Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng.

(2016) 2:34
DOI 10.1007/s40891-016-0076-0

Analysis of a Nailed Soil Slope Using Limit Equilibrium and Finite

Element Methods
S. Rawat1 • A. K. Gupta1

Received: 5 September 2016 / Accepted: 22 October 2016 / Published online: 28 October 2016
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Abstract This paper aims at the two most common Introduction

methods used for slope stability analysis. An attempt has
been made to bring out the differences in results of rein- Soil nailing has emerged as an effective ground improve-
forced slope stability analysis obtained from SLOPE/W ment technique especially in cases of slope instability. The
(limit equilibrium based) and PLAXIS 2D (finite element unstable slopes can now be improved and made stable by
based). The analysis is carried out on two slope angles of the use of soil nailing technique. These reinforced slopes
45° and 60°, which are reinforced with nails at three dif- have to be analyzed for stability and their reinforcement
ferent inclinations of 0°, 15° and 30° respectively. Both the methods. The stability analysis of reinforced slopes has
slope angles and all nail inclinations are taken from the been carried out by the traditional limit equilibrium
horizontal. A comparative study on stability parameters approach by many researchers [1–4]. These limit equilib-
such as factor of safety, critical slip surfaces and nail forces rium methods also known as the ‘method of slices’ is based
has been carried out. The limit equilibrium method is found on the concept of dividing the failure mass into slices, with
to yield higher values of factor of safety in comparison to certain assumptions on the interslice force distribution, for
finite element method. The failure surfaces from both calculating the factor of safety. The assumptions are usu-
methods are found to vary significantly. Large nail forces ally focused on inclination or location of the interslice
are observed by limit equilibrium method for 45° slope forces and a pre-chosen slip surface of an assumed
with all nail inclinations, whereas for 60° slope angle, finite geometry like log-spiral, wedge and circular [5].
element method shows an increase in the nail forces. The In addition to the limit equilibrium method (LEM),
effect of other parameters like bond length in limit equi- researchers have also employed the use of limit analysis
librium, soil–nail interaction and bending stiffness in finite which includes an upper bound approach and a lower
element are also studied. bound approach. The lower bound approach [6, 7] incor-
porates static permissible stress fields in the analysis, which
Keywords Limit equilibrium  Finite element  are usually assumed and do not hold any significant rela-
Factor of safety  Slip surface  Nail forces tions to the actual stress fields. Hence it is not easy to
obtain the lower bound solutions for a practical slope
problem. In the upper bound approach, the kinematically
admissible velocity fields are constructed by a rigid ele-
ment which makes the limit analysis of slope stability
& A. K. Gupta suitable for complex conditions such as slopes with com-
[email protected] plex geometries, profiles, groundwater conditions and
S. Rawat complicated loadings [8–10]. However, rigid finite ele-
[email protected] ments, linear finite elements, non linear programming or
1 special sequential quadratic programming algorithm has
Department of Civil Engineering, Jaypee University of
Information Technology, Waknaghat, Solan, also been used to obtain the optimal upper bound solution
Himachal Pradesh 173234, India for structures and geotechnical problems [11].

123
34 Page 2 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

The finite element method (FEM) [12] is also used to Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis Using Limit
analyze the failure zone, soil non–linearity and the staged Equilibrium Method
construction effect to predict the actual site conditions [13].
Numerical modelling of reinforced slopes by finite element The response of reinforced systems is primarily governed
method has proved very useful in prediction of slope by the soil structure interaction. The interaction between
deformation, stress analysis [14], nail pullout resistance the soil which provides both mobilized and resisting
[15, 16], nail forces along nail length, nail force variations stresses and the structural members (nails) that helps in the
with cohesion, angle of friction and lateral movement of load transfer mechanism. General limit equilibrium
slope [17–20]. The calculation of factor of safety using approach ensures static equilibrium of the system, thereby
finite element is also possible by using the strength providing a global factor of safety for the ultimate limit
reduction method [21–23]. state [5]. The factor of safety calculation as obtained by the
The strength reduction method (SRM) analysis is the general limit equilibrium (GLE) or just limit equilibrium
reduction of strength parameters (/ and c) by factor of (LE) method incorporates the use of interslice shear–nor-
safety while the body forces due to weight of soil and mal forces and two types of factor of safety [33].
other external loads are applied until system cannot
(a) Factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium
maintain a stable condition [24]. This technique is also
(Fm)
adopted in several well-known commercial geotechnical P 0
finite element or finite difference programs like PLAXIS ðc bR þ ðN  ubÞR tan /0 Þ
Fm ¼ P P P ð1Þ
2D, SNAIL, ANSYS, FLAC 2D [25]. The strength Wx  Nf  Dd
reduction approach has also been used to solve pseudo-
(b) Factor of safety with respect to force equilibrium
static stability problems in a frictional-cohesive material
(Ff)
[26]. Gurocak et al. [27] have applied strength reduction P 0
method in rock slope stability analysis using two–di- ðc b cos a þ ðN  ubÞ tan /0 cos aÞ
Ff ¼ P P ð2Þ
mensional (2D) finite element program. Although 2D N sin a  D cos x
analysis provides valuable insight into the behaviour of
nailed slopes, the effect of soil–nail interaction is not The normal force at the base of each slice (N) is the
adequately considered. major variable in both equations of factor of safety. The
Recently, other method like the artificial neural net- value of this normal force is dependent on the shear forces
works (ANN) has also been developed to study the (XL and XR) acting on the slices as shown in Fig. 1.
deformation of soil nailed walls [28]. The factor of safety The base normal force is obtained by the relation:
calculation is now carried by measuring the strains using 0 0

Fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensing technology [29]. W þ ðXR  XL Þ  ðc b sin a þ ub

F
sin a tan ;
Þ
N¼ 0 ð3Þ
Esmaili [30] used close range photogrammetry for dis- cos a þ sin aFtan ;
placement measurement of soil nail walls. The global
stability and sliding stability of soil nail walls against
ultimate limit states are also evaluated using reliability
analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation technique [31].
Reinforced slope stability analysis is also done by using
statistical methods, adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system
(ANFIS) and distinct element analysis method (DEM)
[32].
This paper is an attempt to bring out the possible dif-
ferences between the two most commonly used slope sta-
bility methods (LEM and FEM) in analysing the response
of soil nailed slopes using software packages SLOPE/W
and PLAXIS 2D v8.1. The numerical modelling of
experimental work carried out by Rawat and Gupta [18] on
nailed soil slope at different slope angles of 45° and 60°
using nail inclinations of 0°, 15° and 30° with the hori-
zontal has been done. The comparison of factor of safety,
failure slip surfaces and nail forces from LEM and FEM
are studied and validated by the experimental results from
Rawat and Gupta [18]. Fig. 1 Forces acting on an interslice

