Kaothon et al.

Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-021-00159-y

ORIGINAL RESEARCH Open Access

Numerical evaluation on steep soil‑nailed

slope using finite element method
Panyabot Kaothon, Kean Thai Chhun and Chan‑Young Yune*

*Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract
Department of Civil In conventional design of soil-nailed slope, the nail parameters such as nail spacing
Engineering, Gangneung-
Wonju National University, (1–2 m), and nail inclination (10º–20º) have been recommended without considering
Gangneung‑si, Gangwon‑do any specific slope angle. Henceforth, this paper presents a numerical evaluation on
25457, Republic of Korea the soil-nailed slope with flexible facing based on the finite element method in order
to investigate the range of those two parameters with any size of nail head in vari‑
ous slope angles (45º, 55º, 65º, and 75º). Based on a minimum factor of safety (FSmin
= 1.5), the analysis results indicated that the suggested range of those parameters in
the conventional specification was applicable in the slope angle of 45º and 55º with
any sizes of nail head. Nevertheless, it was not practical for slope angle of 65º and 75º,
which required the size of nail head at least 400 × 400 × 250 mm, with nail spacing
less than or equal to 1.5 m, and nail inclination from 5º to 10º.
Keywords: Nail spacing, Nail inclination, Nail head, Slope angle, Global factor of safety,
Finite element method

Introduction
Soil nailing is a slope stabilizing technique that is commonly used to reinforce in-situ
ground by interacting with soil. The slope stabilization using nails is achieved by insert-
ing reinforcing bars in the soil, which is then grouted, fixed soundly to the ground
for their entire length and finally a flexible or rigid facing is installed. The influencing
parameters for soil nails on slope stability consist of (1) the type of soil, (2) slope inclina-
tion, (3) nail inclination, (4) nail length, (5) horizontal nail spacing, (6) vertical nail spac-
ing, (7) nail diameter, and (8) nail head size. In previous studies about soil nails, many
researchers have used various methods to study the effectiveness of soil nail on slope
stability. Particularly, limit equilibrium method (LEM), finite element method (FEM),
and finite different method (FDM) are the common techniques to analyze slope stability.
LEM is currently the typical stability analysis and still has been used widely in recent
research [8, 11, 13, 20, 25]. The result from those studies showed that the factor of safety
initially increased with the increase of nail inclination until reaching the optimum incli-
nation angle and then steadily decreased. Also, the position of nails can influence the
stability of a soil-nailed slope.

© The Author(s), 2021. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate‑
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​
creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 2 of 12

Finite element or difference analysis is more rigorous numerical simulation based on

stress–strain relation of a ground. For the analysis of slope stability with soil nails, the
shear strength reduction method can be adopted in FEM to estimate the factor of safety.
The numerical analysis for soil nail structure by using FEM or FDM has been studied
by numerous researchers [7, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26]. These studies reported that increas-
ing nail inclination could decrease the maximum tensile force in each nail, and the nail
head could prevent local failure between nails. Moreover, the increased horizontal spac-
ing caused increased horizontal deflection and vertical settlement. On the contrary,
horizontal deflection and vertical settlement can be decreased with the increase of nail
length.
Most of the previous research have focused on the individual effect of soil nail param-
eters in the range of the design specification and only the possible range of nail spacing,
and nail inclination were suggested for the construction work without considering any
specific slope angles [3, 4, 18]. The combined effect between nail head size and other nail
parameters, however, hasn’t been studied much. Thus, the objective of this paper was
to evaluate the soil-nailed slope with flexible facing in the outer range of design speci-
fication based on the finite element method. The variation of slope inclination (α), nail
inclination (β), horizontal spacing (Sh), vertical spacing (Sv), and nail head size (nh) were
examined in this study and the slope stability was analyzed with the minimum safety fac-
tor in reinforced slope conditions. The outcome of this study offers useful information
for securing the global stability of the steep soil-nailed slope.

