Application of Soil Nail Method For Slope Stability Purpose

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Application of Soil ailing for Slope Stability Purpose
by
Victor Yeung
Student Number: 10240810
Project Number S08 – 097
Major: Civil Engineering
Supervisor: Dr. Behzad Fatahi
A 6 Credit Point Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering
21 November 2008
Statement of Originality
The work contained in this thesis report is the sole work of the author. Fragments of texts
that’s that were used from other sources have been properly acknowledged and the theories,
results and designs that have been used in this report have been appropriately referenced and
all sources of assistance have been acknowledged.
Victor Yeung
21st ovember , 2008

Contents Page
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Statement of Problem 1
1.2 Objective 1
1.3 Structure of Dissertation 1
2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Principle Theory of Slope Failure 3
2.2 Factors affect the slope stability 4
2.3 Slope failure hazard 7
2.4 Landslide hazard identification 9
2.5 Consequence-to-life Category 10
2.6 Australia Landslide risk zone category 11
2.7 Major landslide in past history (Hong Kong & Australia) 12
2.7.1 Hong Kong 12
2.7.2 Australia 13
2.8 Past method of slope failure prevention 14
2.9 Current method of slope prevention in present 15
2.9.1 Soil nail 15
2.9.2 Bio-Engineering 15
2.9.3 Soil Re-compaction & No-fine Replacement 16
2.9.4 Other method 17
3.0 Application of Soil nailing for slope stabilization

3.1 Principle theory of soil nailing 18
3.2 Soil nail history and Development 19
3.3 Function of soil nail 20
3.4 Different between soil nail and soil anchor 21
3.4.1 Maintenance 21
3.5 Soil nail application in different construction purpose 22
3.6 Advantage of Soil nail for slope stability 23
3.7 Limitation of soil nail 24
4.0 Construction method of soil nails

4.1 The compound of the soil nail 25
4.2 Introduce the soil nail construction equipment 26
4.3 Soil nail construction procedure summary 27
4.4 The major procedure of soil nails construction 28
4.4.1 Setting out of soil nail position 28
4.4.2 Drilling 28
4.4.3 Soil nail steel bar installation 30
4.4.4 Grouting 30
4.4.5 Procedure of pull-out test nail sample 30
4.4.6 Soil Nail Head 31
4.5 Quality Specification 33
4.6 Testing on soil nail 34
4.6.1 Soil nail steel bar 34
4.6.2 Cement Grout 35
4.6.3 Soil nails 37
4.7 Other type of soil nail installation techniques 43
5.0 Design of soil nails

5.1 Concept of Factor of safety 45
5.2 Introduce the Circular slip and Method of slices 46
5.2.1 Circular slip analysis method 46
5.2.2 Method of slices (Ordinary method or Swedish method) 47
5.3 Soil nail calculation method 48
5.4 Analysis slope stability with soil nail element 50
5.5 Slope stability analysis computer program - Slope/W 50
5.6 Design parameter 51
5.7 Design procedure 52
6.0 Case Study

6.1 Case study ( Hong Kong) 53
6.1.1 Geotechnical assessment 55
6.1.2 Slope/W Stability Analysis 59
6.1.3 Hand calculation using Swedish Method of Slices 60
6.1.4 Estimated Slip surface 63
6.1.5 Soil nail design 64
6.1.6 Summary 69
6.2 Case Study ( Australia) 70
6.2.1 Geotechnical assessment 73
6.2.2 Slope/W Stability Analysis 76
6.2.3 Hand calculation using Swedish Method of Slices 77
6.2.4 Estimated Slip surface 79
6.2.5 Soil nail design 80
6.2.6 Summary 85
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 Summary and concluding remarks 86
7.2 Recommendations 87
8.0 Bibliography 88
9.0 List of Appendices 90
Appendix A – Previous Boreholes Log Records (Case study 1)
Appendix B – Previous Laboratory Test Recods (Case Study 2)
Appendix C – Slope/W Analysis Data ( Case study 1)
Appendix D – Classification Guide ( Case Study 2)
Appendix E – Slope/W Analysis Data ( Case Study 2)

List of Figures
Figure 1 : Typical circular / rotational shaped slip surface 3
Figure 2 Typical channelisation flow (CEDD ,1990) 7
Figure 3 Typical Slide type landslide (CEDD, 1995) 7
Figure 4 Landslide in main access road of Hong Kong International Airport
(Appledaily news ,2008) 8
Figure 5 Landslide in Hong Kong (Appledaily news ,2008) 8
Figure 6 Sau Mau Ping Landslide, (CEDD, 1976) 12
Figure 7 Sau Mau Ping Landslide, (CEDD,1976) 12
Figure 8 Kotewall Road. Landslide, (CEDD,1976) 12
Figure 9 Wong Chuk Hang Landslide, (CEDD,1995) 12
Figure 10 Thredbo 1997 landslide (EMA disaster DB,1997) 13
Figure 11 Thredbo 1997 landslide (EMA disaster DB,1997) 13
Figure 12 Sea Cliff Bridge (http://seacliffbridge.com/) 13
Figure 13 Landslide on Lawrence Hargrave Drive (EMA disaster DB,1988) 13
Figure 14 Shotcrete surface 14
Figure 15 Masnory surface 14
Figure 16 Chuman surface 14
Figure 17 Typical Soil nailing method (Maunsell.Geotechnical ltd ,2003) 15
Figure 18 Typical Soil nailing method (IECA, 1995) 15
Figure 19 Root orientation with respect to shallow slope failure (Coppin ,1990) 15
Figure 20 Vetiver Grass System, ( Toyo Greenland Co., Ltd , 2008) 15
Figure 21 No-Fine concrete replacement (Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. ,2005) 16
Figure 22 Completed no-fine replacement slope (After landscaping)
( Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. , 2005) 16
Figure 23 Active and Passive zone (Abramson, 2002) 18
Figure 24 Typical tie-back for deep excavation (deepexcavation.org , 2008) 22
Figure 25 Typical permanent Tie-back wall
(Office of Geotechnical, California, 2008) 22
Figure 26 Soil nail reinforcement bar 25
Figure 27 Typical Centralisers 25
Figure 28 Steel plate and Steel nuts 25
Figure 29 Typical soil nail head reinforcement 25
Figure 30 Drilling Rig 26
Figure 31 Air compressor 26
Figure 32 Grouting machine 26
Figure 33 Shotcrete machine 26
Figure 34 Mobile drilling rig 28
Figure 35 Typical drilling rig 28
Figure 36 Steel bar installation 30
Figure 37 Grouting process 30
Figure 38 Excavated soil nail head 31
Figure 39 Typical buried soil nail head 31
Figure 40 Shotcreting soil nail head 31
Figure 41 Typical detail of soil nail and soil nail head
(Hong Kong CEDD standard drawing, 2008 ) 32
Figure 42 Steel bar test sample pieces 34
Figure 43 Bleeding test 35
Figure 44 Flow cone test 35
Figure 45 Typical section of flow cone test equipment (ASTM C939, 2002) 35
Figure 46 Typical sample record sheet for Bleeding Test and Flow Cone Test
( Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd , 2008 ) 36
Figure 47 Square cement grout cube 37
Figure 48 Compressive strength test 37
Figure 49 Pull out test 37
Figure 50 Dial Gauge 38
Figure 51 Typical sample data sheet for Pull out test
(Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd , 2008) 39
Figure 52 Typical sample plotting sheet for pull out test
(Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd ,2008) 40
Figure 53 Typical sample data sheet for proving test
(Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd, 2008) 41
Figure 54 Typical sample plotting sheet for Proving test
(Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd ,2008) 42
Figure 55 Self drilling (Dipl.-Wirt.Ing, 2008) 43
Figure 56 Jet Grouting (Dipl.-Wirt.Ing, 2008) 44
Figure 57 Soil nail launch machine (soil nail launcher Ltd. , 2008 ) 44
Figure 58 Circular slip model (Liu.(2008) 46
Figure 59 Swedish Method Model 47
Figure 60 General View of slope 54
Figure 61 p – q plot graph
( Gold Ram Engineering and Development Limited., 2005) 56
Figure 62 Slope location plan & Bore hole location 57
Figure 63 Critical Cross Section A-A 58
Figure 64 Critical Slip surface 59
Figure 65 Swedish Method of Slices analysis 60
Figure 66 Estimated Slip Surface 63
Figure 67 Soil nail slope FOS analysis 65
Figure 68 FOS comparison 66
Figure 69 Soil nail design section detail 66
Figure 70 General view of slope 70
Figure 71 Elevation View 70
Figure 72 Side View 70
Figure 73 Silty clay at slope toe 71
Figure 74 Silty clay at slope crest 71
Figure 75 Pocket Penetrometer 72
Figure 76 Pocket Penetrometer 72
Figure 77 Slope location plan 74
Figure 78 Sample collection position 74
Figure 79 Critical Cross Section A-A 75
Figure 80 Critical slip surface 76
Figure 81 Swedish Method of Slices model 77
Figure 82 Estimated slip surface 79
Figure 83 Soil nail slope FOS analysis 81
Figure 84 FOS comparison 81
Figure 85 Soil nail design section detail 82
List of Tables
Table 1 Typical Examples of Facilities Affected by Landslides in Each
Consequence-to-Life Category ( CEDD, 2007) 10
Table 2 Summary of landslide risk categories and development controls
(Wilson ,2004) 11
Table 3 Other drilling method for soil nail (Elias & Juran , 1991) 29
Table 4 Comparison of Consequence-to-life Category 53
Table 5 Design parameter 56
Table 6 Section A-A FOS result 59
Table 7 Two methods FOS result comparison table 61
Table 8 Swedish Method of Slices Calculation Spreadsheet 61
Table 9 FOS results table 63
Table 10 Soil nail parameter 64
Table 11 FOS result (after soil nail installed) 65
Table 12 Design Assumptions 66
Table 13 Tension Failure of the Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet 67
Table 14 Bond Failure between Grout and Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet 68
Table 15 Bond Failure between Grout and soil calculation spreadsheet 1 68
Table 17 Final Soil Nail design schedule table 69
Table 18 Final result table 69
Table 19 Hand penetrometer test results 72
Table 20 Design parameter 73
Table 21 Section A-A FOS result 76
Table 22 Two methods FOS result comparison table 78
Table 23 Swedish Method of Slices Calculation Spreadsheet 78
Table 24 FOS results table 79
Table 25 Soil nail parameter 80
Table 26 FOS results (after soil nail installed) 81
Table 27 Design Assumptions 82
Table 28 Tension Failure of the Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet 83
Table 29 Bond Failure between Grout and Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet 84
Table 32 Final Soil nail design schedule Table 85
Table 33 Final Result table 85
Abstract
Landslides are a common natural disaster which take place around the world. They have
claimed many human lives and much damage has occurred from different types of landslides.
Through the last couple of decades, different kinds of landslide preventive measures have
been developed for reducing these hazards. Each preventive measure involves a unique
technique and application benefit. One of the most common slope stabilisation methods is
soil nailing.
The soil nail application has been developed in the last 30 years. This method is growing
rapidly and becoming more popular due to its advantages. Use of the soil nail method for
reinforcing unstable slopes is one of the most favourable solutions in geotechnical
engineering practice. Thus, there would be a lot of benefit for future use which would be
associated with the development of the soil nail application for slope stabilisation.
This project will present the application of soil nail for slope stabilisation. The benefits and
limitations of soil nail and its construction procedures are described. In addition, design
requirements and quality control specifications are explained. Slope stability analysis using
“SLOPE/W” code is demonstrated and a design method of soil nail using Slope/W is
described in detail. Two selected case studies, located in Hong Kong and Australia, are
presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the soil nail system for slope stabilisation.
These case studies present a typical design method used for soil nail walls. A simplified hand
calculation method is compared with the limit equilibrium approach used in Slope/W code.
It should be noted that soil nailing is one of the methods used for stabilising medium size
slopes. Enhancing public education for the landslide hazard is the most desirable way to
prevent human loss and property damage in high landslide risk areas. In this study, some
recommendations regarding increasing public awareness about landslide hazards are
described as well.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Behzad Fatahi for his inspiring
discussions, without which I would not successfully been able to complete this thesis.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Behzad Fatahi for his invaluable personal time spent
with me through numerous conversations. He has not only taught me how to approach my
Capstone project; but more importantly, he has provided invaluable insight which will help
me in my journey to be a professional Geotechnical engineer. He has assisted in my
development of a large knowledgebase of geotechnical engineering concepts and some
interesting ideas such as bio-engineering.
I am also thankful to my wife, Maggie Leung. Sharing her Geotechnical experience provided
much support and assistance, both of which have contributed in some way to the journey of
writing this thesis.
Special thanks to my previous employer, Maunsell Geotechnical Services Ltd for the
invaluable assistance and some sample data information.
Special thanks John Marsh for his advice in proof reading and correcting some grammatical
mistake in my thesis.
Lastly, I would like to thank all my friends for their continuing and unconditional support
and assistance.
Application of Soil Nailing for slope stability purpose
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Statement of Problem
This Capstone project topic is Application of soil nailing for slope stability purpose.
The project involves the literature review for design, analysis, research related to slope
stabilisation methods. This project demonstrates different aspects associated with soil
nail application.
In Australia and Hong Kong there is high risk of slope failures. Some of them are
associated with high risk of hazard for public in densely populated areas. Therefore,
slope investigation and classification are important for the community. Thus, both
cities developed their own landslip risk reduction programs following a similar
independent path, resulting in a large amount of experience gained in dealing with
rainfall triggered landslides in densely populated areas.
1.2 Objective
This project reviews different methods of slope stabilisation. This project presents the
current knowledge and known benefits of soil nail as a slope stabilisation method. In
addition, various factors that may trigger slope failure is discussed. Through the use of
case studies, the design and construction methods of soil nailing is described in this
project.
1.3 Structure of Dissertation
In this project, Chapter 2 will discuss how the slope instability can affect society, as
well as provide a technical review of the factors that affect the slope instability. This
review discusses the different methods used to reduce these hazards will be discussed.
Furthermore, a discussion follows, noting the wide range of traditional stabilisation
methods available to engineering are presented. This ranges from a simple methods
such as to flatten and drain a slope , to more complex methods, such as anchors and
soil nail, bio-engineering vegetation and the most common practice of methods
involving shotcrete surfaces, masonry facing and so on.
A cost-effective solution for stabilisation is the application of soil nailing, which is

discussed in chapter 3.0. The first part of this chapter mainly focuses on the literature
review of soil nailing and also reviews the principle theory of soil nailing, including
it’s history and development of nailing. Furthermore, it will also discuss the soil nail
1
application for different construction purposes such as deep excavating. The last part
of Chapter 3 notes the advantages for selecting soil nailing as an initiative to
improve slope instability and this was compared to the other methods are described.
Chapter 4 will cover the construction methods and the procedure involved in soil
nailing, including the equipment used, and procedures. Quality control is also an
essential procedure for soil nail construction. This part will present the quality control
criteria in the whole soil nail installation process.
Chapter 5 is about design of the soil nail. Here, the design criteria and principle theory
are presented. In this part, the use of the computer design program ( SLOPE/W with
Morgenstern-price method) is also discussed.
Chapter 6 is about case studies for soil nail application. This section concentrates on
two separate case studies. The first case study investigates a slope in Hong Kong.
The other case study related to application of soil nailing in Australia. Two different
design standard have been used for these case studies. The first case study in Hong
Kong will use Hong Kong GEOguide for design standard and the second case study
Australia Standard AS4678-2002 is used for its design standard. For both case studies,
Slope/W computer software is used for stability analysis. The factor of safety is an
important outcome for the classification of slopes. Hand calculations using Swedish
Method of Slices will also be provided in both case studies.
In Chapter 7, conclusion at the study is presented. Furthermore, recommendations for

an innovative design method for slope improvement will be briefly described.
2
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Principle Theory of Slope Failure

