Strengthening of Steep Slope by Nails, Anchors

and Piles using Geo-Studio Software

Author : Naitik Raval

Guide : Pr. Kalpana Patel
Dr. Minakshi Vaghani

Abstract
Behaviour of the parameters of nails, anchors and piles on the factor of safety of steep
slope is studied in current paper. A model was developed in SLOPE/W for the study and
verified the data with the on-field problem. Bishop’s Simplified Method and Morgenstern Price
Method were adopted to perform model in SLOPE/W. A parametric study was undertaken to
study the effect of position, inclination, length and diameter of reinforcements on the FOS of
strengthened slopes. It is found that location of critical slip surface changes with the location
and spacing of reinforcements. The study gives the critical location, critical inclination and
spacing of reinforcements. It is also found that after certain length of reinforcement, it is
unnecessary to increase the length of reinforcement and there is minor effect of the diameter.
To increase the effectiveness of slope stabilization, the stabilizing reinforcement should
intersect with all respective slip surface with failure probability. To ensure the results of
software, a manual calculation was made using Bishop’s Simplified Method.

Keywords
Slope Stability, Nails, Anchors, Piles, Factor of Safety of Slopes, Bishop’s Simplified method

Introduction
Slopes can be stabilized using many methods such as anchors, piles, nails, geotextiles
etc. It can be seen from last few years that steep slope of hilly regions which are made for the
road pavements and railway tracks, are getting weaker mainly due to vibrations of the vehicles
on road and railway transferring to the slopes. Same for the slopes of excavation for the
foundation. Due to loads of adjacent buildings and constant vibratory works the slopes at the
periphery are more likely to slide. In such cases, it is necessary to strengthen the slopes to
prevent the damages of lives and goods.
 Steep slopes are the most dangerous slopes among all type of slopes to stabilize. For
the stability of such slopes, there are two methods that commonly used which are, Uncoupled
approach and Coupled approach. Uncoupled approach is most commonly used where the soil
pressure, Vehicle pressure, external loads are obtained by analytically.
On the other side, nowadays, coupled analysis is getting more attentions where
powerful numerical tools or software (2D or 3D analysis) are becoming increasingly available.
In this coupled approach, pile response and slope stability both are considered.
In the presented study, the developed model is used to perform parametric study to
determine the effect of location, inclination, length and diameter of reinforcements on the
Factor of Safety of stabilized slopes. The results from the software are compared with analytical
result. At last, conclusion gives the optimum parameters that have direct application to
engineers dealing with stability of slopes.

Methodology
For slope stability
Identify the Set the working
open the Geo
individual toolbars area, page size
Studio SLOPE/W
available and scale
define

Set the grid

Save the data to a
Sketch an axis spacing and
file
display the grid

Specify the
Sketch the slope analysis methods Define the soil
stability problems and options used properties
in the analysis

Draw the 1st

Display soil Turn off the points
region of problem,
properties & the point num
entry-exit location

Analyze the results

Verify and save by making graph
View the results
the problem in origin and using
excel

Figure 1 : Methodology
 Reinforcements Used
There are mainly 3 reinforcement used in the software which are Nails, Anchors and Piles.
The brief introduction of them are as follows.
Nails :

Figure 2 : Nails Diagram

Nail reinforcements are the solid bars which are used to strengthen the weakens slopes. First
the holes are to be drilled at the desired position and then these solid bars are installed in these
holes and after that grouted into place with a separate grout line. These bars are placed by
drilling techniques which are fully grouted. These bars are usually installed at a slight
downward inclination with definite regular spacings between them along the slope line. A rigid
facing or wire meshes are to be used on the surface where environmental conditions dictate.

