Investigation of Slope Failures in Soil

Mechanics
Hamed Niroumand1, Khairul Anuar Kassim1, Amin Ghafooripour2,
Ramli Nazir1, Sayyed Yaghoub Zolfeghari Far1
1

Department of geotechnical engineering, Faculty of civil engineering, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, E-mail: niroumandh@gmail.com
2
Department of Structural Engineering & Vibrations, School of the Built
Environment, Heriot Watt University, Dubai, UAE

ABSTRACT
Slope failures are disasters that happen all around the world. Occurrence of slope failures depends
on number of factors. To safeguard the safety of the public from slope failure hazards, proper
geotechnical input by the engineers with geotechnical experience is very important. The
geotechnical input includes four important stages namely, planning, design, construction and
maintenance. Whenever failures occur, engineers are responsible to the problems. The paper
observed the assessment of slope failures.

KEYWORDS:

Failure, Slope, Failure mechanism, Slope stabilization

INTRODUCTION
In Malaysia, the construction of residential buildings on hill-site has increased tremendously due
to lack of suitable flat land and other factors like beautiful scenery, fresh air, exclusiveness, etc.
However, the collapse of Block 1 of Highland Towers on 11th December 1993; one of the first highrise developments on hill-site in Kuala Lumpur, has worried many people. Safety of building on hillsite is often a topic of discussions among engineers and public. The discussion intensifies each time
after a slope failure being highlighted by media. Slope failures are disasters that happen all around the
world. Occurrence of slope failures depends on number of factors. The understanding of these
contributing factors is essential in any slope failure investigation. Therefore, the knowledge on types
of slope failures, mechanism of slope failures, and causes of slope failures are essential for any slope
design and remedial work.

TYPES OF SLOPE FAILURE

Slope failure can be classified in many types. For the purpose of this paper, slope failures are
classified as below:

Slide
Slide can be defined as movement of soil mass, which is parallel to planes of weakness, and
occasionally parallel to slope. Figure 1 shows slide failure. Slides in soil, will have rotational or
translational movement. The behavior of the slide depends mostly on the type of material and whether
- 2703 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2704

that material is: (a) homogeneous (isotropic) material (similar properties in all directions), as shown in
Figure 2, (2) inhomogeneous (anisotropic) material with planes of weakness, as shown in Figure 3

Figure 1: Slide

slips

Figure 2: Slope failure of homogeneous (isotropic) materials

(similar properties in all directions).

Figure 3: Slope failure of inhomogeneous (anisotropic)

materials with planes of weakness

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2705

Figure 4: Flow

Figure 5: Slip

Figure 6: Creep

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2706

Slip
Slip is a complex movement of materials on a slope, includes rotational slip. Figure 5 shows slip
failure.

Creep
Creep is defined as gradual movement of slope materials. Figure 6 shows creep failure.

Torrent
Torrent is a sporadic and sudden canalized discharge of water and debris. Figure 7 shows torrent
failure.

Failure Mechanism in Slope

During the hot and dry days, the slope face become desiccated and shrunken especially the newly
cut slopes. The extent and depth depend mainly on plasticity of the soil and type of slope protection.
During rainstorm, water percolates in to cracks or other expose surface, causing the slope mass to
swell and saturated with corresponding reduction in shear strength gradually through seepage,
migration of soil particles and gradually increase in void ratio in soil mass. Initially water percolates
downward into the slope mainly through the desiccation cracks and in response to the suction pressure
of the top stratum of dried soil. As the outer face of slope swells and saturated, the permeability
parallel to the slope face increase with continued rainfall, seepage develops parallel to the slope face.
Reduction in shear strength due to saturation and swelling coupled with the condition of seepage,
failure eventually occurs if the shearing resistance is equal to or less than the shearing force (Neoh,
2001). In soil mechanics, it is essential to understand the forces acted on slopes, which is the driving
force and the resisting force, which prevent from slope failing. Factor of Safety (FOS) is the ratio of
resisting forces to driving forces. Generally, the FOS equation is:

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2707

Slopes with lower FOS means the potential of failing are higher then slopes with higher FOS.
Therefore slopes with higher FOS are safer.

