You are on page 1of 107

Priority 1.1.6.

3
Global Change and
Ecosystems
Project No.: GOCE-CT-2003-505488
LESSLOSS
Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides
Integrated Project
Sixth Framework Programme
Priority 1.1.6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems

Deliverable Report
Deliverable 12 – Reports on methods of slope stabilisation
Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilization
Deliverable/Task Leader: GDS

Revision: Final
September, 2005

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)
Dissemination Level
PU

Public

PP

Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE

Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO

Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

X

PREFACE
This report contains the contribution of GDS and AUTH to Deliverable D12 : “Reports
on methods of slope stabilisation”. This Deliverable is intended to present with
conventional methods of slope stabilisation that have already been implemented in
practice, whether the method was successful or failed. A short description of each
method is given, followed by an outline of the design methodology; then cases histories
are described and assessed with respect to success or failure. The report contains two
parts. Part A (chapters 1 to 5) deals with methods for conventional problems: rainfall,
earthquake.... Part B (chapters 6 to 9) deals with the response of piles against liquefaction
induced lateral spreading.

.

.............................1 SOIL NAILED WALLS (CLOUTERRE.....................................................2 Conception and design..14 2.................................................1 Mechanism and behaviour........6 2......................18 .......................................................................2 Field of application...........................3 Design method......................................................... 1991) ....................................................................ix LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......5 2......................2 Field of application (Schlosser and Guilloux........................TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE....................6 2.18 2.......2 MIXED STRUCTURES ...................................................................................................3 2.......1................................3..3 REINFORCED EARTH WALL .....1..............3 2..................................................................3.................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................... 1982) .......16 2........................................................................................................xiii 1...4 Case study ...........................................................................................3.3 2...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................12 2..........1 Description of the technique.........3.......................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.........1....................................1......1 2.......................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ........1............................................................................................................................................................. RESHAPING.........................................................................................................................................18 2.....................................................................................1.1 Description of the technique........................................

............ 41 3................ 39 3..... 41 3..... INTERNAL REINFORCEMENT .................... 1993)......................................................... 18 2............4..................1..............................................1.........4. 42 3.............................4 Bousst Saint Antoine railway embankment: bored concrete piles..............2 Field of application ...........................................2 Field of application ..................1...........................................3...........................1............................................3 Design method ..................3 Design method .....................................2........3................................................................................................................................................3.....3 Recommendations for design of Reinforced Earth in mountain areas .......................................... 38 3.........iv LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 2.....4..........................................2.........1 Description of the technique................... 38 3........1 description of the technique .............................................................3 A41 Highway : steel sections..........2 Hambach embankment: sheetpiles ...........2...... 29 3................................................................ 31 3............ 33 3................................................ 26 3............................1......................................................... 1997) ......1........................................................................1........................3.............1...................................................................... 26 3.................... 30 3.....3 Design method ........ 42 ...................... 25 3......3.............................................................. 25 3................................................................................. 21 3.............................................4...........................................................2....2 Field of application .......................................................................................................... 41 3....3............................................. 34 3..1.........4................................................5 Cut slope reinforcement by stabilising piles in Korea (Hong et al................ 39 3............................................................................ 29 3...........................1 Description of the technique...................4 Case study........3 GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT........... 25 3..................................................... 42 3..........4 Case study.....................................................................4 Case study.................................1 SOIL NAILING ................1 Old Railway embankment over the Paris-Lyon line : micropiles...........2 SOIL DOWELLING ......................4 Case study (Guilloux...

.............82 ..........................................................59 7.......................EDGECUMBE 1987 .................................51 Soil nailed walls .................................................................................................................................................................................................3 DETERMINING P-Y CURVES FOR THE LIQUEFIABLE SOIL LAYER ........................................................................................................3 R/C BRIDGE IN NEW ZEALAND ........................................ PILE DESIGN METHODOLOGIES AGAINST LATERAL SPREADING ............................................2 OIL TANK IN MIKAGEHAMA ISLAND – KOBE 1995.....4 JAPANESE DESIGN CODES (JRA 1996)................................................................2 FIELD OF APPLICATION ..................................................................................52 Soil dowelling ................................... RECORDED INSTANCES OF PILE FAILURES IN SOILS UNDER LATERAL SPREADING......................................................1 DESIGN PARAMETERS.............................................KOBE 1995 .......52 Soil nailing.......................................................78 9.............................................................................. DRAINAGE .......................................49 4...53 6..............................................................................................53 Drainage ............................................................63 7.67 9.........................................................................................................................................55 7............................................................................................49 5.......................................................1 DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE (SEMBENELLI...........................................................75 9.....................................................................................................47 4.........................................66 8..................................................................................................75 9..................59 7............................................3 CASE STUDY .4 CONCLUSIONS ON SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PILES IN SOILS SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKEINDUCED HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT ....................................................47 4.....................................75 9.....................1 11-STOREY R/C BUILDINGS ....................................51 Reinforced Earth.................................. OVERVIEW: LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING.......61 7................................................................. 1988) ...........................................................2 ESTIMATION OF PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENT .............................................................................................Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation v 4.............. CONCLUSIONS................... EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF PILE RESPONSE IN SOILS SUBJECTED TO LATERAL SPREADING......

......................................................................................................6 SEISMIC DEFORMATION METHOD (RAILWAY CODE.................. 84 9............................................................. JAPAN) ...................... 85 REFERENCES ............. 87 ........................5 LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD ........vi LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 9................................................

....LIST OF TABLES Table 9-1 Values of coefficient CL based on depth and cyclic shear stress and stress-to-strength ratio ...................................................................................................................................83 ..

.

....................................... ..............30 Figure 3......................................................................13 Design of profiles .............................................1 Behaviour of soil nailing for slope stabilisation..................................................2 Progressive loading in tension of nail ......................................23 Figure 3.........5 External failure............................................................................................4 Figure 2.............................................................. maximum tension line .....................................................27 Figure 3..............8 Soil nailed wall with prestressed anchors at the upper part ............................................................................................4 Internal failure ...............19 Figure 2..................................................12 Figure 2................................................17 Figure 2..........................11 Geometrical alternatives for Reinforced Earth walls..................................................................9 Nailed Tervoile wall.....4 Railway embankment in Paris-Lyon line................................3 Behaviour of a soil nailed wall: passive and active zones........................................................................................................20 Figure 2...........................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2.22 Figure 2.................................6 Mixed failure..................................... Construction phases..11 Figure 2.............................................16 Figure 2...27 Figure 3.31 ............................................7 Figure 2............................2 Effect of soil nail orientation on slope stabilsation..........................12 Potential failure surfaces......................8 Figure 2.........................14 Safety factors ......10 Nailed Berlin wall........7 Cross section of the proposed solution ............................................................ Stabilisation Movements .....5 Hambach embankment................................................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2...........................................................11 Figure 2........................ Soil nailing design ..................16 Figure 2............................................1 Soil nailed wall........3 Railway embankement in Paris-Lyon line......................30 Figure 3.......................

.................................11 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles................................... 63 Figure 7.......5 View of the area near the tank and dimensions of the ground displacements in the vicinity (Ishihara et................................................8 Boussy Saint Antoinerailway embankment............................................ Construction stages ...................1 Cross section of the slope...............................7 A41 Highway.........16 Schematic plan view (a) and cross section (b)....... 56 Figure 7................................................2 (a) Location of the three buildings and spatial distribution of maximum ground displacements (b) Plan view and cross-section of the three buildings’ foundation (Sotetsu..... 35 Figure 3.............. 37 Figure 3........................6 Permanent lateral displacement of pile head in plan (above) and distribution of cracks along piles (below)...2 Development of soil displacements in conjunction with soil-foundation-structure interaction ............................. 33 Figure 3.....................Figure 4.............10 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles........... Bending stresses in piles........................... Soil deformation ....... 44 .. .................................................................................................... .9 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles.................................................... 41 Figure 3...........................6 A41 Highway.... Cross section...... 40 Figure 3............................... 1997)..... Design to control the landslide................................................................................... 34 Figure 3......... 64 ...x LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 3......................... al.................15 Dowelling at Dautenheim..... 59 Figure 7.........................1 Stages of critical pile loading during lateral spreading of soil (Berill & Yasuda. 62 Figure 7................... 1996)............................................................ 56 Figure 6........... with soil profile.................................................................................... 62 Figure 7. Pile deflection.....................................................................................................................................1Typical failure modes of piles due to lateral spreading (Tokimatsu 1999) ..........................14 Creeping slope with dowels ..7 Sketch of foundation along Landing Road Bridge (Berill et.............. 61 Figure 7............ 38 Figure 3.....................................................................13 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles.....4 Plan view and cross-section of the pile grid....3 Pile failure in building B (Tokimatsu 1997) ............. 60 Figure 7....... al............ 36 Figure 3.................... 2002)........... Slope movements and stability analysis...12 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles........ 37 Figure 3............................... 2001) ....................................... 50 Figure 6.............................. 32 Figure 3.....