Conventional specification
Slope geometry
For flexible facing systems, the soil-nailed structure was recommended to be applied on
a slope steeper than 45º with various cohesive soils [1], 68º with Mercia mudstone group,
and firm to stiff sandy clay [14]. Also, for the steeper slope about 70º, it was applicable
when the soil type is silty clay and clayey sand [17].

Nail parameters
The soil nails are typically installed at slopes with an angle of 10º–20º to allow the grout
flow from the top to the bottom of the drill hole. Additionally, nail angles less than 10°
was not recommended to protect the grout flowing out and an extended “bird’s beak” at
nail head [4].
Nail spacing has two directions (Sh and Sv). Sh is generally decided as the same as Sv
(square pattern of nails) in the design stage. Phear et al. [18] indicated that the interval
of nails from 1 to 2 m should be considered. In addition, Carlos et al. [4] suggested that
the first and the bottom row of nails should be installed with approximately 0.6–1.06 m
spacing from the top of a slope and 0.6–0.9 m above the base of a slope (Fig. 1). These
demands are the consequence of the limited ability of nail head to work as a cantilever.
To analyze the slope stability with soil nails, the preliminary design for the length of
soil nail is necessary. It can be calculated in the range of 0.8–1.2 H, where H is the height
of the slope [9]. For the preliminary design, a reinforcing bar with the diameter of 32 mm
should be adopted as a first step and can be reduced to 10 mm as necessary [2]. And the
diameter of drill hole should be at least 125 mm [6].
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 3 of 12

Fig. 1 Soil nail pattern on slope face (square pattern of nails)

Fig. 2 Typical soil nail head detail (after CEDD drawing No. C2106/2D)

The size of nail head is also another influential component in the soil nail design. There
are several design approaches on soil nail head in various countries, and most engineers
indicated that nail heads could enhance the internal stability or the external stability of
a nailed structure. Hong Kong and UK suggested the design criteria for the size of a nail
head size with flexible facing. Those criterion gives three different nail head sizes: 400 ×
400 × 250 mm, 600 × 600 × 250 mm, and 800 × 800 × 250 mm [10]. The detail of
soil nail head is presented in Fig. 2.

Modeling
For the simulation of slopes reinforced with nails, finite element analysis in plane
strain for various slope angles (45º, 55º, 65º, and 75º) was conducted using Plaxis 2D.
Soil nails and nail heads were simulated as the geogrid and plate elements, respectively.
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 4 of 12

In numerical modeling, the shape of both geogrid and plate structural elements is rec-
tangular with a width equal to 1 m in the perpendicular plane direction. Since the soil
nail has a circular shape in cross-sectional area and nail heads are discrete square plates
placed at designed horizontal spacing, it is required to determine equivalent axial and
bending stiffness as circular for soil nails and square size for nail heads [19].
A reinforcing bar (soil nail) with the diameter (d) and modulus of elasticity (En) is
placed in the drilled hole filled with cement grout which has a diameter DDH and a
modulus of elasticity Eg. Based on these parameters, the equivalent modulus of elas-
ticity Eeq expressed by Babu et al. [24] in Eq. (1) was adopted.
   
An Ag
Eeq = En + Eg (1)
A A

where An is the cross-sectional area of reinforcement bar; A is the total cross-sectional

area of grout and soil nail; Ag is the cross-sectional area of cement grout.
The equivalent axial and bending stiffness are presented in Eqs. (2–4).
For soil nail
 
Eeq π DDH2
EA = (2)
Sh 4

For nail-head

E
EA = t.nh (3)
Sh

E
EI = t.n3 (4)
12Sh h

where nh is the size of a square nail head; t is the thickness of the nail head.
The equivalent plate diameter of nail is calculated using the formulation:
  