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 3 of 23 34

where, c0 and /0 = effective cohesion and effective angle Modelling and Analysis Using SLOPE/W
of friction u = pore water pressure W, D and N = slice
weight, concentrated point load and slice base normal force SLOPE/W is a sub-routine of the software package GEO-
a = slice base inclination with the horizontal b, f, d, SLOPE. In the present study, reinforced soil slope are
x = geometric parameters. modelled with two different slope angles of 45° and 60°
The normal force calculated from Eq. (3) is used in the with horizontal respectively. These soil slopes are rein-
factor of safety calculation using Eqs. (1) and (2) for each forced using nails at three different nail inclinations from
slice for a range of k values. The k value is the difference horizontal of 0°, 15° and 30° respectively [36]. SLOPE/W
between the specified function f(x) used to relate the nor- package enables construction of the soil slopes by defining
mal—shear forces on the slices and applied function f(x) its regions. The dimensions of the soil slope have been
used by the LEM software [34]. The expression to find the adopted from the experimental work done on nailed soil
relationship between the shear and normal forces on a slice slopes [18]. The dimensions of the slope model used for
is also given by Morgenstern and Price in 1965 as: experimental studies are scaled down and incorporated in
SLOPE/W, by using a scale of 1 cm = 0.5 m.
X ¼ E  f ð xÞ  k ð4Þ The slope is modelled at different slope angles by (x,
where, X = interslice shear force E = interslice normal y) coordinate system available in the package. Material of
force f(x) = interslice function (half–sine function default the slope is assigned, once the slope regions have been
SLOPE/W) k = percentage of function used. determined. The slopes are then reinforced with the help of
The factor of safety using both the condition of moment nails. SLOPE/W package provides the option of using
and force is calculated until convergence is reached reinforcement in the form of anchor, geosynthetic, nail and
between the two FOS. The values are found to converge, pile. For the present study reinforcement of slopes has been
when the FOS plot for moment and force intersect for a done using nail element. A surcharge load is applied at the
specific value of k. This constitutes the global factor of top of slope, which is also scaled down from the experi-
safety as achieved by the LEM analysis of slopes. mental values [18]. The entry and exit of slip surfaces at
The stability analysis in LEM is primarily an indeter- the ground surface along with the slip surface axis and
ministic problem. So, inorder to change the problem to limits are also applied at the model. The simulated model
statically deterministic solution, number of unknowns must used in the analysis is shown in Fig. 2. Amidst of all other
be equal to the number of equations. Various assumptions methods available in the limit equilibrium package, the
such as no interslice forces (Fellinius method), no interslice analysis is carried out by Morgenstern–Price method which
shear forces (Bishop’s method), only horizontal force uses a relation between interslice shear forces and inters
equilibrium of wedge (Janbu’s method) are accounted to slice normal forces. The interslice function selected in the
achieve a factor of safety for the slope failure. However an analysis is a half–sine function with a constant factor of
additional complexity is introduced into the analysis with safety distribution calculation. The soil and nail properties
the use of reinforcement to stabilize the slope. The rein- used in the model are summarized in Table 1.
forcement parameters are prescribed, which do not intro- The nails used in reinforcing of the slopes are simulated
duce any unknowns in the analysis, but contributes without a facing in the form of ‘no anchorage’ of nails at
additional known reinforcement forces that are included in the slope face. The nail forces are treated as distributed
the appropriate equilibrium equations [35]. The LEM forces over the nail length and the overall global factor of
method utilizes the trial slip surface method, inorder to safety (F of S dependent) is included in the analysis. The
locate the most optimum slip surface having the lowest reinforcement in SLOPE/W is treated as concentrated loads
factor of safety. The slip surfaces considered in the LEM which reduces the destabilizing forces. The equilibrium
can be circular, piece—wise linear or a combination of equations used in the analysis are based on the shear
curved and linear shapes. The procedure to find the most mobilized at the base of each slice and at the reinforce-
critical slip surface is also affected by stratigraphic ment. The mobilized shear (Sm) is calculated using the
boundaries of the slopes. To avoid unrealistic slip surface Eq. (5), based on an assumption that the shear resistance of
and factor of safety, the LEM package offers an option of soil and reinforcement are developed at the same rate [5].
defining the regions for occurrence of slip surface on the Ssoil Sreinforcement
ground surface and point of axis along which the moment Sm ¼ þ ð5Þ
F of S F of S
equilibrium is to be calculated. The present study uses the
software package SLOPE/W, to analyse the reinforced The soil nails used in the analysis are stiffer than the
slope by LEM. soil. Hence the reinforcement forces are limited by the

123
34 Page 4 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Fig. 2 Modelling of soil slope

in SLOPE/W

Table 1 Summary of material used in modelling from Rawat and Table 2 Factor of safety from limit equilibrium method (SLOPE/W)
Gupta [18]
Slope angles with Factor of safety
Parameters Values horizontal (°)
Nail inclinations with horizontal
Soil Well graded sand (SW)
0° 15° 30°
Bulk unit weight of soil (cbulk) 17.3 kN/m3
Cohesion (c) 1.37 kN/m2 45 1.69 1.82 1.20
Angle of friction (/°) 30° 60 1.50 1.53 1.10
3
Surcharge load 0.294 kN/m
Pull-out resistance of nails 100 kN/m2 is found for nail inclination of 15°. The factor of safety as
Tensile capacity of nails 200 kN can be observed from Table 2 is found to increase from
Nail spacing (s) 2m nail inclination of 0° to 15° and then decrease from 15° to
Length of nail (l) 7.5 m 30°. This pattern is observed for both the slope angle of 45°
and 60°. The Morgenstern–Price method employed by
SLOPE/W utilizes a k value to check for the convergence
allowable loads in the reinforcement. Instead of dividing of the results. As shown in Fig. 3a, b, the FOS values
the shear resistance of reinforcements with global factor of attained for nail inclinations of 15° in 45° and 60° slopes
safety, reduction factors are used to restrict the mobilized are found to satisfy the convergence of results. The FOS as
reinforcements. This option is available by not considering obtained is the intersection of FOS from moment equilib-
the F of S dependency for the analysis. rium (Fm) and FOS from force equilibrium (Ff).

Failure Slip Surface from SLOPE/W

SLOPE/W Results from Limit Equilibrium
Analysis From the Fig. 4a, b and c, it can be seen that a circular slip
surface is generated for reinforced slopes of 45°. It is also
Factor of Safety from SLOPE/W observed from the figures that the slip surface is passing
through the entire crest in cases with nail inclination of 0°
From Table 2, it is observed that the factor of safety cal- and 15°. However, with nail inclination of 30°, a much
culated from the limit equilibrium method is found to be smaller slip surface is observed. The red shaded portion of
1.82 for a slope of 45° with nail inclination of 15°. Simi- the slip surface indicates the band of trial slip surfaces with
larly for a slope of 60°, the highest factor of safety of 1.53 the same factor of safety.

