Source: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

20
Mechanically Stabilized
Earth (MSE) Walls and
an Introduction to
Soil Nailing

20.1 OVERVIEW

20.1.1 Composites
Birds’ nests, beaver dams, and straw in the bricks all are composites. Automobile
tires are a composite, and it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if a tire
were inflated without the tensile restraint from internal fibers. Plywood is a
composite, as are layered pavement systems. The most common composite used in
construction combines the compressive strength of Portland cement concrete with
the tensile strength of steel.

Two composites involving soils were developed in France in the last half of the
twentieth century, and now are used throughout the world. They are mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE), and soil nailing. They also can be viewed as modified
tieback walls.

20.1.2 Tres Caballeros

Three types of retaining structures employ tension elements embedded in soil.
Tieback walls, discussed in the preceding chapter, are constructed from the top
down, as tiebacks are put into place as soil is removed from one side of the wall.
Soil nailing is similar in being constructed from the top down, and different
because instead of functioning to hold a wall structure, the nails function to hold
the soil to itself. Whereas tension in tiebacks results either from post-tensioning or
the ends being pulled outward by movement of the wall, the tendency for soil to
move pulls nails both ways from the middle. The nailed face is covered with steel
mesh and sprayed-on concrete (‘‘shotcrete’’) to protect it from erosion, and may
have decorative panels attached, but the cover does not serve structurally as
a wall.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com) 573

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

574 Geotechnical Engineering

Unlike these two construction methods, MSE walls are built from the bottom up
instead of from the top down, by alternating horizontal tension members with
layers of compacted soil. The outer ends of the tension strips are attached to a
wall, but experimental evidence shows that, like soil nails, the strips are pulled
both ways from near the middle.

The two construction procedures, top down or bottom up, have their own
particular uses and sometimes may be combined, as when an MSE wall is built on
top of a nailed wall.

20.2 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE)

20.2.1 Background
The story goes that in the late 1960s French engineer Henri Vidal was vacationing
at the beach, and, like a true engineer, became more engrossed with the sand than
with the scenery. Vidal observed that putting horizontal layers of pine needles in
a pile of sand made it more tolerant to vertical loading. Thoughtful observation is
a key to invention, and he designed a system consisting of layers of sand separated
by flat, horizontal strips of steel. The strips are attached to facing panels to build a
retaining wall. The resulting walls are flexible, drain readily, and cost considerably
less than walls built by conventional methods. Reinforced EarthTM soon became
one of the most popular options for retaining walls. The facing initially was folds
of sheet metal that later were substituted by more decorative concrete facing
panels (see Fig. 20.3, below).

After the Reinforced Earth patent expired, other kinds of stabilized earth walls
were developed, leading to an all-inclusive generic term ‘‘mechanically stabilized
earth,’’ or MSE. Reinforcing elements can be steel rods or strips, or layers or grids
of plastic having a suitable tensile strength and drag coefficient with the soil.

A simple model illustrating the principle of MSE can be made with sheets of paper
and layers of sand. As shown in Fig. 20.1, lay a sheet of paper on the floor, cover
the central area with a thin layer of dry sand, fold over the edges of the paper on
top of the sand, and tape the paper where it overlaps at the corners. Then lay
another sheet on top and repeat the process, a sheet of paper and a layer of sand,
and keep repeating to make a stack that looks like a square Michelin Man. Cover
the top and try stepping on it. We are not sure that this works but it sounds
reasonable. Then throw away the paper and sweep up the sand.

20.2.2 Construction of MSE

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) consists of flat, horizontal strips or grids of
steel or plastic mesh that are separated by layers of compacted granular soil.
As soil layers are added, lateral expansion from pressure of the overburden is
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 575

Figure 20.1
Tricky experiment
to demonstrate the
principle of
mechanically
stabilized earth.
Keep a broom
handy just in case.

opposed by tension in the strips, which has the same effect on the sand as lateral
pressure applied externally in a triaxial test; the strips restrict or prevent further
expansion and increase the frictional strength of the soil. The cohesive component
of soil strength is not affected by lateral confinement, so the process is less
effective with cohesive soils.