..................81 Figure 9.......79 Figure 9.....Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation xi Figure 7..........3 Large scale shaking table model (Tsukamoto et......14g (c) 0........1 Correlation of range of influence of lateral spreading (L) with maximum observed ground displacement (D0) (Tokimatsu et.........71 Figure 8..........9 (a) Bilinear p-y model (Meyersohn.......... al........ ..................... ..................... Kamijo et................82 .............. ........69 Figure 8...................5 Device used in the experiment and simultaneous plots of soil displacement and pile response plots derived (Abdoun and Dobry........................................ 2001)...................................68 Figure 8............... ...........6 The effect of scaling factors α and β on pile deformation (Tokimatsu et...... 1998) ... 2003)...................... .................. 2000)....5 Variation of scaling factors α and β with Nspt profile (AIJ 2001)................................................................4 (a) Distribution of ground displacement with depth (b) Distribution of moments with depth.....72 Figure 8.. (b) Calibration of suggested model.........7 Layout used in the field test (N............65 Figure 8................ ...................1997 and Shamoto and Hotta.... 1998)........................76 Figure 9.........................2 Bending moment profiles with depth for the two soil profiles (single.................................80 Figure 9........................ al.....6 (a) Experimental model used to study the effects of non-liquefiable layers (b) Bending moment distribution along pile ................................................02g (b) 0...73 Figure 9...........and double-layered)....................................1 Ground displacement profiles with depth at the end of the excitation for each of the two soil profiles (single.................. 2004)........Berill et.........72 Figure 8....... al............9 Failure mechanism of a typical pier due to passive earth pressures by non-liquefiable surface layer (J........................ 1994)............. 1997)................................8 Soil profile and SPT results along the bridge.............. al.....................69 Figure 8.70 Figure 8..............65 Figure 7.... .. the pile and the superstructure according to the level of excitation: (a)0...76 Figure 9...............................................7 Modification of the non-linear p-y curve for a liquefiable soil (Tokimatsu............and doublelayered).................... 1996)................................80 Figure 9........3 Detailed model of the loading of a pile group in which each pile sustains different permanent ground displacement.................................8 Distribution of maximum acceleration within the soil........................8 Trilinear p-y curve model (Goh and O’Rourke........ al.....81 Figure 9................78 Figure 9.........58g................B.......2 Illustration of the geometric parameters involved ........4 Coefficient of subgrade reaction kh and maximum reaction pressure pyo .........

......12 Analytical model used in the Seismic Deformation Method (Railway Code.................................................. 85 Figure 9.......the free body diagram ................. Japan 1999) ...................13 Diagram for estimating correcting factors β and γ......................................................... 84 Figure 9.................................. ................... 86 .....................three-layer soil profile (b) Theoretical loading model .... 83 Figure 9.10 Distribution of earth pressures in the analytical model according to the kind of soil generating them (JRA 1996)...11 (a) Theoretical loading model .......................................................................................................xii LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 9...........................................................

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS k = Coefficient of subgrade reaction E = Young's modulus D = Diameter L = Length I = Bending inertia p = Soil pressure V = Shear force Iν = Viscosity ν = Creep velocity β = Slope angle H = Slope height γ = Soil unit weight φ' = Soil friction angle m = Mass T = Period of vibration g = Acceleration of gravity = 9.81 m/s2 x = Distance y = Displacement z = Depth .

.

that is. The analysis of slopes takes into account a variety of factors relating to topography. or by modifying the soil properties . Spencer’s method. simplified Janbu method. hydrogeology and material properties. Different methods can be used in slope stability analyses: limit equilibrium methods such as the ordinary method of slices. deep foundations. geology. etc. Internal reinforcement consists in the introduction of some stabilizing forces in the slope equilibrium equations. The aim of this bibliographic research is the description and analysis of those most commonly used in latest years. and the use of computer programs. INTRODUCTION Slopes either occur naturally or are engineered by humans. Slope stability problems have been faced throughout history when men or nature have disrupted the delicate balance of natural soil slopes. It can also involve in some cases the construction of external stabilizing structures like berms or retaining walls. These methods can be classified into four large categories: • • • • Reshaping Internal reinforcement External stabilization Drainage Slope reshaping consists in changing the slope geometry. by adding or removing weight. performed either under a total stress assumption. often relating to whether the slope was naturally formed or engineered. Therefore. by excavation at the top and/or backfilling at the toe to reduce the driving forces and/or to increase the resisting ones. or an effective stress assumption. nails. Slope stabilization methods involve specialized construction techniques that must be understood and modelled in realistic ways.1. these stabilization forces are provided by inclusion of external elements like anchors. simplified Bishop method. all this factors must be taken into consideration when choosing a stabilization method.

. In most cases. In mechanical strengthening. the soil strengthening is achieved by the incorporation of various materials into the soil. These materials change the properties of the soil by chemical or mechanical strengthening. it may be necessary to combine several of them as it will be illustrated by some case studies included in this document. the use of one of those methods individually is not sufficient to provide the required stabilization result. the most common reinforcement materials are synthetic polymers (geogrids). therefore. Examples of external stabilization methods are buttressing. In soil improvement. surface slope protection or vegetation.2 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides (soil improvement).

1 Description of the technique Soil nailed walls are primarily used during excavation to provide slope support to limit the slope angle. A soil nailed wall is built downward with the soil being reinforced in situ. A soil nailed wall is difficult to build under a water table. These bars are usually parallel to one another and slightly inclined downward. 1991) 2. some sort of facing needs to be installed.1 SOIL NAILED WALLS (CLOUTERRE. Soil nailed walls are constructed in successive phases from the top to the bottom: . The latter can be more critical during the construction phase than when the wall is completed.1. drainage. or made up of a series of benches. such as pumping operations to lower the groundwater levels.2. Soil nailed wall and Reinforced Earth walls are very similar. If the soil nailed wall has to be necessarily built under a water table. The work progresses from the top downward. and a Reinforced Earth wall is constructed by building an embankment that is then strengthened as the work progresses. In order to keep the soil from caving in between the bars. The skin friction between the soil and the nails puts the latter in tension. Construction of a soil nailed wall consists in reinforcing the soil as work progresses in the area being excavated by the introduction of passive bars (nails). several differences can be observed. They can also work partially in bending and by shear. special procedures will need to be introduced. This is generally made with some shotcrete reinforced by a welded wire mesh. etc. Local excavation stability during the earthwork phase depends directly on the height of excavated soil. battered to a wide variety of angles. This facing can be vertical. which essentially work in tension. In addition. RESHAPING 2. the construction of a soil nailed wall involves a critical phase with respect to local or overall stability. unlike the Reinforced Earth technique. However.

During this phase the soil must remain stable. these nails must have some stiffness.4 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Excavation. usually by drilling. and phases 2 and 3 can be carried out in that order or they can be reversed. For reasons linked to their installation. they are therefore made from bars having a fairly high mechanical efficiency (steel angle. Introduction of subhorizontal or inclined nails into the in situ soil. Construction of a facing wall on site (shotcrete over a welded wire mesh or fibrous concrete) or installation of precast elements (or panels) that can be architecturally treated in various ways. or grouting the nails into a hole that has been made in advance. and for lighter nails of average length. metallic tubes. although not necessarily very high. that is. i) Driving (mainly percussion) is particularly suitable for soft grounds containing no hard obstacles or too many large blocks. which calls for some degree of short-term cohesion in the soil. Figure 2. it is possible to carry out the excavation in slots. generally limited to 1 or 2 meters deep and possibly limited in length depending on the type of ground being stabilized.) . If the soil cohesion is low. The most commonly used techniques for installing the nails are percussion or vibration of the nail into the soil. Construction phases. etc. the shotcrete can be applied before the nails are introduced. not exceeding eight or so meters.1 Soil nailed wall.

on the grid layout of the nails. Regarding both short and long-term structures. However. Other techniques can be used. mainly. it is possible to use nails of any length in practically any type of soil. and on the height of the excavation phases which can be made. it is appropriate to install drainage measures. in particular glassfibers. particularly on the type of nail and on any potential difficulty in using that nail (for example. 2. The nails are generally made of steel. particular attention should be paid at all times to the durability of any nail used in corrosive soils and to long-term movements.1. Weepholes must always be provided through the facing so that any water infiltrating the structure can drain away.2 Field of application The most common nailed wall applications are the following: • • • • • Temporary and permanent walls for building excavations. the actual volume of shotcrete is often higher. because of over excavation of the planned cross-section used. ii) As regards the drilling process. such as subhorizontal drains or drainage details (for example. Cut slope retention for roadway widening and depressed roadways. . stability of the borehole walls). although other materials have been used. on the efficiency of the nail in certain types of terrain. Bridge abutments: addition of traffic lanes by removing end slopes from in front of existing bridge abutments. by combining vibration driving with grouting processes. in order to protect them against corrosion. It is the only technique possible for very long nails and in soils where they cannot be driven. the facing wall is constructed to a calculated thickness that depends.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 5 Special care must be taken when driven reinforcement bars are used in either medium or long-term structures in aggressive soils. The choice of the technique depends on economic criteria and other technical factors. Repair or reconstruction of existing structures. geocomposites installed before the facing wall is constructed). particularly those caused by creep in clays. In the case of reinforced shotcrete. In areas subject to internal hydraulic flows of water. Slope stabilization.