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 5 of 23 34

Fig. 3 a FOS versus k for 45° slope with nail inclination of 15°. b FOS versus k for 60° slope with nail inclination of 15°

For the 60° slope, it can be seen from the Fig. 5a, b, c modelled with a constant length of 7 m converted to scale.
that the slip surface is circular in shape. For slopes with The SLOPE/W analysis yields that the nail inclination of
nail inclination of 0° and 15°, the variation in the factor of 30° in both the slope angles, enables less than 50% of nail
safety for the trial surface is small. This is indicated by thin length mobilization to resist slope failure. For the other two
red shaded portion of the slip surface. However, 60° slope nail inclinations 0° and 15°, it is found that more than 90%
reinforced with 30° nail inclination is found to have a small of the nail length has been used to resist the shearing
slip failure and critical slip surface is found to lie close to action. It is found that if the failure surface uses maximum
the slope face. nail length, the reinforcing action of the nails is completely
mobilized. The summary of the percentage mobilized nail
Nail Axial Forces from SLOPE/W length is given in Table 3. The LE analysis of the rein-
forced slope also accounts for the fact that load transfer
From the Fig. 6a, b, it is observed that the bottom nail with mechanism of nails is governed by pull–out resistance or
0°, 15° and 30° is found to bear the maximum nail axial tensile capacity of nails. It is visible from Fig. 4a, b, that
forces for both 45° and 60° slopes. For nail inclinations of 45° slope with 0° and 15° nail inclinations do not depict
0° and 15°, the axial forces are found to increase from top any nail breakage. This signifies that the load transfer
nail to middle nail and maximum for the bottom nails. mechanism is governed by nail pullout capacity.
However, for 30° inclined nail 45° slope, an axial force of For 30° nail inclination on 45° slope, nails are found to
100 kN is found in the top, middle and bottom nails. break denoted by dashed lines (Fig. 7). This also stands for
Similarly, an axial force of 66.66 kN is found for top, the fact that nail has completely utilized its pullout capacity
middle and bottom nails in 60° slope with 30° nail incli- and is now transferring the load by its tensile capacity. A
nation. The maximum axial force of 100 kN is found to be similar pattern of nail load transfer mechanism is observed
in the bottom nail for 45° slope with nail inclination at 30°. in 60° reinforced slope with 30° nail inclination as shown
In 60° slope, the bottom nail with nail inclination of 0° is in Fig. 8.
found to bear the maximum axial nail force of 71.67 kN.

Effect of Bond Length from SLOPE/W Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis Using Finite
Element Method
From the analysis carried out in SLOPE/W, it is found that
the length of nails modelled and mobilized during slip With the advantage of no assumption for location of failure
failure vary with the nail inclination and location. The nails surface and interslice forces, finite element (FE) method
at all the inclinations of 0°, 15° and 30° are initially has been widely accepted for the analysis of slope stability

123
34 Page 6 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Fig. 4 a Slip Surface for 45° slope for 0° nail inclination. b Slip Surface for 45° slope for 15° nail inclination. c Slip Surface for 45° slope for
30° nail inclination. (Color figure online)

[12]. The increased use of complex geometries and mate- yield more accurate results as compared to six noded, in
rial data has made analysis non—linear and iterative in cases involving nails, anchors or geogrids [13].
nature. In such cases the inputs (soil and geometry) are The material in the FE analysis is also controlled by the
themselves function of the solutions. Since this procedure infinitesimal incremental stress and strain relationship. The
requires a large amount of calculation data and time, it is FEM package incorporates the use of Mohr–Coulomb
recommended to use available FE packages. One such FE constitutive model. This routine simulates a perfectly
software package has been used in the current study named plastic material condition with development of irreversible
as PLAXIS 2D v8.1. In this software, FE analysis divides strains. A set of yield functions which constitute a yield
the continuum into distinct elements, with each element surface are generated to check the occurrence of plastic
further divided into nodes. The unknowns in the problem points in the continuum. These yield functions are them-
with a defined set of boundary conditions correspond to selves a function of prevailing stress and strain conditions.
degree of freedom with discrete values for each node [13]. The FEM routine also enables to simulate an elastic per-
In the present work, degree of freedom of the nodes is fectly plastic behaviour of the material. Hooke’s law is
related to displacement components. Each line element is used to relate the stress to the strains. These strains and the
divided into three nodes which are assigned displacement strain rates are decomposed into their elastic and plastic
values. These three nodes contribute to the six noded tri- fraction during calculations. Smith and Griffith [37] stated
angles, whereas if the line element has five nodes, it builds that the Mohr–Coulomb model consists of six yield func-
up a 15-noded triangle. The 15-noded triangles are found to tions which consist of plastic parameters like ‘c’ and ‘/’ of

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 7 of 23 34

Fig. 5 a Slip Surface for 60° slope for 0° nail inclination. b Slip Surface for 60° slope for 15° nail inclination. c Slip Surface for 60° slope for
30° nail inclination. (Color figure online)

the soil. Using these concepts for material transition, a Available strength X
SF ¼ ¼ value of Msf at failure:
material stiffness matrix is developed by the FE analysis to strength at failure
calculate the stiffness of each element and ultimately of the ð6Þ
entire volume of soil.
From the literature review, it has also been observed that The precision of the factor safety is a function of type of
researchers [38, 39] employed the strength reduction constitutive soil model selected, type and size of the element,
method of FE to obtain the factor of safety for slopes. In discretized mesh, node location for displacement curve and
strength reduction analysis, the convergence criterion is the tolerance allowed for non-linear analysis. Depending on the
most critical factor for the assessment of factor of safety. choice of the FE routine used, the model is found to have
The strength reduction method also known as /–c reduc- reached the ultimate state if either the maximum number of
tion method is carried out by performing load advancement iteration is reached or the model has undergone a continuous
number of steps. The reduction in the strength parameters failure mechanism or the selected points in the continuum are
in carried out by using an incremental multiplier Msf. The subjected to sudden change in the displacement. Inorder to
factor of safety is calculated by the expression: simulate the failure correctly FEM packages also provide the

123
34 Page 8 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Fig. 6 a Axial force distribution in top, middle and bottom nails with different nail inclinations for 45° slope. b Axial force distribution in top,
middle and bottom nails with different nail inclinations for 60° slope. (Color figure online)

Table 3 Summary of the nail

Slope angles Nail inclinations % age nail length used
length mobilized
with horizontal (°) with horizontal (°)
Top nail Middle nail Bottom nail

45 0 99.73 98.80 93.60

15 91.20 90.80 87.33
30 45.07 48.67 42.80
60 0 98.27 94.80 89.73
15 87.47 85.20 77.33
30 30.80 27.47 24.67

use of arc–length control in iteration procedure. At times considers the soil slope in plain strain with 15-noded trian-
during a non–linear analysis, a sudden failure of some points gulation procedure. The dimensions of the model are similar
is observed which lead to the generation of an ‘‘apparent’’ to the dimensions adopted in LE analysis. The standard fix-
negative stiffness matrix beyond the ultimate limit state. This ities are used to simulate the actual boundary conditions of
snap through problem in FEM has been overcome by the arc– the model test conducted by Rawat and Gupta [18]. The base
length control technique. The arc–length control technique is of the model is restricted in the x–y direction with the back of
now incorporated in the commercial finite element software the slope being restricted only in the x-direction by using the
PLAXIS to obtain reliable collapse loads for load controlled standard fixities. A Mohr–Coulomb model with well graded
calculations. Hence PLAXIS 2D based on finite element sand soil is used to simulate the model in FEM. A drained soil
method accompanied with an elastic perfectly plastic condition is considered with the phreatic line positioned at
(Mohr–Coulomb) stress–strain relation is used in this study, the base of the model. The parameters used in the modelling
which is reliable and powerful approach for calculating the of slope and nails are summarized in Table 4. The PLAXIS
factor of safety of slopes. package provides the option of using plate element, geogrids,
node to node anchors and fixed end anchors to be used as
Numerical Modelling and Analysis Using PLAXIS reinforcement systems. However an elastic equivalent plate
2D element can be used as nails for slope reinforcement. As
observed from the literature review [40–42] the bending
The numerical modelling of reinforced slopes has been stiffness and the axial stiffness play an important role in the
carried out by FE routine PLAXIS 2D v8.1. PLAXIS 2D simulation of the nails. If the nails are modelled using a plate

