Design, Construction, and Performance of An 18m-High Nailed Soil Wall

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights reserved.
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND PERFORMANCE OF AN 18-METER

SOIL NAIL WALL IN TUCSON, AZ
Edward Nowatzki, P.E., Fellow, ASCE1 and Naresh Samtani, P.E., Member, ASCE.2
ABSTRACT: This paper describes the design, construction, and performance of a

soil nail wall system used by the Pima County Department of Transportation
(PCDOT) to stabilize and retain two steeply sloping bluffs up to 18 meters high as
part of a major road widening and realignment project along River Road, a major
arterial roadway in Tucson, Arizona. The use of a soil nail wall system precluded the
need to relocate major components of the Altamira Apartments, a luxury apartment
complex situated atop the bluff west of an access road (Campaña Drive) leading from
River Road to the apartment complex. The impacted components included a large
swimming pool, a clubhouse, and a two-story apartment building, all located close to
the crest of the slope. Because of the high property values in the area, replacement
costs of these components were prohibitive. In addition, the artificial sculpted-rock
architectural facing appealed to a citizen’s advisory group because of its aesthetics.
INTRODUCTION
General Geologic Setting
The city of Tucson is located in the Sonoran Desert in a broad basin surrounded by
four mountain ranges. The general geologic setting of the Tucson Basin is typical of
the Basin and Range Province that constitutes the southwestern half of the state of
Arizona. The basin is filled with thick sequences of relatively young sediments, with
depth to bedrock increasing laterally from the hard rock ranges toward the center of
the basin where sediments are up to 500 m thick. The site is located on the edge of an
alluvial fan at the base of the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains just north of
the city of Tucson. Fig. 1 shows an overview of the site prior to construction
including two of the impacted structures at the Altamira Apartment complex.
1
Principal Engineer, NCS Consultants, 640 W. Paseo Rio Grande, Tucson, AZ
85737 USA; eanowatzki@msn.com;
2
President, NCS Consultants, 640 W. Paseo Rio Grande, Tucson, AZ 85737 USA
-1- Nowatzki & Samtani
Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

GeoSupport 2004
Subsurface Conditions at the Site
As part of its scope of work under an “on-call” contract with PCDOT, Envirotech
Southwest, LLC, (ESW) of Tucson, AZ researched the local literature to obtain
information on the geotechnical properties of subsurface soils on or near the site. The
quality of much of the existing data was not adequate for the proposed project.
Therefore, ESW contracted with AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. (AGRA) to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
conduct a more site- and project-specific geotechnical field investigation.

Unfortunately, most of the Altamira site was inaccessible to drilling equipment.
Therefore, only one boring (B-1) was advanced at that site. Another boring (B-2)
was drilled on the adjacent bluff approximately 100-m to the east. A summary of the
results of geotechnical investigations relevant to the site is presented in Table 1. The
values listed in Table 1 vary because of variations in soil types and because of
differences in the methods used to sample and test the soils. Based on the results of
the field and laboratory tests reported in Table 1, the geologic profile at the site
appeared to be stratified with layers of varying thickness consisting of slightly- to
heavily-cemented silty sands, gravels and river-run rounded cobbles, with the
probability of seams of loose sand, gravel and cobbles. Standard penetration blow
counts were typically in excess of 20 blows per foot for the full length of Boring B-1.
Fig.1 Overview of site prior to construction with apartment complex on bluff and
River Road in the foreground.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Public Participation
The soil nail wall system was designed to blend in with the natural surroundings of
the site in accordance with guidelines established by the Tucson Citizens Advisory
Committee (TCAC). In the final design the architectural facing incorporated artificial
naturalistic rockwork and sculpted shotcrete that mimicked eroded banks along
nearby portions of the River Road corridor. The look of the natural slopes is shown
in Fig. 2.

