Slope Stability Analysis

of a Soil Nail Retaining Wall

Considering Nail Angle

INTRODUCTION

Rocscience is a leader in the development of software to solve slope

stabilization problems. It’s no surprise then that it was one of the main
Rocscience Inc. participants in the Software Discussion and Panel Webinar held as part
of the 2019 DFI S3 conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, this August.

For the discussion, DFI provided a real-world slope stabilization

problem of a soil nail retaining wall to help illustrate common challenges.
This paper, a first in a series of three, is the result of the discussion
and presents the analysis and results of four scenarios with respect to
the application and angle of the soil nails. The analysis was conducted
using Rocscience’s Slide2 2D slope stability analysis software.

Geotechnical tools, inspired by you. 1 rocscience.com

Figure 1. Soil Zone Profile (Hayward Baker)
1.0
THE PROBLEM
As shown in Figure 1, a cut slope up to 37 feet high, dipping
76 degrees and extending 283 feet along the strike required
stabilization to achieve a Factor of Safety of 1.5. Four bore-
holes were drilled to define a zone of residual soil, poorly
weathered rock (PWR), and rock at the site (see Table 1).
A static load of 250 psf was applied 25 feet from the slope
crest to account for existing structures.
The original design considered shotcrete and soil nails
dipping from 15 to 53 degrees. The length of the soil nails was
constrained by nearby property limits of 7 to 11 feet from
the slope crest. No porewater pressures were considered.
Geotechnical tools, inspired by you.
2.0
SLIDE2 LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
Slide2 is a 2D slope stability analysis program using the
Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM) to evaluate stability of soil
and rock slopes. Although not used in this analysis, Slide2
includes a powerful engine for combining water seepage
analysis 2D LEM evaluates the stability of potential slip
surfaces by dividing the soil mass into vertical or non-
vertical slices and evaluating force and/or moment equilib-
rium. Several formulations exist with various assumptions
about interslice behavior to ensure static determinacy,
and a variety of search methods are available to locate the
critical slip surface with the minimum Factor of Safety. Both
circular and non-circular failure surfaces can be analyzed.
The Spencer Method (force and moment equilibrium,
constant side force inclinations) was chosen as the critical
stability limit state criterion because it is one of the most
rigorous methods. It assumes that interslice forces are
parallel and that the normal force acts at the center of the
base of each slice. Both force and moment equilibrium
equations are satisfied.
The non-circular Cuckoo Search Method was used to seek
out the critical sliding surface. Cuckoo Search is a recent
global optimization algorithm developed by Xin-She Yang
and Suash Deb in 2009, inspired by the natural parasitic but
successful behaviour of the Cuckoo species of laying their
eggs in the nests of other host birds (of other species).
Cuckoo Search incorporates a random walk and random
solution generations to escape local minima. In the short
amount of time since inception, Cuckoo Search has been
used in spring and welded beam designing, nurse sched-
uling, data fusion in wireless network sensors, and other
approaches to obtain better solutions than those that exist
in the literature.
2 rocscience.com
 3.0
CREATING THE MODEL IN SLIDE2
The models for the analysis were imported into Slide2 using one of the various import methods (from image, directly
from AutoCAD) or input methods (from borehole data or manual coordinates).

Four sections along the profile of the cut slope were analyzed, and four scenarios were considered in the
analysis for each of the four sections:

1. No Supports
2. Low-Angle Nails (15°) — Original Design
3. High-Angle Nails (53°) — Original Design
4. Rocscience Redesign (15°)

In all models, the wall was implicitly assumed to be internally stable, support (tensile) force was applied parallel to the
reinforcement direction, and the plate resistance of the supports were the same as the nail strength.

2.1 Material Properties

Table 1 below presents the material properties of the model provided by DFI.

Material Unit Weight Cohesion Phi

Name (pcf) (psf)1 (°)

Residual 125 0 32

PWR 135 250 34

Rock 135 2000 0

Table 1. Material properties provided by DFI

Based on previous analyses, it was assumed that no preferential slip planes or other kinematically unstable conditions
existed in either the PWR or the rock layer. The rock layer was assumed to be competent despite a low cohesive strength
provided by the DFI. The low cohesion reported appears to be in error, and previous analyses also assumed the rock to be
competent by focusing the slip surface search outside of this material.

2.2 Support Properties

Table 2 below presents the support properties of the model provided by DFI.