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 9 of 23 34

Fig. 7 Slope stability by tensile

capacity of nails in 45° slope
with 30° nail inclination. (Color
figure online)

Fig. 8 Slope stability by tensile

capacity of nails in 60° slope
with 30° nail inclination. (Color
figure online)

element of circular cross section, then an equivalent flexural Anail Agrout

Eeq ¼ En þ Eg ð7Þ
rigidity and equivalent axial stiffness has to be calculated for A A
correct simulation of the soil nails. The formulation for
Similarly Equivalent axial stiffness is given by
attaining the equivalent modulus of elasticity for the mod-
elled nails is given by Babu et al. [43]:

123
34 Page 10 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Table 4 Material properties

Properties Stiffness Alternate stiffness Strength
used in numerical modelling
from Rawat and Gupta [18] Simulated model Plain strain Eref 50,000 kN/m2 Gref 115,400 kN/m2 cref 1.37 kN/m2
2
Elements 15-node t 0.3 Eoed 403,800 kN/m / 30°
Model type Mohr–Coulomb w 0°
Material type Drained
cunsat 13.6 kN/m3
csat 19.68 kN/m3
Ko 0.5

En P 2 overburden pressure are considered in the present analysis.

EA ¼ d ð8Þ
Sh 4 n The simulated model is analysed by using the /–c reduc-
tion method (SRM). This calculation method yields a value
The equivalent bending stiffness is calculated by the P
of incremental multiplier Msf as results converge when
relation:
slope failure is reached. This value of the incremental
En P 4 multiplier is treated as FOS for the reinforced slope failure.
EI ¼ d ð9Þ
Sh 64 n The complete modelled reinforced soil slope is shown in
the Fig. 9.
The equivalent plate diameter of the nail is calculated by
the PLAXIS software using the formulation:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
EI PLAXIS 2D Results from Finite Element Method
deq ¼ 12 ð10Þ
EA
Factor of Safety from PLAXIS 2D
The Eqs. (7), (8), (9) and (10) are used in the present
study to calculate the nail input values used for the analysis The PLAXIS 2D shows that 45° slope reinforced with nail
as shown in Table 5. inclination of 15°, yields the maximum factor of safety of
To ensure proper soil–nail interaction, an interface of 1.43. For all the other inclinations of 0° and 30°, the factor
virtual thickness factor (d) of 0.1 is used. This virtual of safety is found to be 1.36 and 1.15 respectively. As it
thickness factor is multiplied by the element thickness in can be seen from Fig. 10, for 15° nail inclination the factor
the procedure of mesh generation. The interface is assigned of safety is increasing with slope displacement under sur-
the same material data set as done for the model. For charge |is achieved for a total displacement (|U|) of
simulation of pullout resistance in the soil nails, an inter- 0.462 m of slope. It can also be observed from Figs. 10 and
face strength reduction factor (Rinter) is used with a value of 11 that 30° nail inclination in both 45° and 60° slope gives
2/3 in the absence of data from experimentation [13]. It the minimum factor of safety of 1.15 and 1.08 respectively.
relates the strength of the soil to the strength of interface as Figure 10 also suggests that nail inclinations with mini-
tan /interface mum factor of safety fail at a relative smaller displacement
cinterface
¼ Rinter and ¼ Rinter ð11Þ as compared to the nail inclinations giving the maximum
tan /soil csoil
FOS. The nail inclination of 0° corresponds to an inter-
Once the soil nail interactions are modelled, a 2D mesh mediate factor of safety value 1.36 for 45° slope and 1.17
is generated after the initial stresses are computed by the K0 for 60° slope respectively. Another important aspect that
procedure based on Janbu’s relation, K0 ¼ ð1  sin /Þ. A can be brought to light is that for 60° slope, the factor of
finer 2D mesh is generated at the interfaces of soil–nail for safety increasing rapidly at small displacement of \0.1 m
achieving accurate results. No overconsolidation and pre- and then remains constant until failure as the slope

Table 5 Properties of the

Parameters Values Units Interface strength
simulated nails used in
numerical modelling Nail element and nail type Plate and elastic – Rinter 2/3
Axial stiffness (EA) 2.98 9 106 kN/m dinter 0.1
Flexural rigidity (EI) 113.64 9 103 kN m2/m
Diameter of nail (deq) 12 mm
Poisson’s ratio (t) 0.35 –

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 11 of 23 34

Fig. 9 Numerical modelling of

reinforced soil slope in PLAXIS
2D

Fig. 10 Factor of safety against

slope displacement from
PLAXIS 2D for different nail
inclinations at 45° slope. (Color
figure online)

displacement increases. The maximum factor of safety for in nail inclination. Figure 12a depicts that FEM analysis
60° is 1.37 achieved for 15° nail inclination. Similar to 45° gives a slip surface passing in close proximity to the slope
slope, 0° and 30° show much lower values of factor of face in case of nail inclined at 0° for 45° slope. A similar
safety. Nail inclination of 30° is found to have the mini- pattern of non circular slip surfaces is attained from failure
mum factor of safety for 60° slope which is concurrent to of 45° slope with 15° and 30° nail inclinations. It can also
slope angle of 45°. be observed from Fig. 12b, c that unlike 0° nail inclination,
slip surfaces pass through the nails with 15° and 30° nail
Slip Surface from PLAXIS 2D inclinations. However in all three nail inclinations, the
maximum horizontal displacement is found to be near the
From the analysis of reinforced slopes by FEM routine reinforced slope face.
PLAXIS, it is observed that different slopes with varying The failure of 60° slope shows a different failure pattern
nail inclination undergo non-circular slip surface failure. in comparison to 45° slopes. As observed from Fig. 13a, it
Although these slip surfaces are found to vary with change can be seen that for 0° nail inclination in 60° slope

