Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Application of Soil Nail Method For Slope Stability Purpose PDF
Application of Soil Nail Method For Slope Stability Purpose PDF
21 November 2008
Statement of Originality
The work contained in this thesis report is the sole work of the author. Fragments of texts
thats 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
1.0
Page
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
Statement of Problem
Objective
Structure of Dissertation
1
1
1
Literature Review
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
12
2.2
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.8
2.9
3.0
Hong Kong
Australia
Past method of slope failure prevention
Current method of slope prevention in present
4
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
2.9.1
2.9.2
2.9.3
Soil nail
Bio-Engineering
Soil Re-compaction & No-fine Replacement
15
2.9.4
Other method
17
15
16
3.5
3.6
3.7
4.0
Maintenance
Soil nail application in different construction purpose
Advantage of Soil nail for slope stability
Limitation of soil nail
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
25
4.4
28
26
27
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.5
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.7
5.0
28
28
30
30
30
34
31
33
34
35
37
43
45
46
5.2.2
47
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Design parameter
Design procedure
51
6.0
46
48
50
50
52
Case Study
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.1.5
6.1.6
53
55
59
60
63
64
69
70
73
76
77
79
80
85
7.0
Conclusion
7.1 Summary and concluding remarks
7.2 Recommendations
8.0
Bibliography
9.0
List of Appendices
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)
86
87
88
90
List of Figures
Figure 1 : Typical circular / rotational shaped slip surface
Figure 2 Typical channelisation flow (CEDD ,1990)
Figure 3 Typical Slide type landslide (CEDD, 1995)
Figure 4
Landslide in main access road of Hong Kong International Airport
(Appledaily news ,2008)
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
3
7
7
8
8
12
12
Figure 8
Kotewall Road. Landslide, (CEDD,1976)
Figure 9 Wong Chuk Hang Landslide, (CEDD,1995)
Figure 10 Thredbo 1997 landslide (EMA disaster DB,1997)
Figure 11 Thredbo 1997 landslide (EMA disaster DB,1997)
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Masnory surface
Chuman surface
Typical Soil nailing method (Maunsell.Geotechnical ltd ,2003)
Typical Soil nailing method (IECA, 1995)
Figure 19 Root orientation with respect to shallow slope failure (Coppin ,1990)
Figure 20 Vetiver Grass System, ( Toyo Greenland Co., Ltd , 2008)
Figure 21 No-Fine concrete replacement (Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. ,2005)
Figure 22 Completed no-fine replacement slope (After landscaping)
( Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. , 2005)
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
18
22
22
25
25
25
25
Drilling Rig
Air compressor
Grouting machine
26
26
26
26
28
28
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
30
30
31
31
31
32
34
35
35
Figure 45 Typical section of flow cone test equipment (ASTM C939, 2002)
Figure 46 Typical sample record sheet for Bleeding Test and Flow Cone Test
( Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd , 2008 )
35
36
37
37
37
38
Figure 51
Figure 52
Figure 53
Figure 54
39
40
41
42
43
44
Figure 57 Soil nail launch machine (soil nail launcher Ltd. , 2008 )
Figure 58 Circular slip model (Liu.(2008)
44
46
47
54
56
57
58
59
60
Figure 66
Figure 67
Figure 68
63
65
66
66
70
Figure 71
Figure 72
Figure 73
Figure 74
Elevation View
Side View
Silty clay at slope toe
Silty clay at slope crest
70
70
71
71
Figure 75
Figure 76
Figure 77
Figure 78
Pocket Penetrometer
Pocket Penetrometer
Slope location plan
Sample collection position
72
72
74
74
Figure 79
Figure 80
Figure 81
Figure 82
75
76
77
79
81
81
82
List of Tables
Typical Examples of Facilities Affected by Landslides in Each
Consequence-to-Life Category ( CEDD, 2007)
10
11
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Other drilling method for soil nail (Elias & Juran , 1991)
Comparison of Consequence-to-life Category
Design parameter
Section A-A FOS result
29
53
56
59
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
61
61
63
64
Table 1
Table 2
65
66
67
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
68
68
69
69
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
69
72
73
76
78
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
84
85
85
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.
1.0
Introduction
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.
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.
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.
2.2
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.
According to CEDD (2008) & Ortigao, (2004), the causes of slope instability can be
summarised as follows:
External force that causes slope instability:
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 buildings foundation or break the frame structure
of the building. This displacement or settlement can disrupt the buildings 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
of Hong Kong International Airport
(Appledaily news ,2008)
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.