GeoSupport 2004
Encroachment
Fig. 3 shows a plan view of the site with the final configuration of the soil nail wall
superimposed upon it. As indicated in the figure, only a small portion of the deck
area around the swimming pool was lost because of the soil nail wall system. With
the conventional reinforced concrete (RC) retaining wall system originally proposed,
the swimming pool, recreation center, and the apartment building east of them would
have had to been totally replaced. Except for Boring B-1 advanced by AGRA, the
other borings listed in Table 1 are not shown in Fig. 3 because they are not within the
work site. They are included only to show the range of values that can be expected
for the variably-cemented soils typically encountered in the Tucson Basin.
Table 1. Summary of Soil Properties
Boring Location USCS c´ φ´ γ´ ω

No. (Depth in meters) Symbol (kPa) (deg.) (kN/m3) (%)
Desert Earth Engineering (1987)
No lab test data available - all values
Based on SPT blow counts
B-2 East of Campaña Dr.
0-6 GP-GM 0 32 17.27 Dry
6-13.7 GP-GM 0 34 18.06 Dry
B-3 West of Campaña Dr.
0-1.5 SM 0 32 18.06 Dry
1.5-7.6 GP-GM 0 34 18.06 Dry
7.6-16.8 GP-GM 0 34 18.06 Dry
Engineers International, Inc. (1991)
Values based on field and lab test data
B-23 West of Campaña Dr. in
Altamira parking lot.
0-1.2 N/A 207 39 17.27 Dry
1.2-3.4 N/A 207 17 19.47 Dry
AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. (1998)
Values based on field and lab test data
B-1 West of Campaña Dr. in
Altamira parking lot (Fig. 3)
0-3 SM 24 35 17.90 2
3-10.7 SM 36 31 16.33 2-3
10.7-15.3 SM 72 33 17.43 6-8
B-2 East of Campaña Dr.
0-9.75 SM 57 30 17.90 2
9.75-22.9 SM 48 36 17.11 1

GeoSupport 2004
Fig. 2 Natural slope along River Road West of site
Fig. 3 Plan view showing encroachment onto Altamira Apartment complex

(Boring B-1 was advanced by AGRA Earth and Environmental (Refer to Table 1))
Accessibility and Other Constraints
Accessibility impacted the design and construction in at least two ways. As

indicated previously, site accessibility prevented the undertaking of a more robust
geotechnical field investigation that would have resulted in less conservatism in the
design. Accessibility also posed a problem during construction, especially in view of
PCDOT’s requirement to keep River Road open during the entire construction period
and as free as possible of construction-caused delays. Fig. 4 shows the construction
access road to the top level of the west wall at the start of construction. River Road is
to the left and Campaña Drive is in the foreground. Because of the close proximity of
the project to the apartment buildings work hours were limited from 7 AM to 3 PM so
as not to disturb the residents. This imposed a severe constraint on the contractor

GeoSupport 2004
since much of the construction work in the Tucson area during the summer months
typically starts at 5 AM to avoid the hottest part of the day.
Fig. 4 Access road to top level of West wall – Campaña Drive in foreground.
DESIGN
Project Scope
The design and construction of the soil nail wall systems on the two bluffs near 1st
Avenue were part of a widening and realignment project along River Road, a major
arterial roadway in Tucson, Arizona. In addition to numerous conventional RC
cantilever retaining walls, the project included two near-vertical soil nail walls
ranging in height from 2 to 3-m. meters at their ends to more than 17-m. at their
highest point. The west wall is approximately 130-m. long and the east wall is about
156-m. in length. The finished area of the walls is approximately 3,530 m2.
Design Approach
Earth retention systems considered by PCDOT in the early planning stages for this
project included crib walls, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, and a tiered
system of standard RC cantilever walls. The costs of replacing impacted structures at the
Altamira Apartments, including land acquisition costs, were prohibitive for all of these
systems. A soil nail wall system was found to be most cost-effective. In addition, its
architectural facing appealed to a citizen’s advisory group. The soil nail system was
designed in accordance with procedures described in the Manual for Design &
Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls (FHWA, 1998). The guidelines
contained in FHWA’s design manual are considered the standard of practice for soil

