Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Three-dimensional seismic stability of slopes reinforced by soil nails T

⁎
Tao Yang, Jin-Feng Zou, Qiu-Jing Pan
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410075, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Seismic stability of slopes reinforced with soil nails has been traditionally investigated by two-dimensional limit
Soil nail equilibrium method. In this paper, the strength reduction method in combination with the kinematic approach of
Three-dimensional analysis limit analysis is employed to assess the factor of safety (Fos) of slopes reinforced by soil nails using the three-
Safety factor dimensional rotational failure mechanism. The pseudo static approach is used to represent the seismic effects.
Seismic slope stability
Both the tensile failure and pull-out failure of soil nails are considered in the computations of internal energy
Strength reduction method
dissipations. Comparisons are made to validate the proposed approach, which shows that the implemented
Kinematical approach of limit analysis
approach is an efficient design tool for evaluating the factor of safety of slopes reinforced by soil nails.
Parametric analysis is conducted to discuss the influence of model parameters, including nail length, nail den-
sity, soil shear strength and seismic forces, on slope stability. A set of stability charts is finally provided for fast
assessments of slope safety.

1. Introduction
In the last decade, the construction of slopes and retaining struc-
tures reinforced with soil nails has developed extensively, especially in
earthquake-prone zones (Ausilio et al., 2000). Seismic stability of slopes
reinforced by soil nails is a classical problem of geotechnical en-
gineering. Several methods for the stability analysis of slopes reinforced
by nails have been proposed, including the limit equilibrium method
(LEM), the finite element method (FEM) as well as the limit analysis
method (LAM). The LEM is the most extensive technique for soil nail
wall design. Many studies on stability of slopes reinforced by soil nails
were conducted by using the limit equilibrium method. The factor of
safety and required reinforced length of soil nails were studied by many
scholars (Richardson and Lee, 1975; Ling et al., 1997; Wei and Cheng,
2010). However, due to the arbitrary assumptions on interface forces,
the solution of LEM is less rigorous than the LAM (Patra and Basudhar,
2005). The stress–strain relationship of the slope reinforced with soil
nails can be clearly revealed by using the FEM. For example, Cai and
Bathurst (1995), Bathurst and Hatami (1998) used a FEM program to
investigate the influence of reinforcement stiffness, reinforcement
length, and base boundary condition on the seismic response of a
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall. Nonetheless, these studies
have been restricted to specific cases. Furthermore, FEM is often time
consuming and usually requires a larger number of input variables to
define the stress–strain relation, some of which are difficult to be as-
signed.
Compared to LEM and FEM, LAM, based on the classical plasticity
theory, is a powerful vehicle for geotechnical stability analysis to find
rigorous bounds (upper and lower) to unknown quantities, such as the
critical height of reinforced slopes, stability of retaining walls (Qian
et al., 2020), etc. For example, Michalowski (1997), Michalowski
(1998) conducted stability calculations of reinforced soil structures
based on the LAM. In Ausilio’s et al. research (Ausilio et al., 2000), the
seismic stability of slopes reinforced with geosynthetics was analyzed
by applying the kinematic theorem of limit analysis, in which the re-
quired reinforcement strength and the yield acceleration of slopes
subjected to earthquake loadings were presented. Based on the log-
spiral failure mechanism, He et al. (2012) presented an approach to
predict the critical seismic yield acceleration coefficients and the per-
manent displacements of slopes reinforced with soil nails subjected to
seismic shakings.
However, the aforementioned works of LAM are based on two-di-
mensional (2D) analysis. In reality, natural and engineered slopes
generally show three-dimensional features at failure. Although 2D
analysis tends to be conservative, it is interesting to use three-dimen-
sional (3D) analysis for economic purposes. The 3D analysis allows an
engineer to know how conservative the 2D analysis is. Based on the
kinematic theorem of limit analysis, Michalowski and Drescher (2009)
proposed a classical 3D horn failure mechanism for slope stability,
which was verified by Zhang et al. (2016). It inspired a lot of sub-
sequent researches. For example, it was extended to below-toe and
above-toe failure by Gao et al. (2013). Yang and Pan (2015) extended

