Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e n g g e o

Analysis of shallow instabilities in soil slopes reinforced with nailed steel

wire meshes
Almudena Da Costa ⁎, César Sagaseta
Department of Ground Engineering and Materials Science, University of Cantabria Avda. de Los Castros, s/n, 39005 Santander, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A model based on the limit equilibrium method is developed for the analysis of shallow instabilities in soil
Received 25 May 2009 slopes reinforced with nailed steel wire meshes. Shallow instabilities are associated to ground weathering or
Received in revised form 16 November 2009 shallow water flow affecting a moderate depth, about 10–20% of the slope height. These effects are
Accepted 27 February 2010
considered in the analysis as a reduction of the soil strength. The reinforcing mesh is assumed to act as a
Available online 12 March 2010
distributed pressure on the slope surface. The aim is to determine the value of the normal pressure needed to
Keywords:
reach a given safety factor against shallow instability. The proposed method is presented first for an infinite
Weathering slope, leading to a closed form solution. If the height of the slope has to be considered as finite, a second
Shallow instability analysis is developed dividing the unstable layer of soil in finite blocks. The result is given as a correction
Slope factor to be applied to the infinite slope solution. An application example is used to illustrate the design of
Equilibrium method practical cases.
Reinforcing mesh The results of the limit analysis are compared with finite element calculations. The stabilization effect
achieved by the wire mesh is evaluated as the increase of the possible reduction of the soil strength before
the slope failure.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Stability of cut slopes has always been an important geotechnical
issue, due to the continuous increase of construction of infrastructure
works. Global instability of slopes results from unbalanced resistant
and destabilization forces, associated to low shear strength or high
pore pressures, and it has been extensively studied.
However, shallow instabilities have received less attention. They
are associated to ground weathering, degradation or shallow water
flow, and lead to sliding of soil masses, parallel to the slope face and at
moderate depth, typically less than 3 m or 10–20% of the slope height.
The susceptibility of the soil to weathering has been studied by
various authors (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965; Goldman et al., 1986).
As an example, two different mechanisms of shallow instabilities are
shown in Fig. 1. A reasonable approach to include the soil weathering
in stability analysis is by means of the reduction of soil strength
parameters, especially the cohesion (because interparticle friction is
less sensitive to degradation).
1.1. Analysis of slope stability
The analysis of slope stability is usually done by limit equilibrium
methods. The first developments of this method were done for 2D
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 34 942 201813; fax: + 34 942 201821.
E-mail addresses: dacostaa@unican.es (A. Da Costa), sagasetac@unican.es
(C. Sagaseta).
analyses, assuming plane strain conditions. The factor of safety for a
given failure mechanism is defined as the quotient between the
maximum available shear force along the failure surface and the force
needed for equilibrium. Equilibrium is usually imposed with the aid
of the division of the unstable mass in vertical slices. The different
assumptions made for the interslice forces give rise to different
methods (Bishop, 1955; Janbu, 1957; Morgenstern and Price, 1965;
etc). A large number of failure surfaces are checked, and the most
critical one, which gives the minimum factor of safety, is selected.
The types of surfaces used must be chosen based on the features of
the problem and the likely type of instability. On the other hand, the
factor of safety can also be obtained by using finite element analyses
with a progressive reduction of soil strength until failure (Griffiths
and Lane, 1999). In these analyses, the failure mechanism comes out
as a result.
1.2. Systems to correct shallow instabilities
Stabilization of shallow layers of slopes can be done by means of
different systems acting on the slope surface. The aim is to increase
the safety factor against shallow failures and at the same time to
protect the slope from erosion, weathering, etc.
Different methods have been used for this purpose. One of them
consists of planting different types of vegetation, so that weathering
on the slope surface is reduced. Various studies of this system have
shown the increase of soil shear strength due to plant roots (Gray,
1978; Bache and MacAskill, 1984; Barker, 1986). A recent study has

