User Manual

Version 1.0 – July 2021

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4

2 The novelties of Mac S-Design................................................................................... 6

3 The conceptual framework of Mac S-Design ............................................................ 7

4 The analysis approach ................................................................................................ 9

4.1 Basic assumptions ............................................................................................................ 9
4.2 Methods of analysis .......................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Anchor design ................................................................................................................. 11
4.4 Application limits ............................................................................................................. 12

5 Creation of a new project ......................................................................................... 16

6 Creation of a new calculation ................................................................................... 21

6.1 Input ............................................................................................................................... 22
6.1.1 Geometry ............................................................................................................................. 23
6.1.2 Geotechnical parameters .................................................................................................... 23
6.1.3 Water table .......................................................................................................................... 24
6.1.4 Partial safety factors ............................................................................................................ 25
6.1.5 Seismic coefficients ............................................................................................................. 26
6.1.6 Input slope configuration ..................................................................................................... 26
6.2 Pre-analysis phase ......................................................................................................... 27
6.3 Design phase .................................................................................................................. 28
6.3.1 System Design Factor of Safety .......................................................................................... 29
6.3.2 Selection of the mesh .......................................................................................................... 29
6.3.3 Nail pattern .......................................................................................................................... 31
6.3.4 Anchor bar geometrical parameters .................................................................................... 31
6.4 Required anchor parameters .......................................................................................... 32
6.5 Analysis results ............................................................................................................... 35
6.6 Results ........................................................................................................................... 36

7 Tips & Tricks .............................................................................................................. 39

7.1 Project management ....................................................................................................... 39
7.2 Favorites Project ............................................................................................................. 39
7.3 Attach a file to the Project ............................................................................................... 40
7.4 Copy of a Calculation ...................................................................................................... 40
7.5 Favorite Calculation ........................................................................................................ 41

Table of Contents | User Manual page 2

8 References ................................................................................................................. 42

9 Annexes ..................................................................................................................... 43
9.1 Annex A - Information Index............................................................................................ 43
9.2 Annex B - Soil Database ................................................................................................. 45
9.3 Annex C - Environmental exposure................................................................................. 47
9.4 Annex D – Corrosion Crown ........................................................................................... 49
9.5 Annex E – List of Warnings and Errors ........................................................................... 50

Table of Contents | User Manual page 3

1 Introduction
The design methods for unstable slopes have been studied and analysed since the beginning
of last century, with theoretical, numerical and empirical research. The problem is dependent by
different parameters, including:

• The slope geometry

• The geotechnical parameters of the materials

• The type and the position of the designed stabilization work

• The characteristics of the acting loads

The currently available design methodologies are unable to properly consider all these factors
as required. Simplified approaches based on closed forms or charts are suitable for pre-
dimensioning activity rather than actual design, since they do not give any information about the
performance of the designed solution. Conversely the numerical approaches often require a high
level of knowledge and high computational capacity and consequently are not suitable for rapid
design.
A consistent reference framework for the design of slope stabilisation solutions, working with a
sub-structuring approach method and developing different approaches, can be considered as
subdivided into three methodologies with increasing complexity, as follows:
(i) Ultimate Limit State,
(ii) Hybrid Methods,
(iii) Displacement Methods.
The first family of methods (ULS) evaluates the maximum stabilizing action that the structure is
able to deliver to the slope in an Ultimate Limit State condition; this means that the approaches
consider an elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour of both the structure and the slope. The value of the
action is then used within the classic methods for the evaluation of slope stability (e.g. Limit
Equilibrium Method) to evaluate the final Safety Factor. The stabilizing action delivered by the
structure is assumed to be independent of the displacement of the soil. These approaches simplify
the evaluation of the Safety Factor, but they are unable at all to evaluate the performance of the
designed solution in terms of displacements.
The second (Hybrid Methods) relies on a soil-structure interaction model, which is defined by a
“Characteristic Function”, which expresses the value of the stabilizing action (be it a force, a pressure
or a moment depending on the kind of structure) as a function of the displacement of the slope. The
value of the action is then used again in the Limit Equilibrium Methods. Therefore, the Hybrid
Methods combines a ULS approach to evaluate the slope stability and a Serviceability Limit State
evaluation to describe the structure and the soil-structure interaction.

1 Introduction | User Manual page 4

 The Displacement Methods (again using the Characteristic Function) have the goal to describe
(and follow) the evolution (over time) of the displacement of the slope and of the restraining structure
once all the parameters describing the evolution of the slope and of the loads are known. The goal
is to identify not only the influence that the displacement of the slope has on the evolution of the
stabilizing force, but also the retention effect and the time to get reach equilibrium.
Today, even if the Displacement Methods are the logical evolution for design approaches, the
Hybrid Methods are a good and reliable approach able to overcome some limitations of the Ultimate
Limit State approaches, but without the high computational effort and geotechnical survey and
monitoring requirements, necessary for Displacement approaches (Galli and di Prisco, 2013; di
Prisco et al., 2016; Galli and Flessati, 2016; Galli et al., 2017; di Laora et al., 2017; Galli and Bassani,
2018).

1 Introduction | User Manual page 5

2 The novelties of Mac S-Design
Mac S-Design enables users to design the stabilisation of surficial layers on soil slopes using
steel meshes. It fits into the context presented in §1 as an element of substantial novelty and
originality compared to the standard tools currently available to design these solutions. The software
considers the soil-mesh interaction within the design process leading to a tailored solution. Mac S-
Design has not been conceived to address the global stability for the soil slope under study; Mac S-
Design complements existing tools specifically designed for global stability analysis, such as
MacStars W 4.0.
The main novelties introduced by Mac S-Design include:

A. Analysis of a slope with defined geometry,

B. Assessment of the Factor of Safety before the stabilisation intervention,
C. Detailed verification of the stabilisation mesh product applied,
D. Overall assessment of nails.

The first innovative feature provided by Mac S-Design is the ability to consider the real geometry
of the slope under investigation. This allows a more detailed and reliable analysis of the problem,
resulting in a tailored solution, i.e. the possibility of selecting the most suitable product.
Assessing the current state of the slope under analysis before the stabilization intervention
represents a further fundamental innovation introduced by Mac S-Design. This “pre-analysis” phase
is a relevant step within the overall design process. Indeed, a detailed calibration of the relevant
geometrical and mechanical input parameters can be easily accomplished, thus enabling a more
reliable design phase.
The possibility of carrying out a specific verification of the selected product is one of the key
characteristics of this software. In fact, the use of calibrated “characteristic curves” allows the actual
response of the product to be investigated, depending on both the site-specific conditions and the
real soil type to be retained.
Finally, Mac S-Design also enables the user to perform an assessment of the anchoring system.
A combined analysis in the M-N diagram integrates the usual verifications in terms of pull-out, shear
and tensile strength of the nails. Then, the actions on the nails consider the geometrical stabilizing
effect provided by the anchors on the unstable surficial soil layer. In this light, this feature also leads
to a tailor-made result, depending on the actual characteristics of both soil type and selected product.

