OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF GROUTING

PRESSURE AND OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ON
THE PULLOUT RESISTANCE OF SOIL NAILS
Wan-Huan ZHOU, Jian-Hua YIN, Hong-Hu ZHU, Cheng-Yu HONG
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong, China

ABSTRACT
A series laboratory soil-nail pullout tests on complete decomposed granite at the saturated condition under different
grouting pressures and overburden pressures were carried out to study the effect of grouting pressure and overburden
pressure on the pullout resistance of soil nails. The pullout tests were fully instrumented and monitored. The bare Fibre
Bragg Grading point sensors were installed together with the strain gauges to measure the axial strain changes during
testing. Some latest test results are presented and discussed in this paper.

RÉSUMÉ
Des séries d’essais d’arrachement sol-ongle sur du granit complètement décomposé à l'état saturé, sous différentes
pressions de jointoiement et de surcharge, ont été effectués en laboratoire pour étudier leurs effets sur la resistance
d’arrachement des sols-ongles. Les essais d’arrachement ont été entièrement équipés et surveillés. Des sondes
d’évaluation de point de Bragg de fibre nue ont été installées ainsi que des jauges de contrainte pour mesurer les
changements axiaux de contrainte pendant l'essai. Les derniers résultats d'essai sont présentés et discutés en cet
article.

1 INTRODUCTION properties of the in-situ soils, the cement grout integrity

Soil nailing has been widely used worldwide as an
economic, effective, and simple method for stabilization
of new cut slopes and retaining structures. Since the
mid 1980s, the technique of soil nailing has been
applied for improving the stability of marginally stable
slopes and retaining walls in Hong Kong (GEO 2005).
In Hong Kong, most slopes are composed of completely
decomposed granite (CDG) soils and soil nails are
installed by the drill and grout method.
In the design of a soil nail system, the interface shear
resistance between a soil nail and the surrounding soil
is a key parameter for design and safety assessment of
the soil nail stabilized slope (Powell and Watkins 1990).
Many factors have influences on the pullout resistance
of the soil nails, such as the overburden pressure, the
soil dilation, the grouting pressure, the shear strength of
the soil, the roughness of the nail surface, the degree of
saturation of the soil, and etc. It has been studied and
found by previous researchers that the pull-out
resistance of grouted soil nails is largely contributed by
the effect of soil dilation (Schlosser 1982).
of nails, and some uncontrolled test parameters (e.g.
vertical stresses, grouting pressure, the roughness of
the drilled hole, etc). In addition, the field pullout tests
are normally carried out in a no-rain weather condition
and in unsaturated soils. Such testing condition is not
the worst case and the measured pullout resistance is,
therefore, on the unsafe side. On the other hand,
laboratory soil nail pullout tests can be conducted under
controlled conditions, so that some key influencing
factors on the fundamental interaction mechanism and
shear resistance between a soil nail and the soils can
be studied. Chang and Milligan (1996) conducted
laboratory pullout tests of steel bars and rubber tubes in
yellow Leighton Buzzard Sand and Baskarp Sand. In
Hong Kong, Lee et al. (2001) and Junaideen et al.
(2004) conducted laboratory pullout tests on soil nails in
a loose Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG) fill. Yin
and his co-workers (Yin and Su 2006, Su 2006, Yin et
al. 2006) developed a new soil nail pull-out box and
carried out studies on the interface shear resistance
between a grouted soil nail and CDG soils. A few key
influencing factors, including the overburden pressure,
degree of saturation of the soil were investigated.

Extensive field pull-out tests (Schlosser and Guilloux
1981, Berglund and Oden 1996, and Franzén 1998)
have been carried out on different types of driven nails
and grouted nails. Due to the uncertainties of the field
conditions, the reported test results are commonly
scattered. These uncertainties include the nonuniform
Nowadays, in common practice of the soil nail
construction in Hong Kong, gravity or low pressure
grouting is normally adopted. The effect of grouting
pressure is seldom taken into account in the soil nailing
design and studies on the contribution of the grouting
pressure to the soil nail pullout resistance are limited in