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qiujing.pan@csu.edu.cn (Q.-J. Pan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103768
Received 17 February 2020; Received in revised form 14 June 2020; Accepted 21 July 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Yang, et al.
Fig. 1. Two types of slope reinforcement.
the 3D horn failure mechanism to the stability analysis of Hoek-Brown
rock media slopes subjected to seismic loading. Recently, the research
works about 3D analysis of slopes mainly focuses on the effect of Hoek-
Brown yield criteria (Xu and Yang, 2018); seepage forces (Pan et al.,
2017) and multi stage slope (Yang and Xu, 2016). Nevertheless, 3D
seismic stability analysis of soil slopes reinforced by soil nails is rarely
reported. A 3D seismic stability analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced
slope was presented by Xu and Yang (Xu and Yang, 2019), and in their
work the required reinforcement strength under three distribution
patterns was evaluated by solving the energy balance equations.
However, the geosynthetic reinforcement is only applicable for man-
made slopes, such as embankment slopes, as shown in Fig. 1(b). In
engineering practice, we often encounter natural and cutting slopes
which can’t be reinforced by using geosynthetic. The method of soil
nails has been widely applied in the reinforcement of natural and cut-
ting slopes, as shown in Fig. 1(a). It is of theoretical and practical sig-
nificance to perform 3D seismic stability analysis of a slope reinforced
by soil nails.
Thus, based on the kinematic theorem of limit analysis, three-di-
mensional seismic stability analysis of slopes reinforced by soil nails is
conducted in the present paper. The strength reduction method (SRM)
is employed to assess the factor of safety (Fos) of reinforced slope. An
optimization code is programed to capture the optimized factor of
safety (Fos) of reinforced slopes. Then, the present approach is verified
by a comparison with Wei and Cheng’s study (Wei and Cheng, 2010).
Subsequently, parametric analysis is conducted to investigate the in-
fluence of nail length, nail density, soil shear strength and seismic
forces on slope stability. Eventually, a set of seismic design charts is
provided for designers to make the preliminary assessment of slope
safety.
2. Limit analysis of a 3D slope reinforced with soil nails
2.1. 3D failure mechanism of slopes reinforced with soil nails
In this study, the 3D rotational failure mechanism of slopes pre-
sented by Michalowski and Drescher (2009) is adopted to evaluate the
stability of slopes reinforced with soil nails. Fig. 2 illustrates the failure
mechanism of a slope with the angle of inclination β and the height of
H. The boundary of the failure mechanism in the longitudinal symmetry
plane is bounded by two log-spirals with an apex angle of 2φ,
AC: r = r0 e (θ − θ0) tan φ (1)
A′C′: r ′ = r0′ e−(θ − θ0) tan φ
(2)
where OA = r0 , OA' = r'0.
As shown in Fig. 3(a), only a part of the failure mechanism inter-
sects the slope and passes through the toe of the slope. R is the radius of
the circle of the horn cross section, and rm is the distance between the
rotation point O and the axis of horn, which can be expressed as
2
Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768
rm = (r + r ′)/2 = r0 f1 (θ) (3)
R= (r − r ′)/2 = r0 f2 (θ) (4)
where the expressions of f1 and f2 are given in the Appendix A.
A plane insert with width b is used to allow a transition to the plane-
strain solution if the slope width is not confined, as shown in Fig. 3(b).
By giving the values of three variables (r0′/ r0 , θ0 , θh ) the shape of the
curvilinear cone section is determined.
2.2. Calculation of external work rate
According to the kinematical approach of limit analysis method, the
work rate of soil weights and seismic forces of the failure mechanism
have to be computed. The work rates of the horn section and the plane
insert are calculated respectively.
2.2.1. Calculation of work rate by soil weight
According to the three-dimensional failure mechanism illustrated in
Fig. 2, the work rate of the horn section provided by soil weight can be
expressed as
Wγ − 3D = γωr04 g1 (5)
where γ is the unit weight of soils and ω is the angular velocity of
rotation center.
The work rate of the plane insert of soil weight can be briefly
written as
Wγ − insert = γωr04 g2 (6)
Thus the work rate of the soil weight in terms of the failure me-
chanism can be expressed as
Wγ = Wγ − 3D + Wγ − insert = γωr04 (g1 + g2) (7)
where g1 and g2 are given in Appendix A.
2.2.2. Calculation of work rate by seismic force
The earthquake force plays a dominant role in the stability analysis
of slopes in earthquake-active zones. In order to assess the safety factor
of slopes under seismic loads, two approaches, namely the pseudo static
approach and the pseudo dynamic approach, are the most commonly
used. In terms of the pseudo static approach, the seismic accelerations
are simplified to a inertia force acting on the slope, and it can be de-
fined as horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients kh and kv multiplied
by gravitational acceleration g. Due to this simplification, the pseudo
static approach can be easily incorporated into the theoretical method
for analyzing stability of slopes, for instance, limit analysis and limit
equilibrium analysis. Thus the pseudo static approach has been ex-
tensively employed to estimate the safety factor of slopes under seismic
loads (Qin and Chian, 2019; Ghosh and Debnath, 2016). For the sake of
considering the dynamic effects of earthquake motions in space and
time, the pseudo dynamic approach is proposed by Steedman and Zeng
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

Fig. 2. 3D failure mechanism of a slope reinforced with soil nail.

(1990), in which the seismic accelerations are represented by sinusoidal The work rate of the plane insert due to earthquake forces can be
functions. However, this method suffers from some drawbacks, such as written as
violating the zero-stress boundary condition at the free surface, and
Ws−insert = γωkh r04 g4 (9)
neglecting the damping properties of soils. Those drawbacks may lead
to inaccurate results. Therefore, the pseudo static approach is employed Consequently, the total work rate due to seismic loadings are ob-
to assess the stability of slopes under seismic forces in this work due to tained as
its effectiveness and simplicity. Nevertheless, the application of pseudo
static approach has limitations. According to the recommendations of Ws = Ws − 3D + Ws − insert = γωkh r04 (g3 + g4 ) (10)
guidelines and specifications (FHWA, 1997), Eurocode-7 (CEN, 2004),
where g3 and g4 are given in Appendix A. For more detailed information
it is reasonable to restrict implementation of the pseudo static approach
please refer to the work of Xu and Yang (2019).
to conditions that the seismic coefficient is less than 0.3. Thus, in the
Therefore, the total work rate of external loadings can be written as
present paper, the horizontal seismic coefficient kh ranging between 0
and 0.3 (0.0 ≤ kh ≤ 0.3) is considered when applying the pseudo static W = Ws + Wγ (11)
approach. The work rate of the 3D horn section subjected to seismic
loadings can be expressed as
2.3. Calculation of internal energy dissipation
Ws−3D = γωkh r04 g3 (8)
According to the three-dimensional failure mechanism illustrated in

Fig. 3. 3D failure mechanism of a slope.

3
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

Fig. 2, the total internal energy dissipation is the sum of that at the
slope surface and that along the failure surface (Michalowski and
Drescher, 2009).

2.3.1. Internal energy dissipation of failure mechanism

The internal energy dissipation of the 3D horn section due to soil
cohesion can be expressed as
D3D = D3D − AB + D3D − BC = cω cot φr03 g5 (12)
The internal energy dissipation of the plane insert due to soil co-
hesion can be expressed as
Dinsert = Dinsert − AB + Dinsert − BC = cω cot φr03 g6 (13)
Thus, the total internal energy dissipation of failure mechanism can
be written as
Df = Dinsert + D3D = cω cot φr03 (g5 + g6) (14)
Fig. 5. Tensile failure model.
where g5 and g6 can be seen in Appendix A. For more detailed in-
formation please refer to the work of Xu and Yang (2019).
structural failure at nail head.
In the GEOGUIDE 7 (GEO, 2008), the analytical expressions of
2.3.2. Internal energy dissipation of soil nails
tensile failure and pullout failure are provided for engineering design.
As mentioned above, the internal energy dissipation of soil nails
While the size and strength of soil nail head are determined by choosing
should be taken into account in the stability analysis of the reinforced
from a design table to ensure that it has sufficient strength. The study of
slopes. The determination of the internal energy dissipation of soil nail
bending and shear failure can be found in the paper of Buhan and
depends on the assumed failure model of reinforcement members.
Salençon (1993). The review of the nail head design on the aspect of
According to GEOGUIDE 7 (GEO, 2008), there are four types of possible
bearing capacity can be found in the study of Shiu and Chang (2005). It
failure models for soil nails in reinforced slopes, as illustrated in Fig. 4,
is believed that shotcrete facing would have sufficient bearing capacity
namely tensile failure, pullout failure, bending and shear failure, and

Fig. 4. Four possible failure models.