it is also possible. as well as on stresses in the soil and reinforcements. to locally modify the orientation.1 Mechanism and behaviour Principal of structural behavior The construction method has an important influence on the distribution of displacements and deformations. clayey soils and very sensitive soils. • Very plastic. During successive excavations. since in these cases. Grouted nails can pass easily through locally heterogeneous soils with occasional boulders. 2. • Naturally cemented or dense sands and gravels with some real cohesion (due to fines) or apparent cohesion (due to natural moisture).3 Design method 2. The majority of soil nailing studies has been limited to homogeneous soils. On the other hand. soil nailing technique is generally not successful in the following soil conditions: • Sands which have no apparent cohesion and where the stability of the excavation cannot be guaranteed. • Aggressive soils with respect to the nails and facing materials. high forces could develop in the nails and the facing. .1. The following types of ground are considered favourable to soil nailing: • Naturally cohesive materials: silts and low plasticity clays that are not prone to creep.1. length or density of the nails. As a result. particularly in longterm structures. • In swelling clays or soils that are frost susceptible. at the end of construction a slight tilting of the facing occurs where horizontal and vertical displacements are at their maximum at the wall top. particularly where there is a relatively low unit skin friction value between the soil and the inclusion. their use is limited to soils that have no water table or that are protected by a reduction in the water table level. • Weathered rock. but the technique can as well apply to heterogeneous soils insofar as the density of nails can be adapted to the type and the resistance of soil. the soil is subjected simultaneously to lateral decompression and to settlement.3. if space allows.6 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides As soil nailed walls are difficult to build under a water table.

i+2 and i+3. the horizontal decompression of the mass during the successive excavations results in preferential tensile stresses in the subhorizontal nails. Because of the large number of parameters coming into play. the shape and the position of the line of . not at the facing. Passive zone. The result is that the lowest rows of nails are the least subjected to tensile stresses at the end of an excavation phase. In this zone the skin friction stresses applied by the soil on the nails are directed outward. the rate of increase in tension in a nail due to a certain excavation decreases as the excavation proceeds. This is a characteristic of reinforcement techniques in which the interaction with the soil is continuous along the whole length of the reinforcements. Tension in a row of nails starts only when the lower levels are being excavated.2 Progressive loading in tension of nail The maximum tensions in the nails are inside the soil nailed mass. behind the facing. at the end of construction. where skin friction stresses are directed inward and oppose the lateral displacement of the active zone.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 7 As regards the loading in tension of the reinforcements. Figure 2. The geometric location of the points of maximum tension Tmax makes it possible to separate the soil mass into two zones: Active zone. it is not very easy to determine the location of Tmax. Generally. However. In addition to this. the tension of a nail i depends mainly on the three following excavations phases. progressive tension of these rows develops due to long-term deformations. More precisely. i+1.

• Grouting bars into the soil. are very different from the Coulomb straight line. The overall behaviour in the second case is considered to be similar to the first one as long as SvּSh ≤ 6 m2. maximum tension line Nails often have some stiffness that enables them to work not only in tension but also in bending and shear. which can be considered as a potential failure surface. nails working at service loads in a structure are.LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 8 maximum tension. Sh > 1m). Figure 2.3 Behaviour of a soil nailed wall: passive and active zones. not subjected to bending nor shear. the stresses taken up by the facing are much lower. The two main differences between both methods are the stresses taken up by the facing and the forces and bending moment mobilized in the nails. However. Nails are usually driven. in practice. which uses low-capacity nails of short length and fairly close to each other (Sv. Soil-nail interaction Two types of interaction develop in nailing used in retaining structures: . There are basically two techniques of soil nailing: • “Hurpin's method”. so the facing can be thinner. Sh ≤ 1 m). except sometimes locally. generally of high capacity. of longer length and more widely spaced (Sv. In the first method. The facing may sometimes hang on the nails during the first phases of construction when it is very thick or when the short-term adherence of the ground is small. near the facing. and neither shear force nor bending moments are mobilized in the nails because of their small moments of inertia.

• Passive pressure of the earth along the nail during the displacement of the latter. Internal failure A. Types of failure of soil nailed walls A. failure is sudden and without warning. which can. p=ks y: lateral pressure on the nail. Corrosion of the steel bars in the nails.1. which induces tension in the nails. nails deformations are calculated like piles subjected to a lateral load by using the simplified method of the coefficient of subgrade reaction. That is the most important interaction. therefore. . y: lateral displacement of the nail. In this case. D: nail diameter. as it allows greater deformations before failure. This pressure makes possible the bending moment and shear force to be mobilized in the nails. With flexible nails.1) where: ks: coefficient of subgrade reaction.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 9 • Shear stress (skin friction) applied by the soil along the nail. be considered as a potential failure surface. z: coordinate along the nail. Failure by breakage of the nails The failure surface that develops in the soil is very close to the line of maximum tension. The bending resistance of the nails prevents the development of a clear-cut failure surface. This type of failure can occur in the following cases: • • Underdesign of the cross section of nails. which leads to the equation: d4y EI 4 + k s D y = 0 dz (0.

Failure by piping of the soil The cause of this type of failure is the existence of a pocket of water in the soil due to be nailed. Ice lenses in frost-susceptible soils. This type of failure is more frequent than the previous ones. This failure is due to the insufficient length of the nails in the passive zone to balance the maximum tensions. It can occur in fine-grained soils under the effect of saturation or increase in moisture content. The soil flows behind the facing due to successive elimination of the arch effects.3. . A.3. a fairly sudden failure can occur through local instability and propagation to the top of the wall.1. The failure is not usually sudden and large deformations develop. The facing drops as one block until stopped by the foundation soil. destabilizes the soil locally in the zone being excavated.2. A sudden subsidence of the facing occurs that can have repercussions on both sides of the pocket of water. When the facing is very resistant. if the length of the nails at the head of the wall is insufficient. Saturation of the wall under the effects of water infiltrations (rain or thaw). and the nails deform through bending but may not break. The nails are then pulled out of the soil. pore water pressure in this pocket and the resulting water flow forces.3. Failure due to excessive height of continuous excavation In this case. if the wall has not been designed to resist it. A. This phenomenon induces tension in the nails next to the facing when the frost front forms within the soil. Rapid and regressive failures cause the soil to flow behind the facing. Failure during excavation phases A. To prevent it.2. During excavation. or during construction. nails may break in tension and the wall may fail with the facing being disconnected. the excavation height must be kept lower than the critical height or excavation in slots must be used. Failure by lack of adherence This type of failure is more frequent than the previous one and results from a poor estimation of the unit skin friction of the nails and/or construction mistakes.10 • • • LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Surcharge on top of the wall. A.

the failure surface is both in the wall and outside the wall. Figure 2.5 External failure C. associated with a defect in strength of the nails or in the unit skin friction. Figure 2. It is due to either poor quality foundation soils or to insufficient length of the nails. It is generally due to nails being of insufficient length. The wall behaves like a monolithic block. External failure External failure occurs generally by sliding along a failure surface. Mixed failure This type of failure combines both internal and external instability. affecting the whole structure and going through the foundations.4 Internal failure B. .Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 11 This type of failure is frequent and results either from the heterogeneity of the soil or from the lack of drainage during construction.

2 Conception and design The design of soil nailed walls is limited to ultimate limit state (ULS) stability calculations. Calculations of deformations This type of calculation is usually done by using the finite element method. they analyze the internal and external stability of the structure by verifying the static equilibrium of a part of the system limited by a potential failure surface. 2. B.6 Mixed failure 2. These consist in verifying the equilibrium of a part of the soil mass limited by a potential failure surface and subjected to external forces and to stresses or forces mobilized respectively in the soil and nails. There are two types of methods: • Classical limit equilibrium methods. The latter are determined based on the failure criteria of the used materials making several assumptions. Analysis of stability Stability of a soil nailed wall can be analyzed either by calculating the deformations or by using limit equilibrium analysis.3.1.2. A.LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 12 Figure 2. That is. Limit equilibrium methods These methods examine the equilibrium of a volume of soil at failure by taking into account the strength of the materials used. Fellenius and Bishop methods of slices or the perturbation method .3. but this method is not used in practice to study the stability and design of soil nailed structures.1. Stability is defined in relation to the most critical potential failure surface.1.

In addition. besides the strength of the materials. and external failure surfaces can be analyzed. The forces in the nails are determined considering the various modes of failure of the soil nailed structure and the corresponding failure criteria for the soil and nail materials. according to the failure criteria of the materials involved. and gradual yielding of the soil. It requires assumptions on the behaviour in order . these methods assume that the displacements and deformations will be small enough not to have to take account of any geometric changes in the structure prior to failure. This approach. the effects of soil nailing soil are taken into account in the form of vector forces applied to the points where the nails intersect with the potential failure surface. stability along internal.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 13 (Raulin et al. the ductility of the nails. mixed. 1974) are examples. The practical validity of these methods assumes the possibility of simultaneously mobilizing the limit states of the soil and the various nail rows. has proved to be very difficult to use for usual practical applications. This implies the strain compatibility at failure of both the nails and the soil. Like in classical methods. Limit equilibrium methods with relative displacements These are based on classical limit equilibrium methods and consider that forces in the nails are dependent on the relative displacements along the potential failure surface. 1983). This principle consists of replacing the heterogeneous medium made by the soil and the nails (assumed to be regularly distributed) by a homogeneous medium that is equivalent from the point of view of limit loading at a macroscopic scale. In the case of ductile nails. With these methods. 1987) can also be mentioned. The methods of homogenization (De Buhan and Salençon. C. In both types of limit equilibrium methods. this part is subjected to the effects of external forces and to the resistance stresses that can be mobilized in the soil and in the nails along the potential failure surface. are mechanically more rigorous than classical limit equilibrium methods because they do not require any additional assumption. These methods study the static equilibrium of one part of the system limited by a potential failure surface. as well as the soil-nail interaction. This approach was initially developed for studying the stabilization of unstable slopes using soil nailing (Delmas et al. • Methods based on limit analysis and more recently yield design theory (Salençon. their reorientation during movement along the failure surface is beneficial to the structure stability. however. which can be applied to more general problems. These methods. 1986).