Causes of Slope Failure

It is essential to understand the causes of slope failures, which are indicated in an analysis or
which have developed in practice. These causes may be summarised simply as follows:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

The slope is too high or too steep for materials of which it is composed.
The materials are too weak to sustain the slope at its present profile.
The pore water pressures are too high, and thus adversely affect the soil strength.
The materials contain weak inclusions or discontinuities.
The slope is affected adversely by some external influence, for example applied loads
from structures or excavation at or near the toe of the slope.

Many studies have been done to find out the causes of slope failure. Slope failures statistics based
on Lecture Notes for highway Slope Management, IEM/JKR (1997) are given below:
A survey of 322 slope failures revealed that:

89% are cut slopes (54% soil slopes + 11% rock slopes +
24% soil/rock slopes)
8%
are fill slopes
2%
are retaining walls
1%
are natural slopes

Neoh (2001) points out that findings from another survey of 260 case histories about causes of
slope failures are:

90 %
38%
30%
8%
2%
2%

infiltration
seepage
perched water table
wash-out / erosion
rise in main water table
others (pipe leakage etc)

Seldom can a slope failure be attributed to a single definite cause. Slope stability is a wide and
complex subject involving with many geotechnical principles, some of which are very empirical or
statistical in nature and required site verification by experienced engineers during construction.
Factors that have significant impact on slope stability are:

Slope geometry (Height of slope (H), angle of slope (), shape, adjacent and upslope
and down slope topography)
Soil unit weight
Shear strength of soil
Pore water pressure or suction
Geological settings or discontinuity

Research papers and proceedings related to slope failures and slope stability, causes of slope
failures varies. For the purpose of this study, only relevant causes of slope failures in Malaysia are
discuss. These causes include:

Geological Causes
a) Erosion
b) Weathered materials

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2708

c) Weak materials
d) Contrast in permeability
e) Contrast in stiffness

Physical Causes
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

Intense rainfall
Perched water table
Rapid draw-down
Flood
Extreme infiltration
Seepage

Human Causes
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

Excavation of slope at its toe

Loading of slope at its crest
Irrigation
Deforestation
Artificial vibration (blasting, piling etc)
Water leakage from utilities

Prolong and high intensity of rainfall especially during the two monsoon periods every year
allows rainwater infiltrates with ease into a slope and causes saturation at shallow depths in the field
during the service life of a slope. Figure 8 shows the possible hydrological effects of rainfall on
permeable slopes. Some of the rainwater runs off the slope and may cause surface erosion if there is
inadequate surface protection. If soil has high permeability, majority of the water will infiltrates into
the subsoil. This causes the water level in the slope to rise or it may cause perched water table to be
formed above some less permeable boundary (e.g. clay seams). Above the water table, the degree of
saturation of the soil increases thus reduces the soil suction (i.e. negative pore pressure) (Gue & Tan,
2000). Failures in cut slopes of residual soils might be caused by wetting-up process, which
decreases the soil suction and hence the decrease in soil strength. Premchitt, (1985) shows evidence
suggesting that transient rises in groundwater table are responsible for some rain-induced landslides.