4
T. Yang, et al.
if the facing stiffness is adequately large (Liew, 2005). Thus, only the
tensile failure and pullout failure are taken into account in this work.
In order to conduct the stability analysis of slopes reinforced by soil
nails, the internal energy dissipation of soil nails is calculated con-
sidering of tensile failure and pull-out failure. The tensile failure model
proposed by Michalowski (1998) was adopted to calculate the resisting
work rate of soil nails. Fig. 5 illustrates the tensile failure model of a soil
nail. It is based on the following assumptions: (1) the failure surface is
regarded as a finite thickness layer with a high velocity gradient, which
is called ‘velocity discontinue surface’; (2) the velocity of the soil nail is
equal to that of the failure mechanism at failure surface; (3) The soil
nail only mobilizes its tensile strength. The reinforced member fails
when reaching its ultimate tensile strength (Tn). The resisting work rate
(dWn) provided by a reinforcing member can be calculated by in-
tegrating the product of the ultimate tensile force and the elongation
strain rate along the shear band,
t /sin λ
dWn = ∫0 Tn 〈ε〉 dx = Tn v cos(λ − φ) (15)
where Tn is the tensile yield strength, t is the thickness of shear band, 〈ε〉
is the strain rate of the reinforcement, v is the velocity at the de-
formation zone, φ is the friction angle, λ is the angle of intersection
between the reinforced structure and the shear band.
According to the tensile failure model and the 3D failure me-
chanism, the internal energy dissipation of a single soil nail in terms of
the tensile failure can be expressed as
dDn = Tn v cos ηk (16)
where ηk is the angle between the velocity at the failure surface and the
soil nail.
In practical engineering, the pullout failure may occur in the critical
collapse state when the shear stress at the bolt-soil interface exceeds the
yield bonding strength before the bolt tensile stress reaches its limit.
The internal energy dissipation of a single soil nail in terms of pull-out
failure can be written as
dDn = Tp v cos ηk (17)
where Tp is the pullout force, which can be expressed as
Tp = πDb μLe (18)
where Db is the diameter of a soil nail, μ is the limit bonding strength
between the soil nail and surrounding soils and Le is the effective length
of the soil nail. The effective length Le is the bolt length beyond the
failure mechanism provided that the bolt head has sufficient bearing
capacity.
For the plane insert section
Le − insert
(
= L − r0 e (θnij − θ0) tan φ × cos θni − r0 e (θh − θ0) tan φ × cos θh
− (H − z i )/tan β ) namely, the angle θ0 and the angle θh, ratio r0′/ r0 , and the relative width
(19)
where H is the slope height, zi is the depth of the i-th soil nail, L is the
length of the soil nail, θnij is the angle of the i-th row and the j-th
column soil nail, as shown in Fig. 6. The value of θnij can be obtained by
solving the following equation
r0 sin θ0 + z i = r0 e (θni − θ0) tan φ × sin θni (20)
For the 3D horn section
Le − 3D
(
= L − (r0 cos θ0 + z i )/tan θnij − (H − z i )/tan β + r0
e (θh − θ0) tan φ )
× cos θh ) (21)
As illustrates in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, θnij is the angle of the i-th row and
the j-th column soil nail in the 3D horn section, which can be obtained
by solving the following Eq. (22). The derivation of Eq. (22) can be
5
Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768
found in the Appendix B.
r0 e (θnij − θ0) tan φ − (r0 sin θ0 + z i )/sin θnij
2
1 1
= × Rij − ⎛ × Rij ⎞ − (j × S )2
2
⎝2 ⎠ (22)
where S is the soil nail spacing, j represents the j-th column. Rij is the
diameter of the circle at i-th row and the j-th column soil nail, which
can be expressed as
r ′0 −(θnij − θ0) tan φ
Rij = r0 e (θnij − θ0) tan φ − e
r0 (23)
Consequently, the total internal energy dissipation rate corre-
sponding to tensile failure and pullout failure is easily derived as
n m
⎧ ω ∑ ∑ Tnij v cos η
⎪ i=1 j=1 k
Dn =
⎨ n m
⎪ ω ∑ ∑ Tpij v cos ηk
⎩ i=1 j=1 (24)
where n is number of the soli nail.
Thus, the total internal energy dissipation rate of the slope re-
inforced with soil nail can be written as
D = Df + Dn (25)
3. Calculations of factor of safety
The strength reduction method (SRM) in combination with upper-
bound limit analysis approach is adopted to calculate the factor of
safety (Fos) of the three-dimensional slope reinforced with soil nails.
SRM is extensively applied to stability analysis of soil slopes following
Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion (Dawson et al., 2000). In SRM, the shear
strength (the friction angle φ and the cohesion c) is successively in-
creased or reduced by the coefficient Fos until the failure of slopes
occurs. The reduced friction angle φr and reduced cohesion cr are ex-
pressed as follows
⎧ cr = c / Fos
⎩ φr = arctan(tan φ / Fos )
⎨ (26)
In this paper, the cohesion c and friction angle φ are continuously
reduced or increased until the rate of internal energy dissipation is
equal to the rate of external work.
According to Eqs. (11, 25 and 26), the expression of Fos of slopes
reinforced by soil nails is given as follows,
Fos = f (θ0 , θh , r0′/ r0, b/ H , γ , c, φ , kh, β , L, μ, Db) (27)
The minimum Fos is obtained by optimization with respect to four
parameters that define the geometrical shape of the failure mechanism,
of the plane insert to the slope width b/H. The genetic algorithm in
combination with a local optimization algorithm is carried out to search
the optimum Fos. The genetic algorithm is first used to locate the region
near an optimum point, followed by a fast local optimization solver
using the solution from the genetic algorithm as an initial point. The
genetic algorithm can reach the region near an optimal point relatively
fast, but it converges slowly. On the contrary, the local optimization
algorithm is more efficient. Such a hybrid scheme gives a good balance
between accuracy and efficiency.
4. Comparisons
Comparisons between the present method with Wei and Cheng’s
study (Wei and Cheng, 2010) are conducted to verify the proposed
approach. The upper-bound 3D solution of Fos obtained by the pro-
posed approach are compared with the 2D results presented by Wei and
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

Fig. 6. Cross-section of the plane insert section.