Every year there are approximately a thousand slope failure cases around the globe.
globe
Onn average, a death toll of many thousands of people, as well as astronomical
economic losses related to landslide events are common. Therefore, it is evident that
there is a clear need to investigate the cause of devastating slope failures.
failure
Slope failure is related to various causes, these include

include: the rise of ground watertable,
soil properties and geological characteristic
characteristics of slopes. These causes of slope failures
are often interrelated and can influence each other, collectively deteriorating the
stability of the slope.. The combination of these failure modes forms the principle
elements related to slope failure.
Principle Theory
Slope failure is driven by slope slip surface which is caused by gravitational and
seepage forces that push the slip surface and causes slope instability (Ortigao,2004)
According to Abramson (2002), there
here are various types of slope failure which are
driven by slip surfaces,, namely
namely: circular/rotational slip, non-circular
circular slip, translational
slip and compound slip.
The most common type of slope failure mode is circular/rotational

rotational slip.
slip This is
described as a circular shaped slip surface which is mobilised
ed across a homogenous &
isotropic soil condition, whereas a non non-circular
circular slip surface is mobilized
mobilize in a
non-homogenous
homogenous condition (Ortigao, 2004). On the other hand, according to Ortigao,
(2004) described that slope failure driven by translational and compound slip surface
is developed due to the presence of a rigid layer (for example a bedrock layer), or the
presence of discontinuiti
discontinuities such as fissures and pre-existing slips.
Figure 1 - Typical circular / rotational shaped slip surface
3
2.2 Factors Affecting the Slope Stability
There are many factors which affects the slope stability. According to Ortigao, (2004)
described that one of the main factors is the geometrical changes. This is described as
a change in the gravitational force. The main force responsible for movement is
gravity. Gravity is the internal force that acts on body, pulling mass object in a
direction toward the center of the earth. If the object is on a flat surface then the
gravitational force will act downward. In another words, if the objects is located on the
flat surface it will not move under the gravity force.
However, in the case of a sloping ground, according to Ortigao (2004) described that
the force of gravity can be divided into two vector components, one component is
acting normal to the slope and the other component is acting tangent to the slope. The
slope gains its stability from the strength properties of the soil. These include the shear
strength, frictional resistance and cohesion among the soil particles that make up the
soil mass (Ortigao, 2004). As the applied shear stress which occurs under gravitational
force becomes greater than the combination of forces holding the soil mass on the
slope, the object will move down the slope. In geotechnical engineering, this
movement is called slope failure or landslide.
Thus, this slope movement is favored by steeper slope angles which increase the shear
stresses on the soil. The slope stability is threatened by anything that reduces the shear
strength, such as lowering the cohesion among the particles or lowering the frictional
resistance. The tenancy of slope failure is expressed in terms of the ratio of shear
strength to shear force, which is known as Safety Factor (Cornforth,2005)
Safety Factor = Shear Strength/Shear force
If the safety factor becomes less than 1.0, slope failure is expected.
The other factor that causes slope failure is an increase in water pressure. This is
caused by the increase in groundwater level. Consequently, an increase of water
pressure adds an increased internal water force inside the slope. Although water is not
always directly involved as the transporting medium in mass-wasting processes
(Ortigao, 2004), it does play an important role. For exemplary reasons, a sand castle
on the beach may be used. If the sand is dry, it is impossible to build a steep face like a
castle wall. If the sand is wet, vertical wall can be build. If the sand is too wet, then it
flows like a fluid and cannot stay as a wall.
For the case of dry sand, the sand can form a slope with a slope angle relative to the
flat ground that is equal to its Friction angle. The friction angle is the steepest angle at
4
which the sand slope can remain stable (Liu ,2008). In this case, the stability of the
sand slope is purely dictated by the frictional contact between the soil grains. In
general, the friction angle increases with increasing grain size. However, different soil
types contain different soil friction angles. This mechanical soil parameter can be
usually obtained from experiments, for example, Triaxial test and direct shear test .
In the partially saturated soil, water particle and the sand particle are interlocked by an
internal suction force between them. This suction force assists in building up apparent
cohesion in cohesionless material. It should be noted that, excessive water will break
the suction force between the soil particles.
The other factor that affects the slope stability is the additional loads (surcharge)
applied on the top of the slope. This external loading can increase the disturbing force
and cause slope instability.
Another reason that affecting slope stability is water pressure. Water pressure is
common on a general slope where a watertable might usually exist. When water
pressure increases, the effective stresses , shear strength decrease and can lead to slope
failure. An increase in the water pressure may be due to many uncertain reasons.
Usually, the most common reasons that cause slope failure relate to water pressure
increases due to elevated rainfall intensity and increases in the water content in slope,
such as water pipe leakage.
These are the main factors that can affect the slope stability. These are also the main
items which one has to focus on when dealing with reducing the presence of slope
instability.
There is another factor that can induce instability to a slope, which is an earthquake.
However this factor is relatively uncommon when compared to the other factors
mentioned above. Slope instability caused by an earthquake only happens during
earthquakes in active earthquake zones, such as in China and Japan. This factor causes
slope displacement and changes the gravity condition of slope material. During the
displacement and change of gravity of slope, the body of slope mass no longer is in a
balance condition, and slope will no longer be in a stable condition.
In many seismic regions of the world, slope displacements caused by earthquakes have
led to disaster situations. Examples of magnitude 7.8 earthquake-induced landslides
are the landslide events in the area of Sichuan in China, which were caused by a major
earth movement event near the belt of Sichuan region in May 2008.
5
According to CEDD (2008) & Ortigao, (2004), the causes of slope instability can be
summarised as follows:
External force that causes slope instability:
Geometrical changes (Undercutting, erosion, changes in slope height, length

and steepness)
Surcharge (Addition of material, Increase in slope height and increase
development at slope crest)
Shocks and vibrations (earth quake)
Drawdown (lowering of water in lake or reservoir)
Change in water regime ( rainfall , increase in weight , pore pressure )
Internal forces that causes slope instability:

Progressive failure (following lateral expansion of fissuring and erosion)
Weathering (reduction of cohesion, desiccation)
Seepage erosion (solution , piping)
Moreover, there are some other non-natural factor cause slope instability:
Removal of vegetation;
Interference with, or changes to, natural drainage;
Modification of slopes by construction of roads, railways, buildings, etc;
Overloading slopes;
Mining and quarrying activities;
Vibrations from heavy traffic, blasting, etc; and
Excavation or displacement of rocks.
6
2.3 Slope Failure Hazard
According to J.A.R. Ortigao, 2004 , Landslips can be classified into 3 main types of
landslides; these are described below according to their kinematics of the slide.
Fall type landslide

Usually occurring in rock slopes, rock displacement and rock falls with a very fast
movement (EMA ,2008). Usually a topple fall is classified into this category.
Slide type landslide

Slides are usually caused by mass movements that present a well-defined failure
wedge and surface. According to their failure wedge and surface geometry, it can be
classified into shallow slides or deep slides (Ortigao, 2004).
Flow type landslide

A flow landslide is a continuous viscous slide involving soil or rock (Emergency
Management Australia - 2008 ). According to Ortigao (2004) explained that if material
is clay or fine soil material, this flow is termed a mud flow. Flow slides usually
include saturated soil or mud mix with water (also called liquefaction) and are usually
initiated from the summit of a hill or mountain due to high rainfall or water leakage
and flow downward by channelisation. Sometimes, this slide is also triggered by rapid
ground motion and commonly occurs during earthquakes. Unfortunately, the flow will
result in major economic loss and major landslide casualties if it happens in a densely
populated area.
Figure 2 Typical channelisation flow Figure 3 Typical Slide type landslide

(CEDD ,1990) (CEDD, 1995)
7
Regardless of the type of landslide failure mode, in some areas of high population
density, a landslip can cause a large disaster. If the landslide is a minor one, it might
cause damage and displacement of a building’s foundation or break the frame structure
of the building. This displacement or settlement can disrupt the building’s structural
stability and cause the building to collapse. In the case of a major landslide flow, a
whole building can be overwhelmed. Usually this type of major flow will have a high
casualty rate if it occurs in a high population density area.
For example, Hong Kong has a unique geological environment which mainly consists
of volcanic rock with a mountainous region and few flat land areas. This scenarios left
many developers with few options, one of which was to build skyscrapers on hillsides.
The cost of land is very high as the developers often need to bulldoze mountains to
carry out site formation and form more flat lands for the construction of the buildings,
which are often over 30 stories. Thus, many of the man-made slopes are very close to
buildings, as this helps to save on the land cost, therefore simultaneously stretching the
profit margin of a lot of land.
At times where land availability is limited, a surplus in population often leads to a city
being overdeveloped. This would elevate the risk of landslide failure, as developers
are left with no choice but to cut back on the slope to form flat land. By doing so, the
new slope would decrease the safety factor, leaving a very steep angle and a lack of
surface protection. As this is becoming a widespread global situation, landslides are
not unusual in urban areas. This is evident with the even that occurred on 7th June
2008, when a series of landslips occurred in Lantau Island due to heavy rainfall. These
serious landslips are mainly located near the main access road of Hong Kong
International Airport. This disaster severely affected the operation of the airport.
Figure4 Landslide in main access road Figure 5 Landslide in Hong Kong

of Hong Kong International Airport (Appledaily news ,2008)
(Appledaily news ,2008)
8
2.4 Landslide hazard identification

According to Hong Kong housing authority (1999) reported that the identification of
landslide hazard involved following procedure:
Desk study- An aerial photograph is an important aspect of landslide hazard
identification. The study of aerial photographs assists in cataloguing of historical
landslides, describing and evaluating the geomorphology and determining the
site history particularly with respect to human activities on natural slopes.
Engineering geological reconnaissance Mapping- The mapping provided
additional landslide information data which was not visible on the aerial photos
and enables ground truthing of some of the geomorphological interpretations
made from aerial photographs.
Ground Investigation – In order to understand the ground model better, ground
investigation was carried out to explore the soil properties and the condition of
the groundwater regime.
Site investigation – site visits and field measurements were taken of the slope
geometry (eg. Slope height, angle, seepage). Therefore, the collected data can be
used to provide the most precise information and representative the real slope
geometry for further design.
Engineering Geological synthesis – An engineering geological synthesis of the
finding from the desk study, engineering geological mapping, ground
investigation fieldwork, site investigation fieldwork and laboratory tests was
conducted to produce a geological model and representative geological sections
Development of Landslide Risk Assessment in Australia

In the recognition of the challenge between development pressures and landslide
hazards, in the year 2000, Australian Geomechanics Society Published a series of
guidelines called ‘Landslide Risk Management Concepts and Guidelines (AGS2000)’.
This is a benchmark technical paper for development of landslide assessment. In 2004,
Landslide Likelihood Research had been undertaken to investigate the likelihood of a
landslide in residential areas. The aim of this research is to develop the probability
estimates for landslide hazards in Australia.
Development of Landslide Preventive Measure Program in Hong Kong
Prior to 1976, due to the high risk for landslide in Hong Kong, The Geotechnical
Engineering Office has been responsible for studies and upgrading works in respect of
old (i.e. pre-GEO) substandard slopes under a long term program- Landslip Preventive
Measures (LPM) Program. According to CEDD (2008) reported that this long term
program will be targeting over 5,000 high-priority substandard Government man-made
slopes, and will carry out safety-screening studies for another over 10,000
high-priority private man-made slopes by the year 2010.
9
2.5 Consequence-to-life Category

This guidance is used to identify the level of risk of a human loss in relation to the
type of facilities that are affected by landslides. According to the following table, an
engineer would be able to improve on the stability of the slope by examining the types
of facilities used on the top of the slope. Hence, this would prevent catastrophic
damage and the loss of human lives.
Table 1 : Typical Examples of Facilities Affected by Landslides in Each

Consequence-to-Life Category ( CEDD, 2007)
Consequence
Group Facilities to-life
Category
(a) Heavily Used Buildings
– residential building, commercial office, store and shop, hotel, factory, school,
power station, ambulance depot, market, hospital, polyclinic,clinic, welfare centre
(b) Others
1
– cottage, licensed and squatter areas
– bus shelter, railway platform and other sheltered public waiting area
1 (High)
– dangerous goods storage site (e.g. petrol stations)
– road with very heavy vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
(a) Lightly Used Buildings
– indoor car park, building within barracks, abattoir, incinerator, indoor games’
sport hall, sewage treatment plant, refuse transfer station, church, temple,
monastery, civic centre, manned substation
2 (b) Others
– major infrastructure facility (e.g. railway, tramway, flyover, subway, tunnel
portal, service reservoir)
– construction site (if future use not certain)
2 (Middle)
– road with heavy vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
– heavily used open space and public waiting area (e.g. heavily used playground,
3 open car park, heavily used sitting out area, horticulture garden)
– road with moderate vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
– lightly used open-air recreation area (e.g. district open space, lightly used
playground, cemetery, columbarium
4
– non-dangerous goods storage site
3 (Low)
– road with low vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
– remote area (e.g. country park, undeveloped green belt, abandoned quarry)
5
– road with very low vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
10
2.6 Australia Landslide Risk Zone Category
The Australia Geomechanics subcommittee has developed a classification of

consequences of landsliding. AGS(2000) which classified the hazard slope as Exempt
(EX), Low(L) , Medium(M0) , Medium(M1), Medium (M2) and High (H) according
their different trigger factor, is shown as follows.
Table 2 : Summary of landslide risk categories and development controls

(Wilson ,2004)
Landslide risk zone category
Exempt (Ex) Low(L) Medium(M0) Medium(M1) Medium(M2) High(H)

Colluvium
Applicable geology & slope
Alluvium & 20-50%; Known

Colluvium Tertiary>15%; Landslides and
Alluvium & Other Bedrock
5-20% ; Granite 20-40% Rhyodacite similar terrain.
Colluvium<5% 20-40%
Tertiary<15%; 20-40%; Colluvium>50%
Bedrock<20% Granite & other Rhyodacite>50%
bedrock >40%
Definition of risk
Likelihood of Landslide There is a

Landslide is unlikely without development. The
category
landslide of without likelihood of a

likelihood of instability without development is greater
natural slopes is development is landslide without
in M2 than for the M0 & M1 zones
extremely low very unlikely development
Watch out for Comply the

explanation
You possibly
A simple
Worry about springs. Comply with guidelines. You probably

have a flooding
something else Comply with the guidelines They are there have a problem
problem
Guidelines for a purpose.
geotechnical information
Slope stability assessment by an

Required site specific
experienced geotechnical practitioner
Confirmation of risk category by the shire using geotechnical information to confirm or change the regional
submitted to classify the site for soil reactivity. classification plus additional
geotechnical investigation where
considered necessary.
site and project specific controls site and project If confirmed as

Development
Good
controls
Good Hillside where applicable including specific specific controls High H , it is

engineering
practice attention to drainage & erosion where unlikely permit
practice
control applicable will be issued.
11
2.7 Major landslide in past history (Hong Kong & Australia)
2.7.1 Hong Kong

According to CEDD reported that between 1925 and 2007, more than ten thousand
landslides have occurred and every year have about 300 slope failures occur in cut
slope areas. In the past half century, at least 300 people died in 24 landslides in Hong
Kong. (CEDD,2008)
On 18th June 1972, a major landslide took place in Hong Kong at mid-level Kotewall
Road. Two high-rise residential buildings collapsed due to a large landslide which was
responsible for the death of 67 people (CEDD, 2008). In the same year, another
major landslide event caused many fatalities which occurred in Sau Mau Ping village.
This devastating landslide event caused major debris flow which overwhelmed a large
section of Sau Mau Ping Village (CEDD , 2008).
Figure 6 Sau Mau Ping Landslide, Figure 7 Sau Mau Ping Landslide,
(CEDD, 1976) (CEDD,1976)
In 13th Aug 1995, the large Wong Chuk Hang landslide occurred and the landslide
material slipped rapidly down the steep slope and destroyed the seaside shipyards.
Two people died in this landslide (CEDD,2008)
Figure 8 Kotewall Road. Landslide, Figure 9 Wong Chuk Hang Landslide,

(CEDD,1976) (CEDD,1995)
12
2.7.2 Australia
According to EMA Disasters Database, 2008, there have been 48 recorded landslide
events which have collectively resulted in the death of 39 people , and 19 casualties
out of the 7,586 victims in Australian landslide history since 1897.
One of Australia’s worst landslides was held in 30th July 1997. A large section of the
steep mountainside below the Alpine Way road collapsed and overwhelmed a section
of the Thredbo Ski Village in NSW. About 1,000 tonnes of landslide material slipped
rapidly down the steep slope and shearing the Carinya lodge off its foundations and
slamming it into the Bimbadeen Lodge. It was recorded that 18 people had fallen
victims in this disaster which also caused multimillion dollars in damage (EMA ,2008)
Figure 10 Thredbo 1997 landslide Figure 11 Thredbo 1997 landslide

(EMA disaster DB,1997) (EMA disaster DB,1997)
According to Australia National Landslide Database,(2007) reported that on 30 April

1988 in Coledale, a small coal mining town near Wollongong, a landslide resulted
from a combination of human interference and two weeks of heavy rainfall. A 20
meter high railway embankment collapsed after earth and rock ballast used to fill an
old mine dam became saturated, resulting in severe undermining and subsidence. A
sudden rush of mud and rock smashed into a house below, turning it through a 60
degree angle before it was demolished. The occupants a young mother and her baby
son, were killed.
Some landslide hazards have led to the re-development of infrastructure for some
geological reason. For example, the purpose of Sea Cliff Bridge is to replace a section
of Lawrence Hargrave Drive that was permanently closed in July 2003 due to a great
landslide hazard reason. Therefore, landslides in Australia not only cause human loss,
but also cause economic loss which due to leak of landslide hazard assessment .
Figure 12 Sea Cliff Bridge Figure 13 Landslide on Lawrence

(photo: http://seacliffbridge.com/) Hargrave Drive 1988
13
2.8 Past Method of Slope Failure Prevention