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.02.005
54 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61
Fig. 1. Shallow instabilities in slopes (Barker, 1986).
been presented by Roering et al. (2003) dealing with root reinforce-
ment in shallow slides in Oregon Coast Range. Another usual method
is the use of shotcrete for shallow protection against weathering.
However, this solution has a poor visual effect, and is very sensitive
to water pressure acting on the soil–shotcrete interface in case of
shallow water flow.
An alternative to the above methods is the use of steel wire meshes
nailed to the slope. These flexible elements apply a pressure on the
soil surface when the nails are pre-stressed or when the soil tries to
move against them. The result is a shallow zone of the soil slope in
compression; while the mesh is subjected to a tensile state (Fig. 2).
The stiffness of the mesh governs its interaction with the slope, and its
strength is an important factor in the design of this kind of rein-
forcements, as it determines the maximum pressure that the mesh
can give to the slope surface. Various authors have studied this prop-
erty by means of tensile tests of the meshes (e.g. Castro-Fresno et al.,
2008). The characterization of one of these meshes (TECCO G-65),
focused on its anisotropic behaviour, and the study of the interaction
between the mesh and the soil can be found in Da Costa and Sagaseta
(2002).
1.3. Description and structure of the problem
The study presented in this paper deals with the shallow stabi-
lization of slopes by means of nailed wire meshes. A limit equilibrium
analysis is developed, in which the effect of the reinforcing mesh is
included as a pressure acting on the slope surface. The aim is to obtain
the value of this pressure, needed to reach a given safety factor against
shallow instability. The limit equilibrium analysis is presented for an
infinite slope and a slope of finite height. In the first case the analysis is
similar to classic solutions developed for infinite slopes, but including
the effect of the reinforcing mesh. In the second case, the analysis
Fig. 2. Conceptualisation of an anchored mesh system (Koerner and Robins, 1986).
considers a failure mechanism in which the unstable layer of the slope
is divided in various wedges. As a result of the analysis, some ana-
lytical expressions and graphs are given, which provide a relationship
between the safety factor and the pressure needed on the slope
surface.
2. Analysis as infinite slope
When the thickness of the unstable layer is small compared with
the slope height, the analysis as an infinite slope, sliding on a plane at
an angle β, parallel to the slope face at a depth d, can be appropriate.
Classic solutions of this problem can be found in general textbooks
on slopes (e.g., Lambe and Whitman, 1969). In these solutions a
vertical soil slice of the shallow unstable zone of the slope is con-
sidered (Fig. 3). The slice is defined by two vertical planes, the soil
surface and the failure plane. The calculation is done by imposing
equilibrium of forces in the slice. The condition of infinite slope
implies that the stresses (effective and water pressure) acting on the
two vertical planes are equal at the same depth, so they cancel out,
and the weight of the slice (W) must be balanced only by the stresses
on the failure plane (σ, τ).
The effect of a reinforcing mesh nailed to the slope can be included
in the analysis as the pressure acting on the slope surface, with
normal (p) and shear (t) components (Fig. 3). This components can
be related by an interface friction angle, δ, between mesh and soil
(t = p tan δ).
The water pressure on the base, u, is obtained from the flow
conditions prevailing in each case.
The shear and normal effective stresses at the base of the slice
(τ, σ′) are related by the limit shear condition:
τ = c* + σ ′ tan ϕ* ð1Þ
 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61 55

2.1. Dry slope

If there are no pore pressures, u = 0, the following relationship

between the pressure p acting on the slope surface and the safety
factor F0 (included in c* and ϕ*) is obtained.

c*
p sinβ− cosβ tan ϕ*− γd
= : ð3Þ
γd tan ϕ* + tan δ

Negative values of p indicate that no reinforcement is needed.

Eq. (3) has been plotted in graphs giving the value of p for various
values of the parameters involved in the analysis. Fig. 4a) and d) show
Fig. 3. Infinite slope. Forces on a slice.
the solution for c*/γd equal to 0.0 and 0.25 respectively, and δ = 0
(the mesh only applies a normal pressure to the slope surface).
where c* and ϕ* are the soil strength parameters reduced with the
desired safety factor F0 (c* = c/F0; tan ϕ* = tan ϕ/F0). 2.2. Submerged slope
The above condition, together with the two equilibrium equations
(equilibrium of forces in the directions parallel and normal to the Forces caused by water pressure on the base and on both sides of
failure plane) are enough to obtain the three unknowns: the effective the slice need to be added to those considered for dry slopes. Vertical
stresses on the base, σ′ and τ, and the mesh pressure p. uplift can be directly subtracted to the weight of the slice as there is no
From the analysis, the pressure p can be put in a dimensionless seepage. The result obtained is the same equation as for dry slope
form as a function of all the other parameters involved in the problem. (Eq. (3)), but changing the unit weight of the soil for its submerged

 value (γsubmerged = γsat − γw).
p γw c* u
=f ; ; ϕ*; β; ;δ : ð2Þ
γd γ γd γw d 2.3. Slope subjected to seepage

Eq. (2) takes different forms depending on water conditions: dry The value of u at the base of the slice has to be obtained according
slope, submerged slope or seepage. to seepage conditions. In this research, seepage defined by flow lines

Fig. 4. Normal pressure on the slope surface for an infinite slope.