These novelties highlight the added-value of Mac S-Design and they emphasise the possibility
of achieving a custom-site solution, thus delivering the potential of a higher safety level and optimised
solution for the designed intervention.

2 The novelties of Mac S-Design | User Manual page 6

3 The conceptual framework of Mac S-Design
Mac S-Design is structured in a simple and modular way. The user follows a comprehensible
design flow, through a logical engineering procedure with integrity in the parametric overview and
features.
The basic concept is distinguished by two main categories (Figure 1):
- Pre-Analysis phase;
- Analysis phase, which is further divided into:
• Mesh design
• Anchor design

Mac S-Design

Pre-Analysis Phase Design Phase

Mesh Anchor
Design Design

Figure 1: The Mac S-Design’s conceptual structure.

The first step is the initiation of a New Project (Figure 2). The flow diagram that characterizes
each project can be shown in (Figure 3). Each step is intuitively guided, and the related information
are shown step by step.

Calculation 1
Project

Calculation 2

Calculation 3

Figure 2: The Mac S-Design’s calculations modality.

Within a project it is also possible to perform more than one calculation, following the same
procedure as indicated in the flow chart. An example with three calculations has been displayed
above (Figure 2):

3 The conceptual framework of Mac S-Design | User Manual page 7

 Create a New Calculation

Set Input parameters

Run Pre-Analysis

Set Design parameters

Set Anchors design parameters

Run Analysis

Review/Download output results

Figure 3: The Mac S-Design’s design flow chart.

Herein, it is worth explaining briefly the principal mesh and anchor design procedures and their
features. In the following paragraphs the calculation procedure will be defined, and fundamental
aspects will be analysed in detail.

3 The conceptual framework of Mac S-Design | User Manual page 8

4 The analysis approach
Mac S-Design enables the design of a reinforcement for the unstable surficial layer of a soil
slope by selecting the most appropriate products. The design scheme consists of several working
phases, as presented in §3. Starting from the input definition, through running a pre-analysis to
assess the Factor of Safety of the surficial layer in the pre-intervention situation (FS0), to finally
choosing the design parameters and the reinforcement product. In order to achieve the target Factor
of Safety (FSd), different products with different mechanical characteristics can be selected. The
design analysis also involves the assessment of the anchors. Each design stage is part of the above
presented workflow and the user can always go back to review the previous phases, the input and
the selected product. The computation methods are based on a hybrid approach as introduced in
§1. Two methods of analysis are considered which differ in their geometrical schemes. The
enveloped output of both analyses is considered, representing the most unfavourable design
condition and thus being on the safe-side.
A brief introduction to the basic assumptions, the considered methods of analysis and its limits
of application are presented in the following chapters. An extensive discussion of these matters is
presented in the “Reference Manual” elsewhere.

4.1 Basic assumptions

The failure mechanisms investigated with the design approach are mainly shallow and
translational on a plane surface. In this context, shallow means that the thickness of the surficial
unstable soil layer depth is small in comparison to the slope height. Further fundamental hypotheses
concern the Limit States of both the soil and the stabilizing product. On one hand, the soil is
considered at its Ultimate Limit State, thus the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for the shear stress
calculation applies. On the other hand, the product selected for the slope stabilization is considered
at its Elastic Limit State, this being related to the service condition. The equilibrium of the system is
then investigated on these basic assumptions.
According to the free-body diagram, the main forces acting on each wedge are: the soil weight,
the hydraulic forces, passive and active earth forces and the seismic action. The presence of a water
table is considered to be parallel to the slope. In this light, the fully- or partially-saturated soil density
can be input. Furthermore, a tension crack can be inserted at the crest of the slope and is considered
as fully saturated to be on the safe side.

4.2 Methods of analysis

Two methods of analysis are performed in order to extend the application of Mac S-Design to a
wider range of slope angles. Both methods investigate all the possible P’ points along the considered
slope surface (Figure 4) and they are characterized by an upper sliding mass and a lower base
wedge. However, the two methods consider different geometries of the base wedge.

4 The analysis approach | User Manual page 9

 Figure 4: General scheme of analysis for each P’ point along the slope surface.

The first approach has an interface surface P’R between the two wedges orthogonal to the slope
surface and a variable geometry of the base wedge is also assumed. For each P’ point along the
slope, all the P’’ points are considered from the toe, and the equilibrium is computed (Figure 5a).
The second approach is characterized by a vertical interface P’Q between the two wedges and
a fixed geometry of the base wedge (Figure 5b).

Sliding Sliding
mass mass

Base
Base wedge
𝛽 wedge 𝛽
(a) (b)

Figure 5: Considered geometries of analysis for Approach 1 (left) and Approach 2 (right).

Both phases, namely pre-analysis and design, consider the sliding of the upper wedge parallel
to the slope surface and a consequent displacement of the wedge. During the pre-analysis phase,
no external stabilizing actions to the system are considered. During the design phase, a stabilizing
pressure ‘q’, caused by the displacement of the base wedge and due to the presence of the mesh,
is considered (Figure 6).
This approach allows both a Factor of Safety in the pre-analysis phase (FS0) and a Factor of
Safety in the design phase (FSd) to be evaluated. The maximum achievable FSd is dependent on
the maximum pressure ‘q’, that can be provided by the selected product and then on its mechanical
performance. For this reason, a Working Ratio (WR) parameter for the product verification is
introduced and this expresses the ratio between the actual pressure ‘q’ needed to achieve the FSd
and the maximum pressure bearable by the product.
The mechanical actions on the anchors can be consequently computed depending on the actual
pressure ‘q’ and on the spacing between nails.

4 The analysis approach | User Manual page 10

 𝛽 𝛽

Figure 6: Example of equilibrium conditions for Approach 1 in case of pre-analysis (left) and analysis phases (right).

4.3 Anchor design

The anchor design procedure helps the designer to define the anchor’s length and to check the
chosen steel section with reference to the acting forces. Coherent with the approach of Mac S-
Design, these acting forces are those derived from the stability analysis of the surficial unstable layer.
The anchor design length is then based on the Bustamante–Doix approach (Bustamante and
Doix, 1985), whilst the three steel section checks are performed in direct tension and shear as well
as on the combined bending moment and axial force. The anchor length is computed equating the
acting load and the bearing capacity given by the lateral shear friction between grout and soil. Hence,
the principal equation includes all the grouting parametric values as well as the acting forces. Partial
safety factors on both the soil-grout adhesion and on pull-out force are recommended to be applied.
In Mac S-Design, the user can work through a schematic figure in which the longitudinal cross-
sectional anchor details are displayed. The figure is shown below:

Figure 7: Anchors longitudinal cross section details.