According to Rankine theory, lateral stress increases with depth, and it is

important that sufficient friction be developed on the strips to prevent their
pulling out. However, friction also increases with depth by adding more vertical
pressure to the strips, so the two requirements in theory should balance out.
Therefore, as conventionally constructed, all strips are the same length.

20.2.3 A Very Thick Wall

MSE walls have a facing, but the facing would be of no value without the
tension strips. Therefore an MSE wall consists of the entire structure that
extends from the facing back to the far ends of the strips. The MSE wall is a
very thick gravity wall that must be large enough and heavy enough to prevent
sliding or overturning. Also, it must have adequate foundation support so
that it does not sink or tilt because of the eccentric loading as its weight
acts downward and the retained soil pushes against the back of the block of
reinforced soil.

The mass of the mechanically stabilized earth is designed to prevent internal

failure from tension elements breaking or pulling out. Experiments have shown
that the reinforcing elements are tensioned by friction that pulls both ways
from near the middle. As shown in Fig. 20.2, this is in contrast to the stress in
tiebacks, which are grouted at one end and fastened to the wall at the other.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

576 Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 20.2
Tiebacks are
pulled at the ends
as excavation
proceeds
downward. In
MSE, reinforcing
strips are installed
as a wall is being
built up from the
bottom, and
tension varies
depending on
friction.

Figure 20.3
The facing on
MSE wall
often has the
appearance of
being an ordinary
block or stone
wall. Facing units
or panels are held
in place by
connections to
reinforcing
elements that
extend
horizontally and
are held in place
by friction with
soil.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 577

Tieback tension therefore is constant throughout the ungrouted length of the

tieback.

20.3 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS

20.3.1 Selection of Soil

MSE is best adapted for granular soils having high friction and low clay content.
The soil often is brought in from off-site, and spread and compacted under
controlled conditions.

Soil in an MSE wall provides friction that holds the tension strips, and MSE
walls originally were intended to use only compacted granular gravel or sand
(GW, GM, SW, or SM) soil backfill. Clayey sands (SC) and coarse silty (ML)
soils also can be used if there is adequate drainage. These criteria apply to soil
within the wall itself and not to soil retained by the wall structure.

Some MSE walls have been built using cohesive soils, but that at best is risky and
at worst irresponsible. The lower hydraulic conductivity of cohesive soils leads to
water retention, increasing the soil weight and contributing to excess pore water
pressure and creep. Improper soil is a leading cause of failure of MSE walls.

A soil acceptability criterion proposed by the U.S. FHWA (Elias et al., 2001) and
used by many state highway departments is (a) no more than 15 percent of the soil
should pass a No. 200 sieve and (b) the plasticity index should be no higher than 6.
The friction angle after compaction can be expected to be in the range 348 to 318,
depending on the gradation and plasticity.

Less rigorous requirements have been advanced by manufacturers of geogrids

because of passive resistance from soil enclosed in the grid openings.
These specifications may allow up to 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve if
there is internal drainage, in which case the drained friction angle is lowered to
about 288.

MSE also is used to stabilize slopes, in which case the wall is laid back to near the
slope angle and the maximum allowable PI is 20, with up to 50 percent passing the
No. 200 sieve. The strength requirement is reduced because of the lower slope
angle compared with the relatively steep face of a high-angle retaining wall.
For example, if a natural slope angle of 158 is stable, relatively less effort will
be required to stabilize it at an angle of 208 or 258 than to make it near
vertical. Factors influencing slope stability and landslides are discussed in the next
chapter.

Compaction is specified to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard Proctor

density, and is subject to field inspection and testing. The above criteria apply to

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

578 Geotechnical Engineering

soil used in the wall, and not to soil that is behind the wall, although its strength
still has a direct bearing on wall stability.

20.3.2 External Stability

Design criteria for external stability are the same as for other gravity retaining
walls, and the various possibilities shown in Fig. 19.3 should be reviewed.
Pressure from the retained soil is assumed to act on a vertical plane
through the ends of the reinforcing strips, as shown in Fig. 20.4. As the
walls are segmented and therefore flexible, the lower part may move more
than the upper part, resulting in the bowing shown in the figure. The
direction of bowing can be a clue to the cause of distress. The other
potential external failure modes include sliding, toppling, and involvement in a
landslide.