56 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61

with angle λ with horizontal direction is considered as the most values of λ were considered (λ = 0: horizontal seepage and λ = β:
general condition (Fig. 5). In this case the pore pressure at a given seepage parallel to the slope). Fig. 4 shows the solution for c*/γd equal
point of the failure plane results: to 0.0 and 0.25, and δ = 0 (smooth mesh).
In all the cases, the pressure needed increases with the depth of
γw d cosλ the failure plane, d. Hence, this depth must be selected as the maxi-
u= : ð4Þ
cosðβ−λÞ mum likely value for each case.

The relationship between the pressure p acting on the slope 3. Slope of finite height
surface and the safety factor F0 is obtained from the equilibrium of the
forces showed in Fig. 3, with the above value of u. Unlike the case of If the ratio of the thickness of the unstable layer to the slope height
dry and submerged slope, the effective normal stress in the failure is not small enough, it could be desirable to introduce the actual
plane can be negative for some combinations of water pressure, soil height into account, and to abandon the infinite slope model.
strength and slope geometry. This is in disagreement with soil behav-
iour, because the soil tensile strength is supposed to be negligible. In 3.1. Equilibrium analysis
this case, to obtain the relationship between p and F0, the equilibrium
of forces should be imposed again but with σ′ = 0. An analysis is proposed that considers a failure mechanism in
Condition of σ′ positive or negative is given by the sign of the agreement with the kinematic possibility of sliding when a reinforcing
following expression: mesh is nailed to the slope. Fig. 6a) shows this mechanism in which

 the unstable layer is divided in various wedges. The wedge sizes are
c* 1 γ cosλ defined by the distance between anchors (s) used in the nailing
M = tan β− + 1− w tan δ: ð5Þ
γd cosβ γ cosβ cosðβ−λÞ design. This distance and the thickness of the unstable layer (d) define
the angle of the failure plane when it comes to the slope surface (α).
M N 0 means positive values of σ′. In this case equilibrium of forces The method consists of imposing equilibrium forces in each
results in Eq. (6) which gives the necessary pressure p for a safety wedge, starting the analysis in the crest of the slope and progressing
factor F0: downwards in different steps. In each calculation step, there are
always two blocks (Fig. 6b):
c*
p sinβ− γd − cosβ tan ϕ* + γγw coscosλ
ðβ−λÞ tan ϕ*
= : ð6Þ − Block A, sliding on a plane parallel to the slope and
γd tan ϕ* + tan δ − Block B, sliding at an angle α with the slope.

If M b 0, equilibrium of forces obtained by imposing σ′ = 0 results Fig. 7 shows the forces acting on these two blocks for a given step i
in the following two equations: of calculation. Forces Tk and N′k (k = 1 to 3) correspond with stresses
τk and σ′k respectively, related by Coulomb condition (Eq. (1)). There
p γ cosλ are four equations of equilibrium (zero sums of forces on each of the
= w − cosβ ð7Þ
γd γ cosðβ−λÞ two blocks, in directions parallel and normal to the failure plane). The
forces Uk are obtained from the pore pressures u, which are calculated
c from water conditions.
F= : ð8Þ
γd sinβ−p tan δ If the face pressure on block A, p1 is known from the preceding
steps, these four equations define the four unknowns: the normal
It is interesting to note that in this case, the pressure p is governed forces at the base of each block (N′1, N′3) and at the interface between
by the uplift condition, and it does not depend on the soil strength, nor them (N′2), and the surface pressure p needed on block B.
on the safety factor. The safety factor, in turn, cannot be forced to take In the first step, block A is formed by the wedge 1 (Fig. 6a) and
a desired value, but it depends on soil strength and the shear com- there is no face pressure on it. The pressure on block B, p2 (wedge 2)
ponent of the applied pressure. In the particular case of lubricated is obtained. Then, in the second step, block A is formed by wedges 1 +
mesh (δ = 0), the safety factor (against uplift) depends only on soil 2 + 3, subjected to pressure p2, and block B is wedge 4. The pressure
cohesion and slope geometry. on wedge 4 is obtained. By carrying out the calculation from the top
to the toe of the slope, pressures p needed on each part of the slope
2.4. Graphical presentation of results surface are calculated. The obtained pressure p increases as the cal-
culation proceeds downward, and it is maximum at the toe. If the
Eqs. (6) and (7) have been plotted in graphs giving the value of p slope height increases, the toe pressure tends asymptotically to the
for various values of the parameters involved in the analysis. Two infinite slope solution, presented in the preceding section.
At any step, if the effective normal force acting on any failure plane
is negative (N′ b 0), the calculation should be done again but
considering N′ = 0 and leaving free the corresponding safety factors,
until reaching equilibrium with normal effective pressures positive or
equal to zero. Each of the effective normal forces (N′1, N′2 and N′3, in
each plane) could be negative, given different equations to be solved
in each case. For each case with negative N′i, it is possible to solve the
equilibrium forces and give a solution by a different set of equations.
The general form for the relationship between the non-dimen-
sional parameters involved in the problem is given in Eq. (9).