EI
d = 12 (5)
EA

Typical clayey sand was assumed as the soil-nailed slope and modelled as Mohr–Cou-
lomb material, while nails and related structural elements are simulated as elastic mate-
rials [19, 23, 24]. This is due to the high ultimate bonding strength between steel and
cement grout [12, 15] also, the possibility of yielding is fairly low [27]. The dimensions
of the model are also presented in Table 1. The horizontal and vertical displacements
are fixed as zero at the bottom boundary and free at the top. The bottom boundaries
were considered as drained (phreatic line). The input parameters of soil nail and in-situ
soil for the modeling of slope are summarized in Tables 2, 3. A finer mesh is generated
around soil nails for achieving accurate results and the surcharge of 5 kN/m2 is also
applied to the crest of the slope. The flexible facing is chosen for modeling in which the
nail head is individually connected to each nail. The finite element mesh for the model-
ling of the reinforced slope with nails is represented in Fig. 3.
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 5 of 12

Table 1 Slope geometry

Description Value

Vertical height of slope, H (m) 10

Length of crest slope, b (m) 9
Height of ground soil, h (m) 5
Length of ground soil, L (m) 26
Slope angle, α (°) 45, 55, 65, 75

Table 2 In-situ soil parameters

Parameter Value
2
Cohesion, c’ (kN/m ) 4
Internal friction angle, φ (o) 31.5
Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 17
Elasticity modulus, Es (kN/m2) 20
Poison’s ratio, νs 0.30

Table 3 Soil nail parameters

Description Value Design limitation

Yield strength of reinforcement, fy (N/mm2) 415 400–600

Elasticity modulus of reinforcement, En (GPa) 2,00,000 –
Elasticity modulus of grout (concrete), Eg (GPa) 22,000 –
Diameter of reinforcement, d (mm) 25 10–32
Drill hole diameter, DDH (mm) 150 ≥ 125
Length of nail, ln (m) 8 0.8–1.2 H
Nail inclination, β (°) 0–25 10 to 20
Nail horizontal spacing, Sh (m) 1–3 1–2
Nail vertical spacing, Sv (m) 1–3 1–2
Nail head, nh (m) 400–800 400–800
Facing thickness, t (mm) 250 250

The factor of safety in analysis of numerical simulation can be achieved by reducing

the strength parameters of the soil. This method is called Phi-c reduction or strength
reduction technique. In this approach, it allows finding the factor of safety of a slope by
initiating a systematic reduction sequence for the available shear strength parameters c′
and φ′ just cause the slope to fail. The reduction values of shear strength parameters cf ′
and φ f′ are defined as:

c′
cf′ = (6)
SRF

tan φ ′
 
φf′ = tan−1 (7)
SRF
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 6 of 12

Fig. 3 Finite element mesh for numerical modeling of the soil-nailed slope

Table 4 The variation range of soil nail parameters

α (º) β (º) Sh = Sv (m) nh (m)

45, 55, 65, 75 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 Without nail head, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8

in which the SRF is the strength reduction factor. The factor of safety of the slope, FS,
is the value of SRF to bring the slope to failure.

Numerical analysis results and discussion

Sensitive analysis for five different slope and soil nail parameters was carried out. Con-
sidered variables in this analysis were slope inclination (α), nail spacing (NS = Sv = Sh),
nail inclination (β), and nail head size (nh) are summarized in Table 4. Since each slope
angle had 120 models based on the number of each variation of parameters then 480
simulations were conducted in total. In this study, 1.5 of minimum factor of safety (FSmin
= 1.5) was chosen for the verification in the reinforced slope by soil nail [10]. And then
the result of soil nailed slope stability with flexible facing systems was presented in terms
of a combination of soil nail parameters.