Figure 3 : Nails
Anchors:

Figure 4 : Anchor Diagram

Soil anchors are effectively restraining device used in different kind of structures such as
retaining wall, steep slopes, dams, foundations for buildings etc. Soil anchors are stressed to
prevent structural movement and they transfers their length over a definite length. They are
referred as tension anchors and they are best suited for rock conditions. For anchors founded
in soil or weak rock, load distributive compressive anchors are used as they rely on the
succession of small successive bond length rather than one unique longer bond length.

Figure 5 : Anchors
Piles:

Figure 6 : Pile Installation

Soil piling is kind of pile foundation but soil piling is used to prevent landslide at the steep
slope area where pile foundation is used to transfer the load of structure to the soil. For soil
piling, a hole is drilled first then steel reinforcement is placed and then concrete is casted in the
hole. Other way is to insert the pre-cast concrete piles into the drilled holes. These piles are
very useful when the construction work is to be carried out beneath the ground level and
surrounding is full of structures. These piles can prevent the landslide due to adjacent
structures.

Figure 7 : Piles
 Results and Discussion
A steep slope is developed in two portions, one is named embankment and other is foundation
material having different parameters. The following parameters are taken into the
considerations for performing the test.
Height of Embankment : 20 m
Angle of internal friction : 30˚
Unit Weight of Embankment : 21 KN/m³
Unit weight of Foundation material : 22.5 KN/m³
Cohesion of Embankment : 5 KN/m²
Cohesion of Foundation material : 12.5 KN/m²
Downward Inclination : 5:1
Top width : 29 m
Bottom width : 40 m

Figure 8 : Steep Embankment

The data were taken from the on-field problem at the Bardoli area. The road pavement where
steep slope was there beside it, was weak and likely to slide. After the survey it is found that
the reason behind the weakness of slope was the vibrations of heavy vehicles and external loads
from top. So, to strengthen this steep slope the study is carried out.
For the study, data were collected from survey and provided to the software. The length of top
surface, height of embankment, length of bottom surface, inclination of slope was obtained
from the on-field problem. For material properties, samples were tested in the lab and obtained
thereafter. The layers of embankment were tested and visible on-field.
The entry and exit slip surface were taken according to strengthen the slope in worst condition.
The soil properties and combination were taken by considering worst scenario of the critical
areas. This study was carried out by considering the fact that steep slope are the worst condition
specially when the slope is in hilly region and the vehicles are moving around.There are two
methods adopted to perform the model; One is Bishop’s Simplified Method and Morgenstern
Price Method. This Normal steep slope was performed for both Methods and following factor
of safety were achieved.

Bishop’s Simplified Method = 0.760 Morgenstern Price Method = 0.791

Figure 9 : FOS of Slope Without Reinforcement

As it can be seen that the Factor of Safety of this steep slope is <1.5 in both cases, which means
the slope is weak and not safe against the more loading conditions. The factor of safety should
be >1.5. But here it is not achieved in regular steep slope. So, to strengthen this weak steep
slope 3 reinforcements (Nails, Anchors and Piles) are used and the study was performed with
suitable parameters of the reinforcements.

Nails:
The nails were provided and the parameters of them were precisely studied and performed in
the SLOPE/W. SLOPE/W is very useful for achieving optimum parameters that are applicable
to the field directly. Before performing the study, the parameters of nails are provided
according to the literatures with examples.
After performing the study precisely, the results gave the optimum parameters. From the study,
it is concluded that, for the critical slip surface failure, 4 numbers of nails are required to
strengthen the slope and to achieve desired Factor of safety. After performing model with 4
nails, it was clear that according to failure slip surface the length of nails varies. For the top
failure portion, the length of nail is needed more but at the bottom portion it is worthless to
provide longer nails.
From the study, it was also seen that there is no effect of parameter like pull-out resistance,
bond diameter, reduction factor, nail spacing, reduction factor once the critical values are given.
The main factor is Shear force in the nails. Top nails required less shear force value but as the
bottom nails having entire load of slope, bottom nails should have more shear force value.
From the precise study and literatures following parameters are concluded for achieving
desired factor of safety.
Pull-out Resistance – 250 KPa
Bond Diameter – 0.4 m
Nail Spacing –2m
Nail Inclination - 20˚
Shear Force – 50 KN
Reduction Factor –1
Length of Pile 1 (Top) –9m Shear Force for Pile 1 (Top) – 300 KN