Example 20.1
A 20 ft (6.1 m) high MSE wall is constructed with sandy soil having a friction angle of
208 and a total unit weight of 125 lb/ft3 (19.6 kN/m3). The wall rests on and retains
soil having a friction angle of 208 and a unit weight of 110 lb/ft3 (17.3 kN/m3).
The minimum length of the reinforcement is 70% of the height of the wall. (a) What is
the factor of safety against sliding? (b) Against overturning? (c) If these factors are
not adequate, what do you recommend? (d) What is the eccentricity of the foundation
pressure?

Figure 20.4
MSE walls are
manufactured with
quality control
while the
foundation soils
remain an
uncontrolled
variable, and must
be evaluated for
(a) differential
settlement and
(b) bearing
capacity failure.
Foundation
problems are a
main cause of
distress in MSE
walls.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 579

Answer:

(a) Ka from the Rankine formula for a friction angle of 208 is 0.49. The force from the
retained soil is
P ¼ ½Ka
H2 ¼ 0:5ð0:49Þð110 lb=ft3 Þð20 ftÞ2 ¼ 10,800 lb per linear foot of wall, or
¼ 0:5ð0:49Þð17:3 kN=m3 Þð6:1mÞ2 ¼ 158 kN=m

The strip length represents the thickness of the wall: 0.7
20 ¼ 14 ft (0.7
6.1 ¼ 4.3 m), and
the weight is

W ¼ 20 ft
14 ft
125 lb=ft3 ¼ 35,000 lb per linear foot or

¼ 6:1 m
4:3 m
19:6 kN=m3 ¼ 514 kN=m

Frictional resistance is

F ¼ 35,000 lb=ft tan 20 ¼ 12,740 lb=ft or

¼ 514 kN=m tan 20 ¼ 187 kN=m

The factor of safety against sliding is 12,740/10,800 ¼ 1.18, or 187/158 ¼ 1.18.

(b) The overturning moment about the toe assuming a triangular distribution of active
pressure is
Mo ¼ P ðlb=ftÞ
H ðftÞ  3 ¼ 10,800
20  3 ¼ 72,000 ft-lb per foot of wall, or
¼ 158 ðkN=mÞ
6:1 ðmÞ  3 ¼ 320 kN-m per meter

The resisting moment from the weight of the reinforced soil wall is
Mr ¼ 35,000 lb
7 ft ¼ 245,000 ft-lb or
514 kN
ð4:3  2Þ m ¼ 1105 kN-m

The factor of safety against overturning is 245,000/72,000 ¼ 3.4, or 1105/320 ¼ 3.4.

(c) The factor of safety against sliding can be increased by seating the wall deeper into the
soil to provide passive resistance at the toe.

(d) Eccentricity is defined as the distance the weight acts off center in order to maintain
equilibrium, and is obtained by equating the weight couple and the net overturning
moment about the toe of the wall:
W
e¼P
H3
e ¼ PH  3W ¼ 10,800 lb=ft
20 ft  3
35,000 lb=ft ¼ 2:1 ft or
¼ 158 kN=m
6=1 m  3
514 kN=m ¼ 0:63 m

Eccentricity is used in foundation bearing capacity calculations.

20.3.3 Internal Stability

Whereas internal stability of a reinforced concrete is dealt with by structural
engineers, the internal stability of MSE walls is in the realm of geotechnical

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

580 Geotechnical Engineering

engineering in order to establish design criteria for length and the strength of
reinforcing elements, and for their spacing vertically and horizontally.

A sliding wedge usually is the assumed failure mode for the interior of the
wall—that is, with the wedge within the wall. The wedge is restrained by the
horizontal friction strips that anchor into soil behind the wedge. Tensions measured
with strain gauges attached to the strips (Fig. 20.5) appear to reflect the distribution
of horizontal pressure instead of locating a hypothetical slip surface. The data
indicate a concentration of pressure higher on the wall than at the base, as indicated
by classical soil mechanics, which can explain distress by bulging near the midriff.

Arching theory was applied to experimental data by Schlosser (1990), which was
for an MSE wall (Fig. 19.22) in the preceding chapter.