Rainfall

Cl

Surface Runoff +
Erosion

Rise in water level

Figure 8: Effects of rainfall on high permeable slope

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2709

Shear Strength of Soil

Shear strength of soil is the internal resistance per unit area that the soil can offer to resist failure
and sliding along any plane inside it. Knowledge of shear strength is required in solution of problems
concerning the stability of soil masses and slope stability. For cut slope, effective stress (drained or
long term condition) is normally more critical than total stress (undrained) condition. Therefore,
effective stress strength parameters c and , determined from testing of representative samples of
matrix materials are used in analyses. In Malaysia, normally Isotropic Consolidated Undrained
Triaxial Tests (CIU) are carried out on large diameter undisturbed soil samples using Mazier sampler.
Sample of about 70 mm without trimming is ideal. Samples should not install with side drains to
prevent formation of insistent layers soil samples (Tschebotarioff, 1950). It is important that the soil
samples are tested at stresses comparable to those in the field, and should be saturated. It is
appropriate to measure strength parameters on saturated soil samples because the residual soils are
usually of high permeability (usually 10-4 to 10-6 m/sec) (Gue & Tan, 2002). The shear strength of the
soil may be represented graphically on a Mohr diagram as shown on Figure 9. For simplicity of
analysis, it is conventional to use a c- soil strength model as expressed in the equation below:

= c + ntan
where,

= shear strength of soil.

= effective normal stress at failure.

= effective angle of friction (degree).

= apparent cohesion (kPa).

Failure envelope

c
3

1
Figure 9: Mohr diagram

Slope Stabilization and Protection

The purpose of slope protection is to protect the slope against erosion by surface runoff, to reduce
infiltration and also to enhance slope landscape with environmental friendly outlook. Slope
stabilisations or remedial works are measures in strengthening the slope stability. Proper slope
stabilisations depend on appropriate selection of methods, proper specifications, proper construction
procedures and good maintenances. When attempting to stabilise an existing slope failure, a number

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2710

of possible remedies are open to engineers. There are many types of slope stabilisations applied in
Malaysia, such as:

Change of geometry
Retaining wall
Geotextile
Soil nailing
Slope drainage
Turfing
Shotcreting

Change of Geometry Cut and Fill

Change of geometry of a slope is one of the most common methods used in slope stabilisation
because it is often most economical. Generally the procedures are grading a slope angle to a uniform
flatter angle, concentrate the filling at the toe of the slope, creating a berm in the section and reduce
overall slope height and or reduce the slope angle. The practice in Malaysia for designing cut slopes
normally uses berms of 1.5m wide at 5m to 6m vertical slope intervals. Geotechnical Manual for
Slopes (GCO, 1991) of Hong Kong recommends that the vertical interval of slopes should not be more
than 7.5m. The typical gradient of cut slopes normally range between 1V: 1.75H to 1V: 1.5H for grade
V & VI materials. The reason for having berms with 1.5m wide is easy for maintenance. For fill
slopes, similar to cut slopes, berms of 1.5m wide at 5m to 6m vertical slope interval are commonly
used for fill slopes in Malaysia. Usually the fill slope is at one vertical to two horizontal angle (1V:
2H) depending on the subsoil conditions and the material used for filling (Gue & Tan, 2002). Neoh
(2001), mentions the following:
For cut slopes, the common factors influence slope stability or failure are as follows:
a)
b)
c)

Presence of perched ground water table.

Excessive infiltration from upslope increases the unit weight of soil.
Presence of unsuitable geological discontinuity/settings.

For fill slopes, the common factors influence slope stability or failure are as follows:
a)
b)
c)
d)

Low shear strength of filling due to poor compaction.

Excessive infiltration increases the unit weight of soil.
Poor foundation soil.
Creeping toe.

Retaining Wall
Retaining wall is a wall built to keep a bank of earth from sliding or water from flooding
(Webster's NewWorld Dictionary,1988). There are many types of retaining walls used in Malaysia.
The common types are as follows:

Gravity Wall
Gravity wall is made of mass concrete and rubble stone with nominal reinforcement near the wall
surface to limit cracks. The stability of gravity walls depends on to the self-weight of the wall. This
type of wall is uneconomic because the large quantity of material is used only for its dead weight.
Figure 10 shows an example of gravity wall.