Length of Pile 2 –8m Shear Force for Pile 2 – 300 KN

Length of Pile 3 –7m Shear Force for Pile 3 – 350 KN

Length of Pile 4 (Bottom) –5m Shear Force for Pile 4 (Bottom) – 400 KN

Figure 10 : Slope With Nails

After Applying all these parameters, the model was performed for both methods and
Following results were obtained.

Bishop’s Simplified Method = 1.80 Morgenstern Price Method = 1.99

Figure 11 : FOS of Slope After Providing Nails

It is also seen that, nail length, nail position, nail inclination plays major role here. Slight change
in these parameters makes major changes in the factor of safety of the slope. As the Factor of
safety from both methods are > 1.5, now the slope is safe against the failure. The construction
of the nails is more economical then soil anchors in practical way.
Anchors:
After referring the critical failure slip surface, providing anchor bars is a task to perform
carefully. In anchor bars, a new member names tensile capacity of anchor bars plays an
important role in the study. Similar to nails, the length of anchor bars varies according to the
failure slip surface. After performing the model, it can be said that, 4 numbers of anchor bars
are required to strengthen the steep slope.
After performing the model several times, it was clear that there will be no effect in the factor
of safety if the values of parameters like pull-out resistance, bond length, bond diameter, anchor
spacing, reduction factor, shear force are critical.
The length and the tensile capacity of anchor bars have major responsibility to stable the slope
here. From top to bottom the length of anchor bars decreases but the tensile capacity should be
more for the lowest anchor bar. As major load carried by the lower bar the tensile capacity
should be more that it can carry the load easily. Following parameters are given to the
SLOPE/W to perform the model.
Pull-out resistance – 300 KPa Bond Length – 1.5 m
Bond Diameter – 0.4 m Anchor Inclination - 20˚
Anchor Spacing –2m Shear Force – 200 KN
Reduction Factor – 1.5
Length of Anchor 1 – 9 m Tensile Capacity of Anchor 1 – 300 KN

Length of Anchor 2 – 8 m Tensile Capacity of Anchor 2 – 350 KN

Length of Anchor 3 – 6.5 m Tensile Capacity of Anchor 3 – 400 KN

Length of Anchor 4 – 5.5 m Tensile Capacity of Anchor 4 – 500 KN

Figure 12 : Slope with Anchors

As the performance was completed, it was clear that spacing, length and tensile capacity of
anchor bars are major parameters, Slight change in these parameters can make major difference
in the value of factor of safety. It is unnecessary to provide more length at the lower anchor.
As lower anchor bar have to carry more load, tensile capacity of it must be more. This slope
was performed for both Bishop’s Simplified Method and Morgenstern Price Method and
following results were obtained.

Bishop’s Simplified Method = 1.633 Morgenstern Price Method = 1.995

Figure 13 : FOS of Slope After Providing Anchors

Anchor length, Anchor position. Spacing have precise effect on the stability of slope. Minor
change in the values can make major changes in the factor of safety of the slope. So the
SLOPE/W is providing very precise values of the parameters to strengthen the slope. As the
Factor of Safety is > 1.5 in both methods, the slope is safe and strengthen. The construction on
anchor bars is expensive then nails.

