are evenly
distributed along the particular potential critical sliding surface, the total force may be
assumed as distributed evenly among the nails. Although the actual load distribution
amongst soil nails is different, the assumption gives satisfactory design result.
5.3.2 Ultimate pull-out resistance provided by the soil/grout bond strength in the resistant
zone should be determined using the equation by Schlosser & Guilloux (1981),
T1 = Pc + 2Dv*
where T1 is the pull-out force

P is the perimeter of the reinforced grout column
c is the effective cohesion of the soil
D is the width of an equivalent flat reinforcing strip (i.e. the nail drillhole
hole diameter)
v is the effective vertical stress in the soil calculated at mid depth of the
reinforcement in the resistant zone, with a maximum value of 300 kPa.

* is the coefficient of apparent friction of soil (* may be taken to be

equal to tan , where is the effective angle of shearing resistance of
the soil)
5.3.3 Ultimate bond stress between steel bar and grout, fbu, should be determined in
accordance with BS 8110 (BSI, 1997),
fbu = f cu
where fcu is the characteristic strength of grout

is a coefficient dependent on the bar type
5.3.4 If the soil nail is socketed into partially weathered rock mass of PW90/100 zone (GEO,
1988), an allowable rock/grout bond strength of 0.35 MPa may be used for determining
the pull-out resistance. Higher design bond strength may be assumed if this can be
justified by the designer through detailed ground investigation, testing and analysis.
The minimum rock socket length should be 2 m.
5.4 Corrosion Protection of Soil Nails
5.4.1 The long-term performance of soil nails requires that the nails should be able to
withstand corrosive attack from their local environment.
5.4.2 For a site where new permanent (design life more than 2 years) soil nails are to be
installed, the development history and utility records of the site should be reviewed and
field inspections conducted. Leakage from salt water mains or sewers, or effluents
from chemical emitters could make soils at a site aggressive. The existing and likely
future effects of leakage should be considered. Where a site may be affected by
leakage from old developments, the site should be regarded as aggressive and the
corrosion protection guidelines given in Section 5.4.5 should be followed. If records
or field inspections indicate that the site may be affected by leakage from developments
or public roads, the site should be regarded as potentially aggressive. Otherwise, the
site may be considered as non-aggressive and the corrosion protection guidelines given
in Section 5.4.4 should be followed.
5.4.3 For the potentially aggressive sites, detailed assessment should be made to investigate
the soil corrosivity by means of the tests listed in Annex TGN 23 A1 and the
classification system given in Annex TGN 23 A2. A schedule of the test methods to
be used is given in Annex TGN 23 A3.
5.4.4 Where the results of the soil corrosivity assessment classify the soils as
non-aggressive or mildly aggressive in accordance with TGN 23 A2, the soil nails
should be hot-dip galvanised with a minimum zinc coating of 610 g/m2 in accordance
with BS EN ISO 1461:1999 and a 2 mm sacrificial thickness on the radius of the steel

bar should be allowed for in design. A minimum grout cover of 20 mm all round
should be provided.
5.4.5 For sites where the soils are classified as aggressive or highly aggressive by the
corrosivity assessment, corrugated plastic sheath and hot-dip galvanising of 610 g/m2
should be provided to the soil nails. The plastic sheath and other associated plastic
components should comply with the requirements set down in Geospec 1 (GEO, 1989).
A minimum grout cover of 15 mm should be provided between the plastic sheath and
borehole circumference. A grout cover of not less than 10 mm should also be
provided between the sheath and the steel bar.
5.4.6 For sites where temporary soil nails with a design life of not more than 2 years are to be
installed, corrosivity assessment of the ground and the provision of sacrificial steel
thickness of 2 mm are not necessary, but hot-dip galvanising of 610 g/m2 should still be
provided.
5.4.7 For corrosion protection of thread-type reinforcement connectors (couplers), a

minimum zinc coating of 610 g/m2 should be provided in accordance with BS EN ISO
1461:1999. Alternatively, a heat-shrinkable sleeve may be used in lieu of hot-dip
galvanising.
5.4.8 For special situation where very high strength steel bar is used, the protection measure
of hot-dip galvanising may not be applicable. The manufacturer should be consulted
on appropriate corrosion protection method to be used.
5.5 Buildability of Soil Nails
5.5.1 In designing steel soil nails, the designer should give due consideration to the
buildability of the soil nails to ensure that the design is practical and buildable.
Guidelines on considerations for buildability of soil nails are given in GEO TGN 19.
5.6 Nail Spacing and Layout
5.6.1 Nail spacings that are too wide are not effective in preventing local instability between
soil nail heads. Conversely, nails too close to each other may not be cost-effective and
may intersect during drilling.
5.6.2 Rows of soil nails should be staggered to improve the stability of slope face through the
enhanced development of soil arching. In general, staggered horizontal nail rows are
preferred.