Before 1990, chuman surface and non-reinforcing shotcrete surfaces were a common
use of material for slope stability improvement. For some steep slopes, a stone
pitching surface was most widely used, or masonry facing for rigid surface cover.
Some of them were installed “weepholes” to reduce the pore water pressure inside the
slope. However, the main purpose of this was to achieve an impervious interface for
prevention of the surface erosion and the rainfall entry into the slope in order to reduce
the pore water pressure inside the slope. This method is easy in terms of construction
and maintenance and was also cost efficient.
However, if the slope had inherent instability due to internal soil, shear failure and
sliding would still occur. This method would not provide an enough structural external
force against the movement of the slope failure wedge. On the other hand, this method
usually uses a concrete or stone base construction material, which is usually grey or
white in colour. This triggers an environmental problem, as the finish is very
inconsistent with the surrounding natural landscape.
The following lists are the conventional slope stabilisation methods.
Shotcrete surface method:

Shotcrete is a process where concrete is sprayed onto
slope surface using a shotcrete feeder gun to form
rigid surface. Usually, shotcrete surface slopes have
approximate 50-150mm thick and provide wire mash
reinforcement to prevent surface crack and shrinkage.
Figure 14 Shotcrete surface
Masnory surface method

Use stone pitching as a rigid surface cover for prevent
erosion and surface runoff. This method is easy for
maintenance and construction.
Figure 15 Masnory surface
Chuman surface method

Use of cement sand mix material for surface
protection. No reinforcement and wire mash required.
Poor crack and shrinkage resistance.
Figure 16 Chuman surface
14
2.9 Current Method of Slope Failure Prevention

In the past 20 years, slope improvement technology has advanced significantly. The
slope improvements are now focusing on the slope stability design and environmental
protection. Many different types of slope retaining methods are used in slope
improvement construction and design. The most commonly used methods are
Soil-nailing and Bio-Engineering.
2.9.1 Soil ailing is a new technique in which soil slopes, excavations or
retaining walls are reinforced by the insertion steel reinforcing bars. According to
Ortigao (2004) noted that the first use of the soil nailing application was in 1972 and
now this method is a well-established technique around the world. Sometimes, soil
nailing can combine different type of retaining methods such as soil nailing on
retaining walls and with greening surfaces. Soil nailing can provide a cost efficient,
quick and standard technique for slope improvement solution. Thus, according to
CEDD (2008) reported that soil nailing methods dominate about 70% of all soil slope
improvement constructions in Hong Kong.
Figure 17 Typical Soil nailing method Figure 18 Typical Soil nailing method
(Maunsell.Geotechnical ltd ,2003) (IECA, 1995)
2.9.2 Bio-Engineering is one of the most innovative technologies for slope
improvements in the world. According to Coppin (1990) described that
Bio-Engineering includes the use of tree roots or plant roots to retain shallow slope
failure. This method has an advantage as it is natural and environmental friendly
(Coppin,1990). However, many factors can influence the effectiveness of
Bio-engineering for slope stabilisation. This method is in an early stage of
development, and needs a period of time for technology proving and development.
Figure 19 Root orientation with

Figure 20 Vetiver Grass System,
respect to shallow slope failure
( Toyo Greenland Co., Ltd , 2008)
(Coppin ,1990)
15
2.9.3 Soil Re-Compaction and o-fine Replacement
For some loose material slopes such as fill slope, soil nailing is not a suitable
stabilisation method. Some technologies such as soil re-compaction and soil
re-placement are more suitable and are usually applied. Soil re-compaction involves
the excavation of the loose soil, backfilling and re-compacting to improve the friction
angle. However, the soil re-compaction method has some restrictions such as every
backfill and re-compaction has to be carried out in a 300mm thick layer (Geoguide 7,
2008), layer by layer, and every single layer needs an individual soil test for
compaction ratio checking. Moreover, this method is highly influenced by weather
conditions. The soil has to be placed in thinner lifts and requires moisture control for
compaction. As a result, this method will increase the construction cost and period.
The other method is the soil replacement method. This design approach includes using
other materials such as no-fine concrete or gravel to replace the loose soil. Removal of
the original loose soil on the slope is carried out, then forming a slope with a design
slope angle by backfilling with no-fine concrete or gravel. After that, a thin layer of
soil with hydroseeding is applied to the surface as a cover and for landscaping. This
method can reduce the construction period, hence alleviating labour costs and
operation costs which then compare with the soil re-compaction method.
However, these replacement and re-compaction methods are constrained in that the
construction sequence has to be scheduled for the dry season when the groundwater
levels are lower than they were at the time of active landsliding. Alternatively,
temporary groundwater lowering through the use of a raking drain may be needed
prior to, and during construction work.
Figure 21 Figure 22
No-Fine concrete replacement Completed no-fine replacement slope
(Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. ,2005) (After landscaping)
( Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. , 2005)
16
2.9.4 Other Method of Slope Failure Prevention
Subsurface Drainage
Of all stabilisation methods considered for the prevention of landslides, a reduction of
pore water pressure behind the slope is the most important. According to
Cornforth(2005) described that the subsurface drainage method can reduce the
destabilising hydrostatic and seepage water pressures on the slope as well as the risk of
sliding or flow. For large, unstable slopes, a drainage tunnel can be applied to draw
down the water table and minimise the risk of slope failure. In Hong Kong, the Lung
Fu Shan drainage tunnel and vertical drainage system is under construction. This
drainage tunnel can prevent the failure of a 200m high natural slope which could be
triggered by water pressure. Other subsurface drainage methods include: Drain blanket,
Trenches, Cut-off drains, Horizontal Drains, Relief Drains and Raking Drains.
Stone Columns
Based on Cornforth, (2005) described that this ground improvement method can
increase the average shear resistance of soil along a potential slip surface by replacing
or displacing the in situ soil with a series of closely spaced and large diameter columns
of compacted stone. However, this method requires the use of a boring machine and
material delivery, which would result in an access problem if the slope is inaccessible.
This method is not common use in Hong Kong. Usually, vertical soil nailing can
provide the same results as stone columns.
Shear Piles
According to Cornforth, (2005) described that shear piles are reinforced concrete
cylindrical piles that pass through the slide plant and anchored at lower end stable soils
or bedrock. This shear pile anchorage can provide lateral bearing resistance near the
base of ground movement (Cornforth, 2005). This method is effective for a large
instability zone and can provide the flexibility of selecting an installation location.
However, this method has limitations such as being costly and cannot be installed in
moving landslide.
17
3.0 Application of Soil nailing for Slope Stabilisation
3.1 Principle theory of soil nailing
A slope can be described in terms of geological theories, according to Abramson (2002)

described that the soil mass behind the slope surface can be divided into an active and
passive zone which are separated by a shear face call slip surface. The slope stability
analysis for a soil nailed slope considers the stabilising effect of nails acting on the slip
surface, however, this differs with respect to the shape of the slip surface, the forces
act on a nail and the method used for calculation of stability.
Figure 23 Active and Passive zone (Abramson, 2002)
Based on Ortigao (2004) described that Soil nailing consists of reinforcing the instable
soil mass by the series of elements called nails to resist tension, bending and shear
forces. These nail elements are usually made of galvanized steel bar and protected by
cement grout. Nails are installed sub-horizontally and closely spaced in a parallel
fashion (usually 1.5m to 2.0m in spacing) into soil mass in a pre-drilled hole to
improve stability of slope.
According to CEDD (2008) described that soil nailing provides pullout resistance
force and tension over their entire length. The angle, length and diameter of soil nails
are dependent on soil condition and design criteria. Usually, soil nails are installed for
permanent slope improvement. Therefore, the corrosion-resistant treatment is similar
to soil anchors and requires galvanizing.
The soil nail system for mechanical stabilisation against the instability force can be
categorised as a limit equilibrium analysis (Abramson,2002). This is a conventional
slope stability calculation method with potential slip surfaces modeled, such as
circular arc slip surface. Abramson,(2002) stated that this potential slip surface model
approximately represents the critical surface of maximum tensile load. Limit
equilibrium analysis can examine the slip surface and others to determine the lowest
factor of safety after the slope is reinforced.
18
3.2 Soil nail History and Development
Soil nailing methods are widely use in geotechnical construction work. Nowadays,
these technologies can be used in Tie-back retailing wall, Temporary support, ground
anchor and Tunneling support. Therefore, soil nailing has a great contribution in
geotechnical construction.
Based on Ortigao (2004) noted that , in the late 60’s, soil nailing developed used in
tunneling shotcrete supporting method. This method used a flexible lining that enabled
soil deformation around the excavation, which had been reinforced by a number of
bolts or nailing. An active zone is formed around the excavation and the lining is
subjected to reduced loading (Ortigao, 2004). This technique is the traditional
tunneling technique method for preventing soil deformation and reducing the
subjected ground pressures of tunnel.
As reported by Ortigao (2004), the first time nailing was used in tunneling
construction work was in 1970 in Brazil. After that, this nailing method is widely used
in France, Canada, Germany, UK and in the USA, among other countries.
The soil nailing for slope stability method is similar to the tunneling support method
(tieback). The difference is they are installed non-tensioned at a slight downward
inclination on slope. Such construction work used soil nailing for slope improvement
work in Versailles (France) for first time in 1972 (Cornforth, 2005). According to
Ortigao (2004) reported that one of the first national guideline publications for soil
nailing was produced in Japan in 1987; the USA has produced national guideline
publications through the Federal Highway Administration on this subject in 1996.
The Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) of Hong Kong extensively uses soil
nailing to stabilize thousands of man-made slopes in residual and saprolitic soils and
in 1996 presents its prescriptive design method. CEDD, (2008) mentioned, since 1995,
over ten thousand of such soil nailing structures have been constructed in Hong Kong
through LPM program to stabilize slopes in residual soil.
Regarding the development of the soil nail head, in the early 90’s , an exposed soil nail
head was commonly used in the soil nailing system. With a large size and exposed
head, it was possible to transfer the component of load from the slope face to soil nail.
However, buried soil nail heads are now common, since the late 90’s. Hidden into the
slopes surface and with a small size, the soil nail head (approximate 0.6m-0.8m) is the
main element of the design in soil nailing system. This type of soil nail head can be
19
covered by hydroseeding surface on top of soil nail head to provide a natural and
environmentally friendly slope surface.
3.3 Function of the Soil ail
Soil nail - in general, these are a form of in situ non-tensioned reinforcement, acting
similarly to strip reinforcement (Abramson, 2002). Typically, soil nails usually have a
diameter of 25-32mm. The length and inclination are both dependent on the design
calculation and factor of safety. They are installed in drillholes and bonded into place
with low pressure grout. Stress is transferred from the ground to the nail over its full
length and there is a shear stress reversals as in reinforced earth.
According to Ortigao (2004) described that ,when considering a very steep slope in a
granular or cohesive soil, many factors may influence the soil, causing it to not have
sufficient internal strength to stand at such an angle. Therefore, for the face to remain
stable the force exerted by soil mass sliding must be resisting by a reinforcement
structure. In previous chapters, it has been mentioned that the stability method can be
achieved through the implementation of structural elements (such as skip wall) , or
through the inclusion of reinforcement in the soil (such as soil nail). The aim of the
inclusions is to interact with soil mass in a stabilising manner. An active inclusion is
like a stressed soil anchor , it exerts a force on the soil mass through the tension in
anchor. In the chapter of Principle theory of soil nailing, Abramson (2002) mentioned
that the two zones can be identified, an active zone and a passive zone. The stabilising
manner relies on the soil frictional force between the soil nail surface and soil which is
generated by the surrounding soil mass in passive zone. If the soil mass had to stand at
a very steep angle and had insufficient shear strength, the soil mass would deform.
Therefore, this deformation may exert a force which would act on any structural
element placed in the soil.
Based on Cornforth (2005) described that the main aim of the soil nailing method is
the structural element which is used to resist this deformation force. Hausmann, (1992)
mentioned that Soil nail contains two forces when the soil mass undergoes
deformation. The first is friction between the deformation soil mass and the inclusion.
This interaction length can be termed the “bond length”. The second is derived from
the normal stress which exerted by soil on the inclusion. There are four possible
actions of this force: tension, compression , shear and bending. For general slope,
bending and shear are commonly used in slope soil nail design.
20
3.4 Differences between Soil nail and Soil anchor
The soil nail and soil anchor are similar in structure. Both of them are able to take
tension and resist the soil mass sliding as the earth retailing structure. However, they
are two different types of structural. Significant conceptual differences exist, as
described in the following section.
Soil Anchor –Anchor structure for slope stability which is only able to resist tension
forces. The nail or tendon are usually are Prestressed in a high loads. According to Das,
(1990) described that Soil anchor nails contain two parts: Free length and Bonded
length. Free length usually are ungrouted length or un-bonded, and bonded length
usually are grouted or bonded into the soil (Das, 1990). In this type of structure,
tendons are taking the tensile force , which is transmitted from the anchor head to the
anchorage zone. As the tendon is located in the free length, it does not have any grout
protection. The corrosion protection control of tendon is very important for this
reason.
Soil nail- Soil nails involve the rigid reinforcing of a soil mass. These nails can resist
tension, shear forces and bending moment which imposed by slope movement. The
nail inside the soil is fully grouted and usually Non-prestressed and relatively closely
spaced. No force will act on soil nail system until the soil mass failure. Usually soil
nails involve a more simplistic installation technique than soil anchors and are easier
to construct.
3.4.1 Maintenance
Typically, soil anchors need to keep the tensile force in the tendon at a constant level.
Many factors can trigger the prestress loss. Therefore, maintenance of re-prestress
process may be necessary and thus, result in an increase in the overall maintenance
cost. On the other hand, soil nail reinforcement bars inside of the soil are fully
protected by cement grout and are usually non-prestressed. If the reinforcement bar
corrosion protection control keeps the nail in good condition, the soil nail needn’t be
actively maintenaned, hence reducing the maintenance cost.
21
3.5 Soil nail application in different construction purposes
In global construction, soil nails are widely used in construction sites as an anchor
system. Not only are soil anchors used as a slope stability retaining structure, but also
for other purposes as follows
Tie- back wall – In this case, the soil nails are used to provide a tension force to
the back of the wall to increase the passive pressure of retaining wall system. It’s
conceptually very similar to geo-synthetic soil nail (Ortigao, 2004). In order to
minimize wall movement and ground settlement, tieback walls are designed to
achieve an efficient earth retaining structure within economical considerations.
Ground Anchor – Using soil nails to provide the tensile force in the ground.
Typically, they are used to prevent the overturning or floatation of structures such
as footing or structures in water.
Deep excavation support - Usually this involves using soil nails as a temporary
measure for deep excavation stabilisation. Similar, to the tie-back wall method, in
deep excavation, vibration sheet pile will be installed for supporting the vertical
cut slope. The deeper the excavation , the higher the active pressure that will be
generated and act on the pile wall. Therefore, structural supporting on upper
portions of the pile are necessary. Soil nails can provide these external tensile
forces to help resist the deformation of pile wall.
Figure 24 Figure 25
Typical tie-back for deep excavation Typical permanent Tie-back wall
(deepexcavation.org , 2008) (Office of Geotechnical, California,
2008)
22
3.6 Advantages of Soil nailing for Slope Stability
Soil nailing presents the following advantages that have be contributed to the
widespread use of this technique in many countries in more recent times.
Economy : Steel bar reinforcement is inexpensive. The concrete or shotcrete for

the soil nail head is relatively small and inexpensive. Construction techniques are
simple and quick. Skilled labor can be minimized. According to Cornforth (2005)
mentioned that, soil nailing can result in a cost saving of 10 to 30 percent when
compared to tieback walls.
Rate of construction: Fast rates of construction can be achieved if adequate

equipment is employed.
Light construction equipment: Soil nailing can be done using a conventional

drilling rig and grouting equipment. Thus, equipment can be delivered to site
easily even in areas with difficult access or limited working space constraints.
Adaptability to different soil type : Soil nails can still be used in heterogeneous
ground where boulders or hard rocks may be encountered in the soil slope. Soil
nailing generally is more feasible than other techniques. This is because it
involves only small-diameter drilling for the installation of the inclusions.
Flexibility : Soil nailing retaining structures are more flexible than classical
cast-in-place reinforced concrete retaining structures. Soil nails can be
incorporated with other earth retaining system such as Tie-back wall, Skill wall
etc. Also soil nails can limit the deformation or settlement in the vicinity of
existing structures such as a foundation (Cornforth, 2005). This characteristic of
soil nailing can help to provide economical retaining structures on unstable
slopes.
Reinforcement redundancy: Based on Ortigao (2004) stated that, if any one soil
nail becomes overstressed for any reason, it will not cause failure of the slope. It
will redistribute the overstress to the adjoining nails system.
23
3.7 Limitation of Soil ail
Although soil nails are widely use for slope stability, there are some limitations
regarding the application of soil nail.
Unsuitable soil: Cohesionless soil slopes are not suitable for soil nails for
increasing slope stability. This is because during the drilling of the hole, the
un-grouted hole may collapse. Usually, casing drilling may be applied during the
drilling process.
Groundwater: Soil nailing has to occur above groundwater level. When soil nail
holes are drilled, the drilled hole may collapse because hole surfacing soil is
saturated or is filled with water. Therefore, a drilled hole cannot support itself and
in result the hole will collapse. Furthermore, when the soil nails are being grouted,
groundwater inside the drilled hole may affect the water/cement ratio of the
cement grout. This may affect the grout quality and reduce the cement grout
strain capabilities.
Utilities: soil nails are drilled inside the slope. Behind of slope may contain
utilities such as buried water pipes, underground cables and drainage systems.
There are some limitations that state that soil nails must have a safe distance
between soil nails and these utilities. Therefore, a soil nail must change its
inclination or length or spacing to achieve this distance.
Vibration sensitive structure: During the drilling procedure, vibration may

occur and cannot be avoided. Some building structures are vibration sensitive
such as Historical Buildings. Therefore, soil nailing is not the suitable method for
slope improvement in these cases.
Rock base slope: Some cut slope contain only few meters of top soil. During site
investigation the deep layer soil type or a large boulder may be undetected (which
would be possible with ground investigation, indicating it’s importance). When
drilling the soil nail holes and the rock layer is reached, dust and stone powder
may affect the environment and public health.
24
4.0 Construction method of soil nails
4.1 The Compound of the Soil ails