0 i−1 1
B c* ∑ pj C
pi B s j=1 γ C
= f B ; ϕ*; i; ; β; δ; ; λ; w ; ψC ð9Þ
γd @γd d γd γ A
Fig. 5. Seepage conditions.
 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61 57

Fig. 6. Mechanism of blocks for limit equilibrium analysis.

where i is the current step of calculation, pj are the pressures obtained
in previous calculation steps for the above wedges and ψ is zero for
dry slopes or 1 for water conditions.
The complete analytical formulation for the eight possible cases
can be found in Da Costa (2004).
3.2. Graphical presentation of results
The presentation of general stability charts is unpractical, due
to the large number of possible cases associated to uplift failure on
the different planes. This representation is possible only in typical
situations in which all the values of the normal effective forces are
non-negative, and is presented in Figs. 8 and 9.
The following assumptions have been considered.
− The maximum pressure p, obtained for the wedge located at the
toe of the slope, is considered as the result of each case. In practice,
the reinforcement should be designed for this value.
− Curves for cohesive soils have been plotted excluding the cases
with tensile stresses in the soil. Interpolation between any two
results shown is possible. However, extrapolation must be
avoided, because it can reach zones corresponding to tensile
effective stresses, where the solution is associated to uplift failure.

Fig. 7. Forces acting on blocks A and B.

58 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61
Fig. 8. Height reduction due to soil cohesion.
− All the curves have been plotted for s/d = 3, although this param-
eter has a limited influence on the results.
− In all cases, a value of δ = 0 was used, which means zero shear
stress on the slope surface.
− Cohesion and friction angle of the soil, to be used in the graphs, are
affected by the safety factor (c*, ϕ*).
− For each case, three possible water conditions were analyzed: dry,
horizontal seepage and seepage parallel to slope surface.
3.2.1. Effect of the cohesion. Reduced slope height
The comparative analysis of all the studied cases with and without
cohesion shows that the solution for any case with cohesion and
friction can be obtained from the results for a purely friction soil
(c = 0) by means of a reduction of the slope height, by an amount ΔHc.
H* = H−ΔHc :
The value of the required reduction ΔHc depends on the soil
cohesion and friction, slope geometry and water condition. Fig. 8 gives
Fig. 9. Ratio R for various slope heights and c = 0.
the values of ΔHc/d for β = 40° (curves for other slopes can be found in
Da Costa (2004)).
Once the effect of the cohesion has been considered with this
reduction of height, the slope can be calculated by considering the soil
as purely frictional material (c = 0).
3.2.2. Slope of finite height in cohesionless soil
For a cohesionless soil, the pressure needed at the toe of the slope
can be expressed in a non-dimensional form as a fraction of the value
obtained for infinite slope, given in Section 2:
pfinite H
R= : ð11Þ
pH→∞
Fig. 9 gives the variation of R with H/d for the three selected
water conditions. The separate influences of β (range 30–60°) and ϕ*
ð10Þ (10–15°) are difficult to identify, and the use of the upper most curve
for each case is a reasonable safe option.
In all cases, R tends to 1.0 when H/d → ∞. When the thickness of the
unstable layer is less than 3% of the slope height, R is almost 1.0 and
the infinite slope solution can be taken.
 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61 59