2. 1991). These displacements are assumed to be concentrated along and around the potential failure surface. The 39 km section through the canyon has been rebuilt to . Some design methods In France. and it is also possible to work in heterogeneous soils with or without the presence of water. 2005). The STAR program uses logarithmic spirals as potential failures surfaces and it is based on the yield design theory. such as bilinear failure surfaces (German method. stability calculations must be ongoing from the very first excavation phase to the completed structure.2. so it seems unsuitable for retaining structures since there is no pre-existing failure surface. In fact. (Clouterre. by considering different failure surfaces. USA. but it is more suitable for dealing with displacements in unstable slopes reinforced by soil nailing than for retaining walls. thanks to the perturbation method. since displacements are assumed to be concentrated along and around the potential failure surface. U.3. This package. Limit equilibrium methods using potential failure surfaces are the approach recommended for designing and justifying soil nailed structures (Clouterre. Calculations relating to the stability of the finished structure cannot be separated from those linked to the various construction phases. some of which can be the most critical ones..1. the first specific method for designing soil nailed walls appeared in 1980 with the initial TALREN software package (Blondeau et al. Other two programs were developed in France later: PROSPER and STAR programs.2. 1991). This method examines stability conditions in terms of both displacements and the strength criteria of the materials. The PROSPER program takes displacements into account.S. 2. Highway 26-89 through Snake River Canyon in northwest Wyoming is a two-lane road constructed in 1947. 1984). 1979) or vertical axis parabolas (Shen method. The Juran design method (1990) uses logarithmic spiral as failure surfaces. allows any failure surface to be taken into account. Stocker et al. As regards the international context. 1978).4 Case study Landslide stabilization using soil nail and mechanically stabilized: earth walls (Turner and Jensen .1.14 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides to link together the forces mobilized in the nails and the displacements along the potential failure surfaces. but it is suitable in the case of natural unstable slopes. several methods have been developed.

4 m wide shoulders. This project demonstrates the feasibility of utilizing soil nailed walls for stabilization of active landslides. but site conditions limited the amount of cut and fill that was possible: 20 m high unstable fill slope with a resulting landslide.7 m travel lanes and 2. The MSE wall would consist of reinforced backfill and modular block facing and would provide the additional width needed for the new roadway. which lies adjacent to a slowly creeping large landslide which extends approximately 450 m above the roadway. A lower soil nailed wall varying in height from 1. The proposed design incorporates two soil nailed walls (tiered) and a mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSE).8 to 3. to avoid all cutting through this area and to create a toe berm to resist movement of the slide. The final solution was to move the roadway as far towards the river as possible.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 15 current design standards. The final configuration results in the roadway being supported partly by the upper soil nail wall and partly by the MSE wall and with soil nails crossing the failure plane of the active slide. Prior to construction in 1999.0 to 7. Deformations over the last six months of monitoring show only minor movement which appears to be diminishing over time. One of the narrowest portions of the route is a section approximately 300 m long near a point where the Snake River makes a nearly 90º bend.2 m long soil nails would reinforce the existing embankment and provide a suitable foundation for the mechanically stabilized earth wall. Deformations in the MSE wall are consistent with expected lateral deformations for this type of flexible structure and occurred mostly during the first six months after construction. significant amounts of cut and fill would be required. locally termed the Elbow.6 m with soil nails extending 10 m into the slope would provide support for the existing roadway during and after construction of the MSE wall. The new roadway incorporates two 3. An upper soil nail wall varying in height from 4.4 m wide travel lanes with virtually no shoulders. To widen the right-of-way. extending the application of soil nailing beyond its traditional scope of stabilization of cut slopes or for potentially unstable slopes. Slope inclinometer readings taken during and after construction show that the lower soil nail wall has been effective in controlling ground movements along the Elbow fill slide. This proposal required installation of some type of retaining structure to provide the additional roadway width.0 m with 12. the existing roadway through the Elbow section consisted of two 3. .

It is important for the grouted anchorage zone of the prestressed ground anchors to be separated from the soil nailed wall and placed behind the latter.2 MIXED STRUCTURES These are retaining structures in which the reinforcement of in situ soil combines the nailing technique and other retaining methods (prestressed anchors.16 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 2.8 Soil nailed wall with prestressed anchors at the upper part . In general.7 Cross section of the proposed solution 2. • Soil nailed wall with a row of prestressed anchors at the upper part. Figure 2. bracing system). the aim of a mixed structure is to limit the lateral displacements of the structure or to prevent instability problems from developing (blocking the displacements at the top of the very high wall). Mixed structures are used as well to obtain higher excavation phases or when confronted with problems of instability due to flow or water.

The facing is placed as excavation progresses and comprises lengths of prefabricates posts. Figure 2. placing the nails and the active ground anchors as work progresses.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 17 Nailed Tervoile. The installation of posts is made before excavation. Figure 2. Nailing makes it possible to increase the distance between the posts by reducing the moments in the facing and the stresses in the posts. The wall is built in successive excavations.9 Nailed Tervoile wall Nailed Berlin wall.10 Nailed Berlin wall . assembled as the work progresses.

2 Field of application (Schlosser and Guilloux.1 Description of the technique The Reinforced Earth was invented in France by Henry Vidal in the early sixties. The main property which makes the use of Reinforced Earth successful for many highways on unstable slopes is its deformability. it is used in both mountain and urban highways projects for earth-retaining structures and bridge abutments. These structures are often designed when the slope is in a state of limiting stability.18 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 2. since when movements of the slopes can be expected it is not possible to design rigid structures. there are two conflicting aims to be pursued when designing a Reinforced Earth wall on a slope: • • Minimization of the volume of excavations to ensure their short-term stability. 1982) Reinforced Earth walls are successfully used in highways on unstable slopes.3. the short-term stability of the excavations. 2.3. Improvement of general stability. and the first full scale wall was constructed in the Pyrénées Mountains in 1965. The main factors involved in the design and construction of Reinforced Earth structures in mountain areas are: • • • • the geometry of the wall. the geotechnical data. especially when the safety factor of the natural slope is critical. the long-term stability of the slope. the mechanical properties of soil were improved by reinforcement with steel strips placed in the fill during construction from base to top (≠ from nailed wall). In general.3 REINFORCED EARTH WALL 2. .3. A cohesive material of great strength and stability is formed by the association of granular soil and reinforcements. Through friction.3 Recommendations for design of Reinforced Earth in mountain areas In general. 2.

the minimum length of the strips must be equal to 0. There are other geometrical alternatives for the wall: • On a slope it is possible to design a wall with shorter strips in the lower part than in the upper part. It is necessary. However. In this way.11 Geometrical alternatives for Reinforced Earth walls It is important to consider the general stability when choosing the solution.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 19 The first one can be obtained by reducing the embedment depth and the length of strips. Usually. with embedment equal to one tenth of the height and with strip length equal to 0. • It is possible also to design a retaining structure made of two or more superposed walls.4 times the wall height and the difference between the length of two adjacent layers of strips must be limited to 1 or 2 m. to find the best compromise in the early phase of the project. but it can be used for any retaining structure with a reduction in the volume of excavation. therefore. Reinforced Earth walls have a rectangular shape. the size of excavations can be limited. the failure surface will be deeper and less critical if the wall has deep embedment and long strips.7-0. This is an interesting solution for a highway on two levels.8 times the height. . Figure 2. In this case. as it varies considerably in the different cases.

As regards failure surfaces passing through Reinforced Earth. This method enables stability estimation for structures of complex geometry. especially those made of several walls. with drainage devices for the water. but certain aspects regarding the failure surfaces passing through the Reinforced Earth mass must be considered.20 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Long-term stability It is necessary to go through a complete stability analysis of the slope with the retaining structure. computer calculations with methods. for which it may be difficult to judge whether a potential failure surface is a critical one or not. the long term safety factor of the slope after construction of the wall is frequently equal or even larger than the one of natural slope. . This analysis is done with classical methods. Failure surfaces cutting some layers of strips have generally a higher safety factor than the ones passing outside the Reinforced Earth mass. With the deepening of the potential failure surfaces caused by the strips. In the case of water circulations. can be used by adding to the shear strength along the failure surface a contribution due to the force in the strips (either failure resistance or limiting adherence). such as Bishop’s method of slices.12 Potential failure surfaces Short-term stability of the excavations Short-term stability is the main problem when the slope is in a state of limiting equilibrium and when there are water circulations in the surface layers. Figure 2. it is necessary to use a draining material for the Reinforced Earth structure or to design drainage behind and under the wall.

That is why the shearing strength was calculated a posteriori by assuming a safety factor of 1 for these landslides. This was achieved by a mixed cut-embankment profile. The slope was in a state of limiting equilibrium. as they are quite expensive.4 Case study Access road to the Frejus tunnel (Schlosser and Guilloux 1982) On the French side of the Franco-Italian Frejus tunnel. The choice of the stabilizing structure was governed by two main criteria: • The slope being in a state of limiting equilibrium. so that the excavations have a length approximately equal to twice their height.50 m wide. along the slope as the excavation progresses. The subsoil consists of rock (Quartzites) and shale. It was estimated.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 21 If the short-term stability is only required for some days or weeks. Anchored structures.5 km along the slopes of the Arc valley. A careful monitoring of the displacements was implemented. Nailing or root-piling. due to the natural instability of some slopes and to the difficulty of applying classical methods for the analysis. so it was impossible to get undisturbed samples of the soils. . up to 42º. and the natural slope is very steep. but almost everywhere covered with heterogeneous and thick layers of debris: gravels and blocks in a clayey-sandy matrix. by means of topographical measures and the implementation of inclinometers. These solutions must be avoided when possible. that surface displacements rates could be as much as 10 cm per year. Their thickness may reach several dozen of meters and many localized water circulations have been observed. such as beams. The platform is 13. the Reinforced Earth structure can be built by plots. if the nature of the soil allows it.3. That can be assured by different methods: • • • Grouting. When this solution is not sufficient. it was essential to avoid any additional disturbance to its stability during construction and final state. This construction method allows a good mobilization of the arching effect. the stabilization of the excavations is necessary. the access road rises for 4. 2.