Effect of nail spacing

To study the effect of nail spacing (NS) on the FS of the soil-nailed slope, the nail
spacing in the range 1–3 m were investigated with fixed value of nail inclination (β
= 10º) without nail head. Figure 4 indicates the relationship between FS and nail
spacing in various slope angles (45º, 55º, 65º, and 75º). From this figure, it is noted
that FS was significantly affected by both nail spacing and slope angle. This is due
to the wider nail spacing could reduce number of nails which resulting in increased
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 7 of 12

2.00
Slope 45º Slope 55º
1.75 Slope 65º Slope 75º

1.50

1.25
Factor of safety

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Nail Spacing (m)
Fig. 4 The effect of nail spacing on four different slope angles

weight of soil between nails and lead to the increment of shear stress in each nail [5].
Also, local failure can occur on the slope surface [26]. Furthermore, the decreasing
FS was also due to the increase of critical slip failure caused by an increase of slope
angle. By comparing FSmin (Fig. 4), the FS of nail spacing 1–3 m in all slope angles
was lower than 1.5 except nail spacing from 1 to 2.5 m in slope 45º and NS = 1 m
in slope 55º. Particularly, it was proved that the validated range of nail spacing was
decreased by increasing slope angle. As can be seen in steep slopes with inclination
of 65 and 75º, the nail spacing in a range from 1 to 3 m was no longer valid.

Effect of nail inclination

To investigate the effect of nail inclination on the FS, various nail inclinations from
0º to 25º were considered with varying nail spacing (1–3 m) and slope angle (45º–
75º). The effect of nail head was not considered, and the result was illustrated in
Fig. 5. In Fig. 5a, the FS was observed to increase and then decrease with an increase
of nail inclination. However, the FS gradually decreased for slope angle of 55° with
nail spacing of 2, 2.5, and 3 m and for all other cases with slope angle of 65º and 75°
as shown in Fig. 5b–d. This is due to the available bonding length of the nail inserted
behind the slip surface (boundary of passive and active zone). In other words, the
nail orientation could allow the nails perfectly cross the potential slip surface until it
reaches the optimum angle. In Fig. 5a for slopes having 45° of inclination, the opti-
mum nail inclination (βopt) was in a range between 10º and 20° and it was consistent
with the previous studies by Lin et al. [16] and Rotte et al. [20]. In Fig. 5b, however,
the range of βopt was valid only in case of NS = 1 m. In Fig. 5c, d, the FS was lower
than 1.5 in all analysis cases because nail inclination could only provide the internal
stability of slope [14]. It is obvious that the βopt is strongly influenced by the slope
angle and nail spacing.
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 8 of 12

2 2
(a) α = 45°, Without Nail Head (b) α= 55°, Without Nail Head
NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m
1.8 1.8 NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m

Factor of safety
Factor of safety NS=3mx3m Minimum FS
1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m
1.2 1.2
NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m
NS=3mx3m Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)

2 2
(c) α = 65°, Without Nail Head (d) α = 75°, Without Nail Head
1.8 1.8
Factor of safety

Factor of safety
1.6 1.6

1.4 NS=1mx1m
1.4 NS=1mx1m

NS=1.5mx1.5m Minimum FS
1.2 NS=2mx2m 1.2
Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)
Fig. 5 The effect of nail inclination in four different slope angles

2 2
(a) α= 45°, nh=0.4m NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m
NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m
1.8 1.8 NS=3mx3m Minimum FS
(b) α = 55°, nh=0.4m
Factor of safety

Factor of safety

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m 1.2

NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m
NS=3mx3m Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)

2 2
(c) α = 65°, nh = 0.4m (d) α = 75°, nh = 0.4m
1.8 1.8
Factor of safety

Factor of safety

1.6 1.6

NS=1mx1m
1.4 NS=1.5mx1.5m
1.4
NS=1mx1m
NS=2mx2m
NS=1.5mx1.5m
1.2 NS=2.5mx2.5m 1.2
NS=3mx3m NS=2mx2m
Minimum FS Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)
Fig. 6 The effect of nail head size equal to 0.4 m in four different slope angles