Facilities
to-life
Category
(b) Others
cottage, licensed and squatter areas
bus shelter, railway platform and other sheltered public waiting area
dangerous goods storage site (e.g. petrol stations)
(High)
(b) Others
major infrastructure facility (e.g. railway, tramway, flyover, subway, tunnel
portal, service reservoir)
construction site (if future use not certain)
road with heavy vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
(Middle)
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
(Low)
remote area (e.g. country park, undeveloped green belt, abandoned quarry)
road with very low vehicular or pedestrian traffic density
10
Exempt (Ex)
Low(L)
Medium(M0)
Medium(M1)
20-50%;
Known
Tertiary>15%;
Landslides and
Rhyodacite
similar terrain.
Tertiary<15%;
20-40%;
Colluvium>50%
Bedrock<20%
Rhyodacite>50%
Alluvium &
Colluvium
Alluvium &
Other Bedrock
5-20% ;
Granite 20-40%
Colluvium<5%
20-40%
Definition of risk
category
explanation
bedrock >40%
A simple
Likelihood of
There is a
Landslide
Landslide is unlikely without development. The
landslide of
likelihood of a
without
likelihood of instability without development is greater
natural slopes is
landslide without
development is
in M2 than for the M0 & M1 zones
extremely low
geotechnical information
controls
High(H)
Colluvium
development
very unlikely
Watch out for
Comply the
You possibly
Worry about
springs.
Comply with
guidelines.
You probably
something else
Comply with
the guidelines
have a problem
have a flooding
problem
Guidelines
Development
Medium(M2)
for a purpose.
Slope stability assessment by an
experienced geotechnical practitioner
If confirmed as
Good Hillside
specific controls
High H , it is
practice
where
unlikely permit
control
applicable
will be issued.
Good
engineering
practice
11
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
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 Australias 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)
13
2.8
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.
14
2.9.1
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 18
Figure 19
15
Figure 21
No-Fine concrete replacement
(Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. ,2005)
Figure 22
Completed no-fine replacement slope
(After landscaping)
( Maunsell geotechnical Ltd. , 2005)
16
17
3.0
3.1
Figure 23
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
19
covered by hydroseeding surface on top of soil nail head to provide a natural and
environmentally friendly slope surface.
3.3
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
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 neednt be
actively maintenaned, hence reducing the maintenance cost.
21
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. Its
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
Typical tie-back for deep excavation
(deepexcavation.org , 2008)
Figure 25
Typical permanent Tie-back wall
(Office of Geotechnical, California,
2008)
22
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
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.
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 its 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
Figure 28
Steel plate and Steel nuts
Figure 27
Typical Centralisers
Figure 29
Typical soil nail head reinforcement
25
Figure 30
Drilling Rig
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
26
steel bar.
Install the soil nail reinforcement and concreting the soil nail head structure.
27
Figure 34
Figure 35
28
Drill
Open
Drilling method
hole
Drill Bit
Cutting
diameter
Type
removal
Cased
Hole
Comments
(mm)
Sectional
Hollow-stem
Continuous Flight
Solid-stem
Continous Flight
Hollow-Stem
Single-stem Air
Yes
No
Mechanical
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Hydraulic rotary
100-300
Rock,
soil ,drag
Mechanical (Air
support)
drilling competent
soils or weathered
Mechanical
rock.
Mechanical (Air
support)
Hydraulic rotary
methods for
Yes
drilling competent
Yes
Button,
100-200
Rotary
Sectional Solid-Stem
Augers
Roller,
soils, rock, or
Compressed air
Drag
Yes
mixed ground
conditions
No
(Pneumatic
hammers
available)
Mechanical
Sectional
Hollow-Stem Augers
Yes
Yes
100-300
Rock,
soil, drag
Hydraulic rotary
Mechanical (Air
drilling competent
support)
soils or weathered
rock.
Air track
Pneumatic rotary
methods for
Button,
Yes
No
100-300
Roller,
Drag
Compressed air
drilling
non-caving
competent soils or
rock
29
30
Figure 38
Excavated soil nail head
32
4.5
Quality Specification
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 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
33
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)
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
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
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
Figure 48
Compressive
strength test
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
sample
samples.. The compressive strength is calculated from the
failure load divided by cross
cross-sectional
sectional area resisting the load
and reported in force per unit area.
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
Figure 52 Typical sample plotting sheet for pull out test (Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd ,2008)
40
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
Figure 54 Typical sample plotting sheet for Proving test (Maunsell Geotechnical services Ltd ,2008)
42
4.7
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.
43
cannot be used with permanent soil nails. This method is commonly used for
temporary nails.
