SOIL SLOPE STABILISATION METHODS

John Oliphant1, Robert McCafferty2 & Mr Richard Apted3

ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the selection of soil slope stabilisation techniques. It considers the factors which influence the choice of technique through the development and use of a webbased decision support system and the examination of a landslide in Edinburgh, Scotland. The paper highlights the potential benefits of the integrated use of bio-engineering techniques and conventional stabilising methods INTRODUCTION The number of alternatives for soil slope stabilisation is large; ranging from simple drainage measures, through the use of bio-engineering techniques to the more traditional use of gravity and embedded retaining structures. The analysis of these alternative remedial measures for soil slope problems requires experience and sound judgement on the part of the engineer. In evaluating the alternatives, the engineer will be influenced by factors such as: nature of failure; ground & groundwater conditions; ground topography; environmental impact; availability of materials, labour and equipment; design life and maintenance requirements; adjacent and underground structures; confidence in design and construction; time constraints; and costs. The final decision will not normally be straightforward as it will be based on a number of these and other inter-related factors and will often have considerable cost implications and degree of success in terms of obtaining a practical and meaningful result. Furthermore, the problem is compounded by incomplete, imprecise and uncertain information and the engineer may therefore have to make decisions using empirical rules that have been established from experience. The purpose of this paper is to outline the selection of soil slope stabilisation methods and to discuss the recent developments of a web-based decision support system. Also presented is the integrated use of geotechnical and bio-engineering techniques which allow cost-effective and environmentally acceptable solutions without recourse to large and expensive geotechnical measures alone. Finally, an examination is carried out on a number of different methods for stabilising a landslide in Edinburgh, Scotland. Here, four proposals are described and examined to highlight the factors which influenced the choice of the adopted approach. STABILISATION TECHNIQUES The strategy of slope remediation or stabilisation is a common treatment of landslides. The principal categories of stabilisation methods are: 1) alteration of slope geometry; 2) improvement of soil strength; and 3) provision of force systems to resist instability. Category 1 techniques can involve re-grading, head unloading, toe weighting (e.g. berm) and digging out. The techniques normally associated with Category 2 include soil improvement through
1

Heriot-Watt University, Department of Civil & Offshore Engineering, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland, UK. 2 The City of Edinburgh Council, City Development Department, Bridges & Structures, 1 Cockburn Street, Edinburgh EH1 1BJ, Scotland, UK. 3 Carl Bro Aquaterra, 7-15 Dean Bank Lane, Edinburgh EH3 5BS, Scotland, UK.

grouting, shallow and deep drainage schemes and the use of vegetation. Category 3 systems include the use of piles, piers and retaining walls. Bromhead (1997) has reviewed the wide range of options available under these categories. Howell (1999) has given greater emphasis to the use of vegetation under Category 2 through the general term of bio-engineering. Bio-engineering makes use of living plants for engineering purposes and can be utilised for slope protection, reinforcement and, to a certain extent, stabilisation of shallow failures. Bio-engineering is not a substitute for civil engineering but offers engineers an alternative set of tools which complement existing techniques under the categories given above. It is best used in conjunction with the hard geotechnical engineering structures such as earth retaining walls to offer a more effective solution to problems. This integrated approach has been used successfully for soil slope stabilisation in Nepal using the different combination of techniques provided in Table 1 (Howell, 1999). Table 1 : Combination of slope stabilisation techniques (Howell,1999)
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING TECHNIQUE Reinforced Soil Soil Nailing Soil Anchors Retaining Walls BIO-ENGINEERING TECHNIQUE Densely rooting grasses, shrubs & trees Most vegetation structures Deeply rooting trees Large trees and large bamboo clumps COMBINATION OF BOTH

Wire bolster cylinders and planted shrubs or trees Jute netting with planted grasses Soil anchors and deeply rooting trees Retaining wall with a line of large bamboo clumps planted above