123
34 Page 12 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Fig. 11 Factor of safety against

slope displacement from
PLAXIS 2D for different nail
inclinations at 60° slope. (Color
figure online)

undergoes a non circular slip surface. This slip surface an axial nail force of 25.39 kN is found at the bottom nail
failure is more similar to the sliding failure. However the of inclination 30°. The axial forces are also found to be
entire crest is found to have displaced under the surcharge more for nail inclination of 15°, followed by 0° and having
loading. For nail inclinations of 15°, a much defined slip minimum value for nail inclination of 30° in 45° slope. The
surface is obtained from the analysis. The slip surface variation in the axial forces for 45° slope with different nail
originates from slope crest and terminates at toe. It can be location and inclination is given in Fig. 14.
defined as a non circular and non linear type of slip surface The axial force distribution for 45° slope angle is shown
failure. The slip surface can also be observed to have in Fig. 15. It can be observed that the pull out capacity and
intersected the nails during failure (Fig. 13b). tensile capacity are generated as the failure is reached. The
A complex failure pattern is observed from Fig. 13c for distribution of the nail force is found to increase from the
60° slope with nail inclinations of 30°. The slope failure nail end, reach a maximum value and then decreases
pattern is observed in contrast to toe failures obtained for towards the nail head. The maximum value of this nail
0° and 15° nail inclinations. The slip surface is a wedge force can be found for the bottom nail followed by the
failure occurring primarily on the upper portion of the middle nail and minimum for the top nail. Similarly the
slope face. It can also be seen that the larger portion of nail force distribution for all the nail inclinations can be
failure wedge do not even pass through the bottom nail. obtained from the analysis. In this paper however only the
The slope is also found to have largely deformed as com- nail forces yielding the highest FOS are covered.
pared to other nail inclinations for slope angle of 60°. For slope 60°, the maximum axial force is found for the
bottom nail at an inclination of 15°. The pattern of decrease
Axial Nail Forces from PLAXIS 2D in axial nail forces from bottom to top nail is also visible
from Fig. 16 for all nail inclinations. The 15° nail incli-
The axial forces as calculated from FEM clearly shows that nation is found to have a value of 208.08 kN for bottom
the maximum nail forces are found for nail inclination of nail, 124.68 kN for middle nail and 57.41 kN for top most
15° for both 45° and 60° slopes. A maximum force of nail. The nail inclination of 30° is found to yield the lowest
59.34 kN is found in bottom nail of 15° nail inclination. values of axial nail forces for top, middle and bottom nails
The axial force in the bottom nail is found maximum as 50.7, 64.81 and 65.42 kN respectively.
among the three locations of nails namely top, middle and The nail force distribution as shown in Fig. 17 further
bottom nails. The nail inclination of 0° has the maximum shows that a maximum tensile force is generated in the
axial nail force at bottom nail of magnitude 53.06 kN while bottom nail of 15° nail inclination in 60° slope. It can be

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 13 of 23 34

Fig. 12 a Slip Surface at failure for 45° slope angle from PLAXIS with nail inclination of 0°. b Slip Surface at failure for 45° slope angle from
PLAXIS with nail inclination of 15°. c Slip Surface at failure for 45° slope angle from PLAXIS with nail inclination of 30°. (Color figure online)

seen from nail force distribution curves that the top nail and capacity of the respective nail. As seen from the Fig. 18a,
middle nail have lower nail forces. A similar pattern of nail b, it is observed that locus of the maximum nail force and
forced distribution is also observed in the 45° slope with slope slip surface may lie at different distances from the
the same nail inclination. slope face.
The distribution of nail force as shown in Fig. 17 signifies
that the bottom nail has the two limiting conditions of nail Effect of Soil–Nail Interaction and Bending Stiffness
forces. The initial increase in the distribution shows that the of Nails from PLAXIS 2D
nail has mobilized its full pullout capacity. After the pullout
capacity has been used up, nail tensile capacity has governed In the absence of data for interface strength, trials have
the load transfer mechanism for the bottom nail. The top nail been carried out with different values of Rinter. The effect
and the bottom nail are also found with a similar nail force of soil nail interface on FOS can be found from Fig. 19. It
distribution pattern, but it both the cases only the tensile is seen that an increase in FOS of about 1.39% is found for
capacity governs the nail forces. In the absence of facing for 45° slope with 15° nail. The 60° slope with 15° nail
the nailed slopes used in this work, the nail force distribution inclination is found to have an increase of 3.64% in FOS
is found to terminate at the nail head. with variation of Rinter from 0.6 (default) to 1.0 (max)
The shear force distribution curves are used to find the value. During the analysis, it is also observed that FOS, slip
locus of maximum nail forces. The shear forces along nail surfaces, deformed mesh and nail forces are also found to
length are found to change from positive to negative. This vary with different bending stiffness and axial stiffness
transition is found to occur at points of maximum tensile values incorporated in finite element analysis.

123
34 Page 14 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Fig. 13 a Slip Surface at failure for 60° slope angle from PLAXIS with nail inclination of 0°. b Slip Surface at failure for 60° slope angle from
PLAXIS with nail inclination of 15°. c Slip Surface at failure for 60° slope angle from PLAXIS with nail inclination of 30°. (Color figure online)

Validation of Failure Surfaces failure is found to occur for 60° reinforced slope. The
numerical modelling of this slope with LEM sub-routine
A model testing and experimental validation has been SLOPE/W shows a rather circular slip surface at failure.
incorporated for the present analysis. The laboratory model Also it can be seen from Fig. 4a, b, c, that a deep failure
testing carried out on soil nailed slope by Rawat and Gupta surface is predicted by limit equilibrium analysis which is
[18] is used to validate the results as observed from LEM not the case from model testing. The slip surface by LEM
and FEM analysis in this paper. It can be observed from is also found to pass well below the slope toe for 45°
Fig. 20a, b, that the failure surface captured from LEM reinforced slope, whereas a slope failure is obtained from
analysis (SLOPE/W) and FEM analysis (PLAXIS 2D) are model testing. In case of 60° reinforced slope, both model
comparable to the failure slip surface obtained from model testing and LEM analysis depicts toe failure with variation
testing with slight variations. The slip surface found from in slip surface depth. As mentioned earlier, LEM gives a
model testing is not necessarily a circular slip surface but a deep slip surface which originates away from slope face
non–circular slip surface or a log spiral surface. The and from the rear of slope crest, whereas the slip surface
experimental results yield a shallow slip surface which is from model testing is also circular but slightly steeper as
concentrated near the slope face. The slip surface is found compared to LE analysis result. It can also be observed that
to originate at the slope crest near the slope face. It prop- the experimental slip surface starts somewhere from the
agates towards the toe. For reinforced slope of 45°, the slip crest and ends at the toe similar to LEM.
surface intersects the slope face above the toe which can be The slip surfaces obtained from PLAXIS 2D (FEM)
categorized as a slope failure. Moreover, a much visible toe analysis are found to give results which are in good

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 15 of 23 34

Fig. 14 Axial nail forces at

different nail inclinations and
locations for 45° slope. (Color
figure online)

Fig. 15 Nail force distribution

from PLAXIS 2D

agreement with model testing slip surfaces. For 45° rein- increases. The slip surface for 60° reinforced slope
forced slope, non–circular slip surface originating from obtained from FEM is similar to the experimental slip
slope crest slightly away from slope face is observed from surface. Both slip surfaces are toe slope failure with non–
both FEM analysis as well as experimentally. However, circular shape of slip and lie close to the slope face.
PLAXIS also gives a base failure in contrast to slope Hence it can be said that FE analysis carried out by
failure found by testing. From Figs. 12a to 13c, it can also PLAXIS 2D gives more realistic failure surfaces as com-
be seen that the stresses are found to be concentrated near pared to LE analysis by SLOPE/W. However, both the
the slope face and decreases as distance from the slope face analytical methods failed to predict the significant crest

123
34 Page 16 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Fig. 16 Axial nail forces at

different nail inclinations and
locations for 60° slope. (Color
figure online)