13 Design of profiles The safety factor for a failure surface that cuts one or two layers of strips is practically never smaller than the safety factor for a surface outside the reinforced mass. These choices have a tendency to limit the volume of excavations. In order to minimize the height of excavations. That is why strips length in the lower part of Reinforced Earth walls was lower than current length. and all the profiles were found to have a long term stability factor practically equal or higher than the safety factor of the natural slope. Figure 2. crib-walls or anchor-walls were chosen for the upper wall. External stability investigations were carried out with regard to the bearing capacity of the walls foundations. .22 • LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides The slope being subjected to possible displacements. Reinforced Earth was chosen for the lower embankment wall. because of the difficulty of ensuring their short term stability. according to its height. The analysis was made in terms of relative variation of the safety factor with respect to the safety factor in the natural state. The internal stability of the Reinforced Earth walls was analysed with the classical methods for Reinforced Earth. the structure had to be quite deformable. sliding on the base and general sliding along a slip surface passing outside the wall.

the short term stability of the required excavations was more critical. Different solutions were proposed: previous grouting of the slope.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 23 Figure 2. stabilization by root-piles or by prestressed anchors connected to concrete beams. The chosen solution was the last one.14 Safety factors However. .

.

and nails which can work in shear are generally placed vertically or perpendicularly to the slip surface.30 m (maximum dimension in section) and their inertia is larger than that of micropiles. the density of nail per m2 is high (usually one nail per 4 m2). They can be placed in any direction and. of a part of the shear forces created by the sliding mass to the substratum. INTERNAL REINFORCEMENT 3. forces develop only due to the slope movements.3. • Sheetpiles or H sections. Their behaviour and design methods are very similar to those of soil nailing but in fact they cannot be considered strictly as soil nailing. . steel bars. These are steel bars or tubes of small diameter (40-150 mm) with low bending stiffness. They are usually driven vertically and placed in one or few lines. etc.). are usually placed subhorizontally.1 description of the technique Soil nailing is a technique used to reinforce and to strengthen existing ground. shear stresses and bending moments. They are placed vertically in one or two lines.5 to 3 m and they have a very high bending stiffness. depending on the site conditions. which essentially work in tension. Their dimensions are from 0.1 to 0. The most commonly used are: • Micropiles. • Large diameter piles or diaphragm walls. It consists in the transmission.1 SOIL NAILING 3. as a consequence of their low inertia. Prestressing is not necessary. Nails of low inertia. There are different kinds of nails. by means of resistant elements (piles. Nails can withstand normal forces both in tension and in compression.1. Their diameter or width is from 0.

railways).1. this will not be always possible. or sometimes compressive. That is the case of natural or excavated slopes near constructions (buildings. That is. mainly the cohesion (Juran et al. highways. • Potentially unstable slopes. These are the following: • • • tensile.3 Design method When analysing the general behaviour of a nail crossing a shear surface in a soil. particularly for rigid nails. so maximum stabilization will be effective only after some slope movements have taken place after nails placing. Nevertheless. This is due to the reduced equipment and materials needed for soil nailing. the nail suffers shearing and tensile deformations. and these forces must be taken into account in the equilibrium equations of the sliding mass.26 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 3. • Significant displacements are required to reach the peak strength. at least in France. both natural and cut slopes. This technique is frequently used with two different aims. because of the stresses p exerted by the soil on the nail above the slip surface (and by the nail on the soil below it). according to the configuration: • Slopes where a slide already occurred. mainly with flexible nails. it is better to place the nails so that they mobilize mainly tensile force. is to increase the shear strength. shearing force V. mainly because of access conditions. The effect of these forces. . in order to stop the slide or to reduce the sliding rate. These deformations induce forces at the point where the nail crosses the slip surface. force N. 3. which are commonly vertical. when considering the reinforced soil mass as a whole. such as changing the geometry of the slope or drainage. bending moment M. in order to increase their safety factor.2 Field of application Soil nailing is generally used for slope stabilization when other methods.1. There are two important points to consider when designing slope stabilization by nailing: • Nails would be preferably placed with a small angle with respect to the normal to the slip surface. 1983). for instance in driven or bored piles. are inapplicable. preferably 30º. because of the installation procedure.

Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 27 Figure 3.1 Behaviour of soil nailing for slope stabilisation Figure 3. .2 Effect of soil nail orientation on slope stabilsation The first projects of slope stabilisation by soil nailing were designed with the assumption of limit equilibrium state of soil around the nails (pressure distribution of Brinch-Hansen.

or maximum value of soil displacement g (z) or of pile y (z). but this approach proved inadequate for modelling the soilnail interaction (Carter.1) where: • • • • • • p (z): stress between the soil and the nail EI: rigidity of the nail k: modulus of subgrade reaction D: width of the nail y (z): horizontal displacement of the nail g (z): soil displacement without nail g (z) is known when inclinometers are placed in the slope. The calculation is done for increasing values of g (z). its shape must be assumed. In France this is done by using the method proposed by Baguelin et al (Baguelin et al. for each one of the inclusions. by improving the Winkler beam model and solving the differential equation: p( z ) = EI d4y = kD [ y( z ) − g( z )] dz 4 (3. the forces mobilized along the slip surface with respect to soil displacements. this assumption being very important.LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 28 1961 (Brinch-Hansen. V and M at the cross-point between nail and slip surface can be known by solving this equation. Ideally. The forces N. In the stability analysis it is necessary to assess the relative displacements between the nail and the soil surrounding it. and a criterion must be chosen to stop the calculation. In other case. in order to evaluate the mobilized forces in the nails and therefore the stabilizing forces in the sliding soil mass. 1986). This criterion may depend on the project: • • • yielding of the soil along the nail. the design is done in two steps: 1º) Determine. either at one point or along a given length. . 1961). 1976) for piles subject to horizontal soil movements. yielding of the nail material.

1984).1. by a new embankment made of plastic clays and marls.1. It was reinforced by placing 50 mm diameter steel tubes including a 16 mm diameter bar inside. at a 2×3 m mesh. A slide occurred including the new fill and the foundation soils downstream.3. but in the case of numerous micropiles type nails. These programs can be used as well for the design of soil nailed walls (cf. The movements measured in the inclinometer showed that.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 29 2º) Introduce these forces in a “classical” slope stability analysis method.4. which integrates directly the two steps with some assumptions. 1986) is based on the same concept (it takes into account the displacements in the soil mass as well). 3.1 Old Railway embankment over the Paris-Lyon line : micropiles A railway embankment over the Paris-Lyon line. 1993) 3. in which external forces are added to the static equilibrium equations In the case of rigid nails. the method is not so straightforward. but soil-nail interaction modelling is more detailed. more than one century old. it is easy to use this method. the logarithmic spiral results in a very simple calculation and gives a good estimation of the structure’s safety compared to any other type of potential failure surfaces. The PROSPER program (Delmas et al. the stabilization was effective although some slow movements were carrying on some months after the works.1. The STAR software package (Anthoine. By using this theory and homogeneous soil. This problem is solved with the development of the TALREN computer program (Blondeau et al. § 2. the whole lying over clayey soils. which uses logarithmic spirals as potential failure surfaces and which is based on the yield design theory is also worth mentioning.2.).4 Case study (Guilloux. grouted in 150 mm boreholes. such as Fellenius or Bishop. Soil characteristics were determined by back analysis (safety factor SF=1) and the nailing design was done in order to get a 30% increase of this safety factor. 1990).2. such as the symmetry of the nail deformation. was widened a few decades ago. after a rapid increase during the works due to the effect of the equipment traffic on the slope. .

Stabilisation Movements 3. .2 Hambach embankment: sheetpiles The highway marly embankment 12 m high proved to be unstable two years after its construction (apparition of cracks on the pavement and superficial slides on the slope).30 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 3.4.4 Railway embankment in Paris-Lyon line. Soil nailing design Figure 3.1.3 Railway embankement in Paris-Lyon line.

proved to correspond to an increase in the safety factor of 13%. It appeared that the slope was in a state of limit equilibrium.65 m spacing in each line.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 31 Inclinometers revealed actual movements over 3 m depth and creep movements down to 6 m.4.5 Hambach embankment 3. The stabilization was monitored with inclinometers. when the pavement movements stopped. as the small cut quickly initiated movements of the railways. and the sheetpiles deformations measured. .1.3 A41 Highway : steel sections For the construction of the A41 highway in the Alps. which were unacceptable (150 mm in one month). with 0. a small cut about 4 m high had to be done 85 m downstream a railways over a gentle slope of silty clays. and it was decided to improve the embankment slope with sheetpiles SL3 placed at mid-slope on two lines. Figure 3. They were placed in a discontinuous way in order to avoid a barrier effect for the water seepage inside the embankment. Shear strength of the soil fill was back analysed.

which required about a month and a half. The TALREN program was used for the analysis.08.3. and it showed that for an initial safety factor of 1. which allowed the safety factor to reach values higher than 1. down to 9 m depth for a 6 m deep slip surface. Figure 3. Permanent stabilization was obtained by drainage. That was effective to reduce the movements. and each steel inclusionss line increased the safety factor by about 3%.6 A41 Highway.0. Movements began to decrease with the first line. and were almost stopped after driving the second line.5 m in each line. the cut induced a decrease to approximately 1. Cross section .32 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides It was decided to try to stop or to reduce the sliding movements by driving two lines of steel inclusions E140 with an horizontal spacing of 0.

