ice | manuals
Chapter 72
Slope stabilisation methods
Paul A. Nowak Atkins Ltd, Epsom, UK
Earthworks slopes may require the use of structural solutions where geometric constraints or
the proximity of settlement-sensitive structures prevent the design of a full height earthworks
solution. Structural solutions may also be used for road widening where further land purchase
is not possible, and for the stabilisation of existing earthworks slopes. This chapter introduces
the major forms of structural slope solutions.
72.1 Introduction
Stabilised slopes incorporating structural components, nail-
ing or reinforcing elements in new earthworks, are usually
employed either:
■■ where long term performance of a conventional slope may impact
adjacent structures e.g. adjacent buildings; or
■■ where geometric constraints do not allow the construction of a
conventional slope that is stable over its design life.
Stabilised slopes are, however, common in stabilising existing
assets and the widening of existing motorways where measures
cannot extend outside the existing asset boundary.
The selection of a stabilisation method can depend on the
balance of the capital expenditure to construct and maintain
versus the adoption of a less expensive option that may require
additional measures to be applied at a later date. This is usually
the decision of the asset owner and can depend on the conse-
quences of failure. A useful approach outlining responsibilities
is given in Charles and Watts (2002).
This chapter describes briefly methods to stabilise slopes;
they can be divided into:
■■ embedded solutions;
■■ gravity solutions;
■■ reinforced/nailed solutions;
■■ slope drainage.
In some cases, solutions comprise more than one of the above
categories.
72.2 Embedded solutions
Embedded solutions generally comprise:
■■ concrete pile walls;
■■ sheet pile walls.
Concrete pile walls usually comprise bored cast in situ or
continuous flight auger piles. Pile diameter and spacing will
depend on the size of plant that requires access to the loca-
tion and the requirements of the design with respect to bending
moment and shear in the pile shaft.
ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering © 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers
doi: 10.1680/moge.57098.1087
CONTENTS
72.1  Introduction 1087
72.2  Embedded solutions 1087
72.3  Gravity solutions 1088
72.4 Reinforced/nailed
solutions 1089
72.5  Slope drainage 1090
72.6  References 1091
Piled walls are usually designed in order that potential fail-
ure surfaces passing below the toe of the wall achieve a sat-
isfactory factor of safety/degree of utilisation as described in
Chapter 69 Earthworks design principles. Wall design should
also consider the action of the piles to act as shear keys on
potential failure surfaces passing through the wall, and should
be designed as a conventional embedded retaining wall after
Gaba et al. (2003).
Where the design of the wall cannot satisfy bending moment
and shear requirements of the pile shaft, or deflection causing
unsatisfactory settlement of the ground behind the wall, addi-
tional support can be considered. This would usually comprise
(i) cantilever walls; (ii) ground anchors; (iii) raking piles; and
(iv) tie bars; see Figure 72.1.
Ground anchors, installed at the head of the pile, apply a
restraining force in an active manner directly after construction;
the active load in the anchor being applied immediately after
installation. The design of the anchor should be after BS 8081
(BSI, 1989).
Raking piles, installed in a similar manner to anchors,
apply no initial restraining force and act passively whereby
forward movement of the wall generates friction on the rak-
ing pile shaft. This initiates an anchoring action at the vertical
pile head. The raking piles should be designed as conventional
piles in tension.
Tie bars act in the same way as raking piles but can be post
tensioned to act similarly to ground anchors. They require a
restraint mechanism and are most practicably used in the sta-
bilisation of existing earthworks embankments where there
is a piled wall on the opposite side of the embankment. This
solution has been employed in the stabilisation of London
Underground embankments.
Sheet pile walls are designed in the same manner as bored
pile walls, but may be precluded where vibration could
affect adjacent structures if a driven method of installation
is employed. This can be overcome by the use of a hydraulic
jacking installation method. The use of a sheet pile solution for
the remediation of a failed slope may be attractive as it can be
implemented rapidly after the failure occurs.
Care should be taken in the design of sheet pile walls in that
the design section chosen should be capable of being driven
www.icemanuals.com   1087
 Design of earthworks, slopes and pavements
Capping beam
Concrete/steel sheet pile
(i)
Raking pile
(ii)
Figure 72.1  Typical embedded solutions: (i) cantilever wall; (ii) wall with ground anchor; (iii) wall with raking pile; (iv) wall with tie and
deadman block
in the prevailing ground conditions. Guidance is given in
Williams and Waite (1993).
Structural design of bored pile walls should be undertaken
to BS EN 1992–1 (BSI, 2004a), BS8110–1 (BSI, 1997),
BS8500 (BSI, 2006) or BS5400 (BSI, 2002). Structural design
of steel sheet piles should be undertaken to BS EN 1993– 5
(BSI, 2007).
More advice on the design of embedded walls is given in
Section 6 Design of retaining structures.
72.3 Gravity solutions
Gravity structures would usually comprise the following solu-
tions: (i) reinforced concrete wall; (ii) gabion wall; (iii) dry
block wall; (iv) crib wall; (v) reinforced soil wall; and (vi)
1088   www.icemanuals.com
Ground anchor
(iii)
Concrete
Tile rod
block
(iv)
reinforced earth wall. Typical solutions, without soil reinforce-
ment, are illustrated in Figure 72.2.
The gravity structure performs under its own stability in
terms of its resistance to sliding, overturning and bearing capac-
ity failure. They can be designed in accordance with Chapman
(2000). Reinforced earth and reinforced soil walls should be
designed in accordance with BS 8006 (1995 and 2009b) as
described in Chapter 73 Design of soil reinforced slopes and
structures. More advice on the design of reinforced gravity
walls is given in Section 6 Design of retaining structures.
In addition to the stability of the gravity structure, the
designer should also consider the stability of the slope that it
retains. It is common for walls greater than 3 m which retain
a slope behind them to require embedment of the wall below
ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering © 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers
 Slope stabilisation methods