Fig. 17 Nail force distribution

from PLAXIS 2D

settlement which occurred in model testing. The variations safety in contrast to FEM where critical slip surface
between experimental work of Rawat and Gupta [18] and is generated by failure stress–strains on the displace-
the current analytical methods can be accounted for the ment nodes. This makes FEM results more realistic
following reasons: than LEM results.
(b) The boundary conditions modeled in LEM and FEM
(a) LEM works on the concept of assumed failure
are different from model testing. SLOPE/W does not
surface (circular in this case) with lowest factor of

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 17 of 23 34

Fig. 18 a Shear force

distribution of 15° nail
inclination for 45° slope.
b Shear force distribution of 15°
nail inclination for 60° slope

incorporate tools for boundary condition simulation Comparison of Results from LEM and FEM
whereas in PLAXIS 2D the bottom boundary is fixed
in x–y direction, left and right model boundaries are Comparison of Factor of Safety for Reinforced
fixed in x–direction for all cases of reinforced slopes. Slopes
(c) The model testing is effected by settlement and
lateral displacement in all x, y and z directions, As observed from Table 6, it can be seen that limit equi-
which is not taken care of when simulated in either librium method calculates a higher factor of safety as
LE or FE analysis as both are 2D analysis codes. The compared to the finite element method. The LEM utilizes
slope and crest displacements observed in model the equilibrium of forces among the slices which requires
testing are significantly different from LEM and assumptions and compromises on the accuracy of the
FEM displacements of slope and crest, thus a method. The FOS given by the FEM analysis is on the
variation in slip surface generation also exists. lower side. The FEM is based on the displacement of nodes

123
34 Page 18 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

Fig. 19 FOS variation with

Rinter

till the occurrence of slope failure. However, FOS as relationship, which can effectively accommodate the
obtained from both the analysis show a similar pattern with change in stresses. The FE analysis in PLAXIS, for
the maximum FOS for nail inclination of 15° in both 45° example finds the slip surface, where the excessive
and 60° slope. This is followed by the FOS for 0° nail strains are localised, and computes the FOS by
inclination. The minimum FOS of safety from LEM and strength reduction procedure for Mohr–Coulomb soil
FEM is obtained for slope with nail inclination of 30°. The model.
percentage increase in FOS with respect to FOS from FE (b) The FOS is primarily related to the normal stress
analysis is about 24.26% with nails inclined at 0° with distribution along the slip surface. A significant
horizontal. For 15° nail inclination, LE analysis predicts difference in normal stress distribution, particularly
27.27% higher FOS as compared to FE analysis. For 30° in the toe area, can be found between FE and LE
nail inclination, this increase is significantly small which analyses for a particular slip surface [44]. This
comes out be 4.34%. All the above mentioned percentage difference in normal stress distribution results from
changes are for 45° slope angle. In case of 60° slope angle, the shear stress concentrations, which are not,
this percentage variation in FOS between LEM and FEM captured in the LE analyses. In LEM, the normal
ranges from 1 to 28%. For nails inclination of 0°, a sig- forces at the base are primarily derived from the
nificant percentage increase of 28.20% is observed, which weight of the sliding mass and not the shear stress
falls to 11.68% for 15° nail inclination. An increase in FOS distribution which results in higher FOS prediction.
of just 1.85% is found with nail inclination 30° from both (c) In this study also, no similarity in the interslice force
analyses. The reasons for this higher FOS from LEM more and critical shear surface was found between the
as compared to FOS from FEM can be: analyses in LE and FE methods. Both analysis
utilizes different shear forces and on different critical
(a) LE and FE analyses have fundamental difference in
surfaces. The FE analysis computes factor of safety
the basic principles. The first is based on the limit
for each element along the slip surface, whereas a
equilibrium formulations, which are dependent on
single, weighted average FOS is computed in the LE
static force or moment equilibrium. As in Morgen-
analyses. This leads to over prediction of FOS in
stern–Price model used in LEM, a half–sine inter-
LEM.
slice function is used to relate the interslice normal–
shear forces. This in turn is used to find slice base Moreover, Krahn [44] states, ‘‘FE analyses can handle
normal force which gives the factor of safety with variations in FOS without any difficulty of convergence,
respect to force and moment equilibrium. The due to stress redistributions for change in loading condi-
variation in FOS is obvious, since interslice weight tions’’. However the convergence of simulations in LE is
and slice base force will depend on the shape of found problematic for steep slip surfaces, whereas FE
assumed slip surface which is circular in case of overcomes such difficulties. This is why the computed FOS
LEM. Whereas FEM is based on a stress-strain from the FE analysis is regarded as more reliable.

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 19 of 23 34

shows a non linear slip surface, in contrast to 60° rein-

forced slopes with non–linear failure surfaces. The slip
surfaces are also found to originate from near the slope face
and terminate at the slope toe or above it. However no such
failure patterns are observed from LEM analysis. The slip
surfaces are found to start from the boundary of slope crest
and terminate at slope toe or beyond it. No slope failure is
found from LEM analysis, whereas for 60° slope with 30°
nail inclination, the slope is found to undergo a slope slip
failure as given by FEM. The variation in slip surfaces
from the two approaches can be accounted for the fol-
lowing reasons:
(a) Different interslice shear forces and base normal
forces are predicted from LEM and FEM. The LEM
uses different slip circles and predicts the slip circle
with minimum factor of safety as critical. The
convergence of force equilibrium and moment
equilibrium governs the FOS and critical slip
surface. Moreover, the local factor of safety is
constant throughout the analysis in LEM, thus
eliminating the cases of local slip failure. On the
other hand, the slip surface obtained from FEM is
based on stress distribution within the continuum.
The stress distribution is more realistic in FEM as
local factor of safety is not constant and thus
convergence of results is achieved.
(b) The line of thrust is different in both the analytical
methods. The point of application of interslice
normal in LE and FE is different varying from slope
crest to toe. The location of thrust line depends on
the slip surface geometry and loading condition.
Thus, a variation in FOS and consequently in failure
Fig. 20 a Slip surface for reinforced slope of 45° by Rawat and slip surface.
Gupta [18]. b Slip surface for reinforced slope of 60° by Rawat and (c) The variation from deeper slip surface in LEM to
Gupta [18]
shallow slip surface in FEM is due to different shear
and normal stresses values generated in the respec-
Table 6 Factor of safety from LEM and FEM
tive analysis.
Slope angles with Nail inclinations with horizontal
horizontal (°)
FOS 0° 15° 30° Comparison of Nail Forces
45 LEM 1.69 1.82 1.20
FEM 1.36 1.43 1.15 The nail forces obtained from limit equilibrium method and
60 LEM 1.50 1.53 1.10 finite element method are compared for the most
FEM 1.17 1.37 1.08 stable slope of 45° and 60° with nail inclination of 15° as
shown in Figs. 21 and 22. For this nail inclination in both
slope angles maximum FOS is observed. As can be seen
Comparison of Failure Slip Surfaces from the Fig. 21, LEM predicts higher nail forces for nail
located at top and bottom of slope, whereas a smaller nail
The slip surfaces given by LEM are circular in shape for all force as compared to FE analysis is found for the middle
nail inclinations. This is due to the fact that LEM prede- nail in 45° slope. For the nail located at top, the difference
termines the slip surface failure as circular, linear or non– in nail forces from LE and FE analysis is 35.79%. A similar
linear. In case of FEM, the slip surfaces have a complex increase of 20.72% by LEM is observed for nail located at
shape. The slip surface for nailed slopes with 45° slope the bottom. This can be accounted for the fact that in LEM,