44
5.0
There are three typical of FOS definitions due to different type of analysis method
FOS =
required
FOS =
Eq (5.1)
(Total Stress)
required
(Effective stress)
Eq (5.2)
FOS =
FOS =
Resisting moment
Overturning moment
FOS =
R fds
Wx
Eq (5.3)
45
FOS =
f L R
W + PS Pw1d Pw 2 b
Eq (5.4)
f L R
W
Eq (5.5)
=Horizontal distance between circle center , and O = center of the sliding mass
However , Liu.(2008) mentioned that in some case , when u>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 is not equal to zero.
46
F
F
!( . . )
! .
!( ". #$ . " )
! .
Eq (5.6)
Eq( 5.7)
O
7
6
5
4
3
1
Figure 59
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
Ta = (fy) (d - 4)2 / 4
Eq ( 5.8)
48
[ (fcu)1/2 ] p (d - 4) Le / SF
Eq (5.9)
Eq ( 5.10)
49
Therefore,
Morgenstern-Prices 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-Prices 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
51
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.
Category group 3
Consequence-to-life Category
Middle risk
Crest facility - Un-development green belt
Toe facility - road with heavy vehicular or pedestrian
traffic density
Category group 2b
Consequence-to-life Category
Middle risk
Crest facility Main Access road
Toe facility - indoor games or sport hall
Category group 2a
Consequence-to-life Category
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
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
55
Cohesion c (kPa)
Friction Angle
CDG
20
38
500
450
400
q (kPa)
350
300
250
200
DH1
150
DH3
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
P' (kPa)
56
57
58
A-A
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
Figure 65
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 Unit weight of soil=20
Arc
Weight
Angle
No
Length
(W)
, degree
1.04
4.04
1.03
Tan =0.78128
Cos
Sin
N=W*cos() T=W*sin()
N*tan()
66.00
0.41
0.91
1.64
3.69
1.28
12.11
63.00
0.45
0.89
5.50
10.79
4.29
1.03
20.18
60.00
0.50
0.87
10.09
17.48
7.88
0.79
27.71
58.00
0.53
0.85
14.69
23.50
11.47
0.69
29.63
56.00
0.56
0.83
16.57
24.57
12.95
0.58
26.51
54.00
0.59
0.81
15.58
21.45
12.17
0.58
26.30
53.00
0.60
0.80
15.83
21.01
12.37
0.52
28.44
51.00
0.63
0.78
17.90
22.10
13.98
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
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
381.90
306.22
62
Figure 66
1
2
3
4
5
FOS
1.112
0.986 (minimum)
1.157
1.367
1.572
63
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
Bond
Length (m)
Inclination
Nail
Design
Angle
(degree)
Spacing
(m)
resisting
force KN
12
3.3
15
55
12
3.8
15
50
4.3
15
20
4.2
15
15
5.7
15
Row
64
Figure 67
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.
assumptions
Soil
ails design assumption
Because of the caption slope is location at Hong Kong area
area, the
he design is based
ba
For internal mode of failure, the following modes of failure were checked and the safety
factors were adopted as follows:
(b)
Modes of Failure
fmax = 0.5f
0.5 y
Figure 69
3
2
Eq (5.8)
Force per m
Force
Spacing
Width F
Required
Allowable
Level
Row No.
Horizontal
(m)
(mm)
(mPD)
Ta > Tr
Tensile
(m)
(kN)
=F x S
Force
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
Eq ( 5.9)
Table 14 Bond Failure between Grout and Steel Bar calculation spreadsheet
Max.
Bar
Free
Bond
Force
Force per
Allowable
Level
Row No.
Length
(d)
(m)
(mm)
(mPD)
(m)
(m)
Tmax > Tr
Force
(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,
Inclination Factor,
Tf = (
D c' + 2 D K
v' tan
) Le
K
/ 90) (1 - K) = 1 - (
/ 90) (sin
)
= 1 - (
Eq( 5.10)
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
Row A
8.20
9.70
9.70
9.40
1.40
3.00
68
Force Mobilised
Stress
Row No.
v (kPa)
Tf (kN)= ( 1.571 +
Total Force
Force
Mobilised
Required
F.O.S.
F.O.S. >
2
0.140 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.
Bar Length
(mPD)
(m)
(mm)
Row No.
La
Le
(m)
(m)
Spacing
(m)
Force per m
Force
Width F
Required
(kN)
Tr (kN)
Row E
58.80
8.0
25
4.70
3.30
8.00
16.00
Row D
56.80
8.0
25
4.20
3.80
15.00
30.00
Row C
54.80
8.0
25
3.70
4.30
20.00
40.00
Row B
52.80
12.0
32
3.80
8.20
50.00
100.00
Row A
50.80
12.0
32
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
Minimum FOS
0.986
1.529
6.2
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
Slope Background
The selected slope is a soil cut slope which is located at the side of a railway track
(S33o5754.91, E151o0540.62). According to background information from a
previous information search (SRC, 2008), the caption slope was formed since 1902
70
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.