These following component parts are the main elements of the soil nail system:
Soil nail reinforcement – Steel galvanized bar which usually would have a high
grade 500N or equivalent strength capability, usually a galvanized steel, deformed
bar.
Centralizers – PVC material which are fixed to the soil nail and ensure that soil nail
is centered in the drill hole.
Grout tube – Use to transfer the cement grout from grouting machine to the bottom
of soil nail.
Steel Plate – A square shape steel plate which use to transfer the bearing from soil
nail to the soil nail head.
Steel uts – Used to fix the steel plate on the soil nail steel bar. Usually each soil
nail contains 2 steel nuts to fix the position of steel plate.
Soil nail head – A square shape concrete structure which includes the steel plate,
steel nuts, and soil nail head reinforcement. This part of structure provides the soil
nail bearing strength, and transfers bearing loads from the soil mass to soil nail.
Figure 26 Soil nail reinforcement bar Figure 27 Typical Centralisers
Figure 28 Figure 29
Steel plate and Steel nuts Typical soil nail head reinforcement
25
4.2 Introduce the Soil ail Construction Equipment
Some special equipment is using in soil nail construction. The following details
describe the essential equipment involved in soil nail construction work.
Drilling rig is a machine which creates holes in

the slope. Most of them are powered by
compressed air. For soil nail purposes, the
length of drilling rig is about 2m max
length .Therefore, it has a small size, easy
delivery and the benefit of high level of
mobility.
(More drilling methods in Table 3)
Figure 30 Drilling Rig
Air compressor is a machine that provides

compressed air to drilling rig for the power
source. It also provides the air wash through the
drilling bit which spreads air pressure inside the
hole to remove the soil debris.
Figure 31 Air compressor

Grouting machine is a machine that provides
the grout material and pump into soil nail drill
hole. It contains two tanks, one is a mixing tank
which used to mix the cement and water to
form the liquid grout. The other one is a holding
tank which is used to store the grout from
mixing tank and high pressure pump to hole
Figure 32 Grouting machine through grout tube.
Shotcrete machine is used to construct the

soil nail head. For some steep slope and
high slope, traditional case in situ concrete
method is not suitable for concreting the
soil nail head. Therefore, Shotcrete is the
most suitable in concreting soil nail work
because of its flexibility and mobility.
Figure 33 Shotcrete machine
26
4.3 Soil ail construction procedure summary
This section will discuss some of the more practical aspects of soil nailing
construction and some of the various techniques available for soil nail installation.
Soil nail installation involves different parts of a procedure as follows:

Trial test process:
Constructed a trial soil nail (Test nail) for a pull-out test to ensure the soil
condition is the same as in the design assumption.
Preparation work:
Erect and setup the working platform.
Setup all necessary equipment
Fix the centralisers and grout tube on the steel reinforcement.
Drilling process:
Use air wash drilling machine or coring machine to drill the hole for the soil nail
(Hole diameter approximate 100mm to 150mm)
Installation the soil nail:

Use pressure air wash to ensure the drilled hole is clear.
Install the soil nail steel reinforcement into drilled hole.
Grouting process:
Use grouting machine to mix the cement and water to a designed water/cement
ratio. Bleeding test must be carried out in this stage.
Grouting the soil nail from bottom to top with a suitable grout pressure.
Flow cone test must be carried out during the grouting process.
Testing process:
Random proving tests must be carried out after 3 to 7 days of the grouting
process to prove the soil nail can withstand the acceptance load.
Soil nail head construction:

After the cement grout hardens, install the nuts and steel plate into the soil nail
steel bar.
Install the soil nail reinforcement and concreting the soil nail head structure.
27
4.4 The Major procedure of Soil nails construction
4.4.1 Setting out of soil nail position

The soil nail position should be located identical to that of the working plan, although
soil nail locations may be offset within the tolerances of specification agreed by design
engineering. Before the drilling stage, cable detection and visual inspection shall be
provided to avoid any buried utilities.
4.4.2 Drilling
The drilling rig is the equipment for drilling the soil nail drill hole. Before starting the
drilling process, the inclination and angle of drill mast should be checked to ensure
that they are the same as the design specified angle. Moreover, the drilling bit also
needs to meet the diameter requirement according the specification. Usually, most soil
nail drilling uses a drill rig machine due to its easy delivery and simple maintenance
schedule. Some of them use a small hydraulic and mobile platform. But this
equipment is very expensive for operation, especially if the site is not accessible or the
space of working area is not available for drilling rig. Coring machines are also
suitable for coring the soil nail hole. Traditional drilling rigs are powered by
compressed air which is provided by an air compressor machine. Compressed air has
two functions in the drilling rig. One is as a power source to drive the rotation of the
drill bit and push the drilling mast inward into the slope. The other function is when
the drilling rig is operating; the compressed air can force the soil debris out of the hole.
The drilled hole diameter usually should be in the range of 100mm to 150mm,
depending on the size of the soil nail steel bar. In some case, an iron casing is provided
when the soil property is loose dense and the drilled hole collapses easily.
Un-grouted drill holes in soil should be kept open only for short periods of time.
According to (CEDD GS vol2 section 7, 1992) standard, un-grouted drill holes should
not kept open for four days and for only 24 hours according to the Australian Standard.
The longer the hole is left open, the greater the risk of collapse of drilled hole. If the
hole is collapsed and unable for soil nail installation, a re-drill of the holes is
necessary.
Figure 34 Mobile drilling rig Figure 35 Typical drilling rig
28
Other type of drilling method
Table 3 Other drilling method for soil nail (Elias & Juran , 1991)
Drill
Drill rig Type
Open hole Drill Bit Cutting

Drilling method Cased Comments
Hole diameter Type removal
(mm)
Lead Flight Kelley

Yes No
Bar Driven Mechanical
Sectional solid-stem Yes No Hydraulic rotary
Sectional Mechanical (Air auger methods for
Auger
Yes Yes Rock,

Hollow-stem 100-300 support) drilling competent
soil ,drag
Continuous Flight soils or weathered
Yes No Mechanical
Solid-stem rock.
Continous Flight Mechanical (Air
Yes Yes
Hollow-Stem support)
Hydraulic rotary
Single-stem Air Yes No
methods for
Duplex Air Rotary Yes Yes drilling competent

Button, soils, rock, or
100-200 Roller, Compressed air mixed ground
Drag conditions
Sectional Solid-Stem
Yes No
Rotary
(Pneumatic
Augers
hammers
available)
Mechanical Hydraulic rotary
auger methods for
Sectional Rock,
Yes Yes 100-300 Mechanical (Air drilling competent
Hollow-Stem Augers soil, drag
support) soils or weathered
rock.
Pneumatic rotary
methods for
Button,
Air track
Single stem air drilling

Yes No 100-300 Roller, Compressed air
rotary non-caving
Drag
competent soils or
rock
29
4.4.3 Soil nail steel bar installation

According to CEDD Geoguide 7 (2008)
requirement, before the steel bar is installed in
the hole, the centraliser and grout tube should
be provided and fixed tightly to the steel bar to
prevent any movement which could be caused
by the grouting pressure. Spacing and size of
the centralisers needs to meet the requirement
of design specifications and ensure that the
Figure 36 Steel bar installation steel bar is located in the center in the drilled
drill
hole. Checking of the galvanizzing, steel bar
length and diameter must be carried out before install installing the soil nail steel bar
(Geoguide 7, 2008).. After all, the steel bar must be installed in the same direction and
angle with the drilled hole and handled carefully to avoid damagdamaging the drilled hole
and to avoid collapsing the hole
hole.
4.4.4 Grouting
Grouting is the concreting procedure of the soil nail

which provides the bond over the length of the soil
nail. The grouting material should be mix of cement
and water with an acceptable water/cement ratio.
Too high or too low of a water cement ratio may
cause a higher risk of failure in the flow cone test
and bleeding test. Therefore, according to CEDD
Geoguide 7 (2008) requirement, a 0.35-0.45
0.35 range
of water/cement ratio is common for use in soil nail
grouting. In some cases, Water Reducing
educing Admixture
Figure 37 Grouting process are added into the grout to provide a higher strength
of cement grout in order to reduce the water content.
In the grouting process, it must be ensured that the soil nail does not have any void or
gap in the grouted column. Hence, the grout should be injected through the grout tube
which was previously fixed ed to the steel bar
bar. The grout should be delivered with a
low pressure pump to the grout tube from the bottom of the drilled hole until the
drilled hole fully contains cement grout (Geoguide 7, 2008). This will ensure that the
grout evenly and completely fills the hole from bottom to surfac
surfacee without any air
voids. To make sure the quality of grout met the specification requirement,
requirement some tests
for cement grout should be carried out in the grouting process. The teststest will be
described in the section on Testing on soil nail.
30
4.4.5 Procedure of pull--out test for nail sample

The installation procedure of the pull-out test nail is similar to a general soil nail
construction procedure. However, a pull-out test nail needs to provide a free bonded
length.. Test nails require partial grouting of the nail to develop a bonded length.
Therefore, in the grouting stage
stage, the grout should applied to the bonded length only.
For the purpose of the test
test,, packer should be provided to limit the grout material flow
to the free-bonded
bonded length.
4.4.6 Soil ail Head

This part of the structure provides the soil bearing
strength and transfers bearing loads from soil mass
to soil nail. Usually the size of soil nail head about
400mm x 400mm and min depth is 250mm. In the
soil nail system, there are two type of soil nail head:
Exposed soil nail head and buried soil nail head.
Exposed soil nail heads are located on the slope
surface and buried soil nail head are buried inside
the slope surface. Therefore, excavation for soil nail
Figure 38 heads is necessary with buried option.
option The soil nail
Excavated soil nail head head mainly comprises of three components, the
bearing plate,, nuts and steel reinforcement. The
purpose of the bearing plate is to distribute the force at the nail end to the whole nail
head and the steel reinforcement prevents the shrinkage and crack of soil nail.
Usually the steel reinforcement for the soil nail head is 16mm diameter mild steel.
For the concreting of soil nail head, There are two common methods.. One is shotcrete
and the other one is traditional ready mix cconcreting.
oncreting. Which method will be used
depends on the height of slope, angle of slope, accessibility for ready mix track and
material delivery. Both method
methods of soil nail head production shall meet the
requirements of specification
specifications through a compressive
pressive strength test. Moreover, steel
bearing plates are placed at the half stage of shotcrete process to avoid a gap behind
the soil nail head. Therefore, bearing plate
plates should be installed when the shotcrete
reaches the half depth mark of the soil nail head.
Figure 39 Typical buried soil nail head Figure 40 Shotcreting soil nail head
31
Figure 41 Typical detail of soil nail and soil nail head (Hong Kong CEDD standard drawing, 2008 )
32
4.5 Quality Specification

Specifications are an explicit set of requirements and standards to be satisfied , set by
design criteria on soil nail installation. It must be ensured that the soil nail
construction is up to the technical standards and met the quality requirements.
According to CEDD General Specification vol 2 (1992) and Australia standard R64
(2007), The main specifications in soil nail installation work are briefly summarised
as following:
The tolerances on drilled hole diameters are not in excess of 10mm with
minimum thickness of grout cover being 30mm at all locations. (R64, 2007)
The depth of the drilled hole shall not be in excess of 100mm of the designed
depth(CEDD GS Vol2, 1992)
Maximum offset to the marked location not excess 100mm vertically and
300mm horizontally. (CEDD GS Vol2, 1992)
The tolerances on outside diameter of centralizers on steel bar shall be within

5mm. (CEDD GS Vol2, 1992)
The spacing of the centralisers shall not be excess 1.5m c/c in Hong Kong
(CEDD GS Vol2, 1992) standard and 2m c/c in the Australian standard.
Soil nail installation and grouting shall be carried out within 24 hours after
the holes are drilled (Australian standard), or four days after the holes are
drilled (Hong Kong standard) (CEDD GS Vol2, 1992)
Water used in grouting shall be clean and free from oil, acids, alkali, organic
or vegetable matter and from any ingredients harmful to steel or cement grout.
Water temperature used in grout shall be measured at mixer and shall not be
less than 5OC and not more than 27 OC (CEDD GS Vol2, 1992)
Cement grout shall be passed through a 2.36mm sieve aperture.
The Grout shall be used as soon as possible after mixing and within 30
minutes of adding cement. (CEDD GS Vol2, 1992)
33
4.6 Testing on Soil ails

According to CEDD CS2 (1992) noted that different tests are needed to carry out
during the soil nail installation stage. These different tests have a main purpose of
ensuring that the quality of work is satisfactory in terms of the standard requirements.
In the whole soil nail construction process, the following tests must be carried out for
quality assurance.
Soil nail steel bar – tensile test, bending test, re-bend test, galvanizing test.
Cement Grout – Bleeding test, flow cone test, compressive strength test.
Soil nail – Pull-out test (suitability test ), Proving test (acceptance test)
4.6.1 Soil nail steel bar
The soil nail steel bar is the most

essential element of soil nail system
and withstands tension, bending and
shear force in soil mass. Therefore, all
ranges of testing are needed to be
carried out before soil nail installation.
Figure 42 Steel bar test sample pieces Usually, take five samples of a 1 meter
length from stock of soil nail steel bar
for test pieces.
Tensile test
Tensile strength, yield stress and elongation are given out in these tests. According to
Hong Kong Construction Standard 2 (1995), the tensile stress shall be at least 10%
greater than the actual yield stress measured in tensile test. The acceptable
elongation shall not be over 12% of 5 time diameter of test piece in high stress steel
bar. (CEDD CS2, 1995)
Bending Test
This is the test for bending of a steel bar to meet the bending requirements. According
to CEDD CS2 (1995) noted that the test piece shall withstand being bent through
180o around a former of a specific diameter. The test specimens shall satisfy the
requirement which states that no sign of cracks on visual examination are evident.
Re-bend test
This test is for bending in opposite direction after same process of bending test and
acceptable require the test specimens shall not break into two pieces.
Galvanizing test
This is the measure of the content of galvanized material which has been painted or
spread on the steel bar (CEDD CS2, 1995). The galvanized material can prevent the
corrosion of the steel bar which may be caused by ground water or saturated soil.
34
4.6.2 Cement Grout

Cement grout is the surrounding material of the soil nail which can protect the steel
bar against ground water and transfer the frictional force from soil to steel bar.
Therefore, cement grout quality concrete is essential.
Bleeding Test - This is the measure of

water bleeding from cement grout.
According to CEDD CS2 (1992) & AS
R64 mentioned that bleeding shall not
exceed 1% of volume at 60 minutes after
mixing when measured at 20OC temperate
Figure 43 Bleeding test in a covered 100mm diameter cylinder.
The bleeding rate is dependent on the
o
humidity and temperature. Therefore, a 20 C constant temperate and covered cylinder
are necessary for this test. Moreover, vibration should be avoided during the period of
test.
Flow Cone Test – According to ASTM C939 –

(2002) noted that this test is used to determine the
fluidity, or viscosity, of the grout. The fluidity is an
indication of how well the grout mix will flow when
it is pumped into the grout tube. According to CEDD
GS vol2 (1995), the grout mix should pass through
this flow cone in at least 15 seconds but should not
exceed 30 second. Grout mix that is too thick or too
viscous may not be able to be pushed through the
length of the tendon, and if the grout mix that is too
thin means the grout may contain too much water
and affect the water/cement ratio. This test is
Figure 44 Flow cone test typically required to be run twice every two hours or
randomly during grouting operations
Figure 45 Typical section of flow cone test equipment (ASTM C939, 2002)
35
36
Figure 46 Typical sample record sheet for Bleeding Test and Flow Cone Test
( Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd , 2008 )
Compressive strength test
quare cement grout cube

Figure 47 Square
Through the compressive strength test

test,, the specimen sample
of cement grout can provide an indication of compressive
strength of the material which provides an indication of the
mechanical and durability properties, in order to meet the soil
nail grout requirement. The specimen sample can be a
100mm sided square cube or 100mm
mm dia x 250mm long
cylinder
cylinder. According to CEDD General Specification vol.2
(1992
1992) and Australia standard R64(2007)
(2007) required that six
samples are used for square cube samples and three cylinder
Figure 48 sample
samples.. The compressive strength is calculated from the
Compressive failure load divided by cross
cross-sectional
sectional area resisting the load
strength test and reported in force per unit area.
4.6.3 Soil nails