GeoSupport 2004
nail walls constructed in the United States. A number of commercially available
computer programs are currently used in practice for such designs, including SNAIL,
developed by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and
GoldNail, developed by Golder Associates (GA), Redmond, WA.
Soil Properties
The following soil parameters were used in the design of the soil nail wall system.
These values were assigned based on the field and laboratory test results presented in
Table 1.
Effective cohesion, c´ = 24 kPa
Effective friction angle, φ´ = 33º
Total unit weight, γ´ = 18 kN/m3
Bar Size, Length, and Spacing
The lead author, while a principal at ESW, performed the initial design based on an
estimated pullout resistance of 14.6 kN/m. ESW’s design called for nine (9) rows of
18.3-m. long cased nails (# 8 bars centered in 101.6-mm. diameter grout holes)
installed at an inclination of 15º on a 1.524-m. x 1.524-m. grid. For the purpose of
design, surcharges based on loads outlined in the Uniform Building Code (ICBO,
1994) were added to the crest of the wall at the locations of the swimming pool deck
and apartment building. The top row of nails in the vicinity of the swimming pool
was inclined at 30º in order to avoid hitting the pool substructure.
The ESW design was put out to bid by PCDOT. Only pre-qualified drilling
contractors were invited to respond to the bid. Malcolm Drilling Co., Inc. (MCI) of
Vista, CA, one of the specialty contractors to submit a bid, proposed a value
engineered (VE) design developed by their sub-consultant Ground Support, PLLC
(GS) of Redmond, WA. GS’s design was based on an estimated pullout resistance of
29.2 kN/m that was subsequently confirmed by verification pullout tests conducted to
twice the design load. The value-engineered design modified the original design by
calling for nine (9) rows of variable diameter, self-drilling/grouting nails (IBO/Titan
40/20, 30/11) of variable length (4.877-m. to 15.24-m.) installed at an inclination of
15º on a 1.829-m. x 1.829-m. grid. The dual numbering of the hollow IBO/Titan
nails refers to the outside/inside diameters in mm. The 40/20 rod is equivalent to a #
9 bar in terms of nominal cross sectional area. The 30/11 rod has a cross sectional
area that is approximately the average of a # 7 and # 8 bar. The rods are threaded and
have “purple marine” epoxy coating for corrosion protection. In both designs the top
row of nails was assumed to be within 1-m. of the top of the slope, and in the area of
the pool they were horizontally offset from the basic nail pattern and inclined at 30-
degrees to avoid hitting the pool substructure. In both designs the toe of each soil
nail wall extends a minimum of 0.61-m. below final grade. The elevation view of the
mid section of the west wall in the area of the swimming pool is shown on Fig. 5.
IBO/Titan nails have a hollow core so as to allow injection of grout through the
center during installation. A sacrificial drill bit larger in diameter than the nail
advances the hole. Grout is pumped under low pressure through the hollow core of

GeoSupport 2004
the nail. It flows through the nail bit and returns back to the nail head location at the
wall face. Thus the nail itself serves as a casing and the larger nail hole created by
the larger sacrificial drill bit is grouted at the same time during drilling. A schematic
of the IBO/Titan nail and details of the installation procedure can be found on the
following website: http://www.contechsystems.com/cts-cd/TITAN/TSoNa.pdf. The
dynamic rotary pressure grouting penetrates into loose material around the drill hole
thereby increasing the surface friction compared to traditionally installed “drill and
grout” nails. This was reflected in greater pullout resistance during the verification
tests and resulted in overall cost-savings. An attractive feature of the IBO/Titan
system is that the installation is in essence a cased method. It was preferable to a wet
rotary method on this project because wet drilling may have caused destabilization of
the nail hole and necessitated the use of casing. The value-engineered design was
accepted by PCDOT and resulted in savings of over $190,000.
Fig. 5 Elevation view of middle-section of West wall
Corrosion Protection
The soils in the vicinity of the proposed soil nail slopes were found to have low to
no corrosion potential. In accordance with FHWA guidelines, in the original design
the soil nail tendons were specified as epoxy-coated with a minimum of 25.4-mm
grout cover all around, but not double encapsulated. The “purple marine” epoxy-
coated IBO/Titan nails used in the VE design satisfied this requirement. Additional
corrosion protection was obtained from the minimum 102-mm diameter grout column
specified by PCDOT to assure adequate pullout resistance.

