Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and Soil Nailing in Brazil

Preview:

Citation preview

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Anchored (Tie Back) Retaining Walls and

Soil Nailing in Brazil

Summer Term 2015 Hochschule Munchen

Fakultat Bauingenieurwesen

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

LAYOUT

Details and Analysis of Anchored Walls

Details and Analysis of Soil Nailing

Examples of Executive Projects

2/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

ANCHORED “CURTAIN” WALLS

(Tie Back Walls)

3/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

4

Introduction Details:

• Earth retaining structures with active anchors

• A.J. Costa Nunes pioneer work in 1957

• 20 – 30 cm thick concrete wall face tied back

• Ascending or descending construction methods

• Niche excavation

• ACTIVE anchor

4/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Excavation Procedure

5/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

6/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Molding Joints 7/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

8/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

9/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

10/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

11/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Stability Analysis

Verification of failure modes:

• Toe bearing capacity

(NSPT < 10)

• Bottom failure

• Wedge or generalized failure: limit equilibrium analyses

• Excessive deformations

• Anchor stability and punching

• Structural failure

• Construction failures (e.g. during excavation)

12/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

13/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

14/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Stability Analysis Methodologies

Wedge Method:

• Kranz (1953) is the pioneer

• One or two wedges

• Ranke and Ostermeyer (1968) German Method

• Nunes and Velloso (1963) Brazilian Method

• Hoek and Bray (1981)

15/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Clayton et al (2001)

Kranz (1953) Method:

•FS in relation to each anchor

•FS= max allowable / actual anchor load

16/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Hoek and Bray (1981) Method:

•Simple geometries

•Homogeneous soils

•FS by vertical and horizontal equilibrium

17/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

18/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Pre-design Charts:

• Safety Factor = 1.5

• Surcharge q = 20 kPa

• Unit Weight = 18 kN/m3

• Preliminary analyses

19/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

20

TECNOSOLO (1964)

Original Report 3310

Nunes and Velloso (1963) Method:

•FS for an existing Culmann wedge

But modified to have

•FS in relation to cohesion vector

esStableForcInstable

Cohesion

20/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

21/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

22 Example

22/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Stability Analysis Methodologies Complex Cases:

• Numerical or analytical tool

• Limit equilibrium approach

• Non homogeneous soils

• Complex load and geometries

23/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Bishop (1955)

Geoslope Slopew

24/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Anchor Spacing:

•Counterbalance Instability x Stability Forces

•Anchor force to yield general FS > 1.5

•Length > “critical” plane

Micropiles

•Whenever there is low capacity soils at wall base

25/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Surcharge 26/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Stresses and Deformation Analysis

Tools:

• User friendly numerical FEM programs

• Distinctive models

• Laboratory parameters

• Pre and post processors

27/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Example:

•Águas Claras Site – Fed. District, Brazil

•Porous clay over soft soil

•Close to train rail

•15 m height and 4 anchor layers

•Staged analyses

•Laboratory parameters

•Mohr Coulomb model

28/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

SOIL NAILING

29/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Introduction Basics of Design:

• Reinforcement of soil with thin elements: nails

• Pre-bored sub horizontal hole, with grout

• Originated from shotcrete flexible support in tunnels

• Active zone is formed around excavation

• Started in Brazil in 1970 and France 1972 (sol cloué)

• PASSIVE anchors = “nails”

30/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Experience and Construction Method

Experience:

• High and successful experience in Brazil

• Use for man made, residual and saprolitic slopes in Hong Kong

• Not suitable for very loose sands or soft clays

Construction:

• Similar as tieback walls: top – down excavation stages (1-2 m)

• Vertical or inclined slopes – depends on geology

• Installation of nails, mesh, drains and shotcrete

31/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Installation of Nails:

• After driving or drilling

• Short nails (3 m) by hand hammers

• Corrosion protection aspects

• Driving is not adequate with boulders

• Common drilling with 50-100mm ´s

• 20-32 mm steel bars

• > 100 kPa lateral friction

• Pneumatic drill rigs are used

• Light drill rigs are desired

32/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Construction Details Nail Head:

• With or without steel plate and wrenches

• Small torque of 5 kN is incorporated as residual load

• Inclinations of 10-20 degrees

• Embeddement in a cast-in-place concrete niche

• Grounting with or without (gravity head) pressures

Geocompany (2009)