Vol. 17 [2012
2], Bund. R

2
2711

Figure 10: Gravity Wall

W

Cantiilever Wall
W
Canntilever wall is made of reinforced
r
cooncrete emplloying the baackfill itself is to providee most of
the requuired dead weight. Generrally, minimuum thickness of the walll and base iss within a range from
200 mm
m - 400 mm. Cantilever walls
w
are usu
ually five to six
s meters high. Figure 11
1 shows an example
of cantillever wall.

Figure 11: Cantilever Wall

Vol. 17 [2012
2], Bund. R

2
2712

Counterfort Wall
W
Couunterfort wall is a cantileever wall strrengthened with
w counterfforts monolitthic with thee back of
the walll slab and base
b
slab as shown in Figure
F
12. Thhe counterfoorts act as tension stiffeeners and
connect the wall slaab and the base to redu
uce the bendding and shhearing stressses. Counterrforts are
normallyy used for high
h
walls wiith heights greater
g
than 8 m. They are
a also usedd for situations where
high lateral pressurees occur, e.gg. where thee backfill is heavily surrcharged. Coounterforts should
s
be
w stem as a continuouus slab. The design
d
shouldd transfer
designedd as cantileveers of T-secttion and the wall
the mainn part of the earth thrustt from the slab to the couunterfort. Thhe wall propportions are similar
s
to
those off the cantilev
ver wall. Thee counterfortts are spacedd at 1/2 to 1//4 of the height of the wall
w (H) ,
dependinng on the waall height. Foor walls greatter than H = 10 m, spacinng may be off the order off 1/2 H .

Figure 12
2: Counterfo
fort Wall

Sheet Pile Wall

Wa
Sheeet pile is usu
ually used too build continuous wall for
f waterfronnt structures such as doccks, ports
and harbbors. If the height
h
of thee wall goes beyond
b
6m, anchor rodss are normallly needed too provide
more sup
upport. Sheet pile may alsso be used inn temporary structures. Generally,
G
shheet piles aree made of
steel andd recently precast concrette has also been used. Figgure 13 show
ws an exampple of sheet pile wall.

Figure 13
3: Sheet Pille Wall.

Vol. 17 [2012
2], Bund. R

2
2713

Reinfforced Soil Wall

Reinnforced soil wall is connstructed of compact baackfill into which stripss or ties maade from
galvanissed steel or geosynthectic
g
c, are embed
dded to proviide the tensille forces withhin the fill. It
I is often
used on weak soils where
w
flexibiility is requirred. The inheerent felxibillity of reinforced soil alloows them
to accom
mmodate thee effects of settling
s
and consolidation
c
n proceeds. Figure 14 shhows and exxample of
reinforceed soil wall.

Figure 14: Reinforced Soil Walll

Crib W
Wall
Cribb wall is connstructed by interlocking individual boxes
b
made from pre-cast concrete members.
m
The boxxes are filledd with crushhed stone or other coarsee granular materials
m
to create
c
a freee-draining
structuree. The units are spaced so
s that the fill material iss contained within
w
the crrib, is not aff
ffected by
climatic change and
d acts in connjunction witth the crib work
w
to suppport the retaiined earth. Figure
F
15
shows ann example of crib wall.

Figure 15
5: Crib Walll.

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2714

Gabion Wall
Gabion wall is free-draining walls constructed by filling large baskets with broken stone. The
baskets are made from galvanised steel mesh or woven strips. A typical basket is rectangular with
dimensions of about 1 m x 1 m. Retention is achieved from a combination of the stones weight, and its
interlocking and frictional strength. The wall face is battered at approximately 6 degrees from the
vertical. They are constructed with either a stepped face or a stepped back up to a maximum height of
about 6 m. Due to its durability it is generally used as temporary retaining wall. Figure 16 shows an
example of gabion wall.