Soil nail tests are carried out after the completed grouting stage and before the
construction of the soil nail head stage
stage. According to CEDD CS2 (1992) described
that the soil
oil nail test involved two type
types of tests. One is pull-out
out test (also call
suitability test ) and the other one is proving test (also call acceptance
cceptance test). Both of
these tests involve applying
ing a force which is trying to pull the soil nail out of the
slope and measure the degree of resistance with the soil mass.
Pull-out test – Test

est on soil nail which is taken to
failure to allow the measurement of the ultimate
bond strength at the soil mass interface. This test is
a destroyable test method because the soil nail steel
bar and grout are at failure at the ultimate load.
According to CEDD GS vol2 (1995) noted that the t
maximum test load should not exceed 90% of the
Figure 49 Pull out test steel bar ultimate tensile capacity, in order to avoid
any accident by sudden failure of steel bar.
Therefore, the rate of load application shall be in the range of 33-5kN/minute
minute until this
37
final load is reached. Usually, the period of pull

pull-out contains a 3 cycle period. Each
cycle’s designed
esigned load depend
depends on the percentage of maximum working load. For
example, for the maximum test load, if the factor of safety for pull
pull-out
out is 1.5, then the
test load must be at 150% of the allowable pull out capacity. Eachach cycle should be
hold about 60mins for observed the displacement. Also, the test should be carried out
in stages that should not exceed 20% of the maximum load and at each stage one
should record the overall displacement at 1-5 min intervals for at least
east 30mins to
60mins. When the test reaches the maximum load, it should be unloaded in three
intervals.
Based on CEDD GS2 (1995) & AS R64(2007),t

R64(2007),there are some criteria in pull-out test:
A load test should not be initiated before the grout reaches minimum
compression strength of 25MPa in 3 days days, which is established in a
compressive strength test series with a minimum of three samples. (CEDD
GS vol2, 1995)
A sudden failure of steel bar can cause serious accidents and should be
avoided. Therefore, a safe distance for operation from test setup and barriers
should be provided.
If the soil nail steel bar are connected together using coupler. It should be
ensured that the connect
connection of steel bar is secure to avoid the failure of the
connection.
Displacement Measurement
Ortigao, (2004) mentioned that two
wo or three gauges are
necessary to measure the displacement of soil nail
under loading. They are positioned along the axis of
the measurements and at the bottom of pull-out
pull
equipment which reduced the affect of soil
compression displacement during pull-out
out operation.
Figure 50 Dial Gauge
Acceptance criteria
1. Measured displacement stabilises under the maximum test load
2. The test result graph tension load VS displacement are within the range of
acceptance range. (CEDD GS vol2, 1995)
Pull out test on soil nails are taken up to failure in soil. Therefore, This test also can
find out the soil geometry of failure friction.

The failure friction (qs) is calculated by Eq. (4.1)

where D = soil nail hole diameter, Lb= bonded length , Tf= Failure tension load
38
Figure 51 Typical sample data sheet for Pull out test (Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd , 2008)
39
40
Figure 52 Typical sample plotting sheet for pull out test (Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd ,2008)
Proofing Test
The method and equipment is similar to the pull-out test but the proofing test is not a
destroyable test method. The proofing test is used to ascertain the function of soil nail
and prove the soil nail conditions have not changed after construction. This test
indicates that the completed soil nail can safely withstand the design loads without
any excessive movement or long term creep over its service life.
This test is a single cycle test in which the load is applied in increments to a test load.
According to CEDD General Specification vol.2, 1992 and Australia standard
R64(2007), the design test load should be 150% of the design load capacity and rate
of load application shall be in range of 3-5kN/min (same as pull out test). At the
maximum test load, the period of observation shall be 60 min for displacement
measurement and elongation measurement.
Figure 53 Typical sample data sheet for proving test

(Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd, 2008)
41
42
Figure 54 Typical sample plotting sheet for Proving test (Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd ,2008)
4.7 Other Type of Soil nail installation techniques

There are different methods of soil nail installation which are used internationally.
The common method is the drilled and grouted soil nail method as previously
described. The following list will briefly introduce the other methods of soil nail
installation.
Drilled and grouted soil nails method
These are approximately 100mm and 150mm diameter nail holes drilled into
the slope. The space of the holes typically about 1.5m to 2m, and they are
arranged in a staggered pattern on the slope. Steel bars are placed in the center
of the holes and use the grouting method to grout the hole (Ortigao, 2004). This
method is most commonly used in Hong Kong soil nail construction projects
and also for Australian soil nail construction. This method can be used as a
temporary and permanent application. Also this method is the most mature
technology of soil nail method.
Driven soil nail method

According to United States Federal Highway Administration (2006) described
that these install method are relatively small in diameter and are mechanically
driven into the slope. They are usually spaced approximately 1 to 1.2m apart.
This method allows for a faster installation when compared with the drill and
grout method. However, This method is not able to provide good corrosion
protection. Furthermore, this method cannot be used in narrow construction
sites. Therefore, driven nails are only used in the United States for temporary
applications. Permanent soil nail cannot be used in this method.
Self-drilling soil nail method

Based of Oliver Freudenreich, (2008) described
that these soil nails consist of hollow bars that can
be drilled and grouted in one operation. In this
method, the grout is injected through the hollow
bar and drilling takes place at the same time.
Therefore, the grout will fill the void from top to
bottom of the drill hole. Rotary percussive drilling
techniques which are mentioned in table 3 are used
with this method. This method allows for a faster
installation which compared with drill and grout
Figure 55 method. Unlike with driven method, some level of
Self drilling corrosion protection is provided. However, this
(Dipl.-Wirt.Ing, 2008) method is similar to the driven method, in that it
43
cannot be used with permanent soil nails. This method is commonly used for
temporary nails.
Jet grouted soil nail method

Ortigao, (2004) introduced that jet grouting
is used to erode the ground and allow the
hole for the nail and reach the final location.
After that, a vibro-percussion drilling
method is used to installed the nail bar.
However, if the soil is high in plasticity, or
clay or bounder inside the slope, this method
Figure 56 cannot be used.
Jet grouting
(Dipl.-Wirt.Ing, 2008)
Launched soil nail method

As introduced by Soil nail launcher Ltd.,(2008), this method involves the
launching of the soil nail bar into the slope in a very high speed manner which
uses a firing mechanism machine powered by compressed air. Usually, the
launch bar diameters are around 19mm to 25mm and up to 8m in length. This
method allows for a fast installation with
little impact to project site. However, with
this method, it may be difficult to control the
length of launched nail inside the slope. Also,
this method cannot be used in highly plastic
clay material. Therefore, this method is only
used for temporary nails and widely used for
road repair and railroad-related landslides in
the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
Figure 57 (http://soilnaillauncher.com/dnn/ )
Soil nail launch machine
(soil nail launcher Ltd. , 2008 )
44
5.0 Design of Soil ails
5.1 Concept of Factor of Safety

Based on Cornforth, (2005) discussed that in the limit equilibrium design approach,
shear strength, pore water pressure, slope geometry and other soil and slope
properties are established in soil mechanics calculations. In slope stability
calculations, the result needs to obviously ensure that the resisting forces are greater
than the force tending to cause slope failure. According to Liu.(2008) defined that the
ratio between these relationships is called the factory of safety (FOS) (Liu.2008). In
circular slip plate method, FOS is defined as the ratio of total resisting forces to total
disturbing forces or total resisting moment. In general, the lower the quality of the
site investigation, the higher the value of the FOS, since the degree of risk is
influenced by previous experiences. Therefore, the actual magnitude of FOS used in
design will vary with requirement of material type and performance.
There are three typical of FOS definitions due to different type of analysis method
τf
FOS =
τ required (Total Stress) Eq (5.1)
c '+ σ ' tan φ '

FOS =
τ required (Effective stress) Eq (5.2)
Summation of resisting force

FOS =
Summation of mobilized force
Resisting moment
FOS =
Overturning moment
R ∫τ fds
FOS =
Wx Eq (5.3)
45
5.2 Introduce the Circular slip and Method of slices
5.2.1 Circular slip analysis method

According to Liu.(2008) described, this method is the simplest circular analysis based
on assumption that a cylindrical block will fail by rotation about its circular center
and the shear strength along the failure plate is defined in an undrained condition.
Therefore, under this undrained assumption, the friction angle is assumed to be zero
( Φu=0). The FOS for this method may be analysed by taking the ratio of resisting
moment and overturning moment about the center of the circular failure plate.
The FOS for this method may be described according this equation :
Since Φu=0 , Therefore, Cu=τf
τf × L × R
FOS =
W χ + PS − Pw1d − Pw 2 b Eq (5.4)
If water pressure is below the toe of slip

plate, the equation can simplified as
follows
Figure 58
Circular slip model (Liu.(2008)
τf × L × R
FOS =
Wχ Eq (5.5)
where τf = undrained shear strength , R= radius of circular slip surface , W= Weight

of sliding mass
χ =Horizontal distance between circle center , and O = center of the sliding mass
However , Liu.(2008) mentioned that in some case , when Φu>0, this method is not
suitable for analysis in this situation because it is more complicated. Therefore, the
method of slices shall be used when Φ is not equal to zero.
46
5.2.2 Method of slices (“Ordinary” method or “Swedish” method)

From the above paragraph, the circular slip method is only applicable for the
undrained condition and when the friction angle is to be zero. However, if the
strength for cohesive soil and friction angle are to be calculated during site
investigation, lab test, etc., the distribution of the effective normal stresses along the
failure surface must be known. According to Liu. (2008) stated that this analysis is
usually carried out by discretizing the mass of failure slope into smaller slices and
treating each individual slice as a unique sliding block. This method is used by most
computer programs and many different types of program methods have been
developed, such as Janbu’s method and Morgenstern-Price method, etc. However, in
its general form, it is a complex method and therefore many procedures have been
proposed to simplify. Hence, for hand calculation purposes, the Swedish method of
slices will be used in the case study and compared with computer program results in
this report and based on Krahn,(2004) defined that the interslice forces are assumed
to be zero.
In the Swedish method of slices, it is assumed that the FOS value is the ratio of
resisting moment to disturbing moment. Any moments are taken around the centre of
slip circle plate. The equations of the FOS for this method are as follows:
∑
!( . ∝ . ∅ )
total stress analysis : F ∑
Eq (5.6)
! .∝
∑
!( ". ∝ #$ . ∅" )
Effective stress analysis : F ∑
Eq( 5.7)
! .∝
7
6
4
3
1
1
Figure 59 Swedish Method Model
This method does have several advantages such as different soil layers, water
pressure and surcharges can be readily taken into account in the calculations. The
distribution of forces around the failure surface is defined and the solution is in
equilibrium for the assumed interslice behaviour. However, according to Krahn,
(2004) described that this method is only the simplistic method for hand calculations,
as the interslice forces are ignored. The slice weight is only resolved into forces
which are parallel and perpendicular to the slice base. Therefore, slope analysis may
be not accurate and not the most efficient in soil nail design calculation. In
47
engineering industry, because of the unrealistic factors of safety and consequently

should not be used in geotechnical firm.
5.3 Soil nail calculation method

Soil nail calculation is an independent part of slope stability improvement design.
The result of the calculation is the only suitable soil nail parameter and the FOS of
internal stability. Over all stability analysis of soil nail applied slope need to be
calculated for final stability checking.
Australian Standard AS4678-2002 Appendix C provide the accepted standards for
soil nail design procedure. From the design, we can determine the length of soil nail
required, bar size, inclination angle and soil nail head size. All soil property data is
collected from ground investigations. For the industry based design, a trial and error
method will be used for checking the tensile stress of steel bar, the bond failure
between grout and steel bar and shear failure of soil nail. The calculation result is
based on the FOS in the internal stability analysis. The objective of the internal
stability analysis is to ensure that for any failure mechanism the outward thrust of the
soil within the failure zone is balanced by the tensile restraint of the soil nail.
FOS= Available Force / Required Force
In the procedure of soil nail design, slope parameter will be applied according to
critical section of the slope. If the slope has different critical criteria, then the design
will contain different critical sections of design. Thus, the slope will be separated into
different zones in terms of soil nail parameters.
In soil nail design, based on Hausmann (1992) and MGSL Ltd (2006) the following
equations are noted.
Maximum allowable tensile force of steel bar:
Ta = (Φfy) (d - 4)2 × π / 4 Eq ( 5.8)
where Φ = stress reduction factor according to AS 4100:1998 ,

fy= Yield stress of steel bar.
d= diameter of steel bar
48
Maximum allowable force between steel & grout:
[ β (fcu)1/2 ] × p × (d - 4) × Le / SF Eq (5.9)
where β = 0.5 for type 2 deformed bars ,

fcu = cube strength of the cement grout at 7 days = 32MPa
SF = factor of safety adopted ,
Le = effective bond length (grout length)
Maximum allowable force between soil & grout:
[(πD C' + 2D Kα σν' tanΦ) Le] / SF Eq ( 5.10)
where D = diameter of the drill hole,

C’= effective cohesion of the soil
Kα=coefficient of lateral pressure(α=Inclination angle) =
1-(α/90)(1-Ko)=1-(α/90)(sinΦ)
σν'=theoritical vertical stress in soil calculated at mean depth of
reinforcement
Φ = friction angle
49
5.4 Analysis of slope stability with soil nail element

When the soil nail is applied into the slope, theoretically the slope is stabilised.
According to Abramson (2002), the instability force will transmitted across the
interslice boundaries through the soil nail element. Therefore, all forces acting on the
interslice (including the forces in the soil and water and the reinforcement forces
transmitted through the interslice boundary) are represented by a total interslice force
(Abramson, 2002). Then the element of the Factor of Safety that is the soil and
water force acting on an interslice and a designed soil nail reinforcement force can be
determined. Bromhead, (1992) mentioned that the soil and water force acting on an
interslice is calculated by subtracting the designed soil nail reinforcement force from
the calculated total interslice force. Another way to interpret the relationship of
forces in the interslice during the calculation of the factor of safety is to consider the
soil and water force acted on the interslice and the reinforcement force acted on the
interslice separately (Bromhead, 1992). However, for slope analysis purposes, this
analysis is complex and difficult to carry out by hand. Therefore, computer software
will be applied for slope reinforced analysis.
5.5 Slope stability analysis computer program - Slope/W

Slope/W is the computer software for geotechnical analysis which was developed by
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. According to Krahn, (2004) introduced that there are
many methods of analysis which are based on general limit equilibrium methods such
as the ordinary method, bishop method, Janbu’s method, spencer method and
Morgenstern-price method etc. For industry base, Morgenstern-price method is the
most common method for slope analysis. However, based on Krahn (2004) described
that the ordinary method of slices is only used for teaching purposes and could not be
used in practice due to potential unrealistic FOS values. Therefore,
Morgenstern-price’s method will be used for case study design.
Morgenstern-Price’s method
this method was developed and improved by Morgenstern and Price (1965, 1967).
According to Ortigao (2004) introduced that the essence of the method is to divide
the sliding mass into a relatively small number of linear sections or wedges which are
vertical-sided in the conventional way. Within each of these sections, Krahn (2004)
explained that interslice forces are considered and the conditions of force equilibrium
can be satisfied taking directions normal and parallel to slip surface. Compared with
other method, Morgenstern-Price’s method is the closest to the equilibrium approach.
Therefore, this method will be used in soil nail design in order to form an economic
and efficiently design .
50
5.6 Design parameters
In soil nail calculation and SLOPE/W, soil properties and conditions are the essential
components for both of these calculations. Therefore, site investigation and visual
inspection are needed for design data collection purposes.
Site investigation:
Boreholes - Rotary drilling methods are commonly used in slope site investigation.
Through the soil data logging, a description of the soil and properties
such as soil type, colour, consistency and soil structure are determined.
This also can provide an un-disturbed sample for a triaxial test. Ground
water levels can also be measured in the boreholes recorded.
In-situ test – A standard penetration test or cone penetration test is used to define the
relative density of the soil and relative strength. Other in-situ test such
as vane shear test and pressuremeter test may be used which vary
depending on the soil type and data collection.
Laboratory test – Tri-axial tests are more commonly used in ground investigation
which determine the soil friction angle value and cohesive value.
Moisture content tests are commonly used in Australia which can
provide an easy and economical method to estimate the soil type and
property through common practice.
Visual inspection:
Surface Stripping – This is a commonly used method in visual inspection which

removes a narrow strip on the slope surface. This is an easy
method for determining the skip layer of soil property.
Slope geometry - Slope height and slope angle should be measured and this data
can be used to model the slope profile in SLOPE/W and soil nail
design.
Other data - Such as surcharge, utilities, slope surface seepage and tension
cracks etc. These uncertain data can influence the accuracy of the
design and affect the design assumption.
51
5.7 Design procedure