Table 1 Table 3
Slope properties considered for the finite element analysis. Cohesion on the shallow layer of the slope for the same pressures p obtained in the limit
equilibrium analysis and for F = 1. Finite element analysis.
Slope (°) 45
Height (m) 8 Pressure, p (kN/m2) Cohesion (kN/m2) (shallow layer)
Thickness of the shallow weathered layer (m) 1.3
8.4 5.0
Young's modulus (kN/m2) 104
13.5 3.5
Poisson's ratio 0.3
16.2 2.5
Soil unit weight (kN/m3) 18
Friction angle (°) 15
Angle of dilatancy (°) 0
Cohesion (kN/m2) Variable in the shallow layer and
(ii) The ratio R = ppfinite H
can be obtained from Fig. 9a) for H/d =
104 in other zones of the slopea H→∞
8.25, giving R = 0.74.
a
The high value of 104 kN/m2 for cohesion was chosen to avoid yielding in other (iii) The normal pressure on the slope surface for infinite slope,
zone of the slope different to the shallow layer.
pH → ∞, can be calculated from Fig. 4a) (or from Eq. (3)) for
β = 40°, ϕ* = 15° and c = 0 resulting in a value of pH → ∞ =
46.5 kPa.
(iv) The normal pressure needed on the slope surface is then ob-
Table 2
tained as pfinite H = R · pH → ∞ = 34.4 kPa.
Pressure needed on the slope surface for F = 1. Limit equilibrium analysis.

Cohesion (kN/m2) (shallow layer) Pressure, p (kN/m2) The reinforcement has to be designed so that it applies this pres-
6.0 8.4 sure to the slope surface.
4.0 13.5
3.0 16.2
4. Numerical analysis
0.5 23.3

The proposed limit equilibrium method has been checked by

3.3. Application example
A calculation example has been chosen to show the use of the limit
equilibrium method proposed is this paper, and the stability charts
provided. The case is a dry slope 15 m high and with an angle β of 40°.
The soil properties are: unit weight, γ = 19 kN/m3; friction angle,
ϕ = 24° and cohesion, c = 30 kPa. For these values the safety factor of
the slope against deep global failure, obtained using conventional
stability charts, is approximately 1.5. Soil parameters in a shallow
layer 1.5 m thick are going to be reduced due to weathering to
c = 8 kPa and ϕ = 22°. The same safety factor of 1.5 is desired against
shallow instability under these conditions.
The procedure for the application of the present method is as
follows:
(i) The reduction of the slope height due to cohesion can be
obtained from Fig. 8a) for c*/(γd) = 0.187 and ϕ* = 15° giving
ΔHc/d = 1.75. The height of the slope to be used in next steps
considering cohesionless soil is H*/d = H/d − ΔHc/d = 15/1.5 −
1.75 = 8.25.
From here on the analysis continues with a slope height of H/d =
8.25 and c = 0.
means of a numerical analysis of a given slope with a softened shallow
layer due to weathering. The finite element code PLAXIS (Brinkgreve
and Vermeer, 1998) was used for the numerical calculation. The case
chosen for the comparison between both analyses (limit equilibrium
and numerical) is a dry slope with the geometry and the strength and
deformational properties given in Table 1. Weathering of a 1.3 m thick
shallow layer was considered as a reduction of the soil cohesion,
keeping the same value of the friction angle.
First of all, four individual limit equilibrium analyses were done,
with the cohesion in the shallow layer reduced to 6.0, 4.0, 3.0 and
0.5 kPa respectively. The calculation was focused to obtain the pres-
sure p needed on the slope surface for a safety factor of F = 1 against
shallow instability. The obtained values of p are given in Table 2.
Then, the first three cases were calculated by means of finite
element analysis. Fig. 10 shows the finite element mesh used. For each
case, the input parameter is the pressure p obtained from the limit
equilibrium calculation, and the unknown is the value of the cohesion
of the shallow layer for F = 1. This value was obtained in each case by
carrying out individual analyses with different values of the cohesion
until reaching F = 1 condition. In each individual calculation two steps
were considered: 1) pressure p is applied on the slope surface and
2) self-weight of the soil is set. Table 3 gives the results for the three
values of p. In Fig. 11 the mechanism of shallow failure obtained in the
analysis is shown.

Fig. 10. 2D finite element model.