Piles:
Piles are widely used at the construction site, where foundation work is to be carried out deep
below the ground level and at the periphery adjacent structure exerts loads on the soil and slope
may collapse. In such cases, piles are very effective to resist the landslide due to the load from
adjacent building and vibrations of the machines.
Nails and anchors are provided on the face of slope at some inclination, but piles are provided
vertically from the top of embankment according to the failure slip surface. Dimensions of the
nails and anchors are smaller compared to the dimensions of piles.
In piles, values of shear force should be provided very carefully. Only optimum value of shear
force will give you the proper factor of safety.
First a study for single pile was carried out. For it following parameters were provided.
Length of Pile –8m
Direction - 90˚
Shear Force – 377 KN
Reduction Factor – 1.5
Pile Spacing –2m

Figure 14 : Slope with Single Pile

Bishop’s Simplified Method -FOS = 0.956 Morgenstern Price Method - FOS = 1.255

Figure 15 : FOS of Slope After Providing Single Pile

For single pile, at any maximum or critical values of any parameters, it is not possible to stable
the slope. A single pile can not resist the load of whole slope, in increase in the shear force can
results in the error that means slope is unstable. For stabilizing the slope, it is necessary to
provide more than 1 pile.
For the study of double piles, following parameters were provided.
Length of Pile 1 – 9.8 m
Length of Pile 2 – 10 m
Shear Force – 500 KN
Pile Spacing –2m
Reduction Factor – 1.5 m
Direction - 90˚
As the piles are to be provided in the vertically downward direction, the pile required proper
base to carry and transfer the load easily. So, the length of the pile should be provided more.
For Slope having homogeneous material, the length of pile should be from top to the bottom
for better stability. But for the slope having combination of materials, the pile should be long
enough to rest on the solid platform. In the presented study the length of the pile is taken from
top of the embankment layer to the top of the foundation layer material. In this, double piles
are provided such that total load will be divided into two that can be transfer easily by 2 piles.

Figure 16 : Slpe with Double Piles

Bishop’s Simplified Method = 1.54 Morgenstern Price Method = 1.55

Figure 17 : FOS of Slope After Providing Double Piles

The position and the spacing plays an important role here too. Major changes can be seen if
minor changes made in these parameters. After providing two piles, the Factor of Safety
increases to > 1.5 and makes the slope stable against the failure.
From the results, slope can be stabilized by nails, anchors and piles satisfactorily. The obtained
results give the optimum length, optimum diameters, optimum shear force, optimum
inclination of reinforcement. The obtained optimum parameters can be used directly to the field
to the engineers dealing with the stability of slopes.
 Comparison and Verification with Analytic Method
The obtained results of the steep slope for the nails, anchors and piles are listed below.
Table : 1 Comparision of Steep Slope of Two Methods
Reinforcements FOS with Bishop’s Method FOS with Morgenstern Price Method
Without Reinf. 0.760 0.791
Nails 1.80 1.99
Anchors 1.633 1.995
Single Pile 0.956 1.255
Double Pile 1.54 1.55