20.3.4 Strip Length

According to the Rankine criteria, without wall friction the failure wedge should
extend upward and back from the heel of the wall facing elements at an angle
45 þ /2 from horizontal, as shown in Fig. 20.5. This assumption is on the safe
side for determining an anchorage for the strips, particularly as the strip tension
diminishes from a maximum near the middle to zero at the end. With a vertical

Figure 20.5
Tension
measured in steel
reinforcing strips
in an MSE wall
indicate that the
center of pressure
is near the middle
of the wall. This
wall was
surcharged to
failure, which
increased tension
in the strips but
did not alter the
line of action.
(From data of
Al-Hussaini and
Perry, 1978.)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 581

wall and a 308 friction angle the wedge extends into the wall a distance of
0.6H. As the strips must embed in soil beyond the wedge, a minimum strip length
of 0.6 to 0.7H is widely used. It will be noted that an MSE wall cannot be used if
there is not enough room behind the facing for the required length of tension
strips. MSE therefore is not appropriate, nor is it necessary, for a fascia wall.

20.3.5 Control of Compaction

Quality control for the backfill soil usually is on the basis of gradation and
compacted density that is most readily measured with a nuclear gauge. The
Borehole Shear test is adapted for direct measurement of friction angles in the
compacted soil, and in sand the test can be performed very rapidly in hand-
augered holes.

20.3.6 Pullout Resistance

Friction on the reinforcing strips depends on the contact pressure, which increases
linearly with depth. The pullout resistance is obtained by multiplying the vertical
soil pressure times a friction coefficient times the area on both sides of the strip.
This is divided by a factor of safety that normally equals or exceeds 1.5. The
friction coefficient is evaluated by laboratory pullout tests.

For steel strips the ratio of sliding friction to internal friction of the soil often is
taken as 1.0. Geogrids have openings that interlock with fill so measured value
can be higher than 1.0, but an allowance is made for stretching and creep of the
plastic, and for possible installation damage. Suggested reduction factors for
pullout friction are as follows for steel and for high-density polyethylene (HDP):
Material Soil Reduction factor

High-density polyethylene Gravelly sand 0.8

(HDP)
Sand 0.75
CL, ML (clayey sand, silt) 0.58
Steel Sand 1.0

Other information is available in various manufacturers’ trade literature. The

pullout force increases with depth, so a calculation is made for each depth of grid.

Example 20.2
Calculate the pullout resistance per unit width of a geogrid needed to stabilize a 20 ft
(6.1 m) high wall with compacted SC soil backfill having a dry unit weight of 102 lb/ft3
(16.0 kN/m3). The factor of safety is to be 1.5.

Answer: The grid length is assumed to be 0.7 times the wall height, or 14 ft (4.3 m). From
Fig. 19.2 and the ratio
d/
w the soil friction angle is assumed to be 288. The total unit

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

582 Geotechnical Engineering

weight will be somewhat higher because of the retention of water, but the discrepancy will
be small and on the safe side. The design pullout resistance per unit width per unit of depth
per unit length of wall is as follows. Note that this does not depend on Rankine pressures,
which apply only to horizontal stress.
Tpo ¼ ð1 ft
102 lb=ft3 Þ
ð14 ft
2Þ
ð0:58 tan 28 Þ  1:5 ¼ 590 lb=ft=ft or
¼ ð1 m
16:0 kN=m3 Þ
ð4:3
2Þ
ð0:58 tan 28 Þ  1:5 ¼ 28 kN=m=m

The largest pullout resistance will be required for the deepest strip. Assuming this to be
2 ft (0.6 m) above the base of the wall, the pullout resistance including a factor of safety of
1.5 is
Tpo ¼ 18 ft
590 lb=ft=ft ¼ 17,000 lb=ft length of wall or
¼ 3:7 m
28 kN=m=m ¼ 100 kN=m

20.3.7 Tensile Strength of the Reinforcing Strips

As one requirement is that the pullout resistance must increase with depth, so
must the tensile strength of the reinforcement. Unlike the pullout resistance,
which depends only on vertical pressure, tensile strength depends on lateral stress,
which conventionally is calculated from Rankine or Coulomb theories. The factor
of safety is increased to 2.0 to account for the vagaries of lateral soil pressure
including arching action.