As displayed above (Figure 7), the total drilling length can be computed as the sum of the
thickness of the unstable soil layer, the shear band length and the effective anchoring length.

4 The analysis approach | User Manual page 11

 Apart from the effective and total anchoring length, the verification of the steel anchor bar shall
be carried out as a next step. The anchor bar is initially verified under the imposed load conditions
and afterwards on the shear sliding plane conditions. The imposed loads derive from the mesh
design procedure, while the resistance depends on both the geometry and the mechanical properties
of the steel bar.
The verification status of both the pull-out and shear check is fundamental for the design.
Furthermore, the steel anchor bar shall also be checked under the combination of bending moment
(M) and axial force (N). The combination of the bending moment (Md) and axial force (Nd) must be
within the limit of the envelope/domain described by the combination of the strength values (Myd, Nyd)
(Figure 8):

Figure 8: Bending moment (M)-Axial Force (N) domain for the anchor verification.

The check in the M-N interaction envelope, completes the entire design and the output results
can be obtained. Before progressing to guidance upon the design procedure, a few specific notes
regarding the application limits of the design follow.

4.4 Application limits

The approach implemented in Mac S-Design has been developed by applying a hybrid method
to the stability analysis of surficial translational failure mechanisms on ideally infinite soil slopes ,
once convenient boundary conditions for the sliding layer are introduced, in order to adapt the
approach to slopes of finite height. All analyses that move away from this condition, even if
numerically feasible, may be inaccurate. In this light, Mac S-Design is conceived to investigate only
the behaviour of surficial unstable soil layers and does not consider global stability analyses of a
slope. The three main application limits of the current approach for studying a surficial soil layer are
related to:
I. Geometrical: Rotational and toppling mechanisms are not investigated in the
implemented approach and then they are not considered in Mac S-Design.
II. Mechanical: A homogeneous, granular or weakly cemented soil is considered to be
retained by the applied product in Mac S-Design.
III. Theoretical No time evolution considerations of the equilibrium condition of the slope are
considered in Mac S-Design.
Furthermore, the governing soil Geotechnical parameters, beyond the soil unit weight, are those
generally defined for a linear elastic–perfectly plastic material, with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
and non-associate flow rule. In general, this implies the calibration of such parameters within their
limit application values for a better understanding of their influence in the design.

4 The analysis approach | User Manual page 12

 Soil Friction Angle ϕ’ Although Mac S-Design does not provide specific limits to the angle of
shearing resistance, it is worth mentioning that the friction angles might
usually vary from 25° to 40°, that correspond to extremely plastic clays
and to coarse granular materials. .
Some typical values of soil friction angle are provided in Table 2 (Annex B)
for different USCS soil types at normally consolidated condition. These
values shall be used only as a guideline for geotechnical problems.
Soil Cohesion, c’ Although Mac S-Design does not provide specific limits of effective
cohesion, typical values for which instabilities may occur (and thus
potential reinforcements are needed) may vary from 0 kPa to 25 kPa.
Engineers should consider that cohesionless soils may not be so realistic
in-situ and high values of cohesion require an excessive slope inclination
or height in order to reach a failure condition. Some typical values of the
soil cohesion are provided given in Table 3 (Annex B) and they correspond
to normally consolidated conditions unless otherwise stated. These values
shall be intended only as a guideline for geotechnical problems.
Soil Unit & Saturated • Saturated unit weight: Unit weight of the soil when the pores are fully
Unit Weight, γ, γsat or partially filled with water.
• Dry unit weight: Unit weight of the soil when no moisture or water
exists within the pores.
The soil unit weight mainly depends on the granulometry, compaction, and
moisture of the soil. Some typical values can be found in Table 1 (Annex
B) cited from “Foundation Analysis and Design (5th Edition), by J.E.
Bowles, 1996 McGraw-Hill”. These values shall be considered only as a
guideline for geotechnical problems.

In addition to these geotechnical parameters, some geometrical constraints are imposed

depending also on the method of analysis considered.

Slope Angle, β Mac S-Design allows a wide range of slope angles, from steep- to gentle
slopes, to be analysed. The design approach is presented in detail in
section (§4.2). Specific limits for the slope angle have been set up in Mac
S-Design and they are briefly presented as follows:
• Lower bound, β≥30°: the lower limit for the slope angle has been set
to 30°. Input values lower than this lower bound are automatically set
to β=30.

4 The analysis approach | User Manual page 13

 • Upper bound, β≤70°: the upper limit for the slope angle has been set
to 70°. Input values higher than this upper bound are automatically
set to β=70.
Unstable Soil The evaluation of the unstable soil layer depends on the geotechnical
Thickness, s report and on the engineer’s judgement. The limits included in Mac S-
Design for this parameter (s) have been studied in conjunction with the
slope height (H):
• Lower bound, s ≥ 0.5 m: The lower limit for the thickness of the
unstable soil layer has been set to 0.5 m. Input values lower than this
lower bound are automatically set to s=0.5 m.
• Upper bound, s ≤ H/5: The upper limit for the thickness of the
unstable soil layer has been set to H/5 m. Input values higher than
this upper bound are automatically set to s=H/5.
Tension Crack In order to examine the most unfavourable condition during the slope
depth, z stability analysis, the tension crack is considered to be full of water,
provided that the tension crack has been included as an input parameter .
Thus, it is rather important in setting the application limits of the
aforementioned parameter and its function.

Automatic calculation, z = -9: when the user inputs the value “-9” in the
‘tension crack’ field, then this parameter is automatically computed
based on the two equations reported below. The first applies when
the tension crack bottom lies above the water table, while the second
equation applies when the tension crack bottom lies below the water
table.
This innovative feature of automatic tension crack calculation has
been included within Mac S-Design. In case the geotechnical report
provides no information about any tension cracks, the designer can
include it for safety if desired. This input allows Mac S-Design to
automatically calculate the tension crack depending on the soil’s
effective cohesion.

2𝑐√𝐾
𝑧=
𝛾𝑢 ⋅ 𝐾

𝛾𝑢 2𝑐√𝐾
𝑧=( − ℎ𝑤 ) ⋅ (1 − )+
cos 𝛽 𝛾 𝛾 ⋅𝐾
where:
c: effective cohesion
Ka: active earth pressure
γu: unit soil weight above the water table

4 The analysis approach | User Manual page 14

 γ’: effective unit soil weight
β: slope angle

Manual input, z ≥ 0: the actual input value is considered in the slope

stability analysis when the tension crack is assigned a 0 or greater
value. It is worth noting that an upper limit for the tension crack has
also been considered which prevents meaningless geometrical
conditions. Such limit is indicated below:

z ≤ s / cosβ

where:
s: unstable soil layer,
β: slope angle.
Input values higher than this upper bound are automatically set to this
limit value.