However. the measured deformations when stabilization was obtained proved to correspond to a very low increase of the safety factor (about 3%). Slope movements and stability analysis 3.7 A41 Highway. with an average spacing of 1. The stabilization was globally effective. .4. It was decided to stabilize the slope by placing 800 mm diameter bored piles in two rows.5 m in each row. Moreover.4 Bousst Saint Antoine railway embankment: bored concrete piles The embankment rested over a slope of plastic clayey and marly debris and it suffered slow but continuous movements down to 10 m deep.2-0.4 cm after the works. Moreover. the monitoring showed that the stabilization required almost two years before being effective and that movements at the ground level were going on up to four years after the works.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 33 Figure 3.1. as the rate of sliding was reduced from 3-4 cm/year before to 0. an intensive monitoring was implemented in order to better understand the stabilization behaviour.

4. During heavy rain for several days. After installation of stabilizing piles. the holes. the slope was modified to an inclination of 1.5H:1V with two soil berms. To improve the stability of the failed slope. approximately 10. with some colluvial soils.34 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 3. . The cut slope was originally supported by an anchored retaining wall with height of 12.5 m.8 Boussy Saint Antoinerailway embankment 3. For an installation of stabilizing piles directly below the second soil berm.5 m. Steel H-piles (H-300×300×10×15) were inserted into the boreholes and the left spaces around H-piles in the holes were filled by cement grouting to prevent corrosion of the steel piles.5 Cut slope reinforcement by stabilising piles in Korea (Hong et al.3 m thick. were drilled to the depth of 1. A bedrock composed of weathered rock and soft rock is found below the weathered soils. landslides took place in 1993. following partial collapses of the anchored retaining wall. however.1. 450 mm in diameter. 1997) A cut slope of 1H:1V was constructed on a construction site of apartment buildings in Pusan. Korea. a row of stabilizing piles was constructed in the slope. situated about 432 km southeast of Seoul. The piles are installed in a row at centre-to-centre intervals of 1. The soil layer just below the ground surface is composed of mainly weathered soils. Pile heads were connected by a wale and reinforced concrete capping.5 m into the soft rock layer. The soils can be described as sandy silts.

Four rows of anchors. Based on the concept that half of the initial anchor load previously determined in anchored retention wall section would be lost with time. A retaining wall. The anchored retaining wall consists of soldier piles with concrete lagging and anchors.9 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles.4 m high. Permanent anchors were used to maintain the retention effect.5H:1V with a soil berm after installation of stabilizing piles below a second soil berm. Construction works for stabilization of the cut slope on hillside can be divided into three stages as follows: • Slope modification. Concrete retaining wall was constructed at the end of this stage. having different free lengths and bond lengths. Design to control the landslide. . • Toe excavation. were designed to have sufficient resistance against pull-out or fracture. The soldier piles (H-250×250×9×14) installed into the bored holes at intervals of 2 m were surrounded by cement grouting to prevent corrosion. 8. The slope was modified to an inclination of 1.4 in height directly at the front face of the anchored retention wall was proposed to ensure the long-term stability of the slope. It is composed of an anchored retaining wall and a concrete retaining wall. Anchored retention wall was constructed by excavating the toe of the slope after installation of soldier piles with lagging. It was performed in front of the anchored retention wall to provide underground parking facilities.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 35 Figure 3. • Underground excavation. installation of the additional concrete retaining wall of about 8. was constructed to cut the toe of the slope.

36

LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides

Figure 3.10 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles. Construction stages

After construction, to ensure the stability of the failed slope, an instrumentation including
strain gages, inclinometers and standpipe piezometers was designed.
Rainfall is the most significant factor which influences landslides in Korea. According to
previous investigations, the groundwater level did not increase significantly during heavy
rain. Therefore, the groundwater level in this slope could not affect the behaviour of piles
and slope. The wetting front, rather than the groundwater level, may affect the behaviour
of piles and slope, since the driving force of the slope is increased by increase in the
weight of soil above the wetting front.
Behaviour of piles
Piles horizontal deflection was measured with the inclinometer installed in them.
The maximum deflection was measured at pile head and the deflection angle at pile head
was zero, that is, the pile is under a fixed head condition. The peculiarity of this result
must be emphasized, since in this type of stabilization, piles are subjected to shear
stresses and therefore to bending moments.
Piles deflection grew gradually with the lateral earth pressure which was developed on
piles due to cutting and excavation (Figure 3.11(a)). Deflection increased also during
heavy rain (Figure 3.11(b)), since the lateral earth pressure increased with increase in the
weight of soil above the wetting front due to infiltration of rain. It decreased again,
however, when the soil above the wetting front dried.

Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation

37

Figure 3.11 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles. Pile deflection

As regards bending stresses developed in piles, the pile above the weathered rock layer is
subjected to lateral earth pressure due to driving force of slope, while the pile in the
ground below the soil layer is subjected to subgrade reaction against pile deflection. In
addition, bending stresses in piles increased during heavy rain, but they decreased again
when the soil above the wetting front dried.

Figure 3.12 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles. Bending stresses in piles.

38

LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides

Therefore, all these results illustrate that the piles exhibit an elastic behaviour during
heavy rain.
Behaviour of slope
An inclinometer was installed in the potential plastic zone between piles. The results
illustrate that the soil between the piles was restrained by the arching action of the soil
and its elastic behaviour during heavy rain.

Figure 3.13 Cut slope reinforced by stabilising piles. Soil deformation

Effects of piles on slope stability
Judging from the measured movements of piles and soil, it is supposed that the behaviour
of the stabilizing piles and the slope is elastic. The slope movement could be restrained to
quiet small movements by the effect of the stabilizing piles, so it can be said that
stabilizing piles are effective to control landslides in this site.
3.2 SOIL DOWELLING
Soil dowelling can be studied as a particular case of soil nailing in slope stabilization.
3.2.1 Description of the technique
The dowelling technique consists in reinforcing the creeping slope by inserting piles so
that the prevailing loading of the piles is transverse shearing. Dowels can be made of
concrete or steel, and they connect a downsliding earth block to the solid underground.

Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 39 Creeping slopes in stiff clay can be stabilized by using dowels made of concrete or steel. 3. so creep velocity decreases from v0 to v1. In this context stabilization of a creeping slope means reducing the velocity to a level which is harmless to structures. creeping begins again. When the water table is raised. to stabilize a creeping slope totally. and usually the groundwater table lies near the surface. or even deeper. with typical velocities from 0. This method assumes the following hypotheses: • The creeping slope is considered as a rigid body of weight W which slides on an inclined surface. The shear force V (V=W sinβ) is decreased by the forces Qs carried by the dowels. It usually requires enormous strength.2. The stabilization results in a reduction of the creep rate to a level which is harmless to superstructures. Usually a creeping slope consists of. In the transition zone (the thin shear zone) between the moving soil and the stable layer. Often the clay is fissured and therefore the permeability is quite uneven. 1976). 3. Design of stabilization is carried out assuming the dowels as elastic beams with a constant coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction. nearly saturated.1 mm to 5 cm per month.2. and therefore high cost. . In a creeping slope the soil moves slowly downhill. the water content is usually higher than in the surrounding soil.3 Design method The Department of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering of Karlsruhe University developed a new design method for dowelling (Leinenkugel. The dowels transmit the stabilizing force from the substratum to the creeping soil. The creep velocity decreases and sometimes the creep nearly stops with lowering of the groundwater table. stiff clay to a depth of 5 to 15 m.2 Field of application This technique is used usually for the stabilization of creeping slopes in stiff clay.

dowels should not be damaged during the design life of the structure and they need not be stronger than necessary. that is. Regarding the mechanical behaviour of a dowel.2) where V: shear force Iv: viscosity index v: creep velocity The viscosity index Iv varies between 0. the relationship between the displacement u and the horizontal load H is given by the following equation: du 4 ED I D 4 = H dz (3. The objective is therefore to determine the resulting dowel force nD·Qs for the most economical and safe stabilizing effect.3) For design.40 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 3.01 and 0. the values Iv and W sinβ are given and the ratio v0/v1 must be chosen according to the requirements for the structures on the slope.14 Creeping slope with dowels • Soil is a viscous fluid with a strongly non-linear viscosity which obeys Leinenkugel’s law (Leinenkugel. The number of dowels can be obtained from the previous equation: nD = − I v ln( v0 / v1 ) W sin β Qs (3.06 and can be obtained from triaxial tests with variable rates of deformation. 1976): ⎛ ⎞ V 1 = V 0 ⎜ 1 + I v ln ( v1 / v 0 ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (3.4) .