Effect of nail head

To evaluate the effect of nail head size on the FS, the various slope angle, nail spacing,
nail inclination, and nail head size (0.4–0.8 m) was examined as presented in Figs. 6–
8. The FS and the βopt was inversely decreased with an increase in the slope angle.
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 9 of 12

2 2
(a) α = 45°, nh = 0.6m (b) α = 55°, nh = 0.6m
1.8 1.8

Factor of safety

Factor of safety
1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m
1.2 1.2 NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m
NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m
NS=3mx3m Minimum FS NS=3mx3m Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)
2 2
(c) α = 65°, nh = 0.6m (d) α = 75°, nh = 0.6m
1.8 1.8

Factor of safety
Factor of safety

1.6 1.6

1.4 NS=1mx1m 1.4 NS=1mx1m

NS=1.5mx1.5m
NS=2mx2m NS=1.5mx1.5m
1.2 NS=2.5mx2.5m 1.2 NS=2mx2m
NS=3mx3m Minimum FS
Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)
Fig. 7 The effect of nail head size equal to 0.6 m in four different slope angles

2 2
(a) α = 45°, nh = 0.8m (b) α = 55°, nh = 0.8m
1.8 1.8
Factor of safety
Factor of safety

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m 1.2 NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m

NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m
NS=3mx3m Minimum FS NS=3mx3m Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)
2 2
(c) α = 65°, nh = 0.8m (d) α = 75°, nh = 0.8m
1.8 1.8
Factor of safety

Factor of safety

1.6 1.6

1.4 NS=1mx1m 1.4 NS=1mx1m

NS=1.5mx1.5m NS=1.5mx1.5m
NS=2mx2m
NS=2mx2m
1.2 NS=2.5mx2.5m 1.2 NS=2.5mx2.5m
NS=3mx3m
Minimum FS
Minimum FS
1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Nail inclination (°) Nail inclination (°)
Fig. 8 The effect of nail head size equal to 0.8 m in four different slope angles

Interestingly, by analyzing with FSmin, the presence of nail head enabled the nail spac-
ing 1 and 1.5 m workable in slope 65 and 75º as shown in Figs. 6c, d; 7c, d; 8c, d which
were unstable without nail head. Also, as can be observed on the overall result, the
flexible facing structure can be safe in a limited conditions at 75° of slope angle.
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 10 of 12

30 30
(a) α = 45° (b) α = 55°
25 25 NS=1mx1m NS=1.5mx1.5m
NS=2mx2m NS=2.5mx2.5m
NS=3mx3m
20 20

βopt (o)
βopt (o)

15 15

10 NS=1mx1m
10
NS=1.5mx1.5m
5 NS=2mx2m 5
NS=2.5mx2.5m
NS=3mx3m
0 0
Without nh 0.4 0.6 0.8 Without nh 0.4 0.6 0.8
nh (m) nh (m)

30 30
(c) α = 65° NS=1mx1m (d) α = 75° NS=1mx1m
25 NS=1.5mx1.5m 25 NS=1.5mx1.5m
NS=2mx2m NS=2mx2m
20 20
NS=2.5mx2.5m NS=2.5mx2.5m
βopt (o)

βopt (o)
15 NS=3mx3m 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
Without nh 0.4 0.6 0.8 Without nh 0.4 0.6 0.8
nh (m) nh (m)
Fig. 9 The effect of nail head size on optimum nail inclination in four different slope angles

Table 5 Validation range of NS and β in various slope angles and nail head sizes
α (º) Without nail head nh = 0.4 m nh = 0.6 m nh = 0.8 m
NS (m) β (º) NS (m) β (º) NS (m) β (º) NS (m) β (º)

45 1–1.5 5–25 1–2.5 5–25 1–2.5 5–25 1–2.5 10–25

2 5–20
2.5 10–20 3 10 3 10–20 3 10–20
3 10
55 1 5–15 1–1.5 5–20 1–1.5 5–20 1–2 10–20
1.5 5 2 5–15
65 – – 1 5–10 1–1.5 5–10 1–1.5 5–10
75 – – 1 5 1 5 1 5–10
1.5 5