GeoSupport 2004
Drainage
Subsurface drainage was designed based on FHWA requirements regarding

geotextile face drains, shallow PVC drain pipes and weep holes, surface interceptor
collector ditches, and surface waterproofing. Vertical geo-composite drain strips
(0.3-m. wide) were installed between every column of soil nails to prevent
hydrostatic pressure from building up behind the wall facing. The drain strips were
connected to footing drains and weep holes that drain to the wall face. A concrete-
lined gutter or V-ditch was installed along the base of the wall to collect drainage
from weep holes and runoff from the face of the wall and direct them away from the
site. Additional subsurface drainage was provided under the swimming pool by
standard horizontal drains that are typically placed above impermeable clay layers to
relieve hydrostatic pressure that may result from perched water. A 152-mm high
PVC water-stop was installed continuously on the top of the shotcrete construction
facing to prevent water from seeping between it and the architectural facing.
Shotcrete Facing
The design of the shotcrete construction facing was checked for punching shear and
flexure in accordance with FHWA (1998) requirements. The facing design utilized
27.58-MPa (minimum 28-day strength) shotcrete with a minimum shotcrete thickness
of 102-mm. The shotcrete was reinforced with two continuous # 4 bars in both the
horizontal and vertical direction at each nail head and 6 x 6 - W1.4 x W1.4 welded
wire mesh. Bearing plates connecting the nails to the facing were specified at 22.86-
cm. x 22.86-cm. x 1.9-cm. at a minimum. All steel was Grade 60.
CONSTRUCTION
Prior to the start of construction, MDI developed an efficient construction sequence

based on the time required for shotcrete to cure. The high mobility of the
construction equipment enabled MDI to use the same equipment on both walls by
alternating drilling and shotcreting between the two walls. Therefore construction of
both walls proceeded concurrently, which explains the relatively short period of
construction. A typical installation of nails, drainage strips, and reinforcing steel
prior to shotcreting is shown in Fig. 6. The installation shown in this photo is for the
final bench on the west wall. The vertical extension of the horizontal drains under the
swimming pool are visible at the far end of the wall. The pilasters at the top of the
soil nail wall in the background are part of the replaced section of the wall
surrounding the swimming pool.
While installing nails on the 4th bench of the west wall, the contractor encountered a
seam of dry loose sands, gravels and cobbles at the east end of the wall. Vibration of
the drilling equipment caused the loose materials to ravel from behind the previously
installed wall sections. Figs. 7 and 8 show the extent of the raveling and the size of
the void created behind the wall. At some sections the voids were more than two feet
deep and had propagated upward (“chimney void”) towards the top. It was clear that

GeoSupport 2004
continued construction activity would exacerbate the problem and possibly lead to
loss of the entire wall.
Fig. 6 Typical installation of nails, drainage strips, and reinforcing steel
Fig.7 Raveling sand and gravel on 4th Fig. 8 Void behind soil nail wall face
bench of West wall from raveling of sand and gravel
Construction was halted while remedial measures were considered. A number of

solutions were proposed including the installation of a vertical micro-pile wall to get
the construction past the seam. A shallow test section of micro-pile wall was built
and it performed satisfactorily, however the depth of the seam was unknown, so that
method was abandoned. In the end, it was decided to build a berm against the
exposed section of the wall and to water-soak the berm until enough apparent
cohesion could be developed to complete the installation of the nails and excavate the
berm and native material to the next bench level. This procedure worked very well
and construction proceeded with its use until more competent materials were
encountered.
After the wall had advanced to the point where the shotcrete facing on Bench 4 had
reached sufficient strength, a lean 1:1:1 cement:sand:fly ash grout (12-13 kN/m3) was
introduced through the wall to fill the voids that had been created by the raveling.
Injection of this flowable grout in these sections was staged to prevent “blowouts” at