As regards the dowel diameter.2. The position of the sliding surface was identified by means of inclinometer measurements and was found to be located in stiff tertiary clay. it behaves as a rigid body. 1985) An 8 m high fill embankment was erected on a slope with an angle of 5º.3.3.1 Description of the technique This technique consists in strengthening the soil by introducing synthetic polymers in it. . It should be noted that the dowel action only occurs after a time which is needed for the displacement to mobilize a sufficiently high lateral force.15 cm/day was reduced to a rate which was not measurable over the period of a few months. After some years significant creeping began.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 41 This is the same equation which has been already described in § 3. It is possible as well that the lowering of the groundwater table contributed to this result. Figure 3.1 to 0.5 m diameter dowels.4 Case study Landslide at Dautenheim (Germany) (Gudehus and Schwarz.1. 3.3 GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT 3. The landslide was stabilized with two rows of 1. that is. Usually these polymers are placed in layers into the soil mass to be reinforced. so that the former creep rate of 0. It is assumed that the displacement within the creeping part of the slope is constant.15 Dowelling at Dautenheim 3. the optimum one is roughly 5% of the depth to the slip surface.

6) where q is the surcharge and γ the soil unit weight. 3. specifically a mechanically stabilized earth wall (retaining structure) (§2).3. To achieve a required global factor of safety (SF).3 Design method The design method for geogrid reinforced steep slopes described by Jewell et al. in such a way that at any point the tensile force is less than the previous allowable value.3. It allows obtaining design charts which give the coefficient of earth pressure.2 Field of application The most common application of Geogrid reinforcement is the construction of retaining walls. in Columbia.3. (Jewel et al. 1989). before entering the charts the effective friction angle Ф’ is reduced according to the equation: ⎛ tan φ ' ⎞ ⎟ ⎝ SF ⎠ φ ' * = atan ⎜ (3. Therefore.5) The global outward force which must be resisted by the tensile forces mobilized in the geogrids is then given by: ⎛ 1 q⎞ F = Kγ ⎜ H + ⎟ γ⎠ 2 ⎝ 2 (3. K. Geogrid reinforced slopes can be built at any angle. and the ratio between the geogrid length and the slope height (L/H) as a function of the slope angle β. USA. It is then possible to determine the number. 1984) is based on extensive stability analyses with the two-part wedge mechanism.4 Case study Geogrid reinforced slopes with convex and concave curvature in California (Rimoldi et al. The analysed geogrid reinforced slope is located in Sydney Park. 3. this technique could be considered as well as a slope reshaping method. length and position of the geogrid layers needed to resist the force F. South California.42 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 3. . A family of curves is provided for various friction angles Ф’.

Generally. A near vertical wall inclination of 70º was required for all wall construction to accommodate an uncemented masonry facial feature. • A Reinforced Earth system which was unacceptable because of potential corrosion of the steel belts from constant nitrate fertilization of the vegetative cover. Several slope reinforcement alternatives were considered for use on the project: • A conventional gravity retaining wall which was structurally feasible but proved to be too costly. • secondly. the landscape architect desired near vertical slopes that experienced concave and convex inflection along its length.7 to 12. • the third sections of the slope forms a half circle and is also 8. the site is situated in the Piedmont region of South Carolina in close proximity to the fall line. The soil borings and index tests performed identified five major soil stratums within the influence of the anticipated failure circles. The final park landscaping consisted of a large slope and seven smaller semi-circular slopes.3 m in height. The large slope is divided into three sections: • firstly. a linear section which is 8.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 43 In the conceptualization stage of the project. the site soils consist of residual and alluvial silty fine to medium sands and fine to medium clayey silts. Geologically. • A Criblock wall system which could not accommodate the tight 7. . a large concave slope section which is 13 m in height and features a waterfall structure which subjected the slope to a large surcharge load and the potential for water infiltration.3m radii curves of the concave and convex walls.3 m in height.

To avoid hydraulic settlement of this soil. To maximize this synergy. . geotextile strips were provided between the concrete elements and the reinforced block. provided the needed drainage within each cell of vegetative soil limited by two successive geotextile strips. Field and laboratory studies have shown that the high early modulus strength of the geogrid can only be effective through synergy between soil and geogrid. placed in an open pattern which allows the growth of vegetation. Finally it was determined that high strength mono-oriented geogrid reinforcement was the most compatible option for the slope design requirements. The face of the slopes used unbonded concrete blocks.16 Schematic plan view (a) and cross section (b). The gap between the slope face and the reinforced block (about 60 cm) was filled with vegetative soil.1 to 0. geotextile-geonet-geotextile. a granular soil was required. In addition to classical static analysis.15g) and threedimensional effects due to the curvature of the wall.44 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 3. the design and the stability analyses have taken into account also seismic conditions (zone II seismic loads of 0. A geocomposite.

Due to the S shape of the wall. thickness of fill layers and layout of geogrids. to the different surcharge conditions and the different slope heights. cut and placed according to the design specifications. the total length of the wall has been divided in six typical sections.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 45 The construction of the reinforced slope has been accomplished by compacting the backfill material in about 20 cm thick layers on each geogrid. designed with different length of reinforcement. .

.

Conventional excavation methods are used in competent materials while tunnelling through the slide often requires the adoption of . Groundwater and pore water-pressures are by far the predominant immediate cause of sliding movements and slide failures. In soil masses the destabilizing action of water is mostly the reduction of the effective stress along the critical surface. Efficient drainage only requires a small cross section and almost without exception it is the available tunnelling technology that dictates the size. Such surges often go undetected as they may dissipate in times shorter than the customary time intervals between successive rounds of piezometric readings.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE (SEMBENELLI. below the sliding plane. Tunnelling methods and tunnel cross section vary substantially if the tunnel alignment can be set in relatively competent materials. the destabilizing action of groundwater is mostly by hydrostatic thrust on the walls of water-filled cracks or by weakening plastic interbeddings whose shear strength gets substantially reduced whenever the water content of the material increases. or in the soft. 1988) Drainage is used to depress the piezometric surface or surfaces thus lessening hydrostatic thrusts and/or uplifts. consequently.4. moving soils of the slide. water bearing. increasing their shear strength. the length of single or multiple heading drainage tunnels has steadily increased. cross section. In rock or predominantly rocky slopes. In spite of the size of the investment required. geometry and construction details of a drainage adit or tunnel. In a sliding mass emphasis must be placed on the possibility that both hydrostatic thrusts and pore pressures may suddenly increase well above average levels as a consequence of rainfalls and in relation to the groundwater circulation and the presence of pervious zones throughout the mass. Drainage can also act inducing consolidation throughout clayey materials and. Drainage tunnels Deep drainage can only be achieved driving appropriate drainage adits or tunnels. DRAINAGE 4. that is.

freezing and so on. While conventional rotary techniques are adequate for most drain holes. structure and permeability of the rock mass. grouting. A peculiar advantage of tunnels and adits is that their alignment can be modified to suit at best the actual geology. In subhorizontal holes the casing will tend to sit on the hole lower half thus making the filter eccentric. This requires that the characteristics and organic content of the groundwater be thoroughly investigated. lined with fine slotted plastic casing 60 to 100 mm in diameter. Years ago a method was developed to create a . or bacterial scum accumulation. particularly subhorizontal ones is on the contrary a frequent occurrence. it is often necessary to drill precision oriented. sometime assisted by special improvement and consolidation measures ahead of the front like drainage. Hair-fine slotted pipes sometimes used in the past to avoid filters are more and more substituted by a coarse slotting protected on the outside by a simple or a two-play socket of synthetic geotextile. high transmissivity geodrains are set between the rock and the lining.48 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides hand digging with systematic lagging. This technique has recently greatly progressed and it is today possible to plan horizontal directional boreholes up to 200 m long. like calcium carbonate precipitations. Vertical drains Methods of creating continuous drainage curtains proposed and applied in recent years were numerous and widely different. Filling the annular space between casing and soil or rock. The permanence of the drainage efficiency is obviously critical to ensure a lasting stabilization effect. subhorizontal holes to create a gravity discharge to a drainage shaft. high strength concrete liner. Many attempts were therefore made to eliminate the filter. with uniformly graded filter sand is always difficult and checking the actual quality of the work impractical. Clogging of small bore drain holes. Drain clogging is often the result of chemical processes. If the tunnel cavity has to be supported. drainage is achieved with small diameter. The actual drainage capacity of the tunnel cavity is often increased by lines or fans of drain holes. Horizontal drains Where morphology and geological conditions allows. This relatively novel solution fully maintains the drainage capacity of the tunnel while allowing the use of a conventional. The typical drain hole is 120 to 150 mm diameter. subhorizontal drains drilled from the surface or from large shafts.

An alternative technique consists in drilling large diameter (1. closely spaced (5 to 7 m) shafts. 4. and 35 m long down to the bedrock. 45º sloped. However. . Two kinds of stabilizing measures were realized: • Two drainage wells with subhorizontal drains. These walls are also anchored at their top by prestressed tie-rods. in order to collect all the waters percolating in the upper part of the site.2 FIELD OF APPLICATION Drainage is the most suitable method for large and very large slides. pumped wells. A combination of drainage trench and vertical drains can be used. and a water level which may rise up to the ground level. solid filled with free draining material or hollow to allow for inspection. 1989) An installation of electric transformers is Genissiat (France) was resting upon a gentle slope (10º to 20º over the horizontal line).8 m² section and a spacing of 7 m. up to 50 m long and installed on three levels. which had to be stopped in order to prevent any trouble in the electric installation. A compact drilling rig can be lowered in the shafts and can drill from shaft to shaft to connect them in line thus creating a gravity discharge. embedded down to the sandstone bedrock (20 m depth) with a 1×2. this system has two main drawbacks: operating costs and the need for a dependable power source.0 m). The site was affected by slow movements (a few centimetres a year. The scheme providing maximum flexibility and controlling the piezometric surface remains the classical system of multiple.5 to 2. independent.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 49 poured-in-situ sand wall: crescent shaped steel casing were sunk in a row and filled inside with sand before withdrawing the next column. 4. vertical. during the wet periods) down to 15-20 m depth.3 CASE STUDY Landslide stabilization by drainage and diaphragm walls (Papot et al. made of clayey soils including some gravel lenses with a sandstone and a siltstone substratum. where it is difficult to find an alternate choice. • A row of cast in situ diaphragm walls.

