Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng.

(2015) 1:2
DOI 10.1007/s40891-014-0002-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

In-Situ Stabilization of Soil Slopes Using Nailed or Anchored

Geosynthetics
Robert M. Koerner

Received: 21 October 2014 / Accepted: 24 October 2014 / Published online: 11 December 2014
 Springer International Publishing AG 2014

Abstract The incidence of soil slope instability is, and events attest. The typical agents leading to landslides are
has been, a natural hazard of major proportions and is gravity, seismic, explosives, mass effects and many dif-
ongoing to this day. While stabilization can be afforded by ferent sources of water, Terzaghi [3]. The above said, the
excavation and reconstruction, oftentimes structures and typical soil slopes being addressed herein can be consid-
utilities are involved requiring in situ stabilization meth- ered as ‘‘shallow and/or localized slope instabilities’’. They
ods. This paper is focused accordingly. The method uses are extremely common and generally of great interest
soil nails or soil anchors connected to a geosynthetic sur- certainly to the parties directly involved, see Fig. 1 for
face covering which is tensioned thereby stabilizing the examples in this regard.
encapsulated soil and providing tensile reinforcement. The Indeed, there are many geotechnical engineering meth-
paper is subdivided as follows: (i) introduction and theo- ods available to analyze such slopes wherein the trajectory
retical background, (ii) required theoretical modifications, of the potential failure plane is of major importance. If it is
(iii) basics of soil nailing and anchors along with surface rotational (circular) a simplified Bishop method (SBM) is
geosynthetics effects, (iv) implementation of the technique, commonly used and if it is translational (polygonal) the
(v) current activities by manufacturers, suppliers and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) wedge method is
ground modification companies, and (vi) summary and commonly used. The SBM is expressed as follows, Bishop
conclusions. [5] and Lambe and Whitman [6]. Note that the factor-of-
safety (FS) is not an explicit expression and thus the
Keywords Landslides  In-situ slope stabilization  equation must be solved iteratively requiring the use of a
Geosynthetics  Soil nails  Ground anchors  Soil computer code, of which there are many.
reinforcement
Xn
cli þ ðWi  li li cos hi Þ tan / sec hi
FS ¼   ð1Þ
i¼1 ðWi sin hi Þ 1 þ tan /FStan hi
Introduction and Theoretical Background
where FS is the factor-of-safety of the slope, / is the
Of the various types of ground failure hazards, landslides friction angle of soil, c is the cohesion of soil, li is the
are at, or near the top, of such lists. The NRC [1] estimates length of ith slice, li is the pore water pressure at ith slice,
25–50 lives lost in America each year and the USGS [2] hi is the orientation of ith slice, and Wi is the weight of ith
estimates the annual economic loss at $2–5 B. Worldwide, slice.
the situation is likely to be much greater as regular news The COE method consists of utilizing force polygons of
active, passive and sometime neutral block wedges, and
searching for equilibrium of the soil masses within the
potential failure planes. Numerically, the situation can be
R. M. Koerner (&) configured into the quadratic equation as follows which can
Geosynthetic Institute, 475 Kedron Avenue,
Folsom, PA 19033, USA be easily adapted using a spread sheet analysis, Koerner
e-mail: [email protected] and Soong [7].

123
2 Page 2 of 9 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2

Both of these two numerical methods will be reconfig-

ured in light of stabilization methodology to be developed
in this paper.

Required Theoretical Modifications

A key feature of this particular stabilization method is to

use a ground surface geosynthetic material so as to modify
the encapsulated in situ soil’s shear strength via compac-
tion and/or consolidation. Of course, dry or partially satu-
rated soils will compact if appropriately stressed, and
saturated or nearly saturated soils will consolidate with
both situations leading to increased friction (/) and/or
cohesion (c) values. The / and c values (using either total
or effective stresses) in the previous equations will thereby
increase leading to commensurate increases in the FS-value
of the slope.