5.7 Nail Inclination
5.7.1 Soil nails are normally inclined downwards to facilitate proper grouting, which is
carried out either under gravity or low-pressure head. Also, a small inclination could
maximize the tensile reinforcement effect of the soil nails.
5.7.2 The reinforcing effect of soil nails would decrease significantly with increasing nail
inclination. Where it is necessary to steepen the nail inclination to meet physical
constraints, careful consideration should be given to the effectiveness of the soil nails
and the amount of slope deformation to mobilise the nail force. As a rough guide,
designs using nails with inclinations greater than 20o should demonstrate their
effectiveness, for example, using stress-strain analysis.
5.8 Nail Length
5.8.1 For buildability reasons, the length of soil nails should not be too long. Potential
construction problems associated with long nails are discussed in GEO TGN 19.
5.9 Slope Surface Cover
5.9.1 The slope surface cover should be designed to prevent local instability of the soil
between the soil nail heads. Guidance on the design of the slope surface cover is given
in GEO TGN 21.
5.9.2 Surface cover requires maintenance. Designers should take into account maintenance
of the surface cover at the design stage.
5.9.3 Guidelines on measures to mitigate the visual impact of the engineering works are given
in the GEO Publication No. 1/2000 (GEO, 2000) and GEO TGN 20.
5.10 Field Pull-out Tests
5.10.1 Field pull-out tests should be carried out to verify design assumptions on the soil/grout
bond strength of soil nails. The tests should, as far as practicable, be carried out at
locations where the pull-out resistance or the buildability of the soil nails is most
uncertain, e.g. at locations of relatively weaker material, or high groundwater level.
Where high groundwater level is encountered, reference should be made to GEO TGN
19 on measures of dewatering.
5.10.2 In general, the number of test nails should be two or 2% of the total number of working
nails, whichever is greater. For slopes with a large number of nails, the number of test
nails may be reduced to less than 2%.

5.10.3 Sample Particular Specifications for pull-out tests can be viewed/downloaded at the
Civil Engineering and Development Departments website
http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/about/organization/org_geo_lpd3.htm.
5.11 Additional Design Requirements for Soil Nails Carrying Sustained Loads
5.11.1 The following additional design requirements should be followed for soil nails that are
expected to carry sustained loads during their service life.
5.11.2 For sites where permanent soil nails are to be installed, corrosivity assessment of the
ground should be carried out in accordance with Annexes TGN 23 A1 to A3. Unless
the soil is classified as non-aggressive, corrosion protection in accordance with the
requirements given in Section 5.4.5 should be provided. For temporary soil nails, the
provision of Section 5.4.6 should be followed.
5.11.3 Where deformation of a nailed feature may cause damage to nearby structures, services
and land, a deformation analysis should be carried out. The analysis should
demonstrate that the anticipated movements of the nailed feature are within acceptable
limits with due consideration of the serviceability of the affected facilities and utility
services. Stress-strain finite element or finite difference software or other suitable
tools may be used for the analysis.
5.11.4 Where there is a concern on local instability such as in the case of a steep cut, a
structural support (e.g. facing or grillage beams) should be provided to the slope face.
The support should be designed to take account of the induced bending, shear and
punching forces in its service life. For thick support on steep ground surface,
significant downward and outward movements may occur due to the weight of the
support. Additional short and steeply inclined soil nails may be provided to carry the
weight. Suitable landscape treatments should be provided to mitigate any potential
visual impact of the support.
5.11.5 For permanent soil nails, creep tests should be carried out as part of pull-out tests if the
resistant zone is in soil. Test procedures and acceptance criteria are given in Annex
TGN 23 A4.
5.11.6 Monitoring of the movement of the soil nailed feature and loads mobilised along
representative soil nails should be carried out during construction and preferably for two
wet seasons after construction. For permanent soil nailed features, prior to substantial
completion of the project, a performance review of the completed soil nailed feature
should be carried out to confirm its adequacy in the long term. For temporary soil
nailed features, movement monitoring should be carried out until the service of the nails
is no longer required. Monitoring of load is not required for temporary soil nails.

6. ANNEXES
6.1 TGN 23 A1 Soil Corrosivity Assessment (Based on Eyre & Lewis (1987))
6.2 TGN 23 A2 Classification of Corrosivity of a Soil (Based on Eyre & Lewis (1987))
6.3 TGN 23 A3 Schedule of Test Methods
6.4 TGN 23 A4 Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for Creep Test
(R K S Chan)
Head, Geotechnical Engineering Office

Soil Corrosivity Assessment (Based on Eyre & Lewis (1987))
Item Measured Value Marks

Fraction passing 63 m sieve 10 %, and
PI of fraction passing 425 m sieve < 2, and +2
Organic content < 1.0%
10 % < Fraction passing 63 m sieve 75 %, and

Fraction passing 2m sieve 10 %, and 0
PI of fraction passing 425 m sieve < 6, and
Soil composition Any grading, and -2
PI of fraction passing 425 m sieve < 15, and
Any grading, and -4