A simple approach is to assume a unit length of wall and calculate the pressure
times vertical height of each segment, then multiply by the horizontal spacing
between tension members. If the reinforcement is continuous, as in the case of
a grid or mat, the answer is left in terms of a unit width of the grid or mat.

Example 20.3
Calculate the required strip tensile strength per unit length of wall for panels extending
between depths 16 to 20 ft (4.9 to 6.1 m) in the wall of the preceding example.

Answer: The Rankine active coefficient is Ka ¼ tan2(45 – 28/2) ¼ 0.36. The average depth
for the bottom panel is 18 ft (5.5 m).
h ¼ 18 ft
102 lb=ft3
0:36 ¼ 660 lb=ft=ft or
¼ 5:5 m
16:0 kN=m3
0:36 ¼ 32 kN=m=m

With a panel height of 4 ft (1.2 m) and a factor of safety of 2, the required tensile strength
per unit length is
T ¼ 660 lb=ft2
4 ft
2 ¼ 5300 lb=ft of wall or
¼ 32 kN=m3
1:2 m
2 ¼ 77 kN=m

Note that, to avoid confusion in calculations, units are carried on all quantities
and canceled as appropriate. Also, the above examples incorporate only two
significant figures so they may be easier to follow; in practice three
significant figures would be carried through the calculations and the answers
rounded to two.
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 583

The required tension must be equaled or exceeded by a grid that is commercially

available or the spacing must be changed. The same calculations are made for
higher panels where a lighter reinforcement may be used.

Arching action in soil behind conventional walls requires the development of

wall friction. In MSE walls this load transfer may be aided by vertical support
for the soil from the strips that are attached to the wall. Some trial calcu-
lations indicate that arching action will account for about a 15 percent
friction reduction in the factor of safety for tensile strength of reinforcement
near the midsection, and a 30 percent reduction in factor of safety against
overturning.

20.4 SOIL NAILING

20.4.1 A Wall Without a Wall

As the name implies, soil nailing involves insertion of long steel rods into soil so
that the soil holds the nails and the nails hold the soil. Soil nailing was first devised
in France in the early 1970s, and offers advantages of low cost, versatility, and
easily negotiating curves and corners. Furthermore, nailing does not require large
equipment.

Nails can be shot into soft soil using compressed air, but the most common
method is to insert them into prebored holes. Shooting in with air pressure can be
used for soft soils, and the use of perforated steel tubes for nails provides
drainage. Because the depth of embedment depends in part on resistance of the
soil, after installation the projecting ends of the tubes are cut off.

Prebored soil nails usually have heads and may have bearing plates that act like
large washers to distribute stress on the soil surface. After insertion, prebored
nails are grouted for their full length with concrete mortar. Borings and nails are
inclined downward at about 158 to keep the grout from running out.

20.4.2 Similarities and Differences

The concept of soil nailing in some ways is similar to that of MSE walls, as both
employ regularly spaced tension members, but there also are important
differences. A major distinction is that nailing works from the top down and
treats soils in situ, whereas MSE is constructed from the bottom up with soil that
is specially selected, spread, and compacted layer on layer. Soil nailing is
performed by incrementally excavating to a depth of a meter or two, installing
nails, and repeating the process for the entire excavated depth.

The holding power of soil nails often is tested by pulling, but they are not
routinely post-tensioned as in the case of tiebacks.
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

584 Geotechnical Engineering

20.4.3 Kinds of Soil

Soil nailing is less restrictive than MSE with regard to suitable soils, in part
because the soils are not disturbed when they are nailed. In fact, granular soils
that are required for MSE walls usually will be unsuitable for nailing because they
will not hold a vertical face long enough for nails to be installed. Soil nailing
requires that the soil can stand unsupported while an excavation is made a
meter or two deep for the nails to be installed and grouted. If the soil is not self-
supporting, nailing cannot be used.

The simplest method for evaluating soil suitability for nailing also is the direct
method, to dig a trial excavation. However, a trial excavation normally will not be
feasible for the full height of a wall, in which case soil borings and tests are
needed. For example, a common alluvial sequence is a layer of clay over sand, and
it would be a bad surprise to encounter sand after nailing has begun.