4 The analysis approach | User Manual page 15

5 Creation of a new project
In this chapter the user will be guided through the creation of a project and the creation of a
calculation. On the dashboard page the user is able to open previously conducted Projects and
guided through them (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Dashboard page.

On the top of the home page, two tabs, Home and Project, are available:
• “Home” redirects the user to the Dashboard page;
• “Projects” redirects the user to a page with the full list of projects.
Additionally, on the right hand side of the initial interface (user menu), the dark green bar
contains:
• The username;
• The User Guide Manual;
• The Scientific Manual;
• The language selection;
• A link to the “Contact Us” form.
In case the user would like to ask for instructions, assistance or any other problems encountered
this can be done directly through the platform (Figure 10).
Below the menu bar, there are two main tabs, such of Projects and Calculations.
• Through Projects the user can select his previous projects, while

5 Creation of a new project | User Manual page 16

 • Calculations shows simply the number of the calculations carried out in total.
At the bottom of the screen a table shows the list of favorite projects and their features, a facility
that will be analysed later.

Figure 10: “Contact us" form.

Figure 11: Home page of the “Projects” tab.

5 Creation of a new project | User Manual page 17

 The Projects screen is shown in Figure 11. At the top of the interface there is a map window
with an overview of the location of all the projects which the user can go through, using ‘ctrl + scroll’.
Below there are two action buttons “New Project” (for creating a new project) and “Map” (for enabling
or disabling the map on the window). Select “New Project” button to create a new Project (Figure
12).

Figure 12: New project button.

7
5

Figure 13: Project data form.

When a new project is created, a new window opens (Figure 13), where there are two tabs

5 Creation of a new project | User Manual page 18

named “Project” and “Calculation”.
The “Project” tab allows the user to insert the general project data and to select the location on
the map. Particularly, it is possible:
1. insert the name of the Project;
2. insert the name of the Client;
3. define the environmental exposure level (according to EN 10223-3:2013 (E));
4. select the Unit System (metric or imperial);
5. include a project description;
6. attach some files (images, documents, archives) if desired;
7. locate the project on the map.
After selecting the location on the map, click the Save button and the new project is saved (an
example with all the parameters assigned is shown in Figure 14). Afterwards it is possible to proceed
to the Calculation tab.

Figure 14: Project information and map selection definition.

Through the “Calculations” tab the user may inspect some relevant information of the previous
calculations for the studied project (Figure 15) or create a new calculation..

5 Creation of a new project | User Manual page 19

 Figure 15: List of calculations.

5 Creation of a new project | User Manual page 20

6 Creation of a new calculation
By selecting the “Calculations” tab and clicking on the “New Calculations” button, a new
calculation (Figure 16) is created.

Figure 16: Creation of a calculation on the Project tab.

At the top of the Mac S-Design interface (Figure 17) a progress bar is displayed and this consists
of six arrows, helping the user to understand the workflow:
• Input;
• Pre-Analysis;
• Design;
• Anchors;
• Analysis;
• Results.
The background colour of the tabs shows the progress within the calculation: an orange colour
within the tab means “in progress” or highlights the progression of the calculation, whilst a green
colour means “complete”. Conversely no colour means “to be completed”. Below these tabs it is
possible to enclose a calculation description. In the next paragraphs, the steps to assign the
calculation parameters are displayed.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 21

 Figure 17: Calculation tab.

6.1 Input
The first step consists of compiling the input parameters (Figure 18) which are basically
categorized into the geometric, geotechnical, water table, partial safety factors and seismic
coefficients.

Figure 18: input tab.

Each parameter contains an “Information Index” text, which can be displayed by moving the
mouse over the symbol; some parameters also have a description table (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Information Indexes.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 22

 Figure 20: Example of pop-up window to suggest values for the selected parameter.

6.1.1 Geometry
The slope geometry parameters can be set in the Geometry section (Figure 21). Such are:
“Slope Height” H (m), “Slope Angle” β (deg), “Unstable Soil Thickness” s (m) and “Tension Crack” z
(m). The “Tension Crack” z is has a predefined value equal to ‘-9’ for an automatic calculation of this
parameter (see §4.4 for further details); if known, the user can input the current value of ‘z’.
The Length of the slope L (m) is automatically computed by Mac S-Design according to the
Slope Height and Slope Angle parameters. The information index helps the user to understand
the meaning of the parameters.
6.1.2 Geotechnical parameters
In the “Geotechnical Parameters” section (Figure 22) the geotechnical properties can be
defined, such as Soil Friction Angle φ’ (deg), Effective Cohesion c’ (kPa), Unit Weight γ (kN/m³),
Saturated Unit Weight γsat (kN/m³), Soil Type and Soil Density.
The selection of the appropriate Soil Type and Density allows some further internal geotechnical
parameters to be computed, such as the Young’s Modulus and the soil dilatancy angle. An
exhaustive explanation of this approach is presented in the Reference Manual in §6.1.
In the following figures, informative tables with typical soil parameter values are visible by
clicking on the next to the specific parameter. Particularly, the following are reported for different
types of soil: typical values of soil friction angle (φ), values of effective cohesion (c'), values of unit
and saturated unit weight (γ, γsat).

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 23

 Figure 21: Geometry section.

Figure 22: Geotechnical parameters.

6.1.3 Water table

In the “Water Table” section (Figure 23) the “Water table depth” dw (m) is specified. The “Flow
Head” Hw (m) is computed within Mac S-Design according to Figure 24, that describes the geometric
meaning of the water table.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 24

 Figure 23: Water table section.

𝛽
𝛽

Figure 24: Water table scheme.

6.1.4 Partial safety factors

In the “Partial Safety Factors for soil parameters” section, the user can assign partial safety
factors to soil parameters, such for the effective cohesion γc’ and for the angle of shearing resistance
γtanφ’. It is to be noted that the partial safety factor for the friction angle is applied to the tan(φ’).
In Figure 25, the window showing the partial factors of soil parameters (γM), values according to
Eurocοde 7 (EN 1997-1:2004) are visible by clicking the “i” on the specific parameter.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 25

 Figure 25: Partial Factors for soil parameters (γM).