The βopt were found to increase with an increase in the nail head size (Fig. 9). It
indicated that the nail head can contribute to the global stability of the slope by work-
ing as a reaction plate which compresses the surface soil of slope (active zone) and
produces tensile force in nail and also can prevent the local failure between nails. This
result was consistent with the previous study by Shiu and Chang [21].
Table 5 shows the validation range of nail spacing (NS) and nail inclination (β) in
various slope angles and nail head sizes based on Figs. 6–8. From this, it is found that
the conventional specification (NS = 1–2 m and β = 10º–20º) is practical in slopes
in angle of 45º and 55º. Whereas, those ranges cannot be applied to slopes in angle of
65º and 75º. Thus, to stabilize those two steep slopes (65º and 75º) with soil nails, nail
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 11 of 12

head should be considered having dimensions at least nh of 0.4 m with nail spacing
less than or equal to 1.5 m, and nail inclination from 5º to 10º.

Conclusions
In this study, the numerical modeling of the soil-nailed slope was conducted using FEM.
Effect of slope angle, nail spacing, nail inclination, and nail head size on the slope stabil-
ity was numerically investigated. Based on these analysis results, the following conclu-
sion can be drawn:

• By increasing the nail spacing (NS), the FS of the soil-nailed slope decreased due to
the large spacing induced the increment weight of soil between nails, and the less
amount of nails results in the external failure of slope. Furthermore, the range of NS
decreased with an increase in slope angle (α). This because of an increase of critical
slip failure in slope.
• The numerical results indicated the optimum nail inclination (βopt) in a range
between 10º and 20° for slope angle of 45º and 55º. Moreover, βopt decreased with an
increase of NS and α because the effect of nail inclination (β) can only enhance the
internal stability of slope.
• In terms of the effect of nail head size (nh), it yielded an increase in βopt. This is due to
the tensile force between the nail and nail head was perfectly confined to the soil in
the active zone and also prevent the local failure on the slope surface.
• The conventional specification of NS and β suggested by Carlos et al. [4] and Phear
et al. [18] was applicable on slope 45º and 55º; however, it was inappropriate for slope
65º and 75º, in which nh is required at least with the size of 0.4 × 0.4 m, NS ≤ 1.5 m,
and 5º ≥ β ≥ 10º.

For the safe design of soil-nailed slope, the above-mentioned parameters need to be
considered and further parametric study will also be needed for the other types of soil.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant (21RITD-C158631-02) from Regional Innovation Technology Development
Program Funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government.

Authors’ contributions
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Received: 5 November 2020 Accepted: 15 June 2021

References
1. Adakani A, Bayat M, Javanmard M (2014) Numerical modeling of soil nail walls considering Mohr Coulomb, harden‑
ing soil and hardening soil with small-strain stiffness effect models. Geomech Eng 6(4):391–401. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
12989/​gae.​2014.6.​4.​391
2. Barley AD, Clayton CRI (1996) Soil nailing case histories and developments. Instit Civil Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​
rs.​19324.​0056
3. BS 8006 (2010) Code of practice for Strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills. British Standards Institution,
London
Kaothon et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:31 Page 12 of 12