Fig. 8. Comparison between the proposed 3D approach and the 2D results

presented by Wei and Cheng (2010).
Fig. 7. Cross-section of the 3D horn section.

Table 1
Parameters used in the comparison with Wei and Cheng (2010).
Parameters Values

Slope Height, H (m) 6.0

Angle, β (°) 45.0
Width/Height, B/H 10.0
Soil nail Length, L (m) 8.0
Diameter, Db (m) 0.1
Spacing, S (m) 1.5
Angle of inclination (°) 0
Tensile yield strength, Tn (kN) 238.0
limit bonding strength, μ (kPa) 30.0
Soil Density, γ (kN/m3) 20.0
Friction angle, φ (°) 5, 15, 25, 35, 45
Cohesion, c (kPa) 5, 10, 20

Cheng (2010). In their study, the finite difference commercial software

FLAC3D is adopted to compute the Fos of slopes reinforced with soil Fig. 9. Comparison between the proposed approach and the results presented
nails by using the strength reduction method. Since Wei and Cheng by Wei and Cheng.
(2010) did not account for the influence of seismic forces, the value of
horizontal seismic acceleration coefficient kh is set to zero in the present

6
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

comparison. The parameters used in this comparison are shown in Table 2

Table 1. The cohesion varies from 5 kPa to 20 kPa, and the friction The parameters used in the Model sensitivity analysis.
angle from 5°to 45°, respectively. The comparison results are shown in Parameters Values
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the Fos as a function of B/H calculated Slope Height, H (m) 20.0
Angle, β (°) 60.0
by the proposed 3D approach and by Wei and Cheng (2010). It can be
Soil nail Diameter, Db (m) 0.1
seen that the Fos obtained by the present 3D solutions gradually ap- Spacing, S (m) 0.5–2.5
proaches the 2D results presented by Wei and Cheng (2010) with the Angle of inclination (°) 0
increasing of B/H, and it remains unchanged after the B/H reaches 10. Tensile yield strength, Tn (kN) 400.0
It is reasonable that the present solutions are 3D solutions while the limit bonding strength, μ (kPa) 50.0

solutions by Wei and Cheng (2010) are obtained by 2D plane strain

analysis.
friction angle φ varies from 10°to 25°, and the rest of the input para-
Fig. 9 presented the values of Fos for different soil shear strength
meters can be found in Table 1. As shown in Fig. 10, the values of Fos
parameters provided by the proposed 3D approach and by Wei and
assessed by the SOM are smaller than those provided by SRM when the
Cheng (2010). In the calculations, the value of B/H is set to 10. It is seen
friction angle φ < 17°, while the opposite results is observed for
from Fig. 9 that the values of Fos obtained by the proposed approach
φ > 17°. Note that when the friction angle φ is equal to 17°, the value
agree well with those presented by Wei and Cheng (2010), and the
of Fos is close to 1.0, corresponding to the ultimate limit state. This
average difference is equal to 11.5%. The presented solutions are
indicates that SOM and SRM can give similar estimation of Fos for a
generally bigger than the results provided by Wei and Cheng. Two
slope at the ultimate limit state. However, for a slope in stable state the
reasons might account for this phenomenon. One is that the stability
method of SRM gives more conservative results, and for the case of
analysis of slope under two-dimensional condition is more conservative
slope in unstable state, an opposite conclusion can be draw.
than a 3D analysis. The other one is that the resisting work rate of a
single reinforcing soil nail is reasonably and accurately assessed by the
proposed approach, especially in the curved section, at which the ef- 5. Model sensitivity analysis
fective length of a soil nail are longer than that of the 2D plane con-
dition. In this section, the influences of length and space of soil nails, soil
The strength reduction method (SRM) (Dawson et al., 2000) and the shear strength parameters, 3D geometrical parameters of slopes, seismic
seismic overload method (SOM) (Zhao, 2012) are commonly used to acceleration coefficients on the assessed safety factors and failure me-
assess the seismic stability of soil slopes. The SRM focuses on the effect chanism of slopes are investigated. The input parameters of slopes and
of shear strength parameters on the stability of slopes, while the em- soil nails used in this section are taken from the work of He et al. (2012)
phasis of the SOM is placed on the influence of seismic loads on the which can be found in Table 2.
stability of slope. A brief introduction of the SRM can be found in the
previous section 3. In SOM, the seismic acceleration is successively 5.1. Influence of the length of soil nail
increased until the failure of slopes occurs, and the corresponding
seismic acceleration is defined as critical seismic acceleration ac. Ac- Fig. 11 illustrates the factor of safety as a function of normalized soil
cording to the seismic fortification intensity of the area at which the nail length L/H with S = 1.5 and B/H = 10. The soil cohesion is equal
slope is located, the corresponding seismic fortification acceleration am to 20 kPa; the friction angle varies from 15˚ to 35˚; horizontal seismic
is selected. The safety factor of seismic overload is expressed as follows coefficient is equal to 0, and the soil unit weight is 19.5 kN/m3.
As shown in Fig. 11, the Fos rapidly increases with the normalized
Fossom = ac / am (28)
bolt length before L/H = 1.4, beyond which the Fos gradually remains
unchanged. This indicates that the optimal length of soil nails is ap-
Comparisons of Fos obtained by SRM and SOM are illustrated in
proximately equal to 1.4H in this presented work. One possible reason
Fig. 10. In the comparison, the seismic fortification intensity is assumed
contributing to this phenomenon might be that when L/H less than 1.4
to be 8°, and the corresponding seismic fortification acceleration am is
the pull-out case dominates the failure of soil nails, while when L/
0.2 g (China Ministry of Urban & Rural Construction, 2016), where g is
H greater than 1.4 the soil nails gradually reach the tensile yielding
the gravitational acceleration. The cohesion c is equal to 10 kPa, the
strength with the increasing of the bolt length.