985
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007
references. Yeung et al. (2005) carried out field pullout
tests on Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) pipes
in a CDG soil slope in Hong Kong and observed a
significant increase of the pullout resistance due to the
pressure grouting. Yin et al. (2006) reported some
laboratory pullout tests and discussed the influence of
cement pressure grouting on the soil nail pullout
resistances. Totally four tests with grouting pressures of
80kPa and 200kPa and overburden pressures of 80kPa
and 130kPa were carried out on the CDG soil with 50%
degree of saturation.
In the pullout testing, the axial strains of the nail can be
measured in order to calculate the shear resistance at
the interface between cement grout and the
surrounding soils. Normally electrical resistance and
vibrating wire type strain gauges are used to measure
the strain data. The Fibre Bragg Grading (FBG) sensor
is an innovative technique for measuring the strains.
The concept is the wavelength changes of the FBG
sensor are proportional to the strain changes at the
sensor point. Comparing to traditional strain gauge, this
optical fibre sensing technology has apparent
advantages. It is immune to electromagnetic
interference and highly resistant to corrosion. The
compact size makes it easy to install without affecting
the structural integrity. This technique has been widely
applied in structure health monitoring (SHM). Chan et
al. (2006) has applied the FBG sensors in the
monitoring of Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong. However,
its application in geotechnical field is still limited. Yin et
al. (2007) firstly applied this technique in field soil nail
monitoring and found that FBG sensors are more
reliable than electrical strain gauges for the strain
monitoring.
Recently, further studies on the influence of grouting
pressure on the shear resistance of soil-grouted nail
interface are in progress based on the previous studies
(Yin and Su 2006, Su 2006, Yin et al 2006). A series of
laboratory soil nail pullout tests with different grouting
pressures and overburden pressures are proposed. All
the tests are performed on CDG soil under nearly
saturated condition, that is, the critical condition. Both
strain gauges and FBG sensors are used to measure
the strain changes during testing. In the paper, some
up to date test results are presented and discussed.
2 SOIL NAIL PULLOUT BOX WITH
INSTRUMENTION AND TEST PROCEDURES
The pullout box designed by Yin and Su (2006) was
used in the present study. The internal dimensions of
the box are 1000 mm long, 600 mm wide and 830 mm
high. The pullout box is fully instrumented with six earth
pressure cells, four pore water pressures cells, an
overburden pressure application system, an additional
chamber at the box back covering the end of the soil
nail, a back pressure saturation system, a special
triaxial cell as a waterproof front cover, a pressure
grouting device, and a pullout device. More details on
986
the box design and setup can be found in Yin and Su
(2006).
Test procedures include box preparation, sample
preparation, placement of transducers, hole drilling, soil
nail installation, pressure grouting, saturation with back
pressure, pulling out of the soil nail. More descriptions
on the test procedures can be found in Su (2006) and
Yin et al. (2006).
3 BASIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL AND CEMENT
GROUT AND RESPONSES OF SOIL AND NAIL
DURING PULLOUT TESTING
3.1 Basic properties of the soil and the cement grout
The Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG) used in
this study was taken from a highway construction site at
Tai Wai, Hong Kong and was a typical in-situ soil
commonly found in Hong Kong. The composition of the
CDG soil obtained for the present study was 9.3%
gravel, 62.5% sand, 25.0% silt and 3.2% clay, classified
as yellowish brown, very silty sand. The plastic and
liquid limits of the soil were 27.3% and 35.5%
respectively. The maximum dry density was 1.802
Mg/m3. The soil compacted in the box had the initial
degree of saturation of around 75%. The density of
cement grout was 1.89 Mg/m3. The average uniaxial
compressive strength of the cement grout on the 5th
day was 32.1 MPa. The secant Young’s modulus
(defined as the slope from the origin to the point of 50%
of the maximum axial stress in the axial stress-axial
strain curve) and the corresponding Poisson’s ratio
were 12.6 GPa and 0.21 respectively. Other basic
parameters and the shear strength parameters of the
soil and cement grout were summarized in Table 1 and
Table 2 after Yin et al. (2006).
3.2 Typical experimental results during application of
overburden pressure, pressure grouting, and the
pull-out of the soil nail
Due to page limit, only typical results of the test nail
subjected to an overburden pressure of 120 kPa and a
grouting pressure of 200 kPa are presented and
discussed in this section.
Overburden pressure was applied to the soil before
drilling a horizontal hole in the soil for the nail
installation. Figure 1 shows the vertical pressures
measured by the six pressure cells (P-Cells 1 to 6)
versus time, after an overburden pressure of 120 kPa
had been applied on the top soil surface in the pullout
box. The overburden pressure was applied gradually
and then maintained at 120 kPa. As shown in Figure 1,
the vertical pressures first increased to about 120 kPa
and maintained constant afterwards, which indicates the
soil stresses in the pullout box were adequately
established in simulation of the overburden pressures in
a slope.
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