GeoSupport 2004
lower levels of the wall from fluid pressures caused by the grout. Other than for this
problem, construction proceeded smoothly. During construction proof load tests
were performed according to FHWA (1998) requirements to a maximum load of 1.5
times the design load on at least 5% of the nails in any given row. Only bonded
lengths (3-m minimum) were tested. Unbonded lengths were obtained by using a
PVC collar at the head of the nail as a bond breaker. Nails were sized to withstand
test loads with a minimum movement of 80% of the theoretical elastic elongation of
the unbonded length as an acceptance criterion. Each test also included a 10-minute
creep test under maximum load with a failure criterion based on maximum movement
of 1-mm. The results of the tests equaled or exceeded FHWA (1998) acceptability
criteria.
WALL MOVEMENT AND MONITORING
Wall Movement
Because of the proximity of major structures to the edge of the bluff, potential
movements during and after construction were major concerns. A comprehensive
finite element analysis was performed as part of the original design to assess the
stability of various slope configurations and to estimate the magnitude of potential
horizontal and vertical ground movements at the crest of the wall and at strategic
locations within the existing apartment complex (DeNatale, 1998a, 1998b). The
analyses were performed by utilizing a two-dimensional finite element computer code
and a basic isotropic, linear-elastic constitutive model for the soil. A minimum value
of elastic modulus = 21 Mpa was used based on interpretation of data presented in
Table 1. The results of the finite element analyses indicated that vertical ground
movements in the vicinity of the swimming pool and apartment buildings because of
construction of the soil nail wall should be less than 25-mm. Horizontal and vertical
movements at the crest of the walls were calculated to be approximately 25-mm and
38-mm, respectively. These values are within the range of values expected at the
crest of an 18-m high wall in dense granular soils (FHWA, 1998). The results of the
analyses were used to develop an instrumentation program to monitor actual
movements before, during, and after construction.
Monitoring Plan
A performance monitoring plan was developed to help avoid potential problems by

detecting ground and/or structural movements before they became excessive so that
remedial measures could be implemented to halt such movements. The following
program to monitor movements was implemented for the west wall:
Two 20-m long inclinometers were installed, one approximately 1-m. behind the
location of the finished face of the wall just east of the swimming pool and the
other approximately 3-m behind the location of the finished face of the wall
between the wall and the impacted apartment building. Baseline measurements
were taken before the start of construction and both inclinometers were read
regularly during and after construction. Inclinometer measurements indicated that

GeoSupport 2004
the ground surface at the location of the poolside inclinometer moved 4.5-mm
horizontally in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the wall approximately 3-
months after the start of construction, a value well below the calculated value.
The difference is largely due to the conservative value of soil modulus used in the
finite element analyses and the tighter soil nail grid spacing of the ESW design.
Survey targets mounted on potentially impacted structures were regularly
monitored before, during, and after construction.
Nail heads on the wall itself were monitored during construction.

All potentially impacted structures were inspected inside and outside prior to
construction and all observed cracks were photo-documented. The ground
surface behind the top of each wall was inspected at the start of construction and
observed periodically during and after construction for cracks and other signs of
disturbance. Such inspections included dated photo-documentation.
ARCHITECTURAL FACING
Fig. 9 shows the wall as it appears today. The artificial rockwork and sculpted
shotcrete facing shown in Fig. 9 compare favorably with the natural slopes shown in
Fig. 2. Construction of both walls started in June 2001. The shotcrete construction
facing for both walls was done concurrently and the walls were completed in October
2001. The architectural facing was done by the Larson Company (LC) of Tucson,
AZ one wall at a time and was not completed until June 2002.
Fig. 9 Completed soil nail wall
CONCLUSIONS
The design guidelines and procedures contained in the Manual for Design &
Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls (FHWA, 1998) provide the geotechnical
engineer with the tools needed to design soil nail walls. Commercially available
computer codes enhance the engineer’s ability to perform such designs. However,