Fig. 10. Comparison between the Fos evaluated by SRM and SOM. Fig. 11. Influence of soil nail length.

7
T. Yang, et al.
Fig. 12. The critical slip surface for a slope without soil nails.
Fig. 13. The critical slip surface and failure modes of soil nails for a slope reinforced by soil nails with L/H = 0.8.
In order to further investigate the influence of the length of soil nails
on the failure mechanism of slopes and soil nails, the critical slip sur-
faces of a slope without soil nailing and a slope reinforced by soil nails
with L/H = 0.8, 1.6 are plotted in Figs. 12–14, respectively. In these
figures, B’ is the width of the failure mechanism, and PA is the projected
area of the critical slip surface on the longitudinal plane of symmetry.
In this analysis, the ratio B/H is set to 3, the friction angle is equal to
25˚, and the rest of the input parameters are consistent with the pre-
vious model sensitivity analysis.
It can be observed from Figs. 12–13 that due to the reinforcement of
soil nails, the range of critical slip surface for the reinforced slope is
slightly smaller than that for the slope without soil nails. Making re-
ference to Fig. 13 and Fig. 14, the length of soil nail impacts the geo-
metry of critical slip surface significantly, the width (B’) of the failure
mechanism and the projected area (PA) of critical slip surface for the
reinforced slope decreases as the length of soil nail increases. Further-
more, for the case of L/H = 0.8, all soil nails are dominated by pull-out
8
Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768
failure (i.e., the percentage of soil nails with pull-out failure is 100%),
while for L/H = 1.6, the soil nails with tension failure account for 70%
of the total number of soil nails. This makes sense, because when L/
H = 0.8, the effective length of soil nails are too short to reach the
tensile limit; as the length of soil nails increases, some soil nails with
sufficient effective length can mobilize their tensile yield strength be-
fore reaching the pull-out limit.
5.2. Influence of soil nail spacing
Fig. 15 plots the factor of safety under different spacing of soil nails
versus ratio B/H for the slope with H = 20.0 m. According to the
conclusion in section 5.1, the optimal length of soil nails (1.4H) is se-
lected in the following analysis. The soil nail spacing is 2.0 m, the soil
cohesion is equal to 20.0 kPa, the friction angle equal to 25°, the hor-
izontal seismic coefficient to zero, and the unit weight is 19.5 kN/m3.
The ratio B/H varies from 1.0 to 10.0.
T. Yang, et al.
Fig. 14. The critical slip surface and failure modes of soil nails for a slope reinforced by soil nails with L/H = 1.6.
Fig.15. Influence of soil nail spacing.
In Fig. 15, the obtained factor of safety firstly dramatically de-
creases, then gradually decreases and eventually barely changes with
the increasing with B/H. However, the rate of variation is different for
different spacing of soil nails. For instance, in the case of S = 1.5 m, the
Fos drops dramatically when the ratio B/H ranges between 1 and 3, and
eventually becomes stable when the ratio B/H is approximately greater
than 6, while for S = 0.8 m the Fos still shows a rapid decrease even if
the ratio B/H reaches 10. This is probably because the presence of the
soil nails affects the end effect of the three-dimensional failure me-
chanism. In other words, the smaller the spacing of soil nails, the more
obvious the three-dimensional effect of the failure mechanism, leading
to larger values of the ratio B/H to deliver stable Fos.
Besides, taking B/H = 6.0 as an example, the value of Fos increases
by 132.9% and 18.2% for the cases of S = 1.0 m and S = 2.5 m re-
spectively, as compared with the case without soil nailing. This in-
dicates that the soil nailing has a positive effect on improving the safety
factor of slopes, especially when the spacing of soil nails is less than
2.0 m.
To study the impact of soil nail spacing on the failure mechanism of
slopes and soil nails, the stability analysis of slopes reinforced by soil
nails with S = 1.5 m, 2.0 m and 2.5 m is performed. In this analysis, the
9
Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768
normalized bolt length L/H = 1.6 is adopted, the ratio B/H is set to 3,
and the other input parameters are consistent with the previous model
sensitivity analysis.
The critical slip surface and failure modes of soil nails for a slope
reinforced by soil nails with S = 1.5 m, 2.0 m and 2.5 m are illustrated
in Fig. 14, Fig. 16 and Fig. 17, respectively. It can be known from
Fig. 14(c), Fig. 16(c) and Fig. 17(c) that the denser the soil nails, the
smaller the width (B’) and the projected area (PA). With the decrease of
soil nail spacing, the percentage of soil nails with tension failure in-
creases gradually. For instance, when the space between soil nails is
reduced from 2.5 m to 2.0 m, the percentage of soil nails with tension
failure increases from 42.9% to 53.3%. This interesting phenomenon
can be interpreted by the fact that more soil nails can provide higher
resistance, which eventually reduces the range of the critical slip sur-
face significantly. As the domain of the critical slip surface declines, the
effective length of soil nails increases. Thus, the tensile failure occurs in
some soil nails which have sufficient effective length to reach the ten-
sile yield strength.
5.3. Influence of the slope geometry
Fig. 18 illustrates the Fos under different ratio B/H versus the slope
angle β for a slope with H = 20.0 m. The optimal length of soil nail
(1.4H) is used in the following analysis. The soil nail spacing is 2.0 m,
the soil cohesion is equal to 20.0 kPa, the friction angle is equal to 25°,
horizontal seismic coefficient is equal to zero, and the unit weight is
19.5 kN/m3. The ratio B/H varies from 2.0 to 8.0, and the slope angle β
changes from 30° to 90°.
As shown in Fig. 18, the slope Fos decreases sharply with the slope
angle β. For B/H = 4, the Fos reduces by 56.1% from 1.57 to 0.70,
when the slope angle β increases from 40° to 90°. Thus, the parameters
of slope geometry (i.e., the ratio B/H and slope angle β) exhibit a sig-
nificant influence on stability of a slope reinforced with soil nails.
5.4. Influence of the seismic forces
Fig. 19 plots the Fos under different seismic coefficient kh versus
cohesion c for the slope with H = 20.0 m. The optimal length of soil
nail (1.4H) is employed in this section. The soil nail spacing is 2.0 m,
the friction angle is equal to 20°, and the soil cohesion varies from 0 to
30.0 kPa. The horizontal seismic coefficients increase from 0.0 to 0.3,
and the unit weight is 19.5 kN/m3. The ratio B/H is set to 6.0.
T. Yang, et al.
Fig. 16. The critical slip surface and failure modes of soil nails for a slope reinforced by soil nails with S = 2.0 m.
Making reference to Fig. 19, the factor safety increases from 0.66 to
1.13 when the soil cohesion increases from 5 kPa to 30 kPa under the
seismic coefficient kh = 0, (i.e., static condition), and it increases from
0.42 to 0.74 under seismic coefficient kh = 0.3, (i.e., seismic condi-
tion). This indicates that the cohesion c have a significantly positive
effect on the stability of slope reinforced with soil nails subject to
seismic forces. For a slope with cohesion c = 25 kPa, the factor safety
reduces by 24.4% when the horizontal seismic coefficient kh increases
from 0.1 to 0.3. This indicates that the earthquake has a remarkable
negative impact on stability of slopes.
6. Stability Charts
It is convenient for designers to make the preliminary assessment of
slope safety by stability charts (Gao et al., 2013). Thus, the seismic
stability charts of a three-dimensional soil slopes reinforced by soil nails
are provided in this section. Taylor (1937) developed the simple design
Fig. 17. The critical slip surface and failure modes of soil nails for a slope reinforced by soil nails with S = 2.5 m.
10
Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768
charts to assess the safety factor of undrained clay slopes by using the
friction circle method. These charts can be used to evaluate slope sta-
bility. However, iterations are still required to determine the safety
factor of a homogeneous slope. Inspired by Taylor’s work, Michalowski
(2002) presented a series of new stability charts according to the sta-
bility number N = c / γH tan φ (as defined by Bell (1966) which is a
convenient tool for the quick assessments of the safety factors of slopes.
Since the quantity N = c / γH tan φ is independent of the safety factor, it
allows designers to avoid iteration calculations when reading the factor
of safety from the stability charts. For convenience, the stability charts
of 3D slopes presented herein are consistent with Michalowski (2002).
A set of stabity charts are presented in Figs. 20–22. Computations were
carried out for 3D slopes with inclination angles β ranging from 45° to
90°, the ratio B/H = 2, 5, 10, nails spacing S = 1.5 m, 2 m, 3 m, and the
horizontal seismic coefficient kh = 0, 0.15, 0.3. The optimal length of
soil nails (1.4H) is used in this section. The soil nail parameters used in
this section are taken from the work of He et al. (2012) which can be
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