Soil Nailing and Surface Geosynthetic Effects

The concept of this in situ stabilization method is shown in

Fig. 2 wherein the original focus was on soil nails and the
surface geosynthetic. Each item will be described sepa-
rately along with the more recent ground anchors and the
subsequent system that is created. Numeric examples using
both the SBM and COE methods insofar as increasing FS-
values will also be given.

Soil Nailing

Soil nailing was developed in the 1970s by many con-

Fig. 1 Shallow and/or localized soil slope failures to be addressed in tractors in North America and Europe to provide temporary
this paper. a Typical shallow soil slope landslide (from Wikipedia). support systems for construction of underground excava-
b Possible complex sliding surfaces ref. Keller [4] tions, FHWA [9]. Using steel nails of 12–25 mm diameter,
they are driven into the soil beyond the potential failure
AðFSÞ2 þBðFSÞ þ C ¼ 0 ð2Þ plane and resist pullout by their circumferential friction.
The ground surface is usually covered with reinforced
where
shotcrete with a lock-off plate and nut embedded in the
A ¼ðWA  NA cos bÞ cos b; shotcrete layers along with its welded wire cage or mesh.
B ¼  ½ðWA  NA cos bÞsin b tan /; The nails are installed by impact driving, jetting, explo-
sives or compressed air. They can also be screwed into the
þ ðNA tan / þ cÞ sinb cos b
soil. While the technique was developed by ground mod-
þ sin bðc þ WP tan /Þ ification contractors (and included several now-elapsed
C ¼ðNA tan / þ cÞ sin2 b tan /: patents), the theoretical basis was provided by Shen et al.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi [10, 11]. The technique is shown in Fig. 3a, b. Hausmann
B þ B2  4AC
FS ¼ solution [12] extended their work so as to envision that the nails
2A would bend as the shear plane was mobilized, thereby
FS is the factor-of-safety of the slope, WA is the weight of providing a shear force and resisting moments as shown in
active wedge, Wp is the weight of passive wedge, b is the Fig. 3c, d. That said, the latter mechanism probably only
slope angle with horizontal, NA W sin b, / is the friction functions for small diameter non-grouted nails as used
angle of soil, and c is the cohesion of soil. herein.

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2 Page 3 of 9 2

Fig. 2 Concept of nailed

geosynthetic covering system,
Koerner [8]. a General
configuration of complete
system. b Free-body diagram of
netting. c Free-body diagram of
anchor. d Free-body diagram of
contained soil

depth, the steel rod is pulled out of the ground leaving the
anchor and its attached cable leading to the surface. The
cable is then tensioned at the ground surface thereby
rotating the anchor 90 so as to have its maximum surface
area bearing against the soil at the desired depth. As the
cable is tensioned from the ground surface, the soil’s
resistance at depth is being engaged in a gradually
increasing passive earth pressure state. The limit is when
the soil reaches its full passive equilibrium state. At this
point the soil has entered a failure state which is not
desirable. The process is nicely shown in Fig. 4b. These
anchors are available in many variations (Duckbill, Plati-
pus, Manta Ray, Batwing, Stingray, etc.) and are fully
illustrated and described on the internet. They are regularly
used for all types of walls and slopes (both new and
remediation), as well as for stabilizing utility poles, sign-
age, trees, etc. It should be noted that high capacity
structural foundation anchors are not necessary since their
anchorage resistance is far greater than can be mobilized at
the ground surface by geosynthetics and their connections.
Fig. 3 Traditional soil nailing (mod. from Hausmann [12]).
a Schematic diagram of nailed wall. b Tensile pullout behavior. Surface Geosynthetic Covering
c Additional stabilizing force. d Development of passive resistance