PI of fraction passing 425 m sieve 15, and
Organic content 1.0 % -4

10,000 0
Resistivity < 10,000 but 3,000 -1
(ohmcm) < 3,000 but 1,000 -2
< 1,000 but 100 -3
< 100 -4
Moisture content 20% 0
> 20% -1
Groundwater Above groundwater level and no periodic flow or seepage +1
level Local zones with periodic flow or seepage -1
At groundwater level or in zones with constant flow or seepage -4
6 pH 9 0
5 pH < 6 -1
pH 4 pH < 5 or 10 pH > 9 -2
pH < 4 or pH > 10 (See Note 1)
None 0
Made ground
Exist (See note 2) -4
Soluble sulphate 200 0
(Water soluble > 200 but 500 -1
SO3) > 500 but 1,000 -2
(ppm) > 1,000 -3
100 0
Chloride ion > 100 but 300 -1
(ppm) > 300 but 500 -2
> 500 -4
Note 1: If pH value is less than 4 or greater than 10, the ground should be classified as aggressive
regardless of the results of other test items.
Note 2: Made ground refers to man-made ground associated with high corrosion rate such as
non-engineering fill with rubbish, organic matters, etc.
ANNEX TGN 23 A1

Classification of Corrosivity of a Soil (Based on Eyre & Lewis (1987))
Soil Assessment Total Marks from Annex TGN 23 A1
Non-aggressive 0
Mildly aggressive -1 to -4
Aggressive -5 to -10
Highly aggressive -11
ANNEX TGN 23 A2

Schedule of Test Methods
Test Method
Soil Composition As per Geospec 3

Resistivity As per Geoguide 6
Moisture content As per Geospec 3
Groundwater level By field observation/record
pH As per Geospec 3
Made ground By field observation/record
Soluble Sulphate As per Geospec 3
Chloride ion As per Geospec 3
ANNEX TGN 23 A3

Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for Creep Test
1. General
1.1 A creep test shall be conducted as part of a field pull-out test. During a creep test, movement of
the test nail shall be monitored at a prescribed load as detailed below.
2. Testing Procedure
2.1 The test nail shall be loaded in stages in accordance with the loading cycles specified for a
pull-out test.
2.2 The test load in one of the loading cycles shall correspond to two times the allowable design
bond strength.
2.3 The creep period shall start as soon as the test load of two times the allowable design bond
strength is applied. The load shall be maintained for 60 minutes. During this period, readings
of the nail head movement shall be taken at time intervals of 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 60
minutes.
3. Acceptance Criteria
3.1 A test nail shall be considered acceptable when:
(a) a total creep movement between the 6-minute and 60-minute readings during creep testing
is less than 2 mm; and
(b) the overall trend of creep rate (i.e. creep movement/log time) is linear or decreasing
throughout the creep test load hold period.
4. Follow-up Actions
4.1 In the event that any of the above acceptance criteria cannot be met in any of the creep tests at a
particular slope feature, the design bond strength of the nails at the slope feature shall be
reviewed and revised where appropriate. New creep tests should be carried out for any revised
bond strength.
ANNEX TGN 23 A4

Soil Grout Bond Strength

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Grout Bond Strength

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Grout Bond Strength

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose and scope of this technical guidance note?

What is the purpose and scope of this technical guidance note?

What factors are considered when classifying the corrosivity of soil?

What factors are considered when classifying the corrosivity of soil?

Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

1.2 Any feedback on this TGN should be referred to Chief Geotechnical

3.8 GEO (2000). Technical Guidelines on Landscape Treatment and

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

3.11 GEO (2004a). Updating of GEO Report No. 56 Application of Prescriptive

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

5.2 Failure Modes and Factors of Safety

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

5.3 Method of Analysis

where T1 is the pull-out force

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

* is the coefficient of apparent friction of soil (* may be taken to be

where fcu is the characteristic strength of grout

5.4 Corrosion Protection of Soil Nails

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

5.4.7 For corrosion protection of thread-type reinforcement connectors (couplers), a

5.5 Buildability of Soil Nails

5.6 Nail Spacing and Layout

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

5.7 Nail Inclination

5.8 Nail Length

5.9 Slope Surface Cover

5.10 Field Pull-out Tests

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

6.3 TGN 23 A3 Schedule of Test Methods

6.4 TGN 23 A4 Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for Creep Test

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

Soil Corrosivity Assessment (Based on Eyre & Lewis (1987))

Item Measured Value Marks

10 % < Fraction passing 63 m sieve 75 %, and

Any grading, and -4

Organic content 1.0 % -4

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

Classification of Corrosivity of a Soil (Based on Eyre & Lewis (1987))

Soil Assessment Total Marks from Annex TGN 23 A1

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

Schedule of Test Methods

Soil Composition As per Geospec 3

GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 23 (TGN 23)

Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for Creep Test

3.1 A test nail shall be considered acceptable when:

You might also like