20.4.4 Protecting the Nailed Surface

After nails are installed the exposed soil surface is covered with steel mesh
and shotcreted, or covered with sprayed-on, low-slump concrete. The jagged
appearance of the shotcrete then can be concealed by attaching decorative panels.

Because soil nailing is a fairly recent development with few failures, design
methods are not well established and probably lean toward overdesign. While the
lack of failures is meritorious, it also means that only limited information is
available to define failure mechanisms. Two nailed walls have intentionally been
failed in order to gain this information. The Clouterre Test Wall in France was
failed by saturating the soil, and a National Experimental Geotechnical Test Site
wall at the University of Massachusetts was failed by overexcavation at the toe.
As in the case of MSE walls, the slip surface is curved, as shown in Fig. 20.6.

Figure 20.6
Results from some experimental nailed walls. The pressure diagram at the right is similar to that of
a braced excavation. (Based on experiments reported by Plumelle et al., 1990.)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 585

Nail stresses approach zero at the base of the wall and are higher than those
predicted from Rankine theory higher on the wall, but as discussed below, this
may be attributable to the construction sequence instead of to soil arching.

20.4.5 Soil Nailing Construction

The first step in soil nailing is to excavate a vertical or near-vertical cut to a depth
of 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft). The usual procedure is to bore a row of holes for the length
of the excavation and inclined at about 158 (1 on 3.5 to 4) from horizontal. Nails
then are inserted into the holes. Since the nail tensile strength normally is not a
governing criterion, the nails should be soft steel to allow bending without
breaking, and they can vary from about 15 to 50 mm (0.5 to 1.5 in.) in diameter.
As in MSE, the length is gauged to the height of the wall.

Because of the installation method there must be working space behind the drill
for it to be fully retracted, and sufficient headspace above the drilling machine
to allow inclined drilling. Where headspace is limited, the boring angle can be
reduced, but should not be lower than about 58. Nails then are grouted from the
bottom of the borings.

The nailed soil face is covered with a layer of shotcrete, then a layer of wire mesh,
then another layer of shotcrete for a total thickness of 150–250 mm (6–10 ins.).
Although the mesh-reinforced concrete is not considered to be the same as a
structural wall, it is designed to withstand up to 60 percent of the horizontal soil
pressure in case a nail slips. After the concrete has set and/or the wall completed,
panels may be installed to improve the rough appearance.

After a lift is completed the next soil layer is excavated and the process repeated,
and heights as high as 75 ft have been stabilized. In a continuous cut, the nail
length is about 80 percent of the height of the cut, which is about the same as the
length of reinforcing strips in MSE walls.

20.4.6 Drainage
The shotcrete layer will seal off normal soil drainage, so weepholes are drilled
through the concrete in a regular pattern. To prevent water from running down
the outside face, perforated pipes or plastic drainage strips may be installed
vertically prior to shotcreting each lift. Drains are connected vertically and can
feed seepage water into a drain tile running along the base of the wall.

20.4.7 Principles of Design

The design of soil nailing is complex and sometimes seems to be more intuitive
than by design. A rational design depends on whether the product performs like
wall, in which case the guiding criteria relate to soil pressures, or as a stabilized
slope, in which case the criteria relate to position and stresses along a slip surface.
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

586 Geotechnical Engineering

Observed failures of nailed walls indicate that instead of failing by mass toppling
they fail by internal slipping, so a slip-surface design is most frequently used.
The distribution of pressure presents a major departure from an ideal triangular
distribution, being zero at the bottom and then becoming nearly constant at
shallower depths. This is close to the pressure pattern for braced excavations that
also are constructed by top-down excavation, but with support from horizontal
struts instead of from nailing. In both situations soil still in place below the
bottom of the excavation resists yielding, in effect acting like a strut. Then as the
excavation is deepened, the soil rebounds elastically and transfers nearly uniform
stress to the struts or the nails. As shown in Fig. 20.6, movement tends to be by
tilting outward instead of by developing a middle bulge, as in MSE walls.