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.
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
Test no2 -
3.2kg/cm2
320 kPa
Test no3 -
2.5kg/cm2
250 kPa
Test no4 -
3.0kg/cm2
300 kPa
Test no5 -
2.8kg/cm
280 kPa
2.5kg/cm
250 kPa
2.4kg/cm
240 kPa
Test no8 -
3.2kg/cm
320 kPa
Test no9 -
2.7kg/cm2
270 kPa
Test no10 -
2.3kg/cm
230 kPa
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
Cohesion c (kPa)
Friction Angle
Silty Clay
18
25
73
Design assumptions
The ground water table is assumed as a 1 in 10 year rainfall intensity and
Caption slope
Section
A-A
74
75
A-A
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
77
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 = 25
Tan = 0.4663
Arc Length
Weight
Angle
Cos
Sin
1.89
15.60
59.00
0.52
0.86
8.03
13.37
3.75
1.54
39.52
50.00
0.64
0.77
25.40
30.27
11.85
1.82
67.84
41.00
0.75
0.66
51.20
44.51
23.87
1.59
63.90
33.00
0.84
0.54
53.59
34.80
24.99
1.47
53.48
25.00
0.91
0.42
48.47
22.60
22.60
1.03
24.45
18.00
0.95
0.31
23.25
7.55
10.84
F= (N)*tan()/T=w*sin())=
153.11
0.639406
78
97.90
Figure 82
FOS
1.241
1.107 (Minimum)
1.118
1.119
79
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
Row
Bond
Length (m)
Inclination
Angle
Nail
Spacing
Design
resisting
(degree)
(m)
force KN
12
10.03
15
1.5
35
12
9.8
15
1.5
25
12
10.16
15
1.5
18
80
Figure 83
FOS Change
2.5
2
2.248
1.5
1.712 1.509
Reinforced slope
1
0.5
Pre-reinforced
slope
Slip No
FOS
error
2.248
1.712
0
1
Figure
1.509
(Minimum)
84 FOS comparison
81
For internal mode of failure, the following modes of failure were checked and the safety
factors were adopted as follows:
(b)
Modes of Failure
fmax = 0.5f
0.5 y
3
2
82
Eq (5.8)
Force per m
Force
Spacing
Width F
Required
Allowable
Level
Row No.
Horizontal
(m)
(mm)
(mPD)
Ta > Tr
Tensile
(m)
(kN)
=F x S
Force
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
Eq ( 5.9)
Free
Bond
Force
Force per
Allowable
Level
Row No.
Length
(d)
(m)
(mm)
(mPD)
(m)
(m)
Tmax > Tr
Force
(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.
Tf = (
D c' + 2 D K
v' tan
) Le
K
= 1 - (
/ 90) (1 - K) = 1 - (
/ 90) (sin
)
Silty Clay
K
= 0.93
Tf =(
D c' + 2 D K
v' tan
) Le = ( 1.571 + 0.087 v
) Le
Eq(5.10)
WATER
Row C
10.03
2.62
0.00
Row B
Row A
9.80
6.78
4.34
5.35
0.58
1.23
84
Row No.
Effective
Force
Vertical Stress
Mobilised
Embedded
Tf (kN)
(kN)=
Rock Length
Total
Bond in
Force
( 1.571 +
v (kPa)
Force Required
F.O.S.
Tr (kN)
Tf / Tr
F.O.S. > 2
rock
0.087 v )
L (m)
Mobilised
T ( kN)
Tf (kN)
xL
Le
Silty Clay
Silty Clay
Row C
47.16
56.76
0.00
56.76
27
2.10
O.K.
Row B
72.43
76.93
0.00
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.
Bar Length
(mPD)
(m)
(mm)
Row No.
La
Le
(m)
(m)
Spacing
(m)
Force per m
Force
Width F
Required
(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 Price
rice 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
Section A-A
Before Upgrading
Minimum FOS
1.031
1.509
1.50
85
7.0
Conclusions
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.
Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING OFFICE .(1992). General Specification Vol 2, Hong Kong.
Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING OFFICE .(1995). Construction Specification 2 ,Hong
Kong.
Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING OFFICE ( 2008). Geoguide 7 Guide to soil nail design and
Construction, Hong Kong.
Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), GEOTECHNICAL
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
89
List of Appendices
Appendix A -
Appendix B -
Appendix C
Appendix D -
Appendix E -
90