(a) S = 1.5 m
Fig. 18. Fos of slope under different B/H versus β.

(b) S = 2.0 m

Fig. 19. Fos of slope under different seismic coefficient kh versus cohesion c.

found in Table 2.
In the presented stability charts, the stability number N = c / γH tan φ
can be calculated for the given values of parameters c, ϕ, γ, H, where c
and ϕ are the soil shear strength, γ is the unit weight of the soil, F is the
safety factor of the slope and H is the height of the slope. For the
computed stability number N and given slope angle β, nail spacing S,
the ratio B/H and horizontal seismic coefficient kh, the safety factor can
be assessed from vertical axes (tan φ / F ) or horizontal axes (c / γHF ).

7. Conclusions

This paper focuses on the factor of safety estimations of a slope

reinforced with soil nails subject to seismic forces by using the strength (c) S = 3.0 m
reduction method in combination with the kinematical approach of Fig. 20. Stability charts for a slope with kh = 0.
limit analysis. Instead of two-dimensional limit equilibrium method,
the three-dimensional rotational failure mechanism is used to assess the
(1) Soil nails have a positive effect on improving the stability of slopes.
factor of safety of slopes, which is more practical in engineering prac-
The length of soil nails greatly affects the safety factor of slopes,
tice. An edge over previous study is that this paper calculates the re-
especially when L/H ≤ 1.4, beyond which the Fos hardly increases
sisting work rate of a single reinforcing soil nail by considering both the
with bolt length. This indicates that there is an optimal length of
tensile failure and pullout failure. The analytical expressions of Fos are
soil nails when soil nails are used to reinforce slopes, and the op-
derived by using the work-balance equation. Comparisons of factor of
timal length is approximately 1.4H in this presented work.
safety are performed to verify the present study. Parametric analysis is
(2) The presence of the soil nails affects the end effect of the three-
conducted to investigate the influences of nail length, nail density, soil
dimensional failure mechanism. The smaller the distance between
shear strength and seismic forces on slope stability. The main conclu-
soil nails, the more obvious the three-dimensional effect of the
sions of the present study are drawn as follows:

11
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

(a) S = 1.5 m (a) S = 1.5 m

(b) S = 2.0 m (b) S = 2.0 m

(c) S = 3.0 m
(c) S = 3.0 m
Fig. 21. Stability charts for a slope with kh = 0.15.
Fig. 22. Stability charts for a slope with kh = 0.30.
failure mechanism, the larger value of the ratio B/H achieving
stable Fos. decreases from 1.05 to 0.68 by more than 35% under the seismic
(3) The geometrical parameter, ratio B/H, exhibit a non-negligible in- condition with kh = 0.3. This indicates that the seismic forces have
fluence on stability of a slope reinforced with soil nails, the Fos a remarkable impact on stability of slopes.
decreases dramatically in the different specific range of ratio B/H
under different soil nails spacing.
(4) Compared with the static condition, the factor safety of a slope