Granular
backfill
45°

(i)

(i)
2
1
Additional
excavation
and backfill
Stone field
gabion baskets

Granular
backfill
45°

(ii)
(ii)
Figure 72.3  Effect of sloping ground on excavation and backfill
volume: (i) gravity wall with horizontal ground behind; (ii) gravity wall
with sloping ground behind

ground surface on the passive side in order to prevent overall

failure of the composite slope and wall.
Interlocking
blockwork It is usual that gravity structures are designed with granular
backfill in the area of the active wedge behind the wall. Care
should be taken where a gravity structure is specified on existing
or widened infrastructure, as it may result in significant excava-
Concrete base tion of the slope behind the wall as shown in Figure 72.3.
It is common that gravity structures, particularly masonry
(iii) and brick walls, form part of an existing infrastructure asset.
Where an assessment is required as part of an asset condition
survey, this will be carried out to current best practice i.e. BS
EN 1997 (BSI, 2004b) or, formerly, BS 8002 (BSI, 1994). It
should be borne in mind, particularly with respect to railway
Transerve concrete/
infrastructure, that the structure may be up to 100  years old
timber units and would not have been constructed to current best practice.
Granular infill Assessment of the structure to BS EN 1997 or BS 8002 is likely
Longitudinal to indicate failure of the structure or earthwork which shows no
units visible structural distress. In this case, the asset owner should
be consulted and a sensible approach to the management of the
asset agreed.
(iv)
72.4 Reinforced/nailed solutions
Figure 72.2  Typical gravity solutions: (i) reinforced concrete wall; Reinforced or nailed slopes will generally comprise the use of
(ii) gabion wall; (iii) dry block wall; (iv) crib wall
geogrid reinforcement or a grid of soil nails to provide addi-
tional tensile strength along likely failure surfaces. Typical
examples are shown in Figure 72.4.

ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering © 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers www.icemanuals.com   1089
 Design of earthworks, slopes and pavements

Original slope
A surface

B 2
1 Failed
material

A Primary reinforcement

B Secondary reinforcement to prevent local failure

of face between primary grids Original cut
slope material
(i) Geogrid
Slope cut back
beyond slip
surface

1 Figure 72.5  Repair of slope failure using geogrids

2

Design should be carried out in accordance with BS 8006

and further guidance is provided in Chapters 73 Design of soil
reinforced slopes and structures and 74 Design of soil nails.
(ii) The use of soil reinforcement and nailing is not confined
to steep-faced (approximately 60°) slopes; it can be applied
to slopes of any angle where additional tensile strength of the
reinforcement or nailing allows the adoption of a stable slope
Facing at a steeper angle than if no reinforcement were employed. On
panels
Steel the Terminal 5 spur road project at Heathrow airport, geogrid
strips
reinforcement was employed to allow the use of 1V:2H slopes
in London Clay embankments where geometric constraints
prevented the adoption of 1V:4H slopes used for the majority
of the embankment construction.
Geogrids have also been used to repair slope failures, par-
(iii)
ticularly cutting slopes. They were extensively used on the M4
motorway in Berkshire in the 1970s and were also used in a
London Clay cutting on London Underground at Hendon. The
slipped material is excavated back beyond the slip surface,
stockpiled and re-compacted with layers of geogrid to provide
additional tensile strength to the original failed material as
Mesh facing shown in Figure 72.5.
This solution may not always be practicable if there is
insufficient facility to temporarily store the slipped material
locally. If storage of excavated material is not available local
to the failed area it is common practice for the slip repair to be
20° effected using imported granular material.