The entire ground surface must be covered with an

Ground Anchors appropriate geosynthetic or other suitable flexible mate-
rial. Flexibility is critical and hard surfaces like shotcrete
More recently introduced are low capacity ground anchors are not acceptable. Even further, the surface geosynthetic
which are well suited for the type of in situ slope stabil- must be made to accommodate the nails (or anchors)
ization envisioned herein, see Fig. 4a. They consist of a which protrude through them and then suitably attached.
collapsed anchor with a steel cable pushed or driven into There are many types of ‘‘lock-off’’ assemblies available
the soil by a temporarily attached steel rod. At the desired in this regard. Once the surface geosynthetic is attached to

123
2 Page 4 of 9 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2

Fig. 4 Installation of low capacity ground anchors and their behavior while being stressed (ref. Platipus-ARGS [13]). a The three steps to the
installation of an anchor system. b Typical anchor behavior in field and laboratory

the nails or anchors they are driven further so as to tension their strength capabilities are concerned. As will be seen
the geosynthetic and fully engage the encapsulated soil later, current methods use geogrids, erosion control
thereby compacting or consolidating it for strength materials, composite geosynthetics and even welded wire
enhancement; recall Fig. 2d in this regard. These attach- mesh on the soil’s surface.
ment locations are the highest stressed regions of the
systems as indicated in the laboratory testing of a knit Numeric Examples Showing System Benefits
geotextile shown in Fig. 5. It is important to recognize
that the nails (or anchors), their surface covering attach- Two numeric examples of the method follow; one for
ments, and their spacing are a ‘‘system’’ and are most rotational failure surfaces and one for translational
economical when they are a matched system insofar as surfaces.

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2 Page 5 of 9 2

Fig. 5 Laboratory testing of specially designed knit geotextile [14]

Rotational Failures Using Simplified Bishop Method nails and stressed surface netting (three of the bold terms in
(SBM) Eq. 3) results in Fig. 6a, b and c where the FS-value is
steadily increasing by the action of each term. The cumu-
The SBM given as Eq. 1 is adjusted and modified (see bold lative effect of all three factors is given in Fig. 6d. Note
terms) for nailed geosynthetics as follows: that there is no assumed increase in the shear strength
Xn parameters, / and c, which would further increase the
FS ¼ ð1 þ f Þ factor-of-safety.
i¼1
cm li þ ðwi þ Fi cos bi  li li cos hi Þ tan /m sec hi
h i
½wi sin hi  ðFi di =RÞ 1 þ ð1þf Þ tanFS/m tan hi Translational Failures Using Corps of Engineers (COE)
Method
ð3Þ
where the following are adjusted and modified terms: / is In a parallel manner as with the SBM, the COE method can
the friction angle of soil, /m is the modified friction angle be reconfigured for nailed geosynthetics by adding a tensile
(where /m C /), c is the cohesion of soil, cm is the force (T) to account for the nails as well as an increase in
modified cohesion (cm C c), (11f) is the contribution of shear strength parameters, / and c. Equation 4 illustrates
the anchors (nails) penetrating the failure plane toward these modifications where the bold variables can be
stability, (Fi cos bi) is the contribution of the stressed adjusted accordingly.
geosynthetic at the bottom of the slice (where equilibrium
equations are taken) to stability, (Fidi/R) is the moment due AðFSÞ2 þBðFSÞ þ C ¼ 0 ð4Þ
to the pressure of the stressed geosynthetic at the ground where
surface, Fi is the force on ith slice at its base, bi is the angle
of ith slide with horizontal, di is the arc length of ith slide, A ¼ðW A  N A cos b  TsinbÞ cos b;
and R is the radius of potential failure arc. B ¼  ½ðW A  N A cos b  TsinbÞsin b tan /m
Using this equation for the following conditions; slope þ ðN A tan / þ cm Þ sinb cos b
angle = 55, slope height = 7.6 m, soil unit weight = þ sin bðcm þ W P tan /m Þ
16.8 kN/m3, / = 20, c = 9.5 kN/m2 without a nailed
geosynthetic, results in FS = 0.967. The influence of the C ¼ðN A tan / þ cm Þ sin2 b tan /m :

123
2 Page 6 of 9 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2

Fig. 6 Parametric study of

factors influencing soil slope
stability using nailed
geosynthetics [14]. a Effect of
rods (1 ? f)/R term on factor of
safety. b Effect of F (cos) term
on
P factor of safety. c Effect of
(Fd)/R term on factor of
safety. d Cumulative effect of
all actions except increased /
and c of the encapsulated soil
mass

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi • Vegetate the slope as desired.