12
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

CRediT authorship contribution statement interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Tao Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original
draft. Jin-Feng Zou: Visualization, Investigation. Qiu-Jing Pan:
Supervision. Acknowledgements

Declaration of Competing Interest This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of
China (2017YFB1201204).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Appendix A

H / r0 = e (θh − θ0) tan φ sin θh − sin θ0 (A1)

L/ r0 = cos θ0 − cos θh e (θh − θ0) tan φ − [e (θh − θ0) tan φ sin θh − sin θ0] cot β (A2)

1 ⎡ (θ − θ0) tan φ r′
f1 = e + 0 e−(θ − θ0) tan φ⎤
2⎣⎢ r0 ⎥
⎦ (A3)

1 ⎡ (θ − θ0) tan φ r′
f2 = e − 0 e−(θ − θ0) tan φ⎤
2⎢⎣ r0 ⎥
⎦ (A4)

sin θ0 1 r′ sin θ0
f3 = − ⎡e (θ − θ0) tan φ + 0 e−(θ − θ0) tan φ⎤ = − f1
sin θ 2⎣⎢ r0 ⎥
⎦ sin θ (A5)

sin(θh + β ) (θh − θ0) tan φ 1 r′ sin(θh + β )

f4 = e − ⎡e (θ − θ0) tan φ + 0 e−(θ − θ0) tan φ⎤ = − f1
sin(θ + β ) 2⎢⎣ r0 ⎥
⎦ sin(θ + β ) (A6)
θ
g1 = 2 ∫θ B [(f22 f3 /8 − f33 /4 − 2f1 f32 /3 − f3 f12 /2 + 2f1 f22 /3) f22 − f32
0

+ (f 24 /8 + f22 f12 /2) arcsin( f22 − f32 /f2 )] cos θdθ

θh
+ 2∫ θB
[(f22 f4 /8 − f43 /4 − 2f1 f42 /3 − f4 f12 /2 + 2f1 f22 /3) f22 − f42

+ (f 24 /8 + f22 f12 /2) arcsin( f22 − f42 /f2 )] cos θdθ (A7)
1
f5 = [(3 tan φ cos θh + sin θh ) e3(θh − θ0) tan φ − (3 tan φ cos θ0 + sin θ0)]
3(1 + 9tan2 φ) (A8)

1 L⎛ L
f6 = 2 cos θ0 − ⎞ sin θ0
⎜ ⎟

6 r0 ⎝ r0 ⎠ (A9)

1 (θ h − θ0) tan φ ⎡ L L
f7 = e sin(θ h − θ0 ) − sin θ h⎤ ⎡cos θ0 − + cos θ h e (θ h − θ0) tan φ⎤
6 ⎢
⎣ r0 ⎥
⎦⎣⎢ r0 ⎥
⎦ (A10)

b
g2 = (f − f6 − f7 )[sin θ h e (θ h − θ0) tan φ − sin θ0]
H 5 (A11)
θB
g3 = 2 ∫θ [(f22 f3 /8 − f33 /4 − 2f1 f32 /3 − f3 f12 /2 + 2f1 f22 /3) f22 − f32
0

+ (f 24 /8 + f22 f12 /2) arcsin( f22 − f32 / f2 )] sin θdθ

θh
+ 2 ∫θ [(f22 f4 /8 − f43 /4 − 2f1 f42 /3 − f4 f12 /2 + 2f1 f22 /3) f22 − f42
B

+ (f 24 /8 + f22 f12 /2) arcsin( f22 − f42 / f2 )] sin θdθ (A12)

1
f8 = [(3 tan φ cos θ h − cos θ h ) e3(θ h − θ0) tan φ − (3 tan φ sin θ0 − cos θ0)]
3(1 + 9tan2 φ) (A13)
1L 2
f9 = sin θ0
3 r0 (A14)

1 (θ h − θ0) tan φ H sin(θ h + β ) ⎡ H

f10 = e 2 sin θ h e (θ h − θ0) tan φ − ⎤
6 r0 sin β ⎢
⎣ ⎥
r0 ⎦ (A15)

b
g4 = (f − f9 − f10 )[sin θh e (θh − θ0) tan φ − sin θ0]
H 8 (A16)

13
T. Yang, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768

Fig. 23. Cross-section of the 3D horn section.

θB cos θ
g5 = −2sin2 θ0 ∫θ f22 − f32 dθ
0 sin3 θ
θ cos(θ + β )
− 2e 2(θh − θ0) tan φsin2 (θh + β) θ h 3
∫ f22 − f42 dθ
B sin (θ + β ) (A17)

b ⎧ sin2 θ0 sin2 (θh + β ) ⎤ 2(θh − θ0) tan φ ⎫

g6 = − 1 + ⎡1 − e [sin θh e (θh − θ0) tan φ − sin θ0]
2H ⎨ sin2θ
B ⎢
⎣ sin2 (θ + β ) ⎥
B ⎦ ⎬ (A18)
⎩ ⎭

Appendix B

In order to calculate the internal energy dissipation of a single soil nail in terms of pull-out failure, the angles θnij of each soil nails should be
computed first. This Appendix explains the process of how to obtain the angles for 3D horn section. As illustrates in Fig. 23, θnij is angle of the i-th
row and the j-th column soil nail in the 3D horn section, which depend on the intersection of the soil nail and failure face. Fig. 24 depicts its
projection onto the plane of symmetry. EF is the distance of the soil nails in column J from the plane of symmetry, which can be expressed as
EF = j × S (B1)
According to geometrical relationships, one can obtain,
EG / EF = EF / DE (B2)

DE = 2Rij − EG (B3)

rij = OE + EG (B4)

OE = (r0 sin θ0 + z i )/sin θnij (B5)

where zi is the depth of the i-th soil nail.

Fig. 24. The projection of the 3D horn section.