123
34 Page 20 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

the nails are governed by pullout capacity since no additional interslice shear force which reduces the desta-
breakage of nails is observed in the top and middle nail. bilizing forces. The mobilized interslice shear is calculated
However, for middle nail, LEM predicts nail force which is using Eq. (4), which is based on an assumption that the
56.77% smaller than nail force given by FEM. This can be shear resistance of soil and reinforcement are developed at
due to the extension of slip surface beyond the bond length the same rate. This leads to an over prediction of rein-
in LE analysis as seen in Fig. 4b. The bond length is forcing action and correspondingly resorts to higher FOS
assumed as tensile force acting on the interslice in calcu- and inaccurate nail forces. In case of analysis carried out by
lation of FOS by LEM. Thus, nail forces and FOS calcu- FEM, the nail forces depend on displacement and strain
lated from LE analysis depend on the length of nail developed in soil. The displacement induces shear forces
considered. which is taken up by soil–nail interface. The distribution of
For 60° slope angle, the nail forces by FE analysis at this induced shear force is controlled by interaction
top, middle and bottom are higher than those from LE between soil and nail. Hence soil–nail friction leads to
analysis. A decrease of 56.16, 71.37 and 67.95% is axial tension and axial compression in nails. This differ-
observed for nail forces from both approaches for top, ence in load transfer modeling between the two methods of
middle and bottom respectively. The reason for this change analysis account for the variations in nail forces.
in nail forces can be the failure slip surface variations The variation in nail forces with inclination from two
between LEM and FEM method. Moreover, the axial force approaches can be accounted for the reason that axial
distribution in FEM depicts that nails in FEM are in tension forces developed in nails are found to vary with nail
until failure, whereas LE analysis has considered com- inclinations. LE and FE analysis method both predict the
pressive forces in nails at steep slope angle of 60°. Hence increase of nail forces with small nail inclination from 0° to
nail forces observed in LEM are found to be lower than nail 15° with horizontal. The nail orientation, which is the angle
forces found from FEM. between the nail and normal to the shearing plane, changes
The variation in nail forces from two approaches can be with change in nail inclination. As long as nail orientation
due the reason that in LE analysis, soil nails are treated as is positive nails are acting in tension which increases the
concentrated loads with an assumption that only tensile shear strength of soil. The transition of nail orientation
forces are developed in the nails. This leads to an from positive to negative due to change in nail inclination

Fig. 21 Comparison of nail

forces for 45° slope with 15°
nail inclination. (Color
figure online)

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 21 of 23 34

Fig. 22 Comparison of nail

forces for 60° slope with 15°
nail inclination. (Color
figure online)

with horizontal from small (0°–15°) to steep (15°–30°), However, on the contrary, bottom nail force in LE analysis
alters the nail behavior from tension to compression. This does not yield similar results. The results are affected by
change reduces the reinforcing action of nails and soil tensile strength mobilization (breakage) of nails as depicted
strength decreases. Thus nail forces are found to increase in Fig. 5b in contrast to utilization of pullout capacity of nails
from 0° to 15° and then decrease is observed between nail as shown in Fig. 4b. Thus lower nail force for bottom nail in
inclinations of 15° to 30°. These results are consistent with 60° from LEM can be attributed to failure of nails during load
analysis carried out by Mittal [45] which states ‘‘for soil transfer.
nailed vertical cuts, FOS initially increases with the
increase of nail inclination with horizontal (up to 15°) after
which it decreases’’. Shiu and Chang [46] also found a
Conclusions
similar variation in nail axial force which increased up to
nail inclination of 20° with horizontal and then found to
From the study carried out in this paper, the following
become zero at nail inclination of 65°.
conclusions have been derived:
The variation in nail forces with location from two
approaches can be due the reason that both LE and FE (1) The limit equilibrium method predicts a higher FOS
analysis observe a similar nail force variation with soil nail as compared to finite element method. However the
location. The maximum nail force is observed in bottom nails most stable slope from both the analysis is found be
from both analyses. However, LEM predicts more nail force the reinforced slope with 15° nail inclination with
for bottom nail at 45° than 60° slope angle, whereas FE horizontal.
analysis suggests bottom nail in 60° slope to have larger nail (2) The FOS as obtained from LEM and FEM also
force as compared to nail at similar inclination and location signifies that the stability of slopes does not
at slope angle of 45°. This can be due to overburden which increases by increase in nail inclination. Nail incli-
increases with depth. The top nail bears the overburden from nation variation between 0° and 15° is found to
slope crest which acts as surcharge for lower nails. The increase the FOS of slopes which decreases as nail
bottom nail is found to bear the maximum normal force and inclination is changed from 15° to 30°.
hence a larger shear force. This increase in shear force leads (3) The slip surfaces obtained from LEM and FEM
to mobilization of higher axial forces in bottom nails. shows that as the slope angle gets steeper the failure