B þ B2  4AC • Revisit the site for redriving nails as necessary.
FS ¼
2A
Two sites were stabilized using the technique.
Using these equations for the following conditions
without nailed geosynthetics, slope angle = 55, slope • Upper Merion, Pennsylvania slope in an active failure
height = 7.6 m, soil unit weight = 16.8 kN/m2, / = 20, state was successfully stabilized in 1986 and has
and c = 9.5 kN/m2, results in FS = 0.95. With nailed geo- apparently remained stable to date as shown in Fig. 7.
synthetics and slope angle = 55, slope height = 7.6 m, • Gibbsboro, New Jersey steep slope of *45 which was
soil unit weight = 16.8 kN/m2, / = 23, c = 11 kN/m2 not successful since the concave grading of the soil was
and T = 25 kN/m, the selection results in FS = 1.24; i.e., a not possible hence the contact of the geotextile was
30 % increase in factory-of-safety. inadequate.

Implementation of Nailed Geosynthetics Current Activity by Industry

The original development of nailed geosynthetics (in this In 1986 the author took out a patent for ‘‘Anchored Spider
case the knit geotextile shown in Fig. 5) was implemented Netting’’ of precisely the type of system described thus far
using the following field procedure: in this paper. Other than some collaborating research at the
University of Michigan, Ghiassian et al. [15] there was
• Rough grade the slope by removing low areas prefer-
absolutely no interest in the technique to the author’s
ably having a slightly mounded (upward concave)
knowledge. This ‘‘silence’’ lasted for the 17-years of the
ground surface.
patent’s viability and even 5-years beyond. Then in ca.
• Unroll the geosynthetic from top of slope.
2008, a plethora of similar methods emerged with clever
• Fix the geosynthetic at top and edges using long nails or
variations until presently at least ten-organizations (man-
U-shaped pins.
ufacturers, suppliers, and contractors) have ongoing activ-
• Position nails down and across slope using sledge
ities. The significant variations from the method described
hammer.
are felt to be the following:
• Return and drive nails by impact hammer (or other), to
intersect the failure plane and beyond as far as possible. • Different methods of advancing soil nails.
• Fix the washer or lock-off assembly to the top of the • Use of cabled anchors instead of soil nails.
nails. • Use of several different geosynthetics instead of knit
• Continue driving thereby stressing the geosynthetic geotextiles.
covering into the soil and in so doing compact and/or • Steel wire mesh is also being used.
consolidation the encapsulated soil. • Attachment to the surface covering has been enhanced.
• Proceed down and across slope. • A focus on erosion control has been added.

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2 Page 7 of 9 2

Fig. 7 Field deployment on

silty clay slope which was in an
unstable state

123
2 Page 8 of 9 Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2

Table 1 Commercially available (2014) in-situ soil slope stabilization methods

No. Manufacturer System Surface covering Reinforcement Densification Erosion
control
Nails Anchors

5.1 Bonar (Colbond) Enkamat R45-with PDEA’s Geogrid/TRM Yes Yes Yes
5.2 GeoBrugg Tecco system–three Steel mesh Yes Yes Yes
5.3 Huesker Huesker Geogrid Yes Yes Yes
5.4 LiteEarth LiteEarth system Artificial grass Yes No Yes
5.5 Maccaferri Terramesh Steel mesh Yes Yes Yes
5.6 Naue m3 Secugrid system Geogrid Yes Yes Yes
5.7 Platipus ARGS Geogrid Yes Yes Yes
5.8 Profile Futerra Geogrid/TRM Yes No Yes
5.9 Propex Armormax ARVS Geogrid/TRM Yes Yes Yes
5.10 Watershed VersaCapTM Geomembrane/TRM No No Yes
5.11 Others (?)
TRM turf reinforcement mat