6.1.5 Seismic coefficients

In the case of a seismic analysis, vertical seismic coefficient kv (-) and the horizontal seismic
coefficient kh (-) can be inserted (Figure 26). A pseudo-static analysis is performed. These two
coefficients express the seismic load imposed during a ground seismic motion and are analysed
following the theory of Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) (Mononobe N, Matsuo H 1929, Okabe S., 1926),
later adopted by Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-5:2004 Annex E). Hence, in the case of an earthquake
analysis in accordance with EN1998-5 §7.3.2.2(4)P and the National Annex, both parameters shall
be inserted. The horizontal seismic coefficient kh is limited to a positive value. This means a
horizontal seismic component directed outward the slope surface, being this the most onerous
condition. The vertical seismic coefficient kv can be input either as a positive or negative value. The
user shall study the most onerous condition between the two. A positive value of kv means an upward
seismic component, while a negative value of kv means a downward seismic component.

Figure 26: Seismic coefficients.

6.1.6 Input slope configuration

On the illustrative figure displayed on the right of the input tab, the user can check the

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 26

geometrical characteristics of the slope given through the input parameters (Figure 27).

Figure 27: Geometrical scheme of the slope.

6.2 Pre-analysis phase

The first calculation phase carried out in Mac S-Design is the “pre-Analysis” phase. The
calculation method is described in the previous chapters. On the top of the window, clicking on the
“Run pre-analysis” button (Figure 28) Mac S-Design redirects the user to the results of this “Pre-
analysis” step. The results are displayed in the Mac S-Design interface in terms of FS0 (Figure 29).

Figure 28: run Pre-Analysis button.

Figure 29: Result of the pre-Analysis.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 27

 Figure 30: result of the pre-Analysis: graphic results.

By clicking either on the download button or on the graph in the right window the user can export
the graph and inspect the failure mechanism detail.

6.3 Design phase

Through the third step the user will be able to carry out the design analysis phase.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 28

 Figure 31: the design tab.

6.3.1 System Design Factor of Safety

In the System Design Factor of Safety (Figure 32) the target value (FSd) can be defined. This
target is referred to the system comprising the unstable surficial soil layer, the considered nails and
the selected mesh.

Figure 32: Design safety factor assignment.

6.3.2 Selection of the mesh

The product list consists of a variety of meshes that can be used to stabilize the surficial soil
layer, thus increasing the value of FSd. It is always recommended to contact your local Maccaferri
company to check the availability / delivery times of meshes included in the list.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 29

 Figure 33: Product’s section.

Figure 34: List of the available products by clicking on the product button.

After the selection of the product, the mechanical characteristics of each mesh type are shown
in the subsequent table (Figure 35).
• Longitudinal strength in kN/m
• Transversal strength in kN/m
• Punch strength in kN

Figure 35: Characteristics of the chosen product.

Furthermore, the software automatically applies appropriate Reduction Factors to the

mechanical performance of the selected mesh.
The design analysis requires the assignment of the spacing between the anchors and the target
design factor of safety.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 30

 6.3.3 Nail pattern
The geometry of the nail pattern is square. On the input section (Figure 36) Anchors Spacing (l)
can be set. The anchor spacing can vary between 0.5 m and 4.0 m. This measure is referred to the
distance along the slope between two subsequent nails.

Figure 36: Anchors spacing value assignment.

After compiling the Design input data, the illustrative slope figure will be updated with the nail
configuration included (Figure 37).

Figure 37: Slope scheme with the configuration of the nails.

6.3.4 Anchor bar geometrical parameters

Apart from the mesh product design parameters, the anchor bar geometrical parameters shall
also be assigned. As shown in Figure 38, two types of anchor bars can be used in the application:
• Fully Threaded Bar
• Self–Drilling Bar
Both types require the assignment of the following parameters:
• External bar diameter
• Drilling hole diameter
• Corrosion crown
• Cross sectional area
whilst, the two types differ principally in the assignment of the
• Internal bar diameter
• Bar thickness
The Corrosion crown Cc parameter can be computed as outlined in §9.4 Annex D – Corrosion Crown.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 31

 Figure 38: Anchors bar details.

6.4 Required anchor parameters

The subsequent step is the anchors verification. Figure 39 shows the “Anchors” tab, with a
section for the input parameters, a section displaying the anchors figure and a section for the results.

Figure 39: Anchors tab.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 32

All the necessary anchors parameters for the anchor computation, are shown in Figure 40.

The required parameters are distinguished by the following categories:

A. Geometrical Slope Parameters:

• Slope Angle (retrieved from Input tab)
• Unstable Soil Thickness (retrieved from the Input tab)
• Nail Inclination (horizontal)
• Nail Inclination (vertical)

B. Anchor Bar Mechanical Parameters

• Grout-soil limit bond stress
• Amplifying factor as for Bustamante-Doix
• Steel yield stress

C. Partial Safety Factors:

• Partial Factor on bond stress
• Partial Factor on pull-out force
• Partial Factor on steel

D. Anchor Design Strength:

• External bar diameter
• Internal bar diameter
• Corrosion crown

The further related parameters are consequently computed by Mac S-Design.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 33

 Figure 40: Anchors parameters.

The Anchors tab is the final step before running the analysis. By clicking the download button
(Figure 41) or clicking on the figure, the user can download the illustrative figure and inspect the
anchor bar details.

Figure 41: download anchor bar detail button.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 34

6.5 Analysis results
Once the design parameters are fixed, the user can proceed to the Analysis phase.
Clicking on the “Run Analysis” button, at the top of the window, (Figure 42) redirects the user to
the Analysis of the slope. The results are displayed in Mac S-Design in terms of FSd and maximum
Working Ratio (%) of the mesh. The maximum Force Max Nd (kN) and the maximum Bending
Moment Md (kNm) acting on the anchors are also provided (Figure 43).

Figure 42: Run analysis button.

Figure 43: Analysis results.

Furthermore, the strength of the anchors in terms of both tensile and bending capacity is also
reported as Nd and Md respectively. This allows the combined M-N verification to be checked.
On the same “Anchors” tab the final assessment of the nails is also reported. The results are
displayed in terms of Effective Length (Leff) and Total Length (Ltot). Furthermore, the pull-out Anchor

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 35

and the Shear Checks are also carried out (Figure 44).

Figure 44: Results section of the anchor’s computation.

Finally, the charts may be manually exported by clicking on the download tab or on the graphs
illustrated on the left of the interface. (Figure 45 and Figure 46).

Figure 45: Analysis output results – mesh verification.

Figure 46: Analysis output results – anchors verification.

6.6 Results
The Results page is shown in Figure 47. Accessible through the tabs of "Short PDF report",
"Long PDF report” and "Word template report" (Figure 48), different types of reports may be exported
into files.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 36

 The Short PDF report is a brief display of the results and the principal parameters used. Its
provides the user with a brief synopsis of the project. For a more detailed results output, the Long
report can be downloaded, either in PDF or in Word template form. Within this, the user is guided
through a quick explanation of the anchor and mesh design approach as well as inspect all the input
and output parameters and therefore obtain an integrated report.