4. Carlos AL, Helen R, Jesús EG, Andrew B, Allen C, Ryan B (2015) Soil nail walls—reference manual. Research Report
No. FHWA-NHI-14-007. Department of Transportation Publication Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC
5. Chhun KT, Jang IH, Yune CY (2020) Probabilistic analysis of local instability between soil nails. Proc Civil Eng-Geotech.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​jgeen.​19.​00223
6. DTMR (2017) MRTS03 drainage, retaining structures and protective treatment. Department of Transportation and
Main Roads, Brisbane
7. Fan CC, Luo JH (2008) Numerical study on the optimum layout of soil-nailed slope. Comput Geotech 35(4):585–599.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2007.​09.​002
8. Farzi M, Khodadadi R (2017) The effect of nail inclination angle on improving the performance of nailing system in
vertical excavation. Civil Eng Res J 1(3):56–61. https://​doi.​org/​10.​19080/​CERJ.​2017.​01.​555561
9. FHWA (1993) French National Research Project Clouterre. Research Report No. FHWA-SA-93-026. Department of
Transportation Publication Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC
10. GEO (2008) Guide to soil nail design and construction. Civil engineering and development department, Hong Kong
11. Guler E, Bozkurt CF (2004) The effect of upward nail inclination to the stability of soil nailed structure. Geotech Eng
Transp Proj. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​40744​(154)​218
12. Hong CY, Yin JH, Zhou WH, Pei HF (2012) Analytical study on progressive pullout behavior of a soil nail. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 138(4):500–507. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GT.​1943-​5606.​00006​10
13. Hossain MA, Islam A (2016) Numerical analysis of the effects of soil nail on slope stability. Int J Comput App
141(8):12–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5120/​IJCA2​01690​8816
14. Johnson PE, Card GB, Darley P (2002) Soil nailing for slopes. Research Report No. 537. Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne
15. Kim Y, Lee S, Jeong S, Kim J (2013) The effect of pressure-grouted soil nails on the stability of weathered soil slopes.
Comput Geotech 49:253–263. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2012.​12.​003
16. Lin H, Xiong W, Cao P (2013) Stability of soil nailed slope using strength reduction method. Eur J Environ Civil Eng
17(9):872–885. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19648​189.​2013.​828658
17. Pedley MJ, Pugh RS (1995) Soil nailing in the Hastings Beds. Eng Geol Con. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1144/​GSL.​ENG.​1995.​
010.​01.​32
18. Phear A, Dew C, Ozsoy B, Wharmby NJ, Judge J, Barley AD (2005) Soil nailing—best practice guidance. Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, London
19. Rawat S, Gupta AK (2016) Analysis of a nailed soil slope using limit equilibrium and finite element methods. Int J
Geosy Ground Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40891-​016-​0076-0
20. Rotte VM, Viswanadham BVS, Chourasia D (2011) Influence of slope geometry and nail parameters on the stability of
soil-nailed slopes. Int J of Geotech Eng 5(3):267–281. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3328/​IJGE.​2011.​05.​03.​267-​281
21. Shiu YK, Chang GWK (2004) Soil nail head review. Geo Report No. 175. Civil Eng and Development Department,
Hong Kong
22. Shiu YK, Chang GWK (2005) Effects of inclination, length pattern and bending stiffness of soil nails on behavior of
nailed structures. Geo Report No. 197. Civil Eng and Development Department, Hong Kong
23. Sivakumar Babu GL, Singh VP (2010) Reliability analyses of a prototype soil nail wall using regression models.
Geomech Eng 2(2):71–88. https://​doi.​org/​10.​12989/​gae.​2010.2.​2.​071
24. Sivakumar Babu GL, Singh VP (2009) Simulation of soil nail structures using PLAXIS 2D. Plaxis Bull 25(3):16–21
25. Tang OL, Jiang QM (2015) Stability analysis of slope under different soil nailing parameters based on the GeoStudio.
Int J Geohaz Environ 1(2):88–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15273/​ijge.​2015.​02.​010
26. Zhang M, Song E, Chen Z (1999) Ground movement analysis of soil nailing construction by three-dimensional (3-D)
finite element modelling (FEM). Comput Geotech 25(4):191–204. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0266-​352X(99)​00025-7
27. Zhou YD, Cheuk CY, Tham LG (2009) Numerical modeling of soil nails in loose fill slope under surcharge loading.
Comput Geotech 36(5):837–850. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2009.​01.​010

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.