The following procedure will be used for soil nail slope improvement design.
1. Design parameter collection
2. Geotechnical assessment, modeling of the slope profile according to the design

parameters
3. Use SLOPE/W program to analyse the critical section Factory of Safety
4. If the analysis is not satisfactory in terms of the required FOS, use trial and error
method to determine the failure-resisting force until the slope analysis is
satisfactory the required FOS.
5. Use soil nail calculation methods are used to determine the size of steel bar,
inclination angle and horizontal and vertical spacing required, the bond length and
size of the soil nail head. Also, check the maximum allowable tensile force, max.
allowable bond stress and total force mobilised which needs to met the FOS
requirements. Use a trial and error method to determine the most efficient design.
6. Input the designed parameter of soil nail into SLOPE/W software to re-analyse
the most critical of factory of safety.
52
6.0 Case Study
Introduction
This part of the case study will represent a sample of soil nail application for slope
stability improvement. Slope/W software is used as well as the soil nail calculation
method to briefly design the soil nail. The first part of the analysis will choose one of
Hong Kong Cut slope which is of a high Consequence-to-life Category (Cat 1) . The
other part of case study will choose one of Australia Cut slope which also is of a high
risk category of Consequence-to-life. Because the type of soil properties in the two
geological different areas vary, Case study (Hong Kong) will use Geoguide standard
and Case study (Australia) will use Australia Standard AS 4678-2002.
6.1 Case Study Analysis (Hong Kong)

There are 3 sample cut slopes which have been selected for this case study.
Comparing these 3 cut slopes, the most high risk for slope failure is located next to a
sports centre. If slope failure were to occur, soil mass may flow into sport centre and
may damage the building structure. The worst case scenario would involve the whole
building collapsing. Therefore, I choose this slope for slope stability analysis.
Table 4 Compare Consequence-to-life Category
Crest facility – Un-development green belt
Toe facility – playground , Pavilion
Category group 3
Consequence-to-life Category 2
Middle risk
Crest facility - Un-development green belt
Toe facility - road with heavy vehicular or pedestrian
traffic density
Category group 2b
Middle risk
Crest facility – Main Access road
Toe facility - indoor games or sport hall
Category group 2a
High risk
53
Slope Background
The selected slope is a soil cut slope which is

located at next to sports centre. According to
background information from the previous study
(CEDD, 1993), the caption slope was formed in
1975 by cutting in association with the opening of
access road along crest .
Figure 60 General View of slope
Site description
This cut slope is located at east of Shek Kip Mei Sports Centre. The slope is about
80m long with a maximum height of 12m. This slope has divided into two portions,
an upper portion and lower portion which are separated by a berm. The slope angle in
upper portion is approximate 60o and lower portion is approximate 55o. The slope is
covered with a vegetation surface which provided a minor surface improvement. The
crest facility is low a traffic road which is the main access of the sports centre. The
toe facility is an indoor sport hall name Shek Kip Mei Park Sports Centre which is
located approximately 5m away from the slope toe.
Visual Inspection
The site inspection on the caption slope was carried out in July 2008. During site
observation, no seepage or leakage was observed on the slope or surrounding area.
The slope has been divided into two batters by a one meter wide berm. The slope is
covered with a vegetation surface and no surface erosion has occurred. The slope
appears to be in good condition and no adverse signs of distress were observed.
Surface channels were found at the berm and toe of slope. The drainage condition
appears to be in good condition.
Ground Investigation
During the desk study stage, there were three previous ground investigations which
were carried out. One in 1984 , one in 1993 and the other in 2005. This previous
records are open to the public, as it is able to be accessed at the CEDD Geotechnical
Information Unit Library. Combining these investigation records, we got a total of 6
bore holes relative the slope. According to these records, the borehole log had
indicated that the slope was composed of completely decomposed granite and highly
decomposed granite base on CEDD Geoguide 5 standard. The location of boreholes
and borehole log records are shown in appendix A
54
Laboratory test
During the desk study stage, there are previous laboratory tests which have been
carried out in 2005 by Gold Ram Engineering and Development Limited. These
previous laboratory test reports are open to the public which can collect in CEDD
Geotechnical Information Unit Library, in order to obtain soil parameters for further
stability assessment and identify the material from ground investigation work. These
previous laboratory tests contained information regarding particle size distribution
and single stage tri-axial compression tests under undrained conditions.
From the result of particle size distribution, the result showed that the completely
decomposed granite in the vicinity of the slope was solely composed of sandy
materials.
From the single-stage triaxial compression tests under undrained conditions. The p’-q
plot for completely decomposed granite was generated according to the previous test
result which carried out in 2005. The triaxial test results from previous laboratory
tests are shown in Appendix B
6.1.1 Geotechnical assessment
Critical section
According to the site inspection, the minimum distance between slope toe and toe
facility had a uniform spacing of around 5 meters and the slope angle has a uniform
value of approximately 55-60 degrees. Therefore, the critical section is controlled by
the maximum height of 12m. The critical section plan is shown in figure 1.
Ground conditions
According to the previous borehole log record, From DH1 and DH2, completely
decomposed granite (CDG) was found at around 0.04m below the ground. Thus,
CDG was found immediately on the slope. The thickness of CDG layer is 14.79m at
DH1 and 6.77m at DH2. In the borehole log record, completely decomposed granite
is described as extremely weak, brownish yellow, occasionally reddish yellow and
brown spotted grey and brown, completely decomposed medium grained granite
(silty fine to coarse sand with some angular to subangular fine to medium gravel of
granite and quartz) base on Geoguide standard.
Groundwater condition
According to the borehole record, DH1, DH2, DH3 noted that no groundwater was
observed. Therefore, the design groundwater table adopted for this slope stability
analysis is to be estimated to be at one-third of the slope height to represent the
assumed 1 in 10 year design groundwater table.
55
Parameter for analysis

The soil strength parameters adopted for the stability analysis and soil nail design are
based on the laboratory test results of the consolidated undrained single stage triaxial
tests on the soil samples. From the results of the p’-q plot in table 6.1, the c’ =0kpa
and φ’ =38o. However, according to CEDD Geoguide 1 standard, the recommended
minimum value of cohesion for Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG) is 5kPa.
Therefore, c’ =5 kpa is recommended in caption slope.
The shear strength parameters adopted in the stability analysis for the caption slope
are shown as follows:
Table 5 Design parameter

Soil Type Unit weight γ’ KN/M3 Cohesion c’ (kPa) Friction Angle φ’
CDG 20 5 38
500
450
400
350
300
q (kPa)
250
200 DH1
150 DH3
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
P' (kPa)
Figure 61 p – q plot graph

( Gold Ram Engineering and Development Limited., 2005)
Design assumptions
Based on CEDD Geoguide 1 , the ground water table is assumed as a 1 in
10 year rainfall intensity case and the groundwater table is assumed to be at
1/3 of the slope height.
The surcharge of the crest access road is assumed to be a 20kPa uniform
load.
Because of a minor highly decomposed granite (HDG) soil layer at the
bottom of CDG, c’ and φ’ are assumed to be 5 and 42 respectively
56
Figure 62 : Slope location plan & Bore hole location
57
Figure 63 Critical Cross Section A-A
58
6.1.2 Slope/W Stability Analysis
The minimum FOS of slip surface is generated under Morgenstern and Price analysis
using SLOPE/W software. The soil layer distribution is made up by previous
borehole log records DH1, DH2, and BH6. Other assumptions are according to
design assumptions. All design assumptions and soil properties are according to
CEDD Geoguide 7 (2008) standards.
Figure 64 Critical Slip surface

The critical slip surface is generated under automatic Grid and radius generation,
because sliding may occur along any number of possible surfaces. Therefore,
computer generated numbers of slip are used to find out the minimum FOS which is
recommended. The minimum Factor of safety (FOS) at section A-A obtained are as
following table: Table 6 Section A-A FOS result
Section A-A
Minimum Factor of safety (FOS) 0.986
In the result, the minimum FOS for soil slope at section A-A does not meet the
minimum requirement of 1.4 (according to the Geoguide 7 (2008) standard) for the caption
slope having a Consequence-to-Life Category 1. Therefore, further slope stability
improvement work is necessary.
59
6.1.3 Hand calculation using Swedish Method of Slices
According to the Morgenstern and Price analysis using SLOPE/W software, critical
slip surface plates are generated and the circular arc, centre and radius are computed.
In order to compare the FOS with Morgenstern and Price analysis, hand calculation
for the method of slices is also carried out to present the basic theory of slope stability
analysis for the same slip.
This method has assumed that the slip wedge is divided by vertical planes into a
series of slices of a certain width. The base of each slice is assumed to be a straight
line. For any slice the inclination of base to horizontal is α. In order to make the result
more accurate and consistent with mechanics, the slope will be divided into 30 slices
and the arc length and inclination angle of each slice is measured. On the other hand,
because the ground water table is below the slip surface, no pore water pressure will
affect the slope and the boundary water force can be ignored in the method of slices
equation.
N T
Figure 65 Swedish Method of Slices analysis
60
Swedish Method of Slices result
The following table lists the results of the hand calculation method and compares
with Slope/W calculation results using Morgenstern and Price analysis.
Table 7 Two methods FOS result comparison table

Morgenstern and Price Swedish Method of Slices
method method
Factor of safety (FOS) 0.986 0.802
From the table 6.3, the FOS is not consistent. There is about an 18% difference
between each method. It is because in the Method of Slices all interslice forces are
ignored. Also, this method is only for c’=0. Therefore, some errors may occur in this
analysis. According to Krahn, (2004) described that, usually the error arrange is
within the range 5-20% compare with Morgenstern and Price method.
The calculation spreadsheet is shown in following table:
Table 8 Swedish Method of Slices Calculation Spreadsheet

Soil friction angle
Soil Unit weight of soil=20 Tan Φ =0.78128
Φ =38
Water table below distance below ground, no pore water pressure
Slice Arc Weight Angle

Cos α Sin α N=W*cos(α) T=W*sin(α) N*tan(Φ)
No Length (W) α , degree
1 1.04 4.04 66.00 0.41 0.91 1.64 3.69 1.28
2 1.03 12.11 63.00 0.45 0.89 5.50 10.79 4.29
3 1.03 20.18 60.00 0.50 0.87 10.09 17.48 7.88
4 0.79 27.71 58.00 0.53 0.85 14.69 23.50 11.47
5 0.69 29.63 56.00 0.56 0.83 16.57 24.57 12.95
6 0.58 26.51 54.00 0.59 0.81 15.58 21.45 12.17
7 0.58 26.30 53.00 0.60 0.80 15.83 21.01 12.37
8 0.52 28.44 51.00 0.63 0.78 17.90 22.10 13.98
9 0.52 27.05 50.00 0.64 0.77 17.38 20.72 13.58
10 0.52 25.65 49.00 0.66 0.75 16.83 19.36 13.15
11 0.52 24.26 47.00 0.68 0.73 16.55 17.74 12.93
12 0.52 22.87 46.00 0.69 0.72 15.89 16.45 12.41
13 0.52 21.48 44.00 0.72 0.69 15.45 14.92 12.07
14 0.52 20.09 43.00 0.73 0.68 14.69 13.70 11.48
15 0.48 18.23 42.00 0.74 0.67 13.55 12.20 10.59
61
16 0.48 16.49 40.00 0.77 0.64 12.63 10.60 9.87
17 0.46 15.98 39.00 0.78 0.63 12.41 10.05 9.70
18 0.46 18.06 38.00 0.79 0.62 14.23 11.12 11.12
19 0.11 4.70 37.00 0.80 0.60 3.75 2.83 2.93
20 0.51 24.07 36.00 0.81 0.59 19.47 14.15 15.21
21 0.51 26.55 35.00 0.82 0.57 21.75 15.23 16.99
22 0.51 26.16 33.00 0.84 0.54 21.94 14.25 17.14
23 0.51 22.78 32.00 0.85 0.53 19.32 12.07 15.09
24 0.51 19.39 31.00 0.86 0.52 16.62 9.99 12.99
25 0.46 14.40 30.00 0.87 0.50 12.47 7.20 9.75
26 0.46 11.78 28.00 0.88 0.47 10.40 5.53 8.13
27 0.46 9.17 27.00 0.89 0.45 8.17 4.16 6.38
28 0.46 6.55 26.00 0.90 0.44 5.88 2.87 4.60
29 0.46 3.93 25.00 0.91 0.42 3.56 1.66 2.78
30 0.46 1.31 24.00 0.91 0.41 1.20 0.53 0.93
Σ 381.90 306.22
F= Σ(N)*tan(φ)/ΣT (=w*sin(α))= 0.80182
62
6.1.4 Estimated Slip Surface
At the beginning of the soil nail design procedure, we need to estimate the different
shapes of the slip surface. This is because if we use the minimum FOS (0.986) to
design the soil nail, the reinforced slope may have another shape of slip surface for
which the FOS is smaller than 1.4. For example, if the slip no. 1 FOS is smaller than
1 and the slope is not safe, after installing the soil nail with the bond length is just
passing through the slip surface of slip no. 1, after that analysis the reinforced slope
of slip 1 and the FOS will rise to meet the requirement. The slip 1 seems safe.
However, the soil nail may not be contributing a resisting force to slip no. 2,3,4,5.
Therefore the overall slope will still not be safe. Therefore, the slope will typically be
distributed over 5 different shapes of slip surface and analysed for all of the FOS
values (Slope/W FOS analysis data shown in Appendix C )
Figure 66 Estimated Slip Surface
Table 9 FOS results table

Slip No FOS
1 1.112
2 0.986 (minimum)
3 1.157
4 1.367
5 1.572
63
6.1.5 Soil nail design
Soil nail length and bond length prediction

From the previous analysis, the minimum FOS is for slip no. 2. The FOS for the other
slip nos. 1 and 3 are smaller than the required FOS =1.4. For the soil nail concept
prediction, if the soil nail bond length passes through the slip 3 failure plate, the soil
nail resisting force is then functional to the soil mass. Therefore, for the same reason,
the soil nail is also functional for slip no.1, and 2. On the other hand, avoid the
reinforced slope minimum FOS fallback to slip no. 3. Thus, the bond length of soil
nail will start from Slip no. 3 failure plate. In the trial length estimation, the soil nail
resisting force and soil nail length are estimated and a trial and error approach is used
to determine the required FOS value.
The position of the soil nail is estimated according the slope profile and slope
parameters. A 2m horizontal and vertical spacing with a staggered format is
recommended. The first row of soil nails is 2m from ground and third row of soil nail
is 1m above the berm. Therefore, 5 rows of soil nails are formed uniformly over the
12m slope height.
Estimated design
In the preliminary design, soil nail length is estimated as 8m in length for Row A to
Row E. However, when checking for shear failure of the adjacent ground (Bond
stress between soil and grout), Row A and Row B do not satisfy the safety
requirements. Therefore, the bar length is finally changed to 12m to satisfy the shear
failure adjacent ground checking.
Table 10 Soil nail parameter

Row Nail Length Bond Inclination Nail Design
(m) Length (m) Angle Spacing resisting
(degree) (m) force KN
A 12 3.3 15 2 55
B 12 3.8 15 2 50
C 8 4.3 15 2 20
D 8 4.2 15 2 15
E 8 5.7 15 2 8
64
Soil nail reinforced slope analysis
The soil property and soil profile remain as previously modeled. Three rows of 8m
soil nails and two rows of 12m soil nail at inclination 15o are added in SLOPE/W
slope profile. Bond length and forces are predicted and applied. The minimum FOS
of 5 nos slip surface is generated under the Morgenstern and Price analysis using
SLOPE/W software.
Figure 67 Soil nail slope FOS analysis
Slip no.1 introduces some errors during Morgenstern and price analysis. The FOS of
slip no.1 cannot be generated in this method. The reason for this problem is the row B
soil nail design resisting force is too large and causes a force which pushes the soil
mass upward towards the berm. However, from the data sheet in Appendix C the FOS
for slip no. 1 calculated by ordinary method the FOS is 3.084. Therefore, FOS for slip
no. 1 generated by Morgenstern and price analysis is ignored in this case.
Table 11 FOS result (after soil nail installed)

Slip No FOS
1 error
2 1.534
1.529
3
(Minimum)
4 1.671
5 1.835
65
Figure 68
FOS comparison
Soil ail detail Calculation

In order to calculate the soil nail detail parameter
parameters, we need to use a trial and error
method to find out the nail bar size
size, nail length, bond length,, inclination,
inclination spacing and
required resisting force. It is recommended to use an EXCEL spreadsheet to compare
the parameters and check tthe outcome to achieve the most suitable design.
Soil ails design assumption

assumptions
Because of the caption slope is location at Hong Kong area
area, the
he design is based
ba
on BS8110 for the reinforcement bar.
At the preliminary design stage, the
he angle of inclination of soil nail from
horizontal is assumedd to be 15° downward.
For internal mode of failure, the following modes of failure were checked and the safety
factors were adopted as follows:
Table 12 Design Assumptions
Modes of Failure Min. Factor of Safety
(a) Tensile Failure of the steel bar fmax = 0.5f
0.5 y
(b) Bond Failure between grout and steel bar 3
(c) Shear Failure of adjacent ground 2
Figure 69 Soil nail design section detail

66
Soil nail design calculation for Section A-A (Final Result)
This part investigates the tensile strength of the bar, bond failure between grout &
steel bar and bond failure between grout & soil. This step is an essential part of the
design to avoid the failure of grout and soil bonding and failure of steel bar and grout
bonding.
Design Parameters
Soil Type = CDG , C’=5kPa , γ=20kN/m3 , φ ' = 38ο
Drill Hole diameter = 0.1m
Soil Nail inclination angle = 15o
Unit weight of water = 9.81kN/m3
Part A - Tension Failure of the Steel Bar

Yield stress fy = 460Mpa
Maximum tensile stress = 0.5 fy = 230Mpa
Maximum allowable tensile force of steel bar
Ta = (0.5 fy) (d - 4)2 × π / 4 Eq (5.8)
Force per m Width data is Trial and error from Slope/W

Bar length is use trial and error from Slope/W analysis
Table 13 Tension Failure of the Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet

Max.
Horizontal Force per m Force
Bar Length Bar Size (d) Allowable
Level Spacing Width F Required Ta > Tr
Row No. (m) (mm) Tensile
(mPD) (m) (kN) =F x S
L D Force
S F
Tr (kN) Ta (kN) Check
Row E 58.80 8.0 25 2.0 8.00 16.00 79.66 O.K.