20.4.8 Nail Length and Strength

As in the case of MSE walls, the incipient slip surface emerges at a distance of
about 0.3–0.4H behind the edge of the wall, so tensile stresses are highest near the
center of a nail. Typically nail lengths are about the same as for MSE walls, 60 to
80 percent of the wall height, the longer dimensions being for low friction angle
soils.

Nails and their surrounding casing of grout obviously must be designed to resist
slipping, and must have adequate tensile strength to prevent breaking.
Furthermore the heads must not pull off. Resistance to bending is a consideration
in some design methods, but is indicated to make a relatively minor contribution
to stability.

The larger the spacing between nails, the lower the cost. A spacing of 1.5 m (5 ft)
generally is close enough to prevent sloughing off of soil and has been adopted
for uniformity in construction. Rows of nails can either be aligned vertically or
staggered; vertical is preferred for attaching facing elements, but staggered is less
likely to allow sloughing off of soil between the nails. For easier constructability,
nail rows can be a constant distance above each step in the excavation, or rows
can be laid out horizontally and stepped up or down as required to conform to a
changing wall height. The lowest row should be no more than about 0.75 m above
the final ground surface.

The pattern of deflection of the facing is similar to that of a mattress as nails hold
and dimple the surface. However, because the facing shotcrete is rigid, if yielding
occurs it will tend to develop concentric cracks around the nail heads. The facing
must resist punching shear, and design is based on a premise that if one nail slips,
its stress can be carried by the surrounding nails.

20.4.9 Design Methods

Soil-nailed walls may be battered or tilted back for better stability, and if room
is available high walls often are stepped so that nail lengths relate to the height of

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 587

each step. Stepping of an excavation also can help to localize and limit the extent
of a failure. Design of soil nailing normally is based on a slip line approach. The
German method and the CALTRANS method (for California DOT) approximate
the failure geometry with straight lines. The Davis method (for University of
California at Davis) assumes a parabolic failure surface, and the French method a
circular failure surface. However, Sheahan and Ho (2003) report near-linear slip
surfaces that enable a simplified solution. A relatively complex kinematic or
energy approach assumes a log spiral (see Byrne et al., 1998, p. 94). The U.S.
Federal Highway Administration has developed a detailed design procedure based
on a circular failure surface.

Most design methods have been computer programmed, but the programs
are expensive and may not be readily available for student use. Sheahan
and Ho (2003) suggest a spreadsheet computational method that adapts
Coulomb’s analysis by assuming a planar slip but also includes a cohesion
component of shear strength. Although according to the Coulomb/Rankine
solutions the most critical slip surface with a vertical wall and no nails should
be inclined at an angle of c ¼ 45 þ /2, the spreadsheet solutions indicate
that other angles are more critical, so trials are conducted with a varying slope
angle.

A soil mass that has been stabilized by nailing also must be safe from global
failure (a landslide), which is discussed in the next chapter.

20.5 SUMMARY

Despite similarities of purpose, different design philosophies and procedures are

used for mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, soil nailing, and conventional
retaining walls.

Design of MSE and conventional walls is based on soil pressures determined

from the soil internal friction. The MSE wall is constructed with cohesionless
soil, and conventional walls are backfilled with disturbed soil that has little
cohesion, so it is not incorporated into the design. Arching action raises the center
of pressure and can significantly increase the overturning moment in conven-
tional and MSE walls, but design factors of safety normally are sufficiently
high that the wall is not seriously compromised if arching is ignored. If a design
factor of safety is marginal, the system should be recalculated including arching
action.

Current soil nailing design is shear-strength oriented, based on shearing resistance

along a potential slip surface and pullout resistance of the nails. The location of
the surface remains speculative. Part of the difficulty in nailing design is that the
distribution of soil pressure appears to depend more on elastic rebound properties

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

588 Geotechnical Engineering

of the soil than on its internal friction, but this is not a consideration in a design
that involves pressures that derive from the soil shearing strength. A similar
situation exists with strutted excavations, where design remains empirical and
based on measurements of strut stresses in different kinds of soil.