Figure 16: Gabion Wall

Contiguous Bored Pile Wall

Contiguous bored pile wall is constructed in a line with a clear spacing between the piles of 75 to
100 mm. Therefore they cannot be used as water retaining structures. Their main use is in clay soils
where water inflows are not a problem. However they have also been used to retain dry granular
materials or fills. Where water is not a problem the spacing of the piles can be adjusted so long as the
gap between piles is such as to prevent soil collapse between them. Generally, contiguous bored pile
wall is used in slopes that has high risk of collapse during excavation for construction. It is also one of
the most expensive retaining walls. Figure 17 shows an example of contiguous bored pile wall.

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2715

Figure 17: Contiguous Bored Pile Wall.

Geotextile
Geotextile is a geosynthetic fabric,either woven or non-woven, applied to either soil surface or
between materials. The purpose of geotextile is to reduce erosion by storm generated water by
providing filtration, separation, or stabilisation properties. Geotextile is used in cut slopes where soil is
composed of weak materials. The function of geotextile is to transfer the excessive shear stress from
weak soil to tension in geotextile. With geotextile, steeper slope can be constructed to gain more space
and thus increase of FOS. Figure 18 shows a type of Geotextile.

Figure 18: Geotextile

Vol. 17 [2012
2], Bund. R

2
2716

Soil N
Nailing
The main conceppt of soil naiiling is to traansfer the stress into fricttion. Soil naiiling design standards
s
5 -25 below
w horizontal.. Spacing of soil nails
are based on BS 80006. Usually soil nails are installed at 5
m Normal eff
ffective allow
wable tensilee capacity off soil nails iss 2-15 ton. Length
L
of
is usuallly 1.2-2.5 m.
nail requuired beyondd the minimuum slip surfacce to providee the pull outt resistance. The minimuum design
length oof nail is thee greater of the calculatted or distannce from sloope face to slip surface with the
requiredd FOS (Neohh, 2001). Figuure 19 and Fiigure 20 shows soil nailin
ng.

Fiigure 19: Siimple Soil Nail

N Suppo
ort.

Figure 20:
2 Soil Nailing

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2717

Slope Drainage
From the preceding discussion, it will be seen that control of water must be considered. The main
purpose of surface drains is to collect surface runoff from slope as much as possible and convey away
from slope as fast and as far as possible so as to reduce infiltration and erosion caused by rainfall.

Turfing
Turfing is the process of covering slope surface with turf. Close turfing with cow grass is common
to provide immediate protection. This method is very laboured intensive and usually only applied to
gentle slope (1V: 1.5H) for residual soils.

Shotcreting
Shotcrete is sprayed concrete or mortar. Shotcrete is expensive and is used when slope steep
(>450) and genarally for highly fractured weathered rocks. Typical shotcrete slope protection should
consist of minimum 75 mm to 100 mm thick sprayed cement/sand mixture (1:3) with a layer of wire
mesh to reduce shrinkage and thermal cracking. Adequate subsoil drainage should be provided
especially where water is observed seeping from the surface or where water seepage may be expected
(Neoh, 2001). Figure 21 shows an example of shotcreting.

Figure 21: Shotcreting.

Maintenance of Slopes
Although lack of maintenance of slopes and retaining walls are not the direct causes to failure.
However, failure to maintain particularly after erosion may propagate and trigger slope failures.
Therefore regular inspection and maintenance of the slopes are necessary (Gue & Tan, 2002).
Awareness alone is not sufficient, engineers and personnel involved in slope maintenance should also
know how to properly carry out the work. A set of standards of good practice slope maintenance is
needed. A good guideline from GEO of Hong Kong like Geoguide 5 Guide to Slope Maintenance
(1995) for engineer and Laymans Guide to Slope Maintenance which is suitable for the layman
should be referred. Geoguide-5 (1995) recommends maintenance inspections be sub-divided into three
categories:

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2718

(A) Routine Maintenance Inspections, which can be carried out adequately by

any responsible person with no professional geotechnical knowledge
(layman).
(B) Engineer Inspections for Maintenance, which should be carried out by a
professionally qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer.
(C) Regular Monitoring of Special Measures, which should be carried out by
a firm with special expertise in the particular type of monitoring service
required. Such monitoring is only necessary where the long term stability
of the slope or retaining wall relies on specific measures, which are liable
to become less effective or deteriorate with time. This measure is seldom
carried out in Malaysia.
Malaysia, which has at least two monsoon seasons, Routine Maintenance Inspections (RTI) by
layman should be carried out as a minimum twice a year for slopes with negligible or low risk-to-life.
For slopes with high risk-to-life, more frequent RTI is required (once a month frequency). In addition,
it is good practice to inspect all the drainage channels to clear any blockage by siltation or vegetation
growth and repair all cracked drains before the monsoon. Inspection should also be carried out after
every heavy rainstorm. Category B Engineer Inspection for Maintenance, should be taken to prevent
slope failure when the Routine Maintenance Inspection by layman observed something unusual or
abnormal, such as occurrence of cracks, settling ground, bulging or distorting or wall or settlement of
the crest platform. Geoguide-5 (1995) recommends as an absolute minimum, an Engineer Inspection
for Maintenance should be conducted once every five years or more as requested by those who carry
out the Routine Maintenance Inspections. More frequent inspections may be desirable for slopes and
retaining walls in the high risk-to-life category.

REFERENCES
1. Braja M. Das (1998). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 4th. ed. United States of
America: PWS Publishing Company.
2. Bromhead E.N. (1994). The Stability of Slopes. 2nd. ed. Great Britain: Blackie Academic &
Professional.
3. Charles W.W. Ng, Pang Y.W. (2000). Influence of Stress State on Soil-Water Characteristic
and Slope Stability. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE.
4. Chng, Wei Beng (2002). Rekabentuk Tembok Julur. Kes Kajian: Kegagalan Cerun Di
Cadangan Tapak Pembinaan Makmal Penyelidikan Makmal Di Ibnu Sina, UTM. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia: Projek Sarjana Muda.
5. Christian Veder (1981). Landslides and Their Stabilization. New York: Springer-Verlag.
6. Craig R.F. (1984). Soil Mechanics. 3rd. ed. Hong Kong: English Language Book
Society/Van Nostrand Reinhold (UK).
7. Gue, See Sew, Tan, Yean Chin. (2002). Mitigating the Risk of Landslide on Hill-site
Development in Malaysia. 2nd World Engineering Congress.
8. Gue, See Sew, Tan, Yean Chin. (2000). Hill-Site Development Planning, Design,
Construction, and Maintenance Considerations. IEM Seminar on Geotechnical Engineering
2000.
9. Hue, Han Kheong (2002). Analisis Kestabilan Cerun, Kajian Kes: Kejadian Tanah Runtuh
Di Projek Cadangan Membina Dan Menyiapkan Makmal Penyelidikan Ibnu Sina, UTM,
Skudai. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Projek Sarjana Muda.