14
T. Yang, et al.
Substituting Eqs. (B1) and (B3) into Eq. (B2) leads to
2
1 1
EG = × Rij − ⎛ × Rij ⎞ − (j × S )2
2
⎝2 ⎠ (B6)
By introducing Eqs. (B5) and (B6) into Eq. (B4) results in,
2
1 1
r0 e (θnij − θ0) tan φ − (r0 sin θ0 + z i )/sin θnij = 2
× Rij − ⎛ × Rij ⎞ − (j × S )2
⎝2 ⎠ (B7)
where S is the soil nail spacing, j represents the j-th column. Rij is the diameter of the circle at i-th row and the j-th column soil nail, which can be
expressed as
r ′0 −(θnij − θ0) tan φ
Rij = r0 e (θnij − θ0) tan φ − e
r0
By solving the Eq. (B7), the angles θnij is obtained.
References
Ausilio, E., Conte, E., Dente, G., 2000. Seismic stability analysis of reinforced slopes. Soil
Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 19 (3), 159–172.
Bathurst, R.J., Hatami, K., 1998. Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced
soil retaining wall. Geosynthetics Int. 5 (1–2), 127–166.
Bell, J.M., 1966. Dimensionless parameters for homogeneous earth slopes. J. Soil Mech.
Founda. Div. 92 (5), 51–65.
Buhan, D.P., Salençon, J., 1993. A comprehensive stability analysis of soil nailed struc-
tures. Eur. J. Mech. 12 (3), 325–345.
Cai, Z., Bathurst, R.J., 1995. Seismic response analysis of geosynthetic reinforced soil
segmental retaining walls by finite element Method. Comput. Geotech. 17 (4),
523–546.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization), 2004. “Geotechnical design. Part 1:
General rules.” Eurocode 7, EN 1997-1, Brussels, Belgium.
China Ministry of Urban & Rural Construction, 2016. Code for seismic design of buildings:
GB50011-2010. China Building Industry Press, Beijing.
Dawson, E., Motamed, F., Nesarajah, S., Roth, W., 2000. Geotechnical stability analysis by
strength reduction. Slope Stability 99–113.
FHWA, 1997. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3. Design guidance: geotechnical
earthquake engineering for highways, vols. I and II. Publication No. FHWA-SA-97-
077.
Gao, Y.F., Zhang, F., Lei, G.H., Li, D.Y., Wu, Y.X., Zhang, N., 2013. Stability Charts for 3D
Failures of Homogeneous Slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (9), 1528–1538.
Gao, Y.F., Zhang, F., Lei, G.H., Li, D.Y., 2013. An extended limit analysis of three-di-
mensional slope stability. Geotechnique 63 (6), 518.
GEO, 2008. Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction (Geoguide 7).
Ghosh, S., Debnath, C., 2016. Pseudo-static analysis of reinforced earth retaining wall
considering non-linear failure surface. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 34 (4), 981–990.
He, S., Ouyang, C., Luo, Y., 2012. Seismic stability analysis of soil nail reinforced slope
using kinematic approach of limit analysis. Environ. Earth Sci. 66 (1), 319–326.
Liew, S.S., 2005. Soil nailing for slope strengthening. Geotechnical Engineering, Gue &
Partners Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. pp. 30–31.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Perry, E.B., 1997. Seismic design and performance of geo-
synthetic-reinforced soil structures. Geotechnique 47 (5), 933–952.
Michalowski, R.L., 1997. Stability of uniformly reinforced slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 123 (6), 546–556.
Michalowski, R.L., 1998. Limit analysis in stability calculations of reinforced soil
15
Computers and Geotechnics 127 (2020) 103768
(B8)
structures. Geotext. Geomembr. 16 (6), 311–331.
Michalowski, R.L., 2002. Stability charts for uniform slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
128 (4), 351–355.
Michalowski, R.L., Drescher, A., 2009. Three-dimensional stability of slopes and ex-
cavations. Géotechnique 59 (10), 839–850.
Pan, Q.J., Xu, J.S., Dias, D., 2017. Three-dimensional stability of a slope subjected to
seepage forces. Int. J. Geomech. 17 (8), 04017035.
Patra, C.R., Basudhar, P.K., 2005. Optimum design of nailed soil slopes. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 23 (3), 273–296.
Qian, Z.H., Zou, J.F., Tian, J., Pan, Q.J., 2020. Estimations of active and passive earth
thrusts of non-homogeneous frictional soils using a discretisation technique. Comput.
Geotech. 119, 103366.
Qin, C., Chian, S.C., 2019. Pseudo-static/dynamic solutions of required reinforcement
force for steep slopes using discretization-based kinematic analysis. J. Rock Mech.
Geotech. Eng. 11 (2), 289–299.
Richardson, G.N., Lee, K.L., 1975. Seismic design of reinforced earth walls. J. Geotechn.
Eng. 101 (2), 167–188.
Shiu, Y.K., Chang, G.W.K., 2005. Soil nail head review. Geotechnical Engineering Office,
Civil Engineering and Development Department, pp. 106.
Steedman, R.S., Zeng, X., 1990. Influence of phase on calculation of pseudo-static earth
pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique 40 (3), 103–112.
Taylor, D.W., 1937. Stability of earth slopes. J. Boston Soc. Civil Eng. 24 (3), 197–247.
Wei, W.B., Cheng, Y.M., 2010. Soil nailed slope by strength reduction and limit equili-
brium methods. Comput. Geotech. 37 (5), 602–618.
Xu, J.S., Yang, X.L., 2018. Seismic stability analysis and charts of a 3D rock slope in Hoek-
Brown media. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 112, 64–76.
Xu, J.S., Yang, X.L., 2019. Seismic stability of 3D soil slope reinforced by geosynthetic
with nonlinear failure criterion. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 118, 86–97.
Yang, X.L., Pan, Q.J., 2015. Three dimensional seismic and static stability of rock slopes.
Geomech. Eng. 8 (1), 97–111.
Yang, X.L., Xu, J.S., 2016. Three-dimensional stability of two-stage slope in in-
homogeneous soils. Int. J. Geomech. 17 (7), 06016045.
Zhang, F., Leshchinsky, D., Baker, R., Gao, Y., Leshchinsky, B., 2016. Implications of
variationally derived 3D failure mechanism. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 40
(18), 2514–2531.
Zhao, T., 2012. Methodological study of critical acceleration analysis of slope earthquake
stability. [In Chinese.] China University of Geosciences (Beijing). PhD thesis.