50

LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides

The works have been designed in order to obtain an increase of the safety factor of:

10% with the drainage alone.
10% with the mechanical stabilization (anchored diaphragm walls). For this
calculation, interaction between piles and moving soil allowed the determination of
the allowable stabilizing forces in the piles.

Globally, by combining both stabilization methods, the increase of the safety factor has
been about 27-36%, which is satisfactory for this site

.Figure 4.1 Cross section of the slope.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the main characteristics of each stabilization methods, several conclusions can
be drawn from this bibliographic survey. Advantages and disadvantages, as well as
successes and failures, of the most commonly used ones can be summarized as follows.
Soil nailed walls
Advantages




reduced construction equipment and materials
rapid construction
readily adaptable to different sites
readily adaptable to heterogeneous soils
competitive cost

Disadvantages

lateral and vertical movements inherent to the technique
• use limited to soils with no water table or protected by a reduction in the water table
level
• difficult use in cohesionless and caving sands and in frost-susceptible soils
Successes and failures
The case study of U.S. Highway 26-89 demonstrates the feasibility of this technique for
stabilization of an active landslide, since in this case the construction of a soil nailed wall
together with a mechanically stabilized earth wall allowed the reduction of movement
which appears to be decreasing in time.

LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides

52

Reinforced Earth
Advantages



high deformability
low cost
low materials volume
rapid, predictable and easy construction process

Disadvantages

short-term stability is not always assured when the Reinforced Earth wall is
constructed on a slope at a limit equilibrium condition or when there are water
circulations in the surface layers
Successes and failures
In the case study of the mountain access road to the Frejus tunnel, the increase in the
safety factor with regard to that of the natural slope is not very high. Moreover, the shortterm stability of excavations had to be obtained by means of prestressed anchors attached
to concrete beams.
This example illustrates, therefore, that Reinforced Earth walls cannot be strictly
considered as a stabilization method, as in most cases it must be used together with other
techniques.
Soil nailing
Advantages


Reduced equipment and material
Rapid construction
It does not affect the site geometry

Disadvantages

Its effect is progressive and residual movements occur

Successes and failures

Increases of about 15% in the safety factor can be said to be effective. it was effective to reduce the movements).Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 53 Usually when using soil nailing to stabilize a sliding slope.1 cm/day was reduced to non measurable movements in a few months. movements are not stopped completely. for which when the movements stopped an increase in the safety factor of 13% was noted. However. drainage allowed the safety factor to increase by more than 30%. where the initial creep rate of about 0. Nevertheless. Drainage Advantages • avoiding interference with the surface structures . where the nailing of each steel sections line increased the safety factor by only 3% (although it is low. that is. On the other hand. however. That is the case of Hambach embankment. a sufficient decrease of movements is considered to be effective. such as drainage. creep rate has been reduced to levels harmless to structures. that this stabilization may have been influenced as well by the lowering of the groundwater table. in certain cases this measure is not sufficient for stabilisation and it must be associated to other stabilisation techniques. Soil dowelling Advantages • • • Reliability of prediction (technical advantage) Economy of design Environmental advantages (it does not affect the site geometry) Disadvantages • Its effect is progressive and residual movements occur Successes and failures This method has been applied successfully to creeping slopes in stiff clay. That is the case of dowelling at Dautenheim. It is shown in the stabilisation made for the A41 highway. It must be said.

there were very few case studies in which specific measures in design were taken into account. works to stabilize the slide were designed in order to obtain an increase in the safety factor of 10%. The only case included in this document is the geogrid reinforced slope in Sydney Park.LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 54 • in the case of drainage tunnels. possibility of carrying out at any time the necessary maintenance of the drains Disadvantages • possible damage to vegetation (if the groundwater table lowers quickly) Successes and failures In the case of the electric installation over a slope in Genissiat. so that the final increase in the safety factor achieved was about 30%. it must be said that in the documentation surveyed for this bibliographic research. in South California. . That shows once again that most of unstable slopes need implementation of a combination of techniques for the required stabilization. but it was combined with a row of diaphragm walls. As regards seismic conditions.

1995) have demonstrated the important effect that soil deformations due to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading have on the seismic response of piles.1 depicts the bending moments due to loading of a pile caused by ground displacements. according to which the main loading factors are the following: • • The inertial forces due to the oscillation of the superstructure (inertial interaction) The seismic wave propagation within the soil formations (kinematic interaction) Nevertheless. During liquefaction it occurs when the pore water pressure factor reaches the value of 1. 1906) as well as more recent ones (mostly that of Kobe. Figure 6. several earthquakes that occurred in the past (San Francisco. OVERVIEW: LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING The seismic response of piles is usually studied using the soil-pile-structure interaction assumption. 2002). but also in certain cases of soft clayey soils or organic deposits (Loma Prieta. The moments are correlated to the increasing ground displacement and the corresponding decrease in soil stiffness that take place during the course of liquefaction (Berill & Yasuda. During lateral spreading it occurs when the resistance of the ground has decreased enough or has . 1989). Cyclic and permanent ground displacement differ as to their time of occurrence as well as to the type of loading they inflict onto the piles. permanent displacements actually correspond to a static type of loading.0 (point A). Soil displacement generally consists of two components: the cyclic component acts on the piles during the seismic excitation. Significant bending moments are obtained at two distinct times: during the liquefaction process (point A) and when the ground displacement starts to increase due to the lateral spreading process that follows (point B). as a time-history. Ground displacements constitute an essential loading factor. particularly in the case of soft deposits susceptible to liquefaction. while the permanent soil displacement results from lateral spreading and takes place towards the end of the excitation or even after that (post-seismically).6. Cyclic and permanent displacements are easily discerned in the diagram. given that they develop after the inertial characteristics of seismic motion have already weakened.

New Zealand 1983). particularly in the case of stiff foundations. leading to the ground displacement resembling permanent lateral spreading (point B). can be said to comprise three phases. The significant lateral pressures acting upon the piles may lead to extensive damage or failure.2. as shown schematically in Figure 6. There is also another case that may prove critical to the design of deep foundations subjected to horizontal earthquake loading: the case of a non-liquefiable surface crust overlying a deeper. Figure 6.2 Development of soil displacements in conjunction with soil-foundation-structure interaction . in conjunction with soil-foundation-structure interaction.1 Stages of critical pile loading during lateral spreading of soil (Berill & Yasuda.56 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides even fully ceased. The above pertains to the case of a soil profile consisting of a liquefiable material. liquefiable soil formation (Κobe 1995. 2002). The development of soil displacements. Figure 6.

Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 57 iii) PHASE Ι This takes place before any significant pore water pressures are generated. the kinematic type of loading arising from permanent ground displacement becomes the most important component of loading on the pile. The accumulation of shear strain leads to an increase in the permanent horizontal soil displacement. thus affecting seismic response. v) PHASE ΙΙΙ Towards the end of the excitation the inertial loads tend to decrease due to the decreasing level of shaking as well as the liquefaction that has already occurred. given that the residual post-liquefaction shear strength is smaller than the static shear strength. kinematic loads are added due to cyclic soil displacements. Although all three phases may cause significant stress upon the piles. This first phase is preceded by a kinematic soil-pile interaction during the propagation of the seismic waves through the soil profile. . As a result. in the case of large permanent soil deformations it is mostly the third phase that dictates the failure mode and the strain distribution pattern along the pile shaft. iv) PHASE ΙΙ The generation of pore water pressure during the earthquake causes the cyclic shear strains to increase. while the response is dictated only by the inertial forces due to the excitation of the superstructure. In this phase the forces acting upon the pile are not only inertial. resulting in large soil displacements.

.

a permanent horizontal ground displacement of 1.1 (Tokimatsu. 1999). in that area. The soil profile consists of an 8m-thick surficial fills (ΝSPT=2-20) .1996). to such a degree that the Japanese design provisions for deep foundations had to be modified accordingly (JRA. The fact that piles belonging to the same pile group exhibited different deformation modes indicates that the ground displacement affected each pile differently.0-1.5m was measured on the shoreline. RECORDED INSTANCES OF PILE FAILURES IN SOILS UNDER LATERAL SPREADING 7. Figure 7. The typical spatial distribution of failures observed in piles also demonstrates the significant effect of the depth of the liquefied layer.7. namely according to each pile’s distance from the location of maximum observed displacement.1Typical failure modes of piles due to lateral spreading (Tokimatsu 1999) One characteristic example of such a response can be seen in the case of three buildings with piled foundation located near the shoreline at the north-eastern edge of Asahiya city. as can be seen in Figure 7. The three buildings were founded on prestressed concrete piles with a length of 26m and a diameter of 50cm.1 11-STOREY R/C BUILDINGS .KOBE 1995 Failures of piled foundations related to liquefaction phenomena and ground displacements were among the commonest damage patterns observed after the 1995 Kobe earthquake.

Figure 7. The observed damage was concentrated near the pile heads.2 (a) Location of the three buildings and