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2719

10. Lane P.A., Griffiths D.V. (2000). Assessment of Stability of Slope Under Drawdown
Conditions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE.
11. Mahadzer Mahum. (2001). Landslide Investigation and Slope Risk Management.
Proceedings of National Slope Seminar 2001.
12. Mohamad K. Kayyal, Michael Hasen. (1998). Case Study of Slope Failures at Spilmans
Island. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE.
13. Mohd Asbi Othman, Dr. David M. Lloyd. (2001). Slope Stability Problems for Roads in
Mountainous Terrains. Proceedings of National Slope Seminar 2001.
14. Muniram Budhu, Roger Gobin. (1995). Seepage-Induced Slope Failures on Sandbars in
Grand Canyon. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE.
15. Neoh, Cheng Aik. (2001). Practical Design Aspects for Slopes in Mountainous Terrains.
Proceedings of National Slope Seminar 2001.
16. Niroumand H., Kassim K.A. and Nazir R. (2011) Uplift response of symmetrical circular
anchor plate in sand. African Journal of Agricultural Research,Volume 6, Issue 28, 2011,
Pages 6057-6063
17. Niroumand H., Kassim K.A. and Nazir R. (2011) Uplift capacity of anchor plates in twolayered cohesive-frictional soils. Journal of Applied Sciences.Volume 11, Issue 3, 2011,
Pages 589-591
18. Niroumand, H., Kassim, Kh.A., Nazir, R.(2010), Anchor Plates in Two-Layered Cohesion
Less Soils, American journal of applied science, Science Publications, USA, 7(10):13961399
19. Niroumand, H., Kassim, Kh.A., Nazir, R.(2010), Uplift Capacity of Anchor Plates in TwoLayered Cohesive- Frictional Soils, Journal of applied science, USA, 11 (3) , pp. 589-591
20. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A. (2011). Uplift response of square anchor plates in dense sand.
International Journal of Physical Sciences 6 (16), pp. 3938-3942
21. Niroumand H., Nazir R., Kassim K.A. (2012), The Performance of Electrochemical
Remediation Technologies in Soil Mechanics, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 7 5708 5715
22. Niroumand, H., Millona, K.(2010), Mud Bricks and Shred Geogrids as Sustainable
Material, Geotechnical News 28 (4) , pp. 59-61
23. Niroumand, H. (2010), Performance of shred tires and wood particles in earth bricks, 2nd
International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies , pp. 10831091
24. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A. (2010), Analytical and numerical study of horizontal anchor
plates in cohesionless soils, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 15 C , pp. 1-12
25. Niroumand, H. (2008), Investigation and comparison of the earthquakes of Silakhor desert
and Manjil, Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction
Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2 , pp. 10111015
26. Niroumand, H., Shoraka, M., Kassim, K.A. (2010), Clay bricks with shred geogrids, ICBEE
2010 - 2010 2nd International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environmental
Engineering, Proceedings , art. no. 5654048 , pp. 404-406
27. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A. (2010), Uplift response of horizontal square anchor plates in
cohesive soil based on laboratory studies, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15
Q , pp. 1879-1886

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. R

2720

28. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A., Nazir, R. (2010), Experimental studies of horizontal square
anchor plates in cohesionless soil, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15 O , pp.
1703-1711
29. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A., Nazir, R. (2010), Uplift response of horizontal strip anchor
plates in cohesionless soil, Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 15 R , pp. 19671975
30. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A. (2012), Experimental performance of soil hook system as an
innovative soil anchors in sand, Advanced Science Letters, 13 , pp. 417-419
31. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A., Nazir, R. (2012), Numerical modeling of geogrid reinforced
sand beds by PLAXIS, Advanced Science Letters, 15 (1) , pp. 63-65
32. Niroumand, H., Kassim, K.A. (2011), Simulation comparison of the dispersion behaviour of
dry sand subjected to explosion, International Journal of Physical Sciences, 6 (7) , pp. 15831590
33. Ortigao J.A.R., Loures T.R.R., Nogueira C., Alves L.S. (1997). Slope Failure in Tertiary
Expansive OC Clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering and Geoenvironmental
Engineering. ASCE.
34. Premchitt J., Brand E.W., Phillipson H.B. (1985). Landslides Caused by Rapid Groundwater
Changes. Groundwater in Engineering Geology. London: geological Society.
35. Robert B. Gilbert, Stephen G. Wright, Erci Liedtke. (1998). Uncertainty in Back Analysis of
Slopes: Kettleman Hills Case History. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE.
36. Tan, Yean Chin,. Gue, See Sew. (2001). The Determination of Shear Strength in Residual
Soils for Slope Stability Analysis. Proceedings of National Slope Seminar 2001.
37. Toh, C.T., Chee, S.K. (1994). Case Histories of Slope Stabilisation. Proceedings of 1-day
workshop Risk Assessment and Case Studies of Landslides.
38. Tschebotarioff, G.P. (1950). Discussion on Effect of Driving Piles into Soft Clays ASCE.

2012 ejge