A case study will be presented later which discusses the combined use of geotechnical engineering and bio-engineering techniques for a landslide in Edinburgh. KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEM APPROACH A knowledge-based system (KBS) is a piece of software used to solve problems in a particular domain. Within the system there is an artificial representation of the knowledge possessed by the experts in the particular field and it is this artificial intelligence that is used for problem solving. It is called a system rather than a program because it contains both a problem solving component, the inference mechanism, and a support component. The support component enables, for example, the user to interface with the main program and for output to be directed to an output device. The inference mechanism contains problem solving expert knowledge. The system can then be used, in the absence of experts, to represent the problem solving and decision making qualities of the experts. The applications of KBSs has been extensive, and several have been developed in the field of geotechnical design (e.g. Oliphant et al, 1996; Smith et al, 1998). An early prototype web-based system has been developed by the first author (Oliphant & Kontoulis, 1999) on the selection of soil slope stabilisation techniques. The system can be accessed online at http://www.civ.hw.ac.uk/slopes/index.htm The prototype has been separated into two sub-systems Biostable and SlopeStable and designed as integrated Web browser applications (applets) in Java with Symantec Visual Caf 2.5 and will only work under the latest Netscape browsers (versions 4.06 or higher). The Web site was designed in HTML with Microsoft FrontPage 98. Biostable covers the selection of bio-engineering techniques alone while SlopeStable offers advice on the selection of both bio-engineering and simple geotechnical structures.

Biostable was designed to evaluate the user provided input and then give a recommendation of a specific set of suitable bio-engineering techniques. This is an innovation in terms of KBS design since most conventional systems give a general assessment on suitability for a wide range of methods. Biostable incorporates user interface and expert knowledge (Howell, 1999) in a single application thus reducing download times on the Web. The sub-system supports grass planting, turfing, shrub and tree planting, bolster cylinders and jute netting. The operation of SlopeStable is rather traditional by providing general advice on the suitability of all the techniques covered. These techniques include the bio-engineering techniques of Biostable in combination with retaining walls such as gabions, crib walls and propped walls. The research work has demonstrated that the development of Web-based KBSs for the selection of slope stabilization techniques is feasible. However, both Biostable and SlopeStable would benefit from further development in relation to: a) more comprehensive selection criteria; b) optimization of user interfaces; c) incorporation of other stabilization techniques; and d) integration to offer advice on a specific set of techniques. CASE STUDY Background Gillespie Road is located in Colinton, south-west Edinburgh. Following the landslide of the valley soil slope adjacent to Gillespie Road in April 1998, emergency works were carried out to close the road. (Figure 1 Gillespie Road is at the top of the slope and the river Water of Leith is at the toe of the slope). On closure of the road, The City of Edinburgh Council arranged for ground investigation work and commissioned Heriot-Watt University to carry out a preliminary investigation. This work suggested that the soil slope may have failed through an increase in porewater pressure most probably from an ingress of water. The shape of the failure surface would seem to indicate that there were two possible sources of this water but these could not be confirmed. The average depth to the failure surface from the original ground profile was estimated at 2m.

Figure 1 : Landslide at Gillespie Road, Edinburgh

The stabilisation works were offered to 4 consortia on a design/build form of contract with a contract period of 35 days. This form of contract was chosen in order to allow contractors and consultants to consider the most economic method of stabilisation given the obvious health and safety implications of working under a failed soil slope. Ground investigation, land survey and public utility information was given to each consortium. Four construction options were submitted (Figure 2): 1. Contiguous Bored Pile Wall supporting Gillespie Road. 2. Soil Nailed Slope 3. Reinforced Gabion Wall 4. Combination of Gabion support to Gillespie Road and Rockfill Toe at river. Each option is now described in terms of the use of geotechnical engineering structures at both road and river levels and the measures for re-vegetation of the slope. Option 1 An anchored contiguous bored pile embedded wall was proposed as the main geotechnical structure at road level. The 600mm diameter piles alternate in length from 10m to 5m with tie rod anchors spaced at 2.4m centres. Gabion baskets were used at the toe of the slope for stabilisation and river training purposes. Re-vegetation took the form of re-grading the slope with topsoil and grass seeding, and the construction of wattle fences made out of bundles of live cuttings from the surrounding area placed across the slope to form broken coverage and help re-establish woodland growth. Option 2 The technique of soil nailing was proposed throughout the slope with the construction of a Reno mattress at river level for toe protection. Re-vegetation consisted of re-grading with topsoil and then fixing a Tensar Mat net across the face of the slope. Groundcover would then be established by planting low growing native species. Option 3 The use of the Box Teramesh system (5m x 2m x 1m units) was proposed with 5m long reinforcement tails to stabilise the toe of the slope. The Boxes were stepped up to height of 5m above the river bed level and the remaining upper slope was to be re-graded using suitable fill and reinforced as necessary. Re-grading of topsoil on slope was to be protected by a soil blanket. Grass seeding and the planting of a mixture of Willow, Sycamore, Ash, Dog Rose, Bramble and Ground Ivy was proposed for the bio-engineering treatment. Option 4 This proposal recommended a gabion basket retaining wall at road level and a rockfill berm at the toe of the slope. The entire slope was top-soiled to a minimum depth of 300mm. Both grass seeding and the planting of indigenous trees and shrubs was to be carried out. A selected seed mix was proposed to achieve strong growth within four to six weeks of sowing. A maintenance schedule for the following 4 years was also included to ensure that the vegetation became well established. Discussion Consideration was given to each submission in terms of speed of construction, cost, health and safety and method of construction. Time-scale was important in that disruption to the public and business had to be minimised. Gillespie Road is an important public transport link and the diversions put in place were long routed. Table 2 provides a summary of evaluating the four proposals. The re-vegetation method alone did not influence the final choice but was