60 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61
Fig. 11. Mechanism of shallow failure.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison of the results obtained with both
methods. In all cases the effect of stabilization due to the pressure
acting on the slope surface can be observed, with reasonable agree-
ment between the numerical and limit equilibrium analyses.
5. Conclusions
A limit equilibrium method for the analysis of shallow instabilities
in soil slopes reinforced with nailed wire meshes is developed. Results
have shown that when the ratio of the thickness of the shallow
unstable layer to the height of the slope is lower enough (about 3%),
the analysis as an infinite slope can be adequate. The pressure needed
on the slope surface can be obtained, for a desired safety factor, from
different curves, some of them presented in this paper for various
water conditions.
When the hypothesis of infinite slope is not accurate enough, an
analysis is proposed by dividing the unstable shallow layer in various
wedges. The solution for any case with cohesion and friction can be
obtained from the results for a purely friction soil by means of a
reduction of the slope height, this reduction depends on the soil
cohesion and friction, slope geometry and water condition. Once the
effect of the cohesion is considered with this reduction of height, the
slope can be calculated with zero cohesion.
Fig. 12. Comparison between limit equilibrium and finite element analysis.
Various cases with different values of the parameters involved in
the problem and all of them for c = 0 were solved for both infinite and
finite height of the slope obtaining pH → ∞ and pfinite H respectively. The
results are presented as charts which give the ratio R = ppfiniteH→∞
H
that
allows calculating the finite height solution in a quite easy way.
The presented limit equilibrium method was checked by means of
a numerical analysis using the finite element code PLAXIS. Three cases
of a slope with different weathering conditions have been analyzed
with both methods. The relationship between the pressure needed on
the slope surface and the cohesion on the defined shallow weathered
layer was obtained for a safety factor of 1.0. In all the analyses carried
out, the results show the shallow stabilization effect of a mesh
applying a pressure on the slope surface, showing a higher possible
reduction on the cohesion when the pressure acting on the slope
surface is increased.
Acknowledgments
The work presented is part of the research project “New
technologies of reinforcing and stabilization of soil slopes”, sponsored
by the Spanish Ministry of Public Works (Ref.: 1FD97-0757).
References
Bache, D.H., MacAskill, I.A., 1984. Vegetation in Civil and Landscape Engineering.
Granada, London.
Barker, D.H., 1986. Enhancement of slope stability by vegetation. Ground Engineering 3,
11–15.
Bishop, A.W., 1955. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
Gèotechnique 5, 7–17.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Vermeer, P.A., 1998. Plaxis 2D V7. Manual. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Castro-Fresno, D., del Coz Díaz, J.J., López, L.A., García Nieto, P.J., 2008. Evaluation of the
resistant capacity of cable nets using the finite element method and experimental
validation. Engineering Geology 100 (1–2), 1–10.
Da Costa, A., 2004. Inestabilidades por degradación superficial de taludes en suelos.
Corrección mediante sistemas de refuerzo anclados. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Cantabria, Spain.
Da Costa, A., Sagaseta, C., 2002. Analysis of soil slopes with nailed steel wire meshes.
Proc. 5th European Conference on Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering,
Paris, pp. 757–764.
Griffiths, D.V., Lane, P.A., 1999. Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Gèotechnique
49 (3), 387–403.
Goldman, S.J., Jackson, K., Bursztynsky, T.A., 1986. Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.
 A. Da Costa, C. Sagaseta / Engineering Geology 113 (2010) 53–61
Gray, D.H., 1978. Role of woody vegetation in reinforcing soils and stabilizing slopes.
Symposium on Soil Reinforcing and Stabilizing Techniques, Sydney, Australia, pp.
253–306.
Janbu, N., 1957. Earth pressures and bearing capacity calculations by generalized
procedure of slices. 4° ICOSOMEF, London, 2, pp. 207–212.
Koerner, R.M., Robins, J.C., 1986. In-situ stabilization of soil slopes using nailed
geosynthetics. Proc. Third International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria,
vol. II, pp. 395–400.
Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley, New York.
61
Morgenstern, N.R., Price, V.E., 1965. The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces.
Gèotechnique 15, 79–93.
Roering, J.J., Schmidt, K.M., Stock, J.D., Dietrick, W.E., Montgomery, D.R., 2003. Shallow
landsliding, root reinforcement, and the spatial distribution of trees in the Oregon
Coast Range. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40, 237–253.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1965. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses from Cropland
East of the Rocky Mountains, Agriculture Handbook No. 282. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.