Figure 47: The top section of the results tab.

Figure 48: Downloading reports.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 37

 Figure 49: The top section of the short report.

6 Creation of a new calculation | User Manual page 38

7 Tips & Tricks
In this chapter some Tips and Tricks of Mac S-Design are presented.

7.1 Project management

Through the three buttons displayed below, project administration can be carried out. If the user
would like to modify, delete or copy a project (Figure 50), it is possible to do so through the
appropriate button (Figure 51).

Figure 50: Project information summary.

Figure 51: Modifying, copying and deleting a project.

Copying the project (Figure 52).

Figure 52: Copying a project.

7.2 Favorites Project

Mac S-Design allows some projects to be marked as a “favorite” (Figure 53), in order to find
them more easily on the dashboard page (Figure 54).

Figure 53: Mark a project as a favorite.

7 Tips & Tricks | User Manual page 39

 Figure 54: Dashboard page with the favorite projects.

7.3 Attach a file to the Project

For keeping records of the projects conducted, the user can attach files using the Attachments
function and clicking on “Search” (Figure 55 and Figure 56).

Figure 55: File attachment procedure.

Figure 56: A picture attached in the project.

7.4 Copy of a Calculation

Following the same procedure with a project, it is possible to duplicate a specific calculation
through the copy-project function (Figure 57).

7 Tips & Tricks | User Manual page 40

 Figure 57: A copy of a calculation.

7.5 Favorite Calculation

The user can also mark some calculations as favorites and sort them afterwards by clicking on
the favorite column heading (Figure 58).

Figure 58: Calculation tab with favorite calculation.

7 Tips & Tricks | User Manual page 41

8 References
Bowles, J.E. (1996) Foundation Analysis and Design (5th Edition), McGraw-Hill.
Bustamante, M., and Doix, B. (1985) Une méthode pour le calcul des tirants et des micropieux
injectés. Bulletin Laboratoire Central des Ponts et des Chaussées, n. 140, nov-dec, ref. 3047.
Di Laora, R., Maiorano, R.M.S., Aversa, S. (2017). Ultimate lateral load of slope-stabilising piles.
Géotechnique Letters 7, 237–244.
di Prisco, C, Galli, A., Aversa, S., Maiorano, R. (2016) Multi-level design approaches for slope-
stabilizing piles. 10.1201/b21520-96.
EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design. General rules.
EN 10223-3:2013, Steel wire and wire products for fencing and netting - Part 3: Hexagonal steel wire
mesh products for civil engineering purposes.
Galli, A. and di Prisco, C. (2013). Displacement-based design procedure for slope-stabilizing piles.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50, 41–53.
Galli, A. and Flessati, L. (2016) Simplified numerical analysis of rock block-anchor interaction.
International Symposium on Landslides, pp. 959-967.
Galli, A., Maiorano, R.M.S., di Prisco, C., Aversa, S. (2017). Design of slope-stabilizing piles: From
Ultimate Limit State approaches to displacement-based methods. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica,
51(3), pp. 77-93.
Galli, A. and Bassani, A. (2018) Innovative performance-based design of slope stabilizing piles for a
railway embankment. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 22 (1), 99-121.

Concerning the soil friction angles and the effective cohesion values, information can be found in:
Swiss Standard SN 670 010b, Characteristic Coefficients of soils, Association of Swiss Road and
Traffic Engineers.
Koloski, J.W., Schwarz, S.D., Tubbs, D.W. (1989) Geotechnical Properties of Geologic Materials,
Engineering Geology in Washington, Volume 1, Washington Division of Geology and Earth
Resources Bulletin 78.
Carter, M. and Bentley, S. (1991) Correlations of soil properties. Penetech Press Publishers, London.
Meyerhof, G. (1956). Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 82, Issue 1, pg. 1-19.
Peck, R., Hanson,W., and Thornburn, T. (1974) Foundation Engineering Handbook. Wiley, London.
Obrzud R. & Truty, A. (2012) The hardening Soil Model - A Practical Guidebook. Z.Soil.PC 100701
report, revised 31.01.2012.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (2007) Pavement Design.
NAVFAC Design Manual 7.2 - Foundations and Earth Structures, SN 0525-LP-300-7071,
Revalidated by Change 1 September 1986.

8 References | User Manual page 42

9 Annexes

9.1 Annex A - Information Index

Geometry

Description Information Index

Slope Height The entire height of the slope

Slope Angle Inclination of the slope with respect to the horizontal (upward
positive)
Length of the slope The entire length of the slope

Unstable Soil Thickness Orthogonal distance measured from the ground surface

Tension Crack Vertical tension crack distance measured from the slope crest

Geotechnical Parameters

Description Information Index

Soil Friction Angle Angle of shearing resistance in terms of effective stress

Effective Cohesion Cohesion intercept in terms of effective stress

Unit Weight Unsaturated specific weight of the soil

Saturated Unit Weight Saturated specific weight of the soil

Soil Type Typical USCS soil types

Soil Density Dense/medium hard (Void ratio up to 40%), Loose/soft (Void ratio
more than 40%)
Water Table

Description Information Index

Water table depth Groundwater level measured vertically from the ground surface

Flow Head Groundwater level measured vertically from the failure surface

Partial Factors for soil parameters (γΜ)

Description Information Index

Angle of shearing resistance Partial factor for the angle of shearing resistance. (This factor is
applied to tanφ')
Effective Cohesion Partial factor for effective cohesion

Seismic Coefficients

Description Information Index

9 Annexes | User Manual page 43

 Vertical seismic coefficient
Horizontal seismic coefficient
Analysis Parameters
Description
Product
External Bar Diameter
Internal Bar Diameter
Bar Thickness
Drilling Hole Diameter
Corrosion Crown
Cross Sectional Area
Anchor Parameters
Description
Nail Inclination (horizontal)
Nail Inclination (vertical)
Grout Soil Limit Bond Stress
Amplifying Factor as for
Bustamante-Doix
Steel Yield Stress
Partial Factor on bond stress
Partial Factor on pull-out force
Partial Factor on Steel
Tensile Strength (design)
Shear Strength (design)
Bending Moment Capacity
(design)
Table 1: Pop-up window of typical values of density and unit weight (ρ) for different types of soil.
9 Annexes
Dimensionless vertical force coefficient used in pseudo static limit
equilibrium analysis
Dimensionless lateral force coefficient used in pseudo static limit
equilibrium analysis
Information Index
The use of Polymeric coating offers greater than 120 years working
Life for the selected Environmental level
The external diameter of an anchor bar. In the case of an fully -
threaded bar design, use φi=0
The internal diameter in the case of a Hollow bar
The average difference between the external and the internal
diameter in the case of a self-drilling bar
The diameter of soil or rock core during the drilling procedure
Corrosion of the protective film on the reinforcing bar.
The solid (non-empty) intersection area of the anchor bar
Information Index
Inclination of the nail with respect to the horizontal (upwards positive)
Inclination of the nail with respect to the perpendicular (upwards
positive)
The shear stress limit in the grout-soil interface above which the
anchor fails
Factor for the soil behaviour during drilling
The steel stress value from which plastic behaviour begins
Partial safety factor applied to the value of the bond stress for the
computation of the effective anchor length
Partial safety factor applied to the tensile force for the computation of
the effective anchor length
Partial safety factor applied to steel for the total anchor tensile
strength
The anchor's tensile design strength
The anchor's shear design strength
The anchor’s design bending moment
| User Manual page 44
9.2 Annex B - Soil Database
Table 2: Pop-up window of typical values of density and unit weight (ρ) for different types of soil (Bowles, 1996).