(iv) 72.5 Slope drainage

Figure 72.4  Typical reinforced/nailed solutions: (i) reinforced
soil slope; (ii) reinforced soil block; (iii) reinforced earth slope;
(iv) soil nail slope
Stability of constructed slopes can be influenced by water
either as groundwater (see Chapter 70 Design of new earth-
works) or as precipitation.
The former may result in deep seated slope failure if uncon-
trolled and not in line with design assumptions, particularly
in inter-bedded cohesive and non-cohesive strata; groundwater

1090   www.icemanuals.com ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering © 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers

flow in the non-cohesive strata causes softening of the sur-
rounding cohesive material.
The ingress of precipitation can cause softening of the sur-
face layers of cohesive earthworks, which leads to reduction in
any effective cohesion in the slope material and the develop-
ment of shallower failure surfaces. These are commonly seen
on major road networks and require remediation.
It is common practice to counteract these problems with
slope drainage, either as part of the original slope construction
or as a remedial works measure.
Slope drainage usually takes the form of gravel-filled drains
orthogonal to the slope (counterforts) or as a ‘herring bone’
pattern. The drains are commonly constructed with a carrier
pipe and geotextile wrap to prevent the ingress of fine-grained
material which would impact on their long-term performance.
Drains are usually spaced at intervals of between 5 and 10 m
along the slope, depending on the composition of the slope
material. Useful guidance on their design and the philosophy
behind slope drainage is provided by Hutchinson (1977).
In designing slope drainage, a suitable outfall has to be con-
sidered to prevent ponding of drainage water which will occur at
the base of the earthwork, potentially resulting in the softening
of the toe and increasing the potential for failure in this area.
Slope drains can be connected to a drain constructed parallel
to the toe of an embankment slope, or to verge drainage in a
cutting. Outfall of the system can be by means of positive flow,
such as an existing river course or existing public sewers, or to
a sustainable drainage system (SUDS), Woods and Kellagher
(2007).
72.6 References
British Standards Institution (1989). Code of Practice for Ground
Anchorages. London: BSI, BS 8081.
British Standards Institution (1994). Code of Practice for Earth
Retaining Structures. London: BSI, BS 8002.
British Standards Institution (1995). Code of Practice for Strengthened/
Reinforced Soils and Other Fills. London: BSI, BS 8006.
British Standards Institution (1997). Structural Use of Concrete. Code
of Practice for Design and Construction. London: BSI, BS 8110–1.
British Standards Institution (2002). Steel, Concrete and Composite
Bridges. London: BSI, BS 5400.
British Standards Institution (2004a). Eurocode 2 – Design of
Concrete Structures. General Rules and Rules for Buildings
(Including National Annex). London: BSI, BS EN 1992–1.
British Standards Institution (2004b). Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical
Design (Including National Annex). London: BSI, BS EN 1997–1.
ICE Manual of Geotechnical Engineering © 2012 Institution of Civil Engineers
Slope stabilisation methods
British Standards Institution (2006). Concrete. Complementary
Standard to BS EN 206–1. London: BSI, BS 8500.
British Standards Institution (2007). Eurocode 3 – Design of Steel
Structures. Piling (including National Annex). London: BSI, BS
EN 1993–5.
British Standards Institution (2009a). Code of Practice for Earthworks.
London: BSI, BS 6031.
British Standards Institution (2009b). Code of Practice for
Strengthened/Reinforced Soils. Document 09/30093258C, Draft
for Public Comment. London: BSI, BS 8006–1.
Chapman, T. (2000). Modular Gravity Walls – Design Guidance.
London: Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, CIRIA Report C516.
Charles, J. A. and Watts, K. S. (2002). Treated Ground, Engineering
Properties and Performance. London: Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, CIRIA Report C572.
Gaba, A. R., Simpson, B., Powrie, W. and Beadman, D. R. (2003).
Embedded Retaining Walls – Guidance for Economic Design.
London: Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, CIRIA Report C580.
Hutchinson, J. N. (1977). Assessment of the effectiveness of cor-
rective measures in relation to geological conditions and types
of slope movement. Bulletin of the International Association of
Engineering Geology, 16, 133–155.
Williams, B. P. and Waite, D. (1993). The Design and Construction of
Sheet Piled Cofferdams. London: Construction Industry Research
and Information Association. CIRIA Special Publication SP95.
Woods, B. and Kellagher, R. (2007). The SUDS manual. London:
Construction Industry Research and Information Association,
CIRIA Report C697.
72.6.1 Further reading
Highways Agency (2009). Specification for Highway Works. London:
Stationery Office.
It is recommended this chapter is read in conjunction with
■ C
 hapter 23 Slope stability
■ C
 hapter 69 Earthworks design principles
■ S
 ection 6 Design of retaining structures
All chapters in this book rely on the guidance in Sections 1
Context and 2 Fundamental principles. A sound knowledge of
ground investigation is required for all geotechnical works, as set
out in Section 4 Site investigation.
www.icemanuals.com   1091