123
34 Page 22 of 23 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34

surface also shows a change from circular slip 7. Loukidis D, Bandini P, Salgado R (2003) Stability of seismically
surface to non–linear slip surface. loaded slopes using limit analysis. Geotechnique 53(5):463–480
8. Farzaneh O, Askari F (2003) Three-dimensional analysis of
(4) The most critical slip surface from LEM is found to nonhomogeneous slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
be at a larger distance from the slope face whereas 129(2):137–145
FEM find the most critical slip surface near the slope 9. Chen Z, Wang X, Haberfield C, Yin JH, Wang Y (2001) A three-
face. dimensional slope stability analysis method using the upper
bound theorem: part I: theory and methods. Int J Rock Mech Min
(5) The nail forces predicted from LEM have high Sci 38(3):369–378
values with variations depending on the nail location 10. Chen Z, Wang J, Wang Y, Yin JH, Haberfield C (2001) A three-
as compared to the values of nail force obtained dimensional slope stability analysis method using the upper
FEM. However, both the analysis concluded maxi- bound theorem: part II: numerical approaches, applications and
extensions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(3):379–397
mum nail force in the bottom nail for all nail 11. Lyamin AV, Sloan SW (2002) Upper bound limit analysis using
inclination. linear finite elements and non-linear programming. Int J Numer
(6) The nail forces vary with nail location. It is observed Anal Methods Geomech 26(2):181–216
from LEM and FEM analysis that nail forces 12. Griffiths DV, Lane PA (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite
elements. Geotechnique 49(3):387–403
decrease from top nail to bottom nail. 13. Brinkgreve RBJ, Engin E, Swolfs WM (2012) Plaxis 3D 2012
(7) LEM and FEM both can predict the limiting manual. Plaxis bv, Delft
conditions namely pullout capacity, tensile capacity 14. Yang G, Zhong Z, Zhang Y, Fu X (2015) Optimal design of
or the facing capacity in the load transfer mechanism anchor cables for slope reinforcement based on stress and dis-
placement fields. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7(4):411–420
of nails. The intersection of the failure surface with 15. Jeon SS (2012) Pull-out tests and slope stability analyses of
nail length governs which condition has been nailing systems comprising single and multi rebars with grouted
mobilized. cement. J Central South Univ 19(1):262–272
(8) The results in LEM are dependent upon the nail 16. Zhou WH, Yin JH, Hong CY (2011) Finite element modelling of
pullout testing on a soil nail in a pullout box under different
length and bond length. Slopes having longer nail overburden and grouting pressures. Can Geotech J 48(4):557–567
bond length are more stable than those in which no 17. Rabie M (2014) Comparison study between traditional and finite
bond lengths are mobilized. On the other hand, FEM element methods for slopes under heavy rainfall. HBRC J
is independent of the nail length. The analysis is 10(2):160–168
18. Rawat S, Gupta AK (2016) An Experimental and Analytical
dependent on nail bending stiffness; axial stiffness Study of Slope Stability by Soil Nailing. Electron J Geotech Eng
and soil–nail interaction. Higher bending stiffness 21(17):5577–5597
and soil–nail interaction, better is the reinforcement 19. Jayanandan M and Chandkaran S (2015). Numerical simulation
action of the nails and more stable the slope. of soil nailed structures International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-0181,Vol.4 Issue 8
(9) FEM analysis depicts the variation in FOS with 20. Cheuk CY, Ho KKS, Lam AYT (2013) Influence of soil nail
interface strength, however no provision of interface orientations on stabilizing mechanisms of loose fill slopes. Can
strength is available in the LEM routine. This can be Geotech J 50(12):1236–1249
another reason for the variations in results from 21. Cheuk CY, Ng CWW, Sun HW (2005) Numerical experiments of
soil nails in loose fill slopes subjected to rainfall infiltration
LEM and FEM analysis. effects. Comput Geotech 32(4):290–303
22. Murthy BRS, Babu GLS, Srinivas A (2002) Analysis of prototype
soil nailed retaining wall. Gr Improvement 6(3):129–136
References 23. Babu GLS, Murthy BRS, Srinivas A (2002) Analysis of con-
struction factors influencing the behaviour of soil-nailed earth
1. Zhou XP, Cheng H (2013) Analysis of stability of three-dimen- retaining walls. Proc Inst Civ Eng-Gr Improvement 6(3):137–143
sional slopes using the rigorous limit equilibrium method. Eng 24. Wei W (2008) Three dimensional slope stability analysis and
Geol 160:21–33 failure mechanism. Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong
2. Alejano LR, Ferrero AM, Oyanguren PR, Fernández MIA (2011) Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Comparison of limit-equilibrium, numerical and physical models 25. Zheng YR, Zhao SY, Song YK (2005) Advance of study on the
of wall slope stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48(1):16–26 strength reduction finite element method [J]. J Logist Eng Univ
3. Cheng YM, Zhu LJ (2004) Unified formulation for two dimen- 3:1–6
sional slope stability analysis and limitations in factor of safety 26. Shukha R, Baker R (2008) Design implications of the vertical
determination. Soils Found 44(6):121–127 pseudo-static coefficient in slope analysis. Comput Geotech
4. Zhu DY, Lee CF, Jiang HD (2003) Generalised framework of 35:86–96
limit equilibrium methods for slope stability analysis. Geotech- 27. Gurocak Z, Alemdag S, Zaman MM (2008) Rock slope stability
nique 53(4):377–395 and excavatability assessment of rocks at the Kapikaya dam site,
5. SLOPE/W (2001) A software package for slope stability analysis, Turkey. Eng Geol 96:17–27
Ver. 5. GEO-SLOPE International, Calgary 28. Hao J, Wang B (2014) Parameter sensitivity analysis on defor-
6. Kim J, Salgado R, Lee J (2002) Stability analysis of complex soil mation of composite soil-nailed wall using artificial neural net-
slopes using limit analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng works and orthogonal experiment. Math Probl Eng. doi:10.1155/
128(7):546–557 2013/502362

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2016) 2:34 Page 23 of 23 34

29. Pei HF, Li C, Zhu HH, Wang YJ (2013) Slope stability analysis IUTAM conf. on deformation and failure of granular materials.
based on measured strains along soil nails using FBG sensing Delft, pp 213–221
technology. Math Probl Eng. doi:10.1155/2013/561360 38. Fawaz A, Farah E, Hagechehade F (2014) Slope stability analysis
30. Esmaeili F, Varshosaz M, Ebadi H (2013) Displacement mea- using numerical modelling. Am J Civ Eng 2(3):60–67
surement of the soil nail walls by using close range photogram- 39. Lin H, Xiong W, Cao P (2013) Stability of soil nailed slope using
metry and introduction of CPDA method. Measurement strength reduction method. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 17(9):872–885
46(9):3449–3459 40. FHWA (2003). Geotechnical engineering circular No 7—soil nail
31. Lin P, Bathurst RJ, Javankhoshdel S, Liu J (2016) Statistical walls. Report FHWA0-IF-03–017. US Department of Trans-
analysis of the effective stress method and modifications for portation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
prediction of ultimate bond strength of soil nails. Acta 41. Shiu YK, Chang GWK (2006) Effects of inclination, length
Geotechnica. doi:10.1007/s11440-016-0477-1 pattern and bending stiffness of soil nails on behavior of nailed
32. Li N, Cheng YM (2014) Laboratory and 3-D-distinct element structures. GEO Report No.197. Geotechnical Engineering
analysis of failure mechanism of slope under external surcharge. Office, Hong Kong.
Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:5937–5970 42. Fan CC, Luo JH (2008) Numerical study on the optimum layout
33. Spencer E (1967) A method of analysis of the stability of of soil nailed slopes. Comput Geotech 35(4):585–599
embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces. Geotechnique 43. Babu GS, Singh VP (2009) Simulation of soil nail structures
17(1):11–26 using PLAXIS 2D. Plaxis Bulletin, (Spring Issue No. 25),
34. Morgenstern NR, Price VE (1965) The analysis of the stability of pp 16–21
general slip surfaces. Geotechnique 15(1):79–93 44. Krahn J (2004) Stability modeling with SLOPE/W: An engi-
35. Wright SG, Duncan JM (1991) Limit equilibrium stability anal- neering methodology. The 11th Edt. Canada
yses for reinforced slopes. Transp Res Rec 1330:40–46 45. Mittal S, Biswas AK (2006) River bank erosion control by soil
36. Rawat S, Zodinpuii R, Manna B, Sharma KG (2014) Investiga- nailing. Geotech Geol Eng 24(6):1821–1833
tion on failure mechanism of nailed soil slopes under surcharge 46. Shiu YK, Chang GWK (2006) Effects of inclination, length
loading: testing and analysis. Geomech Geoeng 9(1):18–35 pattern and bending stiffness of soil nails on behaviour of nailed
37. Griffiths DV, Smith IM, Molenkamp F (1982). Computer structures. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering
implementation of a double-hardening model for sand. In Proc. and Development Department, Hong Kong

123