Typical values of density (ρ) and unit weight (γ) respectively for different types of soil

Type of Soil Density ρ= γ/g (kg/m3) Unit Weight γ (kΝ/m3) Saturated Unit Weight γsat (kΝ/m3)
Sandy soil 1800 18-20 20-22
Gravel soil 2000 20-21 21-22
Silty soil 2100 20-22 22-24
Clay Soil 1900 19-22 21-24
Mafic igneous rocks 3000 31 31-32
Felsic igneous rocks 2700 28 28-29
Metamorphic rocks 2700 28 28-29
Sedimentary rocks 2600 27 27-29
Granite 2700 28 28
Shale 2500 25 25-26
Limestone 2700 28 28-30
Chalk 2100 21 21-23
Sandstone 2000 20-21 21-23
Water 1000 10 -

Table 3: Pop-up window of typical values of soil friction angle (φ) for different types of soil (Bowles, 1996).

Typical values of soil friction angle (φ) for different types of soil

Type of Soil Soil Friction angle φ (°)

Clay
Very soft 17-31
Soft 25-32
Medium 31-34
Hard 27-41
Sandy 30-40
Loess 32-35
Sand
Silty 32-35
Loose 29-30
Medium 30-36
Dense 36-41
Sand and gravel
Loose 32-35
Dense 35-45
Silt
Loam 25-32
Clay 18-32
Inorganic silt-Loose 27-30
Inorganic silt-Dense 30-35

9 Annexes | User Manual page 45

 Table 4: Pop-up window of typical values of effective cohesion (c') for different types of soil (Bowles, 1996).

Typical values of effective cohesion (c') for different types of soil

Type of Soil Effective Cohesion c' (kPa)

Clay
Silty 10-20
Very Soft -Soft < 25
Medium <
Hard < 86
Sandy 10-20
Loess
Sand
Silty < 22
Clayey <5
Medium-Loose 0-2
Dense 0-2
Sand and gravel
Loose 0-2
Dense 0-2
Silt
Loam 10-20
Clayey 10-20
Inorganic silt-Loose < 20
Inorganic silt-Dense < 67

Table 5: Pop-up window of Partial factors of soil parameters (γM) according to Eurocode 7.

Partial factors of soil parameters (γM) according to Eurocodes

Symbol Value per Set

M1 M2
γtanφ' 1.00 1.25
γc' 1.00 1.25

9 Annexes | User Manual page 46

9.3 Annex C - Environmental exposure
During the setting of the projects parameters it’s possible to choose the environmental level of
the study location, for the coating requirement according to EN 10223-3:2013 (E).
Particularly, the following table shows the available options according to EN:

Table 1: Description of environment of installation site, coating wire requirements (EN 10223-3:2013, Annex A).

Assumed
Site Environmental level
Plastic coating Class working life of
(in accordance with EN ISO Coating
material (EN 10244-2) the product
9223:2012, Table 1)
(year)

Low Aggressive: (C2)

- Zinc A 25
Dry conditions
Temperate zone, atmospheric
environment with low pollution, e.g.
Zn95%/Al5%
rural areas, small towns (over - A >50
alloy
100 m above sea level). Dry or cold
zone, atmospheric environment
with short time of wetness, e.g. Zn90%/Al10%
- A >120
deserts, sub-arctic areas alloy

- Zinc A 10

Zn95%/Al5%
- A 25
alloy
Medium aggressive: (C3)
Dry conditions Zn90%/Al10%
- A >50
Temperate zone, atmospheric alloy
environment with medium pollution
Polyvinyl
or some effect of chlorides, e.g. A
chloride (PVC) Zn95%/Al5%
urban areas, coastal areas with low >120
deposition of chlorides e.g. Polyamide alloy
subtropical and tropical zone, E
(PA6)
atmosphere with low pollution
Polyvinyl
A
chloride (PVC) Zn90%/Al10%
>120
Polyamide alloy
E
(PA6)
Zn95%/Al5%
High aggressive: (C4) - A 10
alloy
Wet conditions
Temperate zone, atmospheric Zn90%/Al10%
- A 25
environment with high pollution or alloy
substantial effect of chlorides, e.g. Polyvinyl
polluted urban areas, industrial A
chloride (PVC) Zn95%/Al5%
areas, coastal areas, without spray 120
Polyamide alloy
of salt water, exposure to strong E
effect of de-icing salts e.g. (PA6)
subtropical and tropical zone, Polyvinyl
atmosphere with medium pollution A
chloride (PVC) Zn90%/Al10%
industrial areas, coastal areas, >120
shelter positions at coastline Polyamide alloy
E
(PA6)

9 Annexes | User Manual page 47

 Polyvinyl
A
Very High aggressive: (C5) chloride (PVC)
Wet conditions Zn95%/Al5%
Temperate and subtropical zone, 120
alloy
atmospheric environment with very
high pollution and/or important Polyamide
E
effect of chlorides, e.g. industrial (PA6)
areas, coastal areas, shelter
positions at coastline Subtropical
and tropical zone (very high time of
wetness), atmospheric Polyvinyl
environment with very high A
chloride (PVC)
pollution SO2 (higher than 250
μg/m3) including accompanying Zn90%/Al10%
>120
and production ones and/or strong alloy
effect of chlorides, e.g. extreme Polyamide
industrial areas, coastal and off E
(PA6)
shore areas, occasionally contact
with salt spray

Extreme aggressive: (CX) Polyvinyl

Subtropical and tropical zone (very A
chloride (PVC)
high time of wetness), atmospheric
environment with very high
pollution SO2 (higher than 250 Zn90%/Al10%
>120
μg/m3) including accompanying alloy
and production ones and/or strong Polyester
effect of chlorides, e.g. extreme (P)Polyamide E
industrial areas, coastal and off (PA6)
shore areas, occasionally contact
with salt spray.

Figure 59: site environment level choices.