• Activity appears to be strong and growing. effects afforded by soil nails and to a related extent by
cabled soil anchors. These adaptations were made and
Table 1 gives an overview of this activity and it should
illustrated by numeric examples for both the simplified
be noted that all of these manufacturers, suppliers and
Bishop method and the COE wedge method.
contractors have websites describing their particular
We hope that going forward the method will gain even
approach to the method. The level of their individual
further acceptance for the worthwhile application of pro-
success is unknown but it is sufficient to sustain interest
viding low cost in situ soil slope stabilization.
and marketing activities.
Acknowledgments This paper is made available through financial
assistance of the members, Affiliated Members and Associate Mem-
Summary and Conclusions bers of the Geosynthetic Institute (GSI). We sincerely thank them in
this regard. See our website at www.geosynthetic-institute.org for
their identification and contact persons.
The described technique of nailed (or anchored) geosyn-
thetics for in situ stabilization of quasi-stable or even
failing soil slopes has been described and illustrated in this
paper. Its focus is on relatively small and localized soil References
slopes which can be remediated in a low-cost manner. The
method itself falls into the category of ‘‘ground modifica- 1. National Research Council (1995) Estimated losses and research
tion’’, aka soil nails or soil anchors, with the addition of a funding of selected ground failure hazards in the United States.
surface geosynthetic or other flexible covering. As such, National Academy Press, Washington
2. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (2010) (on world wide
the mechanisms provided are the following: web)
3. Terzaghi K (1950) Mechanisms of landslides, engineering geol-
• Reinforcement.
ogy (Berkley). Geological Society of America, Boulder,
• Densification and/or consolidation. pp 83–123
• Erosion control. 4. Keller R (2000) Unpublished Memorandum on State and Local
Procurement of Recycled Products, Northeast Maryland Waste
Paradoxically, after 22-years since the original method Disposal Authority, February 19
was developed with no activity, current activity is quite 5. Bishop AW (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability
strong with at least ten manufacturers/suppliers/contractors analysis of slopes. Geotechnique 5:7–17
6. Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1969) Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York
providing a close variation of the original method. 7. Koerner RM, Soong T-Y (2005) Analysis and design of veneer
It is important to recognize that rather than being a cover soils. Geosynth Int 12(1):28–49
purely empirical method, in situ slope stabilization has a 8. Koerner RM (1984) In-Situ soil stabilization using anchored nets.
formalized and well accepted theoretical background. It In: Proceedings of the low cost and energy saving construction
materials, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July, pp 465–478
has been used and modified accordingly in this paper. 9. Federal Highway Administration (1998), Manual for design and
Other than increasing surface effects on the encapsulated construction monitoring of soil nail walls FHWA-SA-96-969R,
soil mass’s shear strength parameters, there are positive U. S. DOT, p 92

123
Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. (2015) 1:2 Page 9 of 9 2

10. Shen CK, Bang S, Herrman LR (1981) Ground movement ana- 13. Platipus-Anchors, Platipus Earth Anchoring Systems (on world
lysis of earth support system. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE wide web) (current)
107(GT12):1609–1624 14. Koerner RM, Robins JC (1986) In-situ stabilization of soil slopes
11. Shen CK et al (1981) Field measurements of an earth support using nailed geosynthetics. In: Proceedings 3 ICG, Vienna,
system. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 107(GT12):1625–1637 Austria, pp 395–400
12. Hausmann MR (1990) Engineering principles of ground 15. Ghiassian H, Hryciw RD, Gray DN (1996) Laboratory testing
modification. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, NY, apparatus for slopes stabilization by anchored geosynthetics.
p 632 Geotech Test J GTJODJ ASCE 19(1):65–73

123