33/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Souza et al. (2005)

34/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

35

Slope Facing:

• Shotcrete is applied through dry or wet mix

• Thickness of 50-150 mm

• One or two steel meshes

• Steel reinforced shotcrete (SFRS) is also used:

fibers 30-50 mm lingth, 0.5 mm dia.

dosage 35-60 kg/m3

good for slope irregularities

• Vegetation combined with nails

35/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Details:

• Wall

36/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Details:

• Nail

37/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Details:

• Injection

38/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Details:

• Frontal Spacing

39/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

40

Comparisons

With Tieback Walls:

• Generally do not use prestressed active anchors

• Uses passive low prestressed nails (5-10 kN)

• Load transference by friction along entire length

• Very low loads on shotcrete facing compared to tieback walls

• Inclined or vertical facings

• Length of nails 60-120% of height (shorter than walls)

40/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

With Reinforced Walls:

• Top-down versus upwards construction sequence

• Distinct displacement patterns (0.1 - 0.3 % of height)

41/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

42

Advantages Economy: • Cost effective technique, as low as 50% of a tieback wall Rate of Construction: • Fast rate specially with SFRS shotcrete

Deformation: • 0.1 – 0.3% of height at top of wall for well designed structures

Flexibility: • Deformation can be controlled with combined use of anchors

Reliability: • Already proved in residual and saprolitic soils in Brazil • Increases stability in unsupported slopes with weak surfaces

42/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

43

Limitations Displacements: • May render unacceptable deformations close to structures Construction: • Needs temporary stability of excavated face

Geology: • Risky solution for weak materials or very height walls

Durability : • Corrosion protection of nail is fundamental

Testing and post-execution intervention: • Generally not possible with nails. • Post execution corrective injection is still not widely used

43/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Analysis of Nailed Structures

Theoretical Methods:

• Several approaches and simplifications

• Active and passive zones

• Global Limit Eq. (slice) analysis with nail effects

• Circular, bilinear, linear surfaces

• Tension only or with bending effects in nails

• Constant or variable soil-nail interface friction

• Winkler type analysis for nail or force vectors

• Single or multiple surfaces – FS optimization

44/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

45/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

46/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

47/60

Effect of Injection Phases

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Modified after

Souza et al. (2005)

48/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

49

Computer Programs

Benchmark Tests:

• Comparative comparisons are made

• Talren is the most widely used

• Prosper is a research tool

• Clouage and Nixesc are french softwares

• Rstabl adopts Bishop and Janbu´s method

49/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Results:

• Influence of bending is rather small

• Janbu´s method tends to yield lower SF´s

• Few differences between methodologies

50/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Nailing Software (Czech Republic):

• Good experience and successful results in Brasília porous clay

• Nice research and design tool

• User friendly

51/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

52/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

0 4.00[m]

Length of structure = 3.20mGeometry of structure Structure load

21.08

25.00[kPa]

0

Cut1

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.70

Max. M = 4.32kNm/mBending moment

3.43

-3.43

4.32

-5.00 5.00[kNm/m]

0

Max. Q = 11.14kN/mShear force

-6.87

-6.87 6.87

6.87-6.81

-10.71 11.14

-25.00 25.00[kN/m]

0

53/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

54

Examples

Icaraí Beach, Niteroi-RJ:

• 25mm bars in 90 mm holes – 150 mm shotcrete, inclined 75° – 1.5 m spacings (H:V) and two steel meshes

54/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

55

Railway, São Paulo-SP:

• 25mm bars in 75 mm holes – 50 mm shotcrete, inclined 75° – 2.5m x 2.0m (H:V)

55/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Ortigão et al. (1993)

56/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Cindacta Project – Friburgo-RJ

Executive Design Project 57/60

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Cindacta Project – Friburgo-RJ

58/60

Soil Nailing

Tie Back Wall

Active Anchor

Passive Anchor

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

Cindacta Project – Friburgo-RJ

59/60

Tie Back Wall

Soil Nailing

www.geotecnia.unb.br/gpfees

REFERENCES

• Ortigão & Sayão (2004). Handbook of Slope Stabilisation, Springer, New York, 478 p.

• Hunt, R. E. (1986). Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices, McGraw Hill, New York, 729 p.

• Personal pictures.

• Internet pages.

• Executive Design projects from ACRosa Engenharia de Consultoria Ltda., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

60/60