Problems
20.1. List the conditions that must be tested to ensure external stability of an
MSE wall. Which of these is the most common cause of distress or failure?
The second most likely cause?
20.2. Prepare a table showing MSE soil specifications for walls with steel strips or
plastic grids, and for stabilizing slopes. What problems can be anticipated in
each case if soils do not meet these specifications?
20.3. Part of a parking lot on top of an MSE wall is settling, and a section of wall
has failed by tipping outward. Investigation revealed that the soil was
compacted by running over it with a bulldozer, and density tests gave about
90% of the standard density. The builder claims that overloading at the
surface caused the problem, and that the reduced weight of the soil should
result in lower, not higher, pressures on the wall facing. (a) Is that a valid
argument? Why (not)? (b) How will a lower compacted density influence
wall pressure, sliding, overturning, and pullout resistance? State your
explanations in terms that can be understood by a jury.
20.4. Water is observed seeping from a level at about one-third of the wall height
of an MSE wall. What can be concluded with regard to the soil conditions?
How might this have an adverse effect on stability of the wall? What can be
done to improve the situation without rebuilding the wall?
20.5. A reinforced earth wall 20 m (65.6 ft) high will utilize strips spaced every
0.3 m (1 ft) vertically and 1 m (3.3 ft) horizontally. The backfill is compacted
sand,  ¼ 358, and
¼ 17.3 kM/m (110 lb/ft3). The design factor of safety is
1.5. (a) What maximum tensile strength is needed in the strips? (b) If the
steel in the strips has a yield stress of 345 MPa (50,000 lb/in.2) and the strips
are 102 mm (4 in.) wide, what is the maximum thickness?
20.6. Enter ‘‘Retaining wall failure’’ in a computer search engine. Select one that
may or may not be an MSE wall and prepare a two-page summary
indicating the kind and height of the wall, the kind of soil, and the nature of
the failure. As an expert witness you will indicate what in your opinion are
the possible cause(s), which in addition to design factors can include any
unusual weather, flooding, surcharge, lawn watering, earthquakes, faulty
construction, or other factors that either are based on solid evidence or can
be a target for investigation.
20.7. Is lateral stress increased, decreased, or does it remain the same (a) in soil
that is nailed, (b) in soil in an MSE wall, and (c) in a tieback wall with
post-tensioning? Explain the significance.
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)
Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls and an Introduction to Soil Nailing 589

References and Further Reading

Al-Hussaini, M., and Perry, E. B. (1978). ‘‘Field Experiment of reinforced Earth wall.’’
In ASCE Symposium of Soil Reinforcement, pp. 127–156.
Byrne, R. J., Cotton, D., Porterfield, J., Wolschlag, C., and Uelblacker, G. (1998). Manual
for Design and Construction Monitoring of Soil Nail Walls. U.S. DOT-FHWA Publ.
No. FHWA-SA-96-069R. Available through NTIS, National Technical Information
Service.
Desai, C. S., and Al-Hosseini, K. E. (2005) ‘‘Prediction of Field Behavior of Reinforced
Soil Wall Using Advanced Constitutive model.’’ J. Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng.
131(5), 729–739.
Elias, V., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines. Report No.
FHWA-NHI-00-043. U.S. DOT FHWA.
Juran, I., and Elias, V. (1991). ‘‘Ground Anchors and Soil Nails in Retaining Structures.’’
In H.-Y. Fang, ed., Foundation Engineering Handbook, pp.868–905. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Lazarte, C. A., Elias, V., Espinoza, R. D., and Sabatini, P. J. (2003). Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 7, Soil Nail Walls. Report No. FHWA0-1F-03-017, U.S.
DOT FHWA.
Plumelle, C., Schlosser, F., Delage, P., and Knochenmus, G. (1990). ‘‘French National
Research Project for Soil Nailing: Clouterre.’’ Design and Performance of Earth
Retaining Structures, ASCE Geotech. Spec. Publ. 25, 600–675.
Schlosser, F. (1990). ‘‘Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Structures in Europe.’’
Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Geotech. Spec. Publ. 25,
347–378.
Sheahan, T. C., and Ho, C. (2003). ‘‘Simplified Trial Wedge Method for Soil Nailed Wall
Analysis.’’ J. Geotech. and Geoenviron. Eng. 129(2), 117–124.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.