viewed as an effective means of stabilising the slope for shallow failures and for minimising maintenance costs on the slope surface.

Figure 2 : The four remediation measures

The contiguous bored pile wall was rejected on the grounds that security of existing gas mains and stability of an existing masonry retaining wall adjacent could not be guaranteed. The bid represented the second lowest cost that was achievable within the 35 days. The soil nailed slope solution was rejected primarily on the basis of cost (it represented the most expensive solution). The reinforced gabion wall was rejected on the basis of time-scale. Although the solution was economical the time-scale submitted to achieve the solution was 66 days.

The combination of gabion basket support to Gillespie road, rockfill toe at river level and vegetation cover to the slope was selected as an economic and satisfactory engineering solution offering completion within the 35 day time-scale. The stabilisation works were completed in 33 days and Gillespies Road fully operational by early August. Table 2 Evaluation of Proposals PROPOSAL Tender Price () 237,268 394,585 169.910 219,995 Cost of Vegetation as a % of Tender Price 0.5 0.2 6.3 3.0 Comments

Bored Piled Wall Soil Nailing Reinforced Gabion Wall Gabion Wall & Rockfill Toe CONCLUSIONS

Not Feasible Feasible but too expensive Feasible and cost-effective but construction time too long Feasible and cost-effective

The development of BioStable and SlopeStable has brought together the power of knowledge-based programming and the enormous flexibility and system-independence of the world wide web to provide a prototype system for the selection of soil slope stabilisation techniques. Although cost of any civil engineering project is important, the situation regarding the Gillespie Road Landslide necessitated other factors to govern the ultimate selection of the preferred bid. In this case, vegetation alone did not influence the final choice but was used to help stabilise and thereby minimise maintenance costs of the slope surface. However, there is a need to provide better understanding of vegetation as an engineering material. This can only help to enhance and integrate the use of vegetation in soil slope stabilisation in the UK. An improved understanding of the various remedial measures for soil slope stabilisation will undoubtedly lead to a more informed choice and cost savings. Conventional soil slope remediation techniques alone may not be sustainable in the long term due to high initial capital expenditure and in some cases increasing maintenance requirements in the long term. The integrated use of bio-engineering techniques and conventional methods may have advantages in the form of cost savings and sustainable solutions. REFERENCES Bromhead, E. N. (1997). The treatment of landslides. Journal of Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs Geotechnical Engineering, 125, April, 85-96. Howell, J. (1999). Roadside Bio-Engineering. Site Handbook, Department of Roads, His Majestys Government of Nepal, ISBN 1 86192 170 5. Oliphant, J., Ibrahim, J.A.R. & Jowitt, P.W. (1996). ASSIST: a Computer-based Advisory System for Site Investigations. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119, 109-122. Oliphant, J. & Kontoulis, L. D.(1999). Development of a Web-Based KBS for the Selection of Soil Slope Stabilisation Techniques. Departmental Report, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. Smith, I.G.N., Oliver, A. & Oliphant, J. (1998). WallAid: A KBS for the Selection of Earth Retaining Walls, 11th Int. Conf. on Industrial and Engineering Applications of AI and Expert Systems, 888-895, Castellon, Spain.