Row D 56.80 8.0 25 2.0 15.00 30.00 79.66 O.K.
Row C 54.80 8.0 25 2.0 20.00 40.00 79.66 O.K.
Row B 52.80 12.0 32 2.0 50.00 100.00 141.62 O.K.
Row A 50.80 12.0 32 2.0 55.00 110.00 141.62 O.K.
67
Part B - Bond Failure between Grout and Steel Bar
Cube strength of cement grout at 28 days fcu = 32Mpa

For type 2 deformed bar β = 0.5
Factor of safety adopted SF = 3
Allowable bond stress = Ultimate bond stress / SF

= [ β (fcu)1/2 ] / SF = 942.81k /m2
Maximum allowable force between steel and grout
= [ β (fcu)1/2 ] × π × (d - 4) × Le / SF Eq ( 5.9)
Where Le : Effective bond length
Table 14 Bond Failure between Grout and Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet
Max.
Bar Bar Size Horizontal Free Bond Force per Force
Level Allowable Tmax > Tr
Row No. Length (d) Spacing length La length Le m Width Required
(mPD) Force
(m) (mm) (m) (m) (m) F (kN)
Tr (kN) Tmax (kN)
Row E 58.8 8.0 25 2.0 4.70 3.30 8.00 16.00 205.26 O.K.
Row D 56.8 8.0 25 2.0 4.20 3.80 15.00 30.00 236.36 O.K.
Row C 54.8 8.0 25 2.0 3.70 4.30 20.00 40.00 267.46 O.K.
Row B 52.8 12.0 32 2.0 3.80 8.20 50.00 100.00 680.06 O.K.
Row A 50.8 12.0 32 2.0 2.30 9.70 55.00 110.00 804.46 O.K.
Part C - Shear Failure of Adjacent Ground (Bond Failure between Grout and soil)
Resisting Zone - for soil nail design
Mobilisation Force, π D c' + 2 D Kα
Tf = (π α σv' tanφ φ) × Le
Inclination Factor, Kα α / 90) (1 - Kοο) = 1 - (α
α = 1 - (α α / 90) (sinφ
φ)
Completely Decomposed Granite (CDG)

α = 0.897
Kα
π D c' + 2 D Kα
Tf =(π α σv' tanφ
φ) × Le = ( 1.571 + 0.140 σ’v
σ ) × Le Eq( 5.10)
Table 15 Bond Failure between Grout and soil calculation spreadsheet 1

Resisting Zone
Depth to mid-point of the effective bond length (m)
Row No. Effective bond length in CDG layer (m)
Le CDG Zone
CDG WATER
Row E 3.30 3.40 0.00

Row D 3.80 5.30 0.00
Row C 4.30 7.20 0.00
Row B 8.20 9.70 1.40
Row A 9.70 9.40 3.00
68

Effective Vertical
Force Mobilised
Stress Total Force Force F.O.S. >
F.O.S.
Row No. Tf (kN)= ( 1.571 + Mobilised Required 2
σv (kPa)
0.140 σ’v ) x Le
CDG CDG Tf (kN) Tr (kN) Tf / Tr
Row E 68.00 36.65 36.65 16.00 2.29 O.K.

Row D 106.00 62.45 62.45 30.00 2.08 O.K.
Row C 144.00 93.58 93.58 40.00 2.34 O.K.
Row B 180.27 220.16 220.16 100.00 2.20 O.K.
Row A 158.57 230.92 230.92 110.00 2.10 O.K.
Table 17 Final Soil Nail

ail design schedule table

Level Bar Length Bar Size (d) La Le
Row No. Spacing Width F Required
(mPD) (m) (mm) (m) (m)
(m) (kN)
Tr (kN)
Row E 58.80 8.0 25 2 4.70 3.30 8.00 16.00

Row D 56.80 8.0 25 2 4.20 3.80 15.00 30.00
Row C 54.80 8.0 25 2 3.70 4.30 20.00 40.00
Row B 52.80 12.0 32 2 3.80 8.20 50.00 100.00
Row A 50.80 12.0 32 2 2.30 9.70 55.00 110.00
6.1.6 Summary
In this case
ase study assessment, the caption slope was in an unstable state in its initial
condition before
ore adding soil nail
nail. The minimum FOS using SLOPE/W software under
Morgenstern and Price
rice analysis is 0.986
0.986. This is a smaller than the require FOS 1.4
(According to CEDD Geoguide 7 standard ,2008). After applying ing the soil nails, the
FOS of the slope is upgrade
upgraded to a minimum of 1.529 which has been increased to
meet the slope stability requirement
requirements.
Table 18 Final result table

Section A-A Before Upgrading Soil nail applied
Minimum FOS 0.986 1.529
The slope is up to require FOS after soil nail installation.
69
6.2 Case Study Analysis (Australia)
Introduction
In Australia, some cut slopes may be discovered near some railway tracks or on a
highway road side area. These cut slopes usually formed when highways and
railways are constructed. Some of them are sandstone based original cut slope. Due to
the soil property of sandstone, there is a lower landslide hazard in sandstone cut slope.
However, some of them consist of weak sandstone, silt clay slope, silt sand slope etc.
When these soil properties are in a slope which is formed to a steep angle, there may
be a high risk of slope failure. In this case study in Australia, a sample of a silt clay
slope is presented for demonstration using soil nail for slope stability purpose.
This slope is located at Sydney suburban area - Hurstville, which is on the lllawarra
line railway side cut slope. The toe facility is a railway and the crest facility is
moderate use traffic road. However, if the slope failure, the railway services may be
required to stop, or in the worst case this could cause a train derailment. This may
cause a loss of human life, as well as substantial economic losses.
Crest facility –road with moderate

vehicular traffic
Toe facility –railway
Category group 1b
High risk
Figure 70 General view of slope
Slope Background
Figure 71 Elevation View Figure 72 Side View
The selected slope is a soil cut slope which is located at the side of a railway track
(S33o57’54.91”, E151o05’40.62”). According to background information from a
previous information search (SRC, 2008), the caption slope was formed since 1902
70
by cutting in for railway work construction to Waterfall by Sydney Railway

Company (SRC)
Site description
This cut slope is located at north of Railway lllawarra line. The
slope is about 50m long with a maximum height of 6m which
according to GPS height record. This slope toe contains a 1.5m high
solid pile wall. The slope has two different slope angles. The slope
angle in upper portion is approximate 45o and lower portion is
approximate 50 o. The slope is covered with vegetation and the
surface is in good condition. The crest facility consists of a moderate vehicular
trafficked road about 3m away from the slope crest. The toe facility is a railway line
which located adjacent to the slope toe.
Visual Inspection
The site inspection on the caption slope was carried out in October 2008. During the
site observation, no seepage or leakage was observed on the slope or surrounding area.
The slope is covered with a vegetation surface and no surface erosion occurred. The
slope appears to be in good condition and no adverse signs of distress were observed.
No surface channels were found around the slope. A 1.2m high solid pile wall was
observed at toe of the slope.
Site Investigation
Because there was no previous study relative the caption slope, no previous ground
investigation record was able to be collected for this case study. All soil layers and
soil types are according the assumption under Geo standard AS4678-2002. The soil
type identification is under the field excavation test. According to the inspection of
excavated disturbed soil sample at slope toe and at top of the slope, the slope surface
is loose sand material and about 0.01 m depth is the in-situ original soil. The soil
sample is classified as silty clay. (Classification guide shown in Appendix D) The
sample collection location is shown in figure 78.
Figure 73 Silty clay at slope toe Figure 74 Silty clay at slope crest
71
Penetrometer test
In order to provide more precise soil property data, a penetrometer in-situ test was
taken on site. The equipment used in this field test was Pocket Penetrometer. The
pocket penetrometer is a device used by geotechnical engineers to estimate
unconfined compressive strengths of in situ soils.
The pocket penetrometer is a spring-loaded penetrometer. The spring is calibrated
against unconfined compressive strength (typically measured in kg/cm2). The mark at
which the indicator is located is taken as the unconfined compressive strength of the
soil.
Figure 75 Pocket Penetrometer Figure 76 Pocket Penetrometer
This Penetrometer test was taken with the data from 10 relative soil layers. An
average value of 10 samples was determined and provided an estimated soil
properties. The collected data is shown in following table.
Table 19 Hand penetrometer test results
Reading kg/cm2 1 kg/cm2 = 100kPa
Test no1 - 2.9kg/cm2 290 kPa
2
Test no5 - 2.8kg/cm 280 kPa
2
2
2
2
2
From this data, the average value is 2.75 kg/cm . From relative analysis, the cohesion
value of soil will be high.
Due to a lack of more accurate borehole log information and soil laboratory data, And
due to conservative reasons, this case study will use the assumption under standard
AS4678-2002 table D4 to predict the typical soil property under the soil type
identification
72
6.2.1 Geotechnical assessment
Critical section
According to the site inspection, the minimum distance between slope toe and toe
facility is of a uniform spacing of approximately 0 meters and the slope angle on the
surface is uniformly approximate at 45-50 degree. Therefore, the critical section is
controlled by the maximum height of 6m with solider pile wall. The critical section
plan is shown in figure 6.11.
Ground condition
According the site investigation, the soil composition of the slope toe and crest under
few centimeters is a silty clay material. Therefore, under these parameters, it is
assumed that the soil type for the slope from top to bottom is also a silty clay layer.
According to the Australian geological property, it is assumed that the bedrock is a
sandstone base.
Groundwater condition
According to site inspection noted that no groundwater and seepage was observed.
Therefore, design groundwater table adopted for slope stability analysis is to be
estimated at one-third of the slope height to represent the assumed 1 in 50 year design
groundwater table in Australia and water pipe leakage at slope crest.
Parameter for analysis

The soil strength parameters adopted for the stability analysis and soil nail design are
based on the typical soil assumptions for the collected soil samples. According to the
soil type identification the soil sample is define as a silty clay material. Hence, In the
Australian standard AS4678-2002 table D4 the soil group for silty clay is classified as
poor grade. According to the typical soil assumption in Table D4 the soil parameter
is assume the c’=0-5 kpa and φ’ =17 - 25o. Based on these assumptions, for this
caption slope use c’ =5 kpa and φ’ =25o for the soil design parameter.
The unit weight of silty clay are base on the assumption according to AS4678-2002
Table D1. The moist bulk weight of silty clay is 18kN/m3 .
Therefore, the shear strength parameters adopted in stability analysis for the caption
slope are as following list:
Table 20 Design parameter (based on assumption according AS4678-2002 )

Soil Type Unit weight γ’ kN/m3 Cohesion c’ (kPa) Friction Angle φ’
Silty Clay 18 5 25
73
Design assumptions
The ground water table is assumed as a 1 in 10 year rainfall intensity and
the groundwater table is assumed to be at 1/3 of the slope height.
The surcharge of the crest traffic road is assuming 20kPa uniform loading.
The slope is assumed to consist of one layer of silty clay soil.
Caption slope
Figure 77 : Slope location plan
Section A-A
Figure 78 : Sample collection position
74
Figure 79 Critical Cross Section A-A
75
6.2.2 Slope/W program Stability Analysis
The minimum FOS of slip surface is generated under Morgenstern and Price analysis
using SLOPE/W software. The soil layer distribution are made up of soil type
estimation from practical experience . All design assumptions and soil properties are
based on Australia Standard AS 4678-2002 Table D1 and Table D4.
Figure 80 Critical slip surface
The critical slip surfaces are generated under automatic grid and radius generation.
Because sliding may occur along any number of possible surfaces, computer
generation numbers of slip to find out minimum FOS are recommended. The
minimum Factor of safety (FOS) at section A-A obtained are as following table:
Table 21 Section A-A FOS result

Section A-A
Minimum Factor of safety (FOS) 1.031
In the result, the minimum FOS for soil slope at section A-A does not meet the
minimum requirement of 1.5 for the caption slope. Therefore, further slope stability
improvement work is necessary.
76
6.2.3 Hand calculation using Swedish Method of Slices

According to the Morgenstern and Price analysis using SLOPE/W software, critical
slip surface plates are generated and the circular arc, centre and radius are computed.
In order to compare the FOS with Morgenstern and Price analysis, a hand calculation
using the method of slices to present the basic theory of slope stability analysis in the
same slip is also carried out.
This method assumes that the slip wedge is divided by vertical planes into a series of
slices of uniform width. The base of each slice is assumed to be a straight line. For
any slice, the inclination of base to horizontal is α . Slope will be divided into 6 slices
and the arc length and inclination angle of each slice is measured. Because the ground
water table is below the slip surface., no pore water pressure effects the slope and the
boundary water force can be ignored in the method of slice equations.
Figure 81 Swedish Method of Slices model
77
Swedish Method of Slices result
The following table lists the results of the hand calculations and compares with the
Slope/W calculation using Morgenstern and Price analysis.
Table 22 Two methods FOS result comparison table

Morgenstern and price Swedish Method of Slices
method method
Factor of safety (FOS) 1.031 0.639
From the table, the FOS is not consistent. There is about a 38% difference between
the two methods. This is because in the Method of slices all of the interslice forces
are ignored. Also, this method is only for c’=0. Therefore, some errors may occur in
this analysis. Usually the error is within the range 5-20% compare with Morgenstern
and Price method.
The calculation spreadsheet is shown in following table:
Table 23 Swedish Method of Slices Calculation Spreadsheet

Unit weight of soil= 18 friction angle Φ = 25 Tan Φ = 0.4663
Water table below distance below ground
Angle
Slice No Arc Length Weight Cos α Sin α N=W*cos(α) T=W*sin(α) N*tan(Φ)
α
1 1.89 15.60 59.00 0.52 0.86 8.03 13.37 3.75

2 1.54 39.52 50.00 0.64 0.77 25.40 30.27 11.85
3 1.82 67.84 41.00 0.75 0.66 51.20 44.51 23.87
4 1.59 63.90 33.00 0.84 0.54 53.59 34.80 24.99
5 1.47 53.48 25.00 0.91 0.42 48.47 22.60 22.60
6 1.03 24.45 18.00 0.95 0.31 23.25 7.55 10.84
Σ 153.11 97.90
F= Σ(N)*tan(φ)/ΣT=w*sin(α))= 0.639406
78
6.2.4 Estimated Slip surface
At the beginning of soil nail design procedure, we need to estimate the different
shape of the slip surface to analyse the FOS. This is because if we use the minimum
FOS (1.031) to design the soil nail, the reinforced slope may have another shape of
slip surface which the FOS is smaller than 1.5. For example, if the slip no. 1 FOS is
smaller than 1 and the slope is not safe, after installing the soil nails with the bond
length being just enough to pass through the slip surface of slip no. 1, after that
analysis the reinforced slope of slip 1 and the FOS will rise to meet the requirement.
The slip 1 seems safe. However, the soil nail may not be contributing a resisting force
to slip no. 2,3,4. The slope will still not be safe. Therefore, the slope will be
distributed into 4 typical different shapes of slip surface and all will be analysed in
terms of their FOS. From the analysis, the FOS for slips 1,2,3 and 4 do not satisfy the
FOS requirement of 1.5. Therefore, the soil nail must pass through slip 4 for ensue
that slip 1,2,3,4 all of them are in resisting by soil nail. ( Slope/W FOS data sheet
shown in Appendix E )
Figure 82 Estimated slip surface
Table 24 FOS results table

Slip No FOS
1 1.241
2 1.107 (Minimum)
3 1.118
4 1.119
79
6.2.5 Soil nail design
Soil nail length and bond length prediction