Bond Strength in Bond Strength Bond Strength

Diameter Yield Load
Support Type Residual Layer in PWR in Rock
(in) (kip)
(psi) (psi) (psi)2

#8 Soil Nail 1.12 47 35

20 25
#11 Soil Nail 1.61 93 n/a

Table 2. Support properties provided by DFI

In the analysis, no shear resistance from the soil nails was assumed. In addition, the borehole diameter was conservatively
assumed to be the same as that of the soil nail diameter. Finally, the bond strength of the rock was assumed to be 35 psi.
The assumptions used in the analysis were consistent with the initial stability analysis provided by DFI.

Geotechnical tools, inspired by you. 3 rocscience.com

 4.0
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Table 3 below presents a summary of the analysis results.

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

Scenario Average
Sta 0–100 Sta 100–160 Sta 160–190 Sta 190–End

No Supports 0.84 0.98 0.84 0.85 0.88

Low Angle Nails (15°) 1.33 1.44 1.20 1.16 1.28

High Angle Nails (53°) 0.92 1.09 1.03 0.99 1.01

Rocscience Redesign (15°) 1.50 1.62 1.53 1.51 1.54

Table 3. Summary of 2D LEM results

The following sections provide details of the results for each scenario. The orange section in each of the figures represents
a safety map for slip surfaces with a Factor of Safety < 1.5.

Section 1 in the table is selected as the representative section discussed below.

4.1: Scenario 1 – No Supports

Figure 2 below presents results from Scenario 1 – No Supports. The figure uses the Safety Map feature to highlight slip
surfaces with a Factor of Safety < 1.5 (orange colour).

The shape of the surfaces tends towards a planar shape due to the lower cohesive strength of the material relative to the
frictional strength. In order for a soil nail to be effective, it must extend past the slip surface from the slope face.

Figure 2. Scenario 1, Section 1

Geotechnical tools, inspired by you. 4 rocscience.com

 4.2: Scenario 2 – Low-Angle Soil Nails (15°)

Figure 3 below presents results from Scenario 2 – Low Angle Nails. The nails have a vertical spacing of 5 feet and a horizon-
tal spacing of 6 feet, and are dipping 15 degrees.

Figure 3: Scenario 2, Section 1

4.3: Scenario 3 – High-Angle Soil Nails (53°)

Figure 4 below presents results from Scenario 3 – High-Angle Nails (53°). The nails have a vertical spacing of 5 feet and are
dipping 53 degrees.

We can see in the results that the use of high-angle soil nails results in an increase in embedment length, which in turn
increases the capacity for the supports to develop more resisting force in the direction in which it is oriented. However, it
also creates a destabilizing moment around the centre of rotation of the sliding mass due to the vertical component of the
support force. This in turn results in a Factor of Safety that is lower than that with shallower nails.

Figure 4: Scenario 3, Section 1

Geotechnical tools, inspired by you. 5 rocscience.com

 4.4: Scenario 4 – Rocscience Redesign (15°)

Figure 5 below presents results from Scenario 4 – Rocscience Redesign (15°). The nails have a vertical spacing of 5 feet and
a horizontal spacing of 6 feet, and are dipping 15 degrees. All slips surfaces have been improved through the use of larger
soil nails, with a target Factor of Safety > 1.5.

The shape of the surfaces tends towards a planar shape due to the lower cohesive strength of the material relative to the
frictional strength. The critical sliding surface has been pushed deeper into the slope through the use of larger soil nails.

Figure 5: Scenario 4, Section 1

5.0 6.0
COMMENTS ON RESULTS UPCOMING ARTICLES
For all analyses, it is very important to understand how pro- This article is the first in a series of three presenting re-
gram settings affect results. For example, there might be an sults from a slope stability analysis of a soil nail retaining
option to filter out slip surfaces deemed invalid from search wall. The second article, as mentioned in the comments
results. Or, other settings can result in slip surfaces that above, will discuss the role and importance of error codes
cannot be computed, usually due to geometric problems. in Slide2 analyses such as this one. The third article in
Most analyses generate some of these types of surfaces, the series will discuss analysis of the models with the 3D
and it is up to the user to ensure they understand why they LEM using Rocscience’s Slide3 in order to evaluate the
are generated. significance of 3D effects. Look for these future articles on
LinkedIn and our website. ■
In Slide2, such surfaces are grouped and referenced
through the use of error codes. For example, the analysis
of Scenario 3 – High-Angled Nails generated an error code
for the presence of a large number of surfaces that did not
converge. If these had not been recognized and resolved by
the program, the wrong solution would have been provided
as the most critical case. A detailed discussion of the role
and importance of error codes in Slide2 analyses will be
provided in a future article.

Geotechnical tools, inspired by you. 6 rocscience.com