During the hole-drilling, the stresses in the surrounding

400
soils around the hole will release. it was observed that P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2 P-Cell 3
350
the earth pressures measured by P-Cell1 to P-Cell4 P-Cell 4 P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6
5
3
6
4
300
dropped to lower values after the hole-drilling. The earth

Pressure (kPa)
250 1 2
pressures measured by P-Cells 1,2,3 and 4 were not
200
reduced to zero because these cells were still in some
150
distance (about 40mm) from the hole. The 4 cells had
100
to be placed not too close to the perimeter of the
50
drillhole in order to avoid damage during the drilling.
0
-50
0 50 100 150 200 250
150 Time (min)

120
Figure 2 Measured earth pressures versus time during
Pressure (kPa)

Overburden pressure kept constant

90 5 6 grouting under the pressure of 250 kPa
3 4

60 1 2 For the axial strain monitoring, totally four electrical

Overburden pressure increasing
30
0
0 200 400 600
Time (min)
Figure 1 Measured earth pressures versus time after
having applied an overburden pressure of 120 kPa on
the top soil surface in the pullout box
After the hole was drilled, a high yield steel bar of
40mm in diameter was inserted in the centre of the hole
and the cement slurry was grouted under pressure of
200kPa. Figure 2 shows rapid increases of the earth
pressures at the six pressure cells due to the grouting
pressure. The pressure increases at P-Cells 1,2,3, and
4 were more than those at P-Cells 5 and 6. The
pressures decrease gradually during the curing of the
cement grout, which are consistent with the
observations of the tests done by Yin et al. (2006),
where one can find more discussions on the
observations. Yin et al. (2006) also reported that, for the
pressure grouting tests on the soil with 50% saturation
degree, the soil nail pullout resistance had significantly
been increased even though the earth pressures only
increased for a short duration.
About two days after the pressure grouting, a back
pressure of 30 kPa was applied from six holes at the
sides, the waterproof front cap and back extension
chamber of the pullout box. After five curing days when
the developed strength of the cement grout was about
32MPa, the nail was pulled out using a hydraulic jack
against a steel reaction frame. The load was applied
step by step with 5 kN increment and held for about one
hour for each loading step. After the peak pull-out
resistance was achieved, the nail was continuously
pulled out by displacement control using displacement
rates of 1mm/min for tests. The displacement at the end
of the test was 100mm. During the pullout of the soil
nail, the variations of pullout force, pullout
displacement, vertical earth pressures, pore water
pressures at four locations around the soil nail and the
axial strains along the soil nail were monitored.
resistance-type strain gauges are adhered along the
P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2
P-Cell 3 P-Cell 4 steel rebar to measure the strain distribution along the
P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6 soil nail. In addition, three FBG sensors are applied to
800 1000 1200 compare and verify the results from the strain gauges
during testing. The FBG strain sensors were
temperature compensated by a reference sensor and
multiplexed in serials to form a quasi-distributed
sensing array. The locations of the strain gauges and
FBG sensors are shown in Figure 3. Using the
measured strain data, the frictional force between the
nail surface and the surrounding soils during the pullout
test can be determined.
SG 1 SG 2 & FBG 2 SG 3 & FBG 3 SG 4 & FBG 4
Pulling out
50
300 300 300
50
Figure 3 Locations of strain gauges and FBG sensors
along the soil nail
Figure 4 shows variations of (a) soil nail pullout force,
(b) effective vertical stresses at six locations and (c)
axial strains along the soil nail measured by strain
gauges and FBG sensors, versus time during the
pullout for the soil nail pullout test under an overburden
pressure of 120 kPa and a grouting pressure of 200
kPa. Effective vertical stresses were calculated by
subtracting the average pore water pressure from the
total earth pressure at the six locations. It can be seen
that the effective vertical pressures around the soil nail
(measured by P-Cells 1 to 4) and axial strains in the
steel bar showed corresponding response at the same
time when the pullout force was applied step by step at
the increment of 5kN,. The increase of normal
pressures around the soil nail demonstrated the
constrained dilation of the surrounding soil during
pullout of the soil nail. The pressures at P-Cells 5 and 6

987
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

changed little during pullout as they were further away the nail with measured diameter. One can see clearly a
from the nail, suggesting that the effect of pulling of the strength softening behavior of the soil nail shear
soil nail to the surrounding soil was localized. Some resistance during pulling out. In this test, the peak shear
inconsistent variations were observed in the measured stress occurred at a pullout displacement of 7mm.
earth pressures at the pressure cells above and below
the soil nail (Figure 4b). A possible explanation is that (a) Relationship between pullout shear resistance and displacement
the nail or the line of action of the pullout was not 100

Average pullout shear stress (kPa)

perfectly horizontal due to the self weight of the steel
nail bar, and the nail tilted slightly when being pulled 80
out. The tilt of the nail induced different earth pressures
60
above and below the nail.
40
(a) Relationship between pull out force and time
30 20

25 0
Pullout force (kN)

0 20 40 60 80 100
20 Pullout displacement (mm)

15 (b) Relationship between effective stress and pullout displacement

10 250
P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2
5 6 P-Cell 3 P-Cell 4
5

Effective stress (kPa)

200
3 4 P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6
0 1 2
150
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (min)
100
(b) 200
P-Cell 1 P-Cell 2 50
5 6 P-Cell 3 P-Cell 4
160 3 4 P-Cell 5 P-Cell 6
Effective stress (kPa)

0
1 2 0 20 40 60 80 100
120 Pullout displacement (mm)

(c)
80 Relationship between strain and pullout displacement
150
40 SG1
120
0
90
Micro-strain

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (min)
60
(c) Relationship between strain and time
FBG2 SG2
150 30 FBG3
SG1 SG3 FBG4 SG4
120
0
Micro-strain

90
-30
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
FBG3 SG3 FBG2 SG2
30 Pullout displacement (mm)
FBG4 SG4
0
Figure 5 Variations of (a) average interface shear
-30
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 stress, (b) effective vertical stresses at six locations and
Time (min) (c) axial strains along the soil nail measured by strain
gauges and FBG sensors, versus pullout displacement
during pulling out
Figure 4 Variations of (a) soil nail pullout force, (b)
effective vertical stresses at six locations and (c) axial
The diameter of the steel rebar was 40mm. Although it
strains along the soil nail measured by strain gauges
is commonly used in Hong Kong soil nailing practice,
and FBG sensors versus time during pulling out
the strain responses in the present soil nail pullout
testing are quite small, with the maximum strain of
Figure 5 shows variations of (a) average shear stress,
around 100 micro strains during pull-out. Two methods
(b) effective vertical stresses at six locations and (c)
were used to measure the strain changes along the soil
axial strains along the soil nail measured by strain
nail, which are traditional strain gauges (SG) and Fibre
gauges and FBG sensors, versus pullout displacement
Bragg Grading (FBG) sensors. As shown in Figure 3,
during pulling out the soil nail. The deduced average
the axial strains at 4 locations along the steel bar were
shear stress was calculated using the measured axial
monitored by 4 strain gauges. To increase the reliability
force at nail head divided by the total surface area of
of the testing results, FBG strain sensors were

988
 OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007

employed and located beside SG2, SG3, and SG4
respectively. The variations of the axial strains (Figure
4c and Figure 5c) along the steel bar show that, as the
soil nail was pulled out the strains at Location 1 (near
the soil nail head) responded distinctly and reached the
highest value, the strains at Location 2 responded the
second, while the strains at Location 4 (near the end of
the soil nail) changed little and the values were below 5
micro strains. From the comparison of the measured
results between strain gauges and FBG sensors, it
shows that for the small value strain monitoring, the
FBG sensors provide higher sensitivity than the
traditional strain gauges.
decreased as the soil is saturated and the pullout failure
is more likely to occur in the soil rather than at the soil-
grout interface.
Figure 8 plots the increasing trends of peak shear
stress, shear stress at the pullout displacement of
50mm, and shear stress at the pullout displacement of
100mm in relation to the grouting pressure under the
same overburden pressure (a) for VP=80kPa and (b)
for VP=120kPa.
120
GP=0 kPa (after Su 2006) GP=80 kPa
GP=130 kPa GP=250 kPa

Peak shear stress (kPa)

100

4 INFLUENCES OF GROUTING PRESSURES 80

AND OVERBURDEN PRESSURES ON THE
60
BEHAVIOUR AND RESISTANCE OF SOIL NAIL
40
Results from the five latest soil-nail pullout tests under
20
different grouting pressures and overburden pressures
are presented here. Su (2006) have conducted the tests 0
under different overburden pressures without grouting 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
pressure for the same soil at the saturated condition. In Overburden pressure (kPa)
the following section, those results are interpreted
together with the newly test results to examine the Figure 6 Relationship between average peak shear
influences of grouting pressures and overburden stress and overburden pressure with grouting pressures
pressures on the soil nail behaviour and pullout (GP) of 0kPa, 80kPa, 130kPa and 250kPa
resistance for the CDG soil at the saturated condition.

Figure 6 summarized the average peak shear stresses 100

GP=0 kPa; VP=120 kPa (After Su 2006)
of the latest five pullout tests under grouting pressure of GP=130 kPa; VP=120 kPa
Average interface shear stress (kPa)

80kPa, 130kPa and 250kPa together with the results GP=250 kPa; VP=120 kPa
80
from Su (2006) under no grouting pressure and
saturated condition. From the figure we can see that,
comparing to Su‘s results, generally the grouting 60

pressure has positive effect on the soil nail pullout

resistance. For the tests under VP=80kPa, the peak
40
shear stress increased 23.5% when the grouting
pressure increased to 80kPa. For the tests under
VP=120kPa, the peak shear stress increased 8.7% and 20

35.2% when the grouting pressure increased to 130kPa

and 250kPa, respectively.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 7 shows the average shear stress versus pullout Nail head displacement (mm)

displacement for grouting pressures of 0, 130 and 250

kPa under the same overburden pressure of 120kPa. It
can be clearly seen the increase of shear stress with
the increase of grouting pressure. However, the
increase is much less than the case for the soil at Sr =
50% (Yin et al, 2006). In Yin et al.’s study, for the tests
under overburden pressure of 200kPa, comparing to
Figure 7 Measured average interface shear stress
versus pullout nail head displacement for grouting
pressures (GP) of 0, 130 and 250 kPa with the same
overburden pressure (VP) of 120 kPa
(a) 120
Peak shear stress: VP=80kPa Peak shear stress
Average interface shear stress (kPa) a

the results without grouting pressure, the peak shear 100 Shear stress at disp=50mm: VP=80kPa Shear stress at disp=50mm
stresses increased about 60% and 150% for the Shear stress at disp=100mm: VP=80kPa Shear stress at disp=100mm
80
grouting pressure of 80kPa and 130kPa, respectively.
That is to say, the effect of grouting pressure on the 60

pullout resistance for the saturated soil is much less 40

than that for the unsaturated soil. On the other hand, it 20

was also observed that for the tests under pressure
0
grouting and saturated condition, the measured 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
diameter of the soil nail after testing is about 105 to 115 Grouting pressure (kPa)

mm while the diameter of the drilled hole is about

100mm. This shows that the strength of the soil

989

(b)
Average interface shear stress (kPa) a
120
Peak shear stress: VP=120kPa
100 Shear stress at disp=50mm: VP=120kPa
Shear stress at disp=100mm: VP=120kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 50
Figure 8 Relationship of average interface shear stress
(at peak, at 50mm pullout disp. and at 100mm pullout
disp.) and different grouting pressures with the same
overburden pressure (a) VP= 80kPa (b) VP=120kPa
5 CONCLUSIONS
The authors present some latest results of laboratory
soil nail pullout tests under different grouting pressure
and overburden pressure under the saturated condition.
The following conclusions and can be drawn from the
above:
The constrained dilation of the surrounding soils was
clearly observed during the pullout.
In the strain monitoring during pullout of the soil nail, the
FBG sensors provide higher sensitivity than the
traditional strain gauges.
The effect of grouting pressure on the pullout resistance
for saturated soil is much less than that for the
unsaturated soil because the pullout failure is more
likely to occur in the soil rather than at the soil-grout
interface at the saturated condition.
It should be noted that more tests under higher grouting
pressures and overburden pressures are to be carried
out and reported in the near future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial supports from The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University and a grant from Research Grants
Committee (RGC: PolyU 5174/04E) of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government of China are
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Berglund, C. and Oden, K. 1996. The pullout resistance
of different types of nails. Department of
Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers University of
Technology, Report No. X 1995:6.
Chan, T. H. T., Yu, L., Tam, H. Y., Ni, Y. Q., Liu, S. Y.,
Chung, W. H., and Cheng, L. K. 2006. Fiber Bragg
grating sensors for structural health monitoring of
Tsing Ma bridge: Background and experimental
observation. Engineering Structures, 28(5), 648-
659.
OttawaGeo2007/OttawaGéo2007
Peak shear stress
Chang, K.T. and Milligan, G.W.E. 1996. Effects of the
Shear stress at disp=50mm transition zone in a nailed wall model test. Proc. of
Shear stress at disp=100mm
Earth Reinforcement, Ochiai, Yasufuku & Omie
(eds.), Balkema, 333-338.
Franzen, G. 1998. Soil nailing – A laboratory and field
study of pullout capacity. Doctoral thesis,
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Chalmers
University of Technology, Sweden.
100 150 200 250 Junaideen. S.M., Tham L.G., Law K.T., Lee C.F., and
Grouting pressure (kPa)
Yue Z.Q. 2004. Laboratory study of soil-nail
interaction in loose, completely decomposed
granite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41, 274-
286.
Lee, C.F., Law, K.T., Tham, L.G., Yue, Z.Q. and
Junaideen, S.M. 2001. Design of a large soil box for
studying soil-nail interaction in loose fill. Soft Soil
Engineering, Lee et al (eds.), 413-418
Powell, G.E. and Watkins, A.T. 1990. Improvement of
marginally stable existing slopes by soil nailing in
Hong Kong. Proc. of the Int. on Reinforced Soil,
Glasgow, 241-247.
Schlosser, F. 1982. Behaviour and design of soil
nailing. Proc. on Recent Developments in Ground
Improvement Techniques, Bangkok, Thailand, 399-
413.
Schlosser, F. and Guilloux, A. 1981. Le frottement dens
les sols. Revue Francaise de Geotechnique, (16),
65-77.
Su, L.J. 2006. Laboratory pull-out testing study on soil
nails in compacted completely decomposed granite
fill. Ph.D. Thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.
Yeung, A.T., Cheng Y.M., Lau C.K., Mak L.M., Yu
R.S.M., Choi Y.K., and Kim J.H. 2005. An
innovative Korean system of pressure-grouted soil
nailing as a slope stabilization measure. The HKIE
Geotechnical Division 25th Annual Seminar, Hong
Kong, published by HKIE-GDC and HKGES, 43-49.
Yin, J.H., and Su, L.J. 2006 An innovative laboratory
box for testing nail pull-out resistance in soil. ASTM
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 29(6): 1-11.
Yin J.H., Su L.J., Cheung R.W.M., Shiu Y.K., and Tang
C. 2006. The Influence of Grouting Pressure on the
Pullout Resistance of Soil Nail in Compacted
Completely Decomposed Granite Fill. Submitted to
Geotechnique.
Yin, J.H., Zhu, H.H., Jin, W, Yeung, A.T., and Mak, L.M.
2007. Performance evaluation of electrical strain
gauges and optical fiber sensors in field soil nail
pullout tests. Geotechnical Advancements in Hong
Kong since 1970s, The HKIE Geotechnical Division
27th Annual Seminar, Hong Kong, published by
HKIE-GDC and HKGES 249-254.
990