9 Annexes | User Manual page 48

9.4 Annex D – Corrosion Crown
A nail is subjected to degradation over time and this can be taken into account through an
appropriate reduction of its cross sectional area. As an average value, this corroded area ∆S can be
computed as follows:
𝑛
Δ𝑆 = 2 ⋅ 𝜋 ⋅ 𝜙𝑒𝑥𝑡 ⋅ 𝐶𝑅 ⋅ 𝑆𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
where:
φext External diameter of the steel bar [mm],
CR Corrosion ratio for the first year [mm/year],
Corrosion Crown can be computed as follows:
Level of Corrosion
Environmental [m/year]
aggression
Low 25.00
Medium 37.50
High 50.00

Slife Design life span of the steel bar [years],

n Reduction coefficient for the corrosion velocity after the first year equal to 0.65 [-].

The corroded bar thickness Corrosion Crown ‘Cc’ can be then computed in [mm] as follows:
𝑛
Δ𝑆 (2 ⋅ 𝜋 ⋅ 𝜙𝑒𝑥𝑡 ⋅ 𝐶𝑅 ⋅ 𝑆𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 )
𝑐𝑐 = 𝑅 − √𝑅 2 − √ 2
=𝑅− 𝑅 −
𝜋 𝜋

9 Annexes | User Manual page 49

9.5 Annex E – List of Warnings and Errors
In the following the full list of possible warnings and errors is provided in the following with some
additional comments and remarks on possible solutions.
Table 2: List of possible errors provided by the software.
Error message
Error 1. The required resistance
exceeds the strength of the
selected mesh. FSd not achieved,
please review the design
parameters.
Error 2 - exiting due to anchor
failure (Axial Tension). Please
review anchor parameters
Error 2 - exiting due to anchor
failure (Combined Bending and
Axial Tension) - Please review
anchor parameters
Error 3. No results can be found
in the pre-analysis phase for the
given input parameters. Please,
review the inputs.
Error 4. No results can be found
in the design phase for the given
input parameters. Please, review
the inputs.
Error 5: Lmax < Lmin - Geometry
inconsistent, please review the
inputs
Error 5. Geometry inconsistent:
Investigated slope length shorter
than the upper smallest wedge
side, please review the inputs
Error 5 – Negative anchor area:
Please review your input on
anchor parameters
Error 6: Unexpected oscillation in
the characteristic curve
calculation
9 Annexes
Remarks
The Working Ratio (WR) of the mesh is
higher than 100%. The mesh cannot
sustain the required load to achieve the
design Factor of Safety FSd
The axial force acting on the most
stressed nail exceeds its tensile strength
capacity
The combined action due to the axial
force and bending moment exceeds the
overall strength capacity of the most
stressed nail
Both methods of analysis cannot find an
admissible solution for the considered
combination of input parameters
Both methods of analysis cannot find an
admissible solution for the considered
combination of input parameters
The input geometric parameters of the
slope lead to an inconsistent geometry
of the wedges considered for the
analysis
The input geometric parameters of the
slope lead to an inconsistent geometry
of the wedges considered for the
analysis
The geometry input for anchors is
inconsistent, being negative
The iterative solving procedure does not
converge to a solution
| User Manual
Possible solutions
The design of the solution must
be modified e.g.: using a higher
performing mesh, reducing the
spacing between the anchors
Possible solutions to solve this
error are e.g.: Increasing the bar
diameter and the drilling hole
diameter, reducing the anchor
spacing
Possible solutions to solve this
error are e.g.: Increasing the bar
diameter and the drilling hole
diameter, reducing the anchor
spacing
The geometrical and mechanical
input parameters must be
revised
The geometrical and mechanical
input parameters must be
revised
The error is generally linked to a
squat geometry of the slope
combined with a high value of
unstable soil layer. A lower value
of the unstable soil thickness ‘s’
can solve this error
The error is generally linked to a
squat geometry of the slope
combined with a high value of
unstable soil layer. A lower value
of the unstable soil thickness ‘s’
can solve this error
The external diameter of the bar
must be higher than the sum of
both internal diameter (for
threaded bars) and two times the
corrosion crown
A slight modification of a design
parameter can solve this error.
e.g.: slight modification of the
anchor spacing
page 50
 Table 3: List of possible warnings provided by the software.
Warning message
Warning 2: The minimum
computed Safety Factor is very
low (FS0 < 0.5). Click Next if you
would you like to proceed
Warning 2: The minimum
computed Safety Factor is very
high (FS0 > 6.0). Click Next if you
would you like to proceed
Warning 3: Tension Crack Height
Computed Accordingly To Active
Earth Pressure And Cohesion
Warning 3: The tension crack
depth exceeds the thickness of
the unstable soil layer s; set to
s/cos(alpha)
Warning 3. Please set
gammacp >= 1
Warning 3: Please set
gammaphip >= 1
Warning 3: Please set FSd >= 1
Warning 4: INCONSISTENT
RESULTS between methods:
infinite slope method applies
Warning 5. Anchors loaded with
bending moment only
9 Annexes
Remarks Possible solutions
The user is warned that the result of the
pre-analysis phase is very low
(FS0 < 0.5). The user can in any case
proceed to the design and analysis
phases
The user is warned that the result of the
pre-analysis phase is very high
(FS0 > 6.0). The user can in any case
proceed to the design and analysis
phases
When the Tension Crack is input by the
user, this warns that the actual value of
‘z’ is computed in accordance with the
approach presented in §4.4 (Tension
Crack depth, z).
When the Tension crack is automatically
computed (z=-9), this can be assumed
as a simple reminder
When the user inputs a value of the
Tension Crack that exceeds the
thickness of the unstable soil layer s,
then this parameter is automatically set
to s/cos(alpha), in accordance with the
limits presented in §4.4 for the Tension
Crack depth, z
The value of γc’ has been set by the user
to a value lower than 1.0. The user is
suggested to input a value of γc’≥1.0
The value of γφ has been set by the user
to a value lower than 1.0. The user is
suggested to input a value of γφ ≥1.0
The design Factor of Safety has been
set by the user to a value lower than 1.0.
The user is suggested to input a value of
FSd≥1.0
The results achieved with both
implemented methods of analysis
provide an inconsistent result. The result
achieved through an analysis of infinite
slope is then considered
The axial load on anchors is null This warning is generally linked
to a limited distance between the
nails. The anchor’s spacing must
be increased
| User Manual page 51
 Warning 6. Anchor analysis:
possible numerical instability;
please check the "List of
warnings and errors" in the user
manual for possible solutions
9 Annexes
The calculation is affected by a
numerical instability due to the iteration
process, the calculated values are
displayed within the N-M domain instead
of being on its boundary
| User Manual
A slight modification of the
anchor’s spacing allows this
warning to be fixed
page 52