GeoSupport 2004
field conditions can be encountered that may seriously impact the construction of
such walls. Unless the engineer has a good grasp of geotechnical engineering
principles and is able to apply them with confidence, those conditions may result in
costly and unnecessary remediation procedures. One example of this is the solution
that was ultimately used to correct the raveling problem that endangered the very wall
itself. Another involves the correct interpretation of standard penetration test data to
reconcile the fact that raveling occurred in a seam of dry, lightly- to non-cemented
sands, gravels and cobbles that displayed standard penetration blow counts (N) in
excess of 30 blows/foot. Such high values of N have meaning for foundation analysis
and design where that type of soil remains confined under load just as it was during
the SPT. However, such high values are meaningless when cuts are made into the
same type of soil as is done during the installation of a soil nail wall system.
Confinement is destroyed under such conditions and dry, lightly- to non-cemented
granular soils will run with even the slightest disturbance as they did in this case. In
hindsight, the use of water-soaked berms throughout construction would have been
one way to circumvent potential raveling problems on this project.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Robert Johnson, P.E., of
PCDOT and Dr. Jay S. DeNatale, P.E., of the California Polytechnic State University
in San Luis Obispo.
REFERENCES
AGRA Earth and Environmental (1998), Geotechnical Engineering Report - River

Road Widening and Realignment Project, AEE Job No. 8-127-000-016,
submitted to Pima County Dept. of Transportation, Tucson, AZ.
DeNatale, J.S. (1998a), Prediction of Slope Deformation: The River Road
Realignment Project, Report prepared for Envirotech Southwest, Tucson, AZ.
DeNatale, J.S. (1998b) Analysis of Slope Stability: The Altamira Section of River
Road, Report prepared for Envirotech Southwest, Tucson, AZ.
Desert Earth Engineering (1987), Geotechnical Engineering Slope Stability Analysis
on 3 Subject Slopes Along the North Shoulder of River Road Between 1st
Avenue and Via Entrada, Tucson, Arizona, a report submitted to Pima County
Dept. of Transportation, Tucson, AZ.
Engineers International, Inc. (1991), River Road: First to Campbell, Slope
Treatment Letter Report, Pima County Project TR-87-049, County
W.0.4BRVCS, a report submitted to Rick Engineering, Inc., Tucson, AZ.
FHWA (1998), Manual for Design & Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls,
Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-SA-96-096R, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
ICBO (1994), Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, CA.

GeoSupport 2004

Design, Construction, and Performance of An 18m-High Nailed Soil Wall

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Design, Construction, and Performance of An 18m-High Nailed Soil Wall

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by USP - Universidade De Sao Paulo on 11/23/17. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND PERFORMANCE OF AN 18-METER

ABSTRACT: This paper describes the design, construction, and performance of a

General Geologic Setting

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

conduct a more site- and project-specific geotechnical field investigation.

-2- Nowatzki & Samtani

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

Table 1. Summary of Soil Properties

Boring Location USCS c´ φ´ γ´ ω

-3- Nowatzki & Samtani

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

Fig. 2 Natural slope along River Road West of site

Fig. 3 Plan view showing encroachment onto Altamira Apartment complex

Accessibility and Other Constraints

Accessibility impacted the design and construction in at least two ways. As

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

-5- Nowatzki & Samtani

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

Bar Size, Length, and Spacing

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

Fig. 5 Elevation view of middle-section of West wall

-7- Nowatzki & Samtani

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

Subsurface drainage was designed based on FHWA requirements regarding

Prior to the start of construction, MDI developed an efficient construction sequence

-8- Nowatzki & Samtani

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

Fig. 6 Typical installation of nails, drainage strips, and reinforcing steel

Construction was halted while remedial measures were considered. A number of

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

WALL MOVEMENT AND MONITORING

A performance monitoring plan was developed to help avoid potential problems by

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

 Nail heads on the wall itself were monitored during construction.

Fig. 9 Completed soil nail wall

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

AGRA Earth and Environmental (1998), Geotechnical Engineering Report - River

-12- Nowatzki & Samtani

Copyright ASCE 2004 Geo-Support 2004

Você também pode gostar

Nail heads on the wall itself were monitored during construction.