From the previous analysis, the minimum FOS is with slip no. 2. Other slip no. 1,3,4
have a FOS which is smaller than the required FOS of 1.5 .For the soil nail concept
prediction, if the soil nail bond length passes through the slips 3 and 4 failure plates,
the soil nail resisting force is then functional to the soil mass. Therefore, for the same
reason, the soil nail will also be functional to the slip no.1,3 and 4. On the other hand,
avoid the reinforced slope minimum FOS fallback to slip no. 3,4. Thus, the bond
length of the soil nail will start from the Slip no. 2 failure plate. In the trial length
estimation, the soil nail resisting force and soil nail length are estimated trial and
error is used to determine the up to standard FOS.
The position of the soil nail is estimated according the slope profile and slope
parameters. A 1.5m horizontal and vertical spacing with a staggered format is
recommended. The first row of soil nails is 1m from the ground and third row of soil
nails is 1m high from slope crest. Therefore, 3 rows of soil nails are formed
uniformly in 5m slope height.
Estimated design
In the preliminary design, soil nail lengths are estimated to be 8m length for Row A
to Row C. However, in checking of Shear Failure of Adjacent Ground, all of the rows
from A to B are not satisfy the requirement. Therefore, the bar length is adjusted to
12m to satisfy the shear failure adjacent ground checking.
Table 25 Soil nail parameter

Row Nail Length Bond Inclination Nail Design
(m) Length (m) Angle Spacing resisting
(degree) (m) force KN
A 12 10.03 15 1.5 35
B 12 9.8 15 1.5 25
C 12 10.16 15 1.5 18
80
Soil nail reinforced slope analysis
The soil property and soil profiles remain as previously modeled. Three rows of 12m
soil nail at inclination 15o are added in SLOPE/W slope profile. Bond length and
forces are predicted. The minimum FOS of 4 nos slip surface is generated under
Morgenstern and Price analysis using SLOPE/W software.
Figure 83 Soil nail slope FOS analysis
Slip no.1 introduces some error

errors during Morgenstern and Pricerice analysis. The FOS of
slip no.1 cannot be generated with this method. The reason of this problem is the row
C soil nail design resisting force is too large and causes a force which pushes the soil
mass upward to slope crest. However, from the data sheet in (Appendix E) the FOS
for slip no. 1 calculated by ordinary method the FOS is 9.831. Therefore,
Therefor FOS for slip
no. 1 generated by Morgenstern and Price
rice analysis is ignored in this case.
Table 26 FOS results
FOS Change (after soil nail installed)
2.5 Slip No FOS
2
2.248
1 error
1.5 Reinforced slope
1.712 1.509 2 2.248
1
1.241 1.107 1.118 1.119 Pre-reinforced 3 1.712
0.5
slope 1.509
0 4
(Minimum)
1 2 3 4
Figure 84 FOS comparison
81
Soil ail detail Calculation
In order to calculation of soil nail parameter details, we need to use a trial and error
method to find out the nail bar size
size, nail length, bond length,, inclination,
inclination spacing and
required resisting force. It is recommended to use an EXCEL spreadsheet to compare
the other parameters and to ensure that the most suitable design is achieved.
achieved
Soil ails design assumption

assumptions
Because of the caption slope is location at Australia area

area, the
he design is based
ba on
AS4100 for reinforcement bar.
At the preliminary design stage, the
he angle of inclination of soil nail from
horizontal is assumedd to be 15° downward.
For internal mode of failure, the following modes of failure were checked and the safety
factors were adopted as follows:
Table 27 Design Assumptions

Modes of Failure Min. Factor of Safety
(a) Tensile Failure of the steel bar fmax = 0.5f
0.5 y
(b) Bond Failure between grout and steel bar 3
(c) Shear Failure of adjacent ground 2
Figure 85 Soil nail design section detail
82
Soil nail design calculation for Section A-A (Final Result)
This part aims to check the bar and grout bond and tensile strength of steel bar, which
is an essential part of checking of soil nail design to avoid the failure of steel bar and
failure of the bar and grout bonding.
Design Parameters
Soil Type = Silty Clay , C’=5kPa , γ=18kN/m3 , φ ' = 25ο
Drill Hole diameter = 0.1m
Soil Nail inclination angle = 15o
Unit weight of water = 9.81 kN/m3
Part A - Tension Failure of the Steel Bar
Yield stress fy =500MPa (Assume use OneSteel for steel reinforcement)

Maximum tensile stress = 0.5 fy = 250Mpa
Maximum allowable tensile force of steel bar
Ta = (0.5 fy) (d - 4)2 × π / 4 Eq (5.8)
Force per m Width data is Trial and error from Slope/W

Bar length is use trial and error from Slope/W analysis
Table 28 Tension Failure of the Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet

Max.
Bar Length Bar Size (d) Allowable
Level Spacing Width F Required Ta > Tr
Row No. (m) (mm) Tensile
(mPD) (m) (kN) =F x S
L D Force
S F
Tr (kN) Ta (kN) Check
Row C 74.00 12.0 25 1.5 18.00 27.00 86.59 O.K.

Row B 72.50 12.0 25 1.5 25.00 37.50 86.59 O.K.
Row A 71.00 12.0 25 1.5 35.00 52.50 86.59 O.K.
83
Part B - Bond Failure between Grout and Steel Bar
Cube strength of cement grout at 28 days fcu = 32Mpa

For type 2 deformed bar β = 0.5
Factor of safety adopted SF = 3
Allowable bond stress = Ultimate bond stress / SF

= [ β (fcu)1/2 ] / SF = 942.81k /m2
Maximum allowable force between steel and grout
= [ β (fcu)1/2 ] × π × (d - 4) × Le / SF Eq ( 5.9)
Where Le : Effective bond length
Table 29 Bond Failure between Grout and Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet
Max.
Bar Bar Size Horizontal Free Bond Force per Force
Level Allowable Tmax > Tr
Row No. Length (d) Spacing length La length Le m Width Required
(mPD) Force
(m) (mm) (m) (m) (m) F (kN)
Tr (kN) Tmax (kN)
Row C 74.0 12.0 25 1.5 1.97 10.03 18.00 27.00 623.87 O.K.
Row B 72.5 12.0 25 1.5 2.20 9.80 25.00 37.5 609.56 O.K.
Row A 71.0 12.0 25 1.5 1.84 10.16 35.00 52.5 631.96 O.K.
Part C - Shear Failure of Adjacent Ground (Bond Failure between Grout and soil)
Resisting Zone - for soil nail design

Mobilisation Force, π D c' + 2 D Kα
Tf = (π α σv' tanφ φ) × Le
Inclination Factor, Kαα = 1 - (α
α / 90) (1 - Kοο) = 1 - (α
α / 90) (sinφ
φ)
Silty Clay
α = 0.93
Kα
π D c' + 2 D Kα
Tf =(π α σv' tanφ
φ) × Le = ( 1.571 + 0.087 σ’v
σ ) × Le Eq(5.10)

Resisting Zone
Depth to mid-point of the effective bond length (m)
Row No. Effective bond length in Silty
Clay layer (m) Silty Clay Zone
Le
Silty Clay WATER
Row C 10.03 2.62 0.00
Row B 9.80 4.34 0.58
Row A 6.78 5.35 1.23
84

Effective Force
Vertical Stress Mobilised Embedded
Total
Tf (kN)
(kN)= Rock Length Bond in
Force Force Required F.O.S. F.O.S. > 2
Row No. ( 1.571 + rock
σv (kPa) Mobilised
0.087 σ’v ) L (m) T ( kN)
Tf (kN)
xL
Le
Silty Clay Silty Clay Tr (kN) Tf / Tr
Row C 47.16 56.76 0.00 0 56.76 27 2.10 O.K.

Row B 72.43 76.93 0.00 0 76.93 37.5 2.05 O.K.
Row A 84.23 60.16 3.38 530.93 591.03 52.5 11.26 O.K.
Table 32 Final Soil nail design schedule Table

Level Bar Length Bar Size (d) La Le
Row No. Spacing Width F Required
(mPD) (m) (mm) (m) (m)
(m) (kN)
Tr (kN)
Row C 74.00 12.0 25 1.5 1.97 10.03 18.00 27.00

Row B 72.50 12.0 25 1.5 2.20 9.80 25.00 37.5
Row A 71 12.0 25 1.5 1.84 10.16 35.00 52.5
6.1.6 Summary
In this second case study assessment, the caption slope in its initial condition before
adding the soil nail is un-stab
stable. The minimum FOS using SLOPE/W software under
the Morgenstern and Pricerice analysis is 1.031. This is smaller than the required
require FOS of
1.5 for slope stability. After
fter the application of the soil nails, the FOS of the slope was
upgraded to minimum 1.5009 which meets the requirement.
Table 33 Final Result table

Section A-A Before Upgrading Soil nail applied
Minimum FOS 1.031 1.509
1.50
The slope is up to require FOS after soil nail installation.
85
7.0 Conclusions
7.1 Summary and concluding remarks

Throughout this project, it has been shown that landslide hazards do not only occur in
hill sides. Many cut slopes in urban areas also may face the slope instability problem.
There are many solutions for slope improvement and stability work. However,
through the literature review we can find that soil nailing is the most efficient,
environmentally friendly, and simplest method of slope stability improvement.
Soil nail construction has been shown to be a simple technology and does not need
complex machines. Therefore, this method can provide a lower construction period
and can distribute more resources to stabilise other instable slopes.
In conclusion of the two case studies, two slopes are located at two different
geological areas. However, it was shown that the soil nail application can be used in
these two different cases. Compared which other new technologies such as
Bio-engineering, these two case studies have demonstrated that soil nailing is a
diverse method that can be applied to any type of soil, in a variety of climates and
with any slope angle. Furthermore, using software to analyse the slope is much more
accurate than hand calculations and this is the most commonly used method for slope
analysis. From the result generated by Slope/W , we can find the different of FOS
values before adding soil nails and after adding soil nails. This shows that soil nails
can upgrade the FOS for stability purposes and that all parameters of soil nails are
designable. That means that the design of soil nails can result in a higher level of
efficiency that just using a standardized design.
The city is growing and more and more new technologies for slope stability methods
are developing. However, the soil nail method can provide some unique aspects over
some other methods such as reliability and designability. Therefore, the soil nail
method may not be discontinued in the future. The more innovate design of soil nails
may combine with other new technologies such as use soil nails for slip prevention
measures and be covered with Geotexile or mulching systems for surface erosion and
shallow slide preventive measures. From these innovative technologies, There will be
more and more slope stability methods combined with soil nail technology and
Bio-Engineering technology in the future.
86
7.2 Recommendations
It should be noted that soil nailing is one of the main methods used for stabilising
medium sized slopes. Enhancing public education for the landslide hazard is the most
desirable way for preventing human loss and property damage in high landslide risk
areas. Some recommendations on increasing public awareness about landslide hazard
are described as well.
The following points are some recommended action items :

Create a database or slope record system similar to the Hong Kong Slope
information System and classification the degree of slope hazard.
Consider that the slope hazard information is open to public - let
householders know the risks which exist in their surrounding area.
Improve the education about the landslide hazards and increase the public
alertness.
Educate the public in terms of simple inspection of slopes, increasing their
slope failure alertness.
Educate the private slope householder in terms of maintaining their slope,
such as drainage clearance and protecting the slope surface to avoid surface
erosion etc.
87
8.0 Bibliography
ASTM C939-(2002) “Standard test method for flow of grout”
Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING OFFICE. (2000). “ Technical Guidelines on Landscape
treatment and Bio-engineering for man-made slope and retaining walls” ,
Hong Kong.

ENGINEERING OFFICE .(1992). “ General Specification Vol 2”, Hong Kong.

ENGINEERING OFFICE .(1995). “ Construction Specification 2” ,Hong
Kong.

ENGINEERING OFFICE ( 2008). “Geoguide 7 Guide to soil nail design and
Construction”, Hong Kong.

ENGINEERING OFFICE ( 2008). “Geoguide 5 Guide to Slope maintenance
and inspection”, Hong Kong.
CHENG LIU. JACK B. EVETT. (2008). “ Soils and Foundations”. 8th edn.
Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) “Manuals, Guides and R &
D Reports”, viewed 21th September 2008 – 5th October 2008,
< http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/publications/manuals/index.htm >.
DERECK.CORNFORTH (2005) “ Landslides in practice: investigation, analysis,

remedial and preventive options in soils.”
E.N.BROMHEAD. (1992). “The stability of slopes”.
Emergency Management Australia Database, “ Australia Landslide historic events”

viewed 1st September 2008,
<http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emadisasters.nsf/webEventsByCategory?OpenVie
w&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=14#14 >.
88
GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA , “landslide hazard”, (viewed 30th August 2008 )

< http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/landslide/ > .
Guide to the field description identification and classification soil (2007)

“Geotechnical site investigation procedure Manual 5/2007”, Australia .
Ground investigation report (2005), “Drill hole record”, Gold Ram Engineering
and Development Limited, Hong Kong.
Ground investigation report (1993), “Drill hole record”, Vibro Limited. , Hong
Kong.
Hong Kong Slope safety website, “Slope information system”, viewed 11th September
2008 , < http://hkss.cedd.gov.hk/hkss/eng/whatsnew/index.htm >.
J.A.R.ORTIGAO. A.S.F.J.SAYAO (2004). “ Handbook of slope stabilisation”.
JOHN KRAHN. (2004). “Stability modelling with SLOPE/W” First Edn Revision 1 ,
GEO-SLOPE/W International, Ltd. , Canada. , pt. 7-57.
J.MICHAEL DUNCAN, STEPHEN G. WRIGHT. (2005). “Soil strength and Slope

Stability”
LEE ABRAMSON,THOMAS S.LEE , SUNIL GLENN M (2002). “ Slope stability

and stabilisation methods.”
M.R.HAUSMANN. (1992). “ Soil and rock anchorage, rock bolting, soil nailing &
dowelling “.
N.J. COPPIN , I.G.RICHARDS (1990), “ Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering”
STANDARD AUSTRALIA (2002) “ Earth retaining structures AS 4678-2002”

Standard Australia.
United states department of agriculture, Soil bioengineering for upland slope

protection and erosion reduction (1995), Engineering Field Handbook, chapter
18 pt 4-21
89
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Previous boreholes Log record ( Case study 1)
Appendix B - Previous laboratory test record ( Case study 1)
Appendix C – Slope/w analysis data ( Case study 1)
Appendix D - Classification guide ( Case study 2)
Appendix E - Slope/w analysis data ( Case study 2)
90

Application of Soil Nail Method For Slope Stability Purpose

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Soil Nail Method For Slope Stability Purpose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Application of Soil ailing for Slope Stability Purpose

Student Number: 10240810

Project Number S08 – 097

Major: Civil Engineering

Supervisor: Dr. Behzad Fatahi

A 6 Credit Point Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the

21st ovember , 2008

2.0 Literature Review

3.0 Application of Soil nailing for slope stabilization

4.0 Construction method of soil nails

5.0 Design of soil nails

6.0 Case Study

9.0 List of Appendices 90

Appendix A – Previous Boreholes Log Records (Case study 1)

Appendix B – Previous Laboratory Test Recods (Case Study 2)

Appendix C – Slope/W Analysis Data ( Case study 1)

Appendix D – Classification Guide ( Case Study 2)

Appendix E – Slope/W Analysis Data ( Case Study 2)

1.1 Statement of Problem

1.3 Structure of Dissertation

A cost-effective solution for stabilisation is the application of soil nailing, which is

In Chapter 7, conclusion at the study is presented. Furthermore, recommendations for

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Principle Theory of Slope Failure

Slope failure is related to various causes, these include

The most common type of slope failure mode is circular/rotational

Figure 1 - Typical circular / rotational shaped slip surface

2.2 Factors Affecting the Slope Stability

Safety Factor = Shear Strength/Shear force

External force that causes slope instability:

Geometrical changes (Undercutting, erosion, changes in slope height, length

Internal forces that causes slope instability:

2.3 Slope Failure Hazard

Fall type landslide

Slide type landslide

Flow type landslide

Figure 2 Typical channelisation flow Figure 3 Typical Slide type landslide

Figure4 Landslide in main access road Figure 5 Landslide in Hong Kong

2.4 Landslide hazard identification

Development of Landslide Risk Assessment in Australia

2.5 Consequence-to-life Category

Table 1 : Typical Examples of Facilities Affected by Landslides in Each

2.6 Australia Landslide Risk Zone Category

The Australia Geomechanics subcommittee has developed a classification of

Table 2 : Summary of landslide risk categories and development controls

Exempt (Ex) Low(L) Medium(M0) Medium(M1) Medium(M2) High(H)

Alluvium & 20-50%; Known

Likelihood of Landslide There is a

landslide of without likelihood of a

Watch out for Comply the

Worry about springs. Comply with guidelines. You probably

Slope stability assessment by an

experienced geotechnical practitioner

geotechnical investigation where

site and project specific controls site and project If confirmed as

Good Hillside where applicable including specific specific controls High H , it is

2.7 Major landslide in past history (Hong Kong & Australia)

2.7.1 Hong Kong

Figure 8 Kotewall Road. Landslide, Figure 9 Wong Chuk Hang Landslide,

Figure 10 Thredbo 1997 landslide Figure 11 Thredbo 1997 landslide

According to Australia National Landslide Database,(2007) reported that on 30 April