To ensure and verify the software values the analytic method was adopted. Bishop’s Simplified
Method was adopted in excel sheet to check the factor of safety with uncoupled approach. For
analytical method, the on-field parameters were taken for the calculations and the Factor of
Safety obtained.
Bishop’s Simplified Method
Bishop showed how non-linear values resultant forces could be introduced into the analysis but
refinement has only a marginal effect on the factor of safety. Bishop’s Simplified Method
considers the inter slice normal forces but neglects the inter slice shear force. It furthers satisfies
vertical force equilibrium to determine the effective base normal force.
FS = (C + NTanØ)/WSinα
Where Ø = Angle of Internal Friction
α = Base slope of slice
C = cL
Where, c = Cohesion
L = Average height of two slice
The model was drawn in the AutoCAD to get the except and accurate values for the parameters
for the equations for analytic method.
Figure 18 : Analytical Method
 Conclusion
The paper presents a model study of slopes stabilized with nails, anchor and piles. A model
was developed and verified with the experimental results. A model was used to study the effects
of various parameters on the factor of safety of slopes. These parameters include the location,
inclination, length, diameter of the reinforcements (Nails, Anchors, Piles). The results were
compared with the results of analytical method. The following conclusions were made
according to the above conditions.
1) Location:
o For Nails and Anchors, optimum location must be from the face of the slope
between the crest and the bottom of a slope.
o For Piles, the optimum location is at the middle portion of the critical failure
slip of slope to achieve maximum Factor of Safety.
2) Inclination:
o For Nails and Anchors, the inclination must be between 20˚ - 30˚ from
horizontal. Except these values desired factor of safety can not be achieved.
o For Piles, as the angle of inclination increases, FOS increases up to twice of
the slope angle. For slope angle 40˚, the best inclination was 75˚ from vertical.
To achieve better stability, providing piles at 90˚ was the best.
3) Length:
o For Nails and Anchors, the length is effective up to the failure slip boundary.
After optimum length, increase in length makes no changes in the factor of
safety.
o For Piles, the length should be embedded through the soft layers and extended
into the firm or stable layers.
4) Diameter:
o For Nails, Anchors and Piles, as the diameter increases the factor of safety
increases, however the increase in factor of safety in relatively minor.
 References
1) Ahmed Abdelaziz 2015. “ The Effect of Pile Parameters on the Factor of Safety of
Piled-Slopes Using 3D Numerical Analysis”.
2) Bishop, A.W. and Morgenstern, N., 1960. Stability coefficients for earth slopes.
Geotechnique, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 164 169.
3) Christian, J.T., Ladd, C.C. and Baecher, G.B., 1994. Reliability Applied to Slope
Stability Analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 12. pp. 2180-
2207.
4) Corps of Engineers (2003) “Appendix G - Procedures and Examples for Rapid
Drawdown”. Engineering Manual, EM 1110-2-1902. Department of the U.S Army
Corps of Engineers.
5) Duncan, J.M.,Wright S.G. and Wong, K.S. (1990). “Slope Stability during Rapid
Drawdown”. Proceedings of H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium. Vol. 2.
6) El-Ramly, H., Morgenstern, N.R., Cruden, D.M. 2002. Probabilistic Slope Stability
Analysis for Practice. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 39. pp. 665-683.
7) Fellenius, W., 1936. Calculation of the Stability of Earth Dams. Proceedings of the
Second Congress of Large Dams, Vol. 4, pp. 445-463.
8) Fredlund, D.G., 1974. Slope Stability Analysis. User's Manual CD-4, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
9) Fredlund, D.G., and Krahn, J., 1977. Comparison of slope stability methods of analysis.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 429 439.
10) Fredlund, D.G., Zhang, Z.M. and Lam, L., 1992. Effect of the Axis of Moment
Equlibrium in Slope Stability Analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No.
3.
11) Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A. Fredlund M.D., and Barbour, S.L., 1996. The Relationship of
the Unsaturated Soil Shear Strength to the Soil-water Characteristic Curve. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 440-448.
12) Greco, V.R. 1996. Efficient Monte Carlo Technique for Locating Critical Slip Surface.
Journal of Geotechincal Engineering. Vol 122, No. 7. ASCE, pp.517-525.
13) Grivas, D.A., 1981. How Reliable are the Present Slope Failure Prediction Methods?
Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, Vol. 3, pp.427-430.
14) Harr, M.E., 1987. Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book
Company. pp. 290.
15) H. G. Poulos., C. Y. Lee., T. S. Hull. “ Simplified Pile-Slope Stability Analysis”.
16) Higdon A., Ohlsen, E.H., Stiles, W.B., Weese, J.A. and Riley, W.F., 1978. Mechanics
of Materials. John Wiley & Sons. pp.752.
17) Mohamed Ashour. “ Analysis of Pile Stabilized Slopes based on Soil-Pile Interaction”.
18) Slope Modeling (GEOSTUDIO) with SLOPE/W, July 2012, Reference Manual
19) Spencer, E. 1967. A Method of Analysis of Embankments assuming Parallel Inter-
slice Forces. Geotechnique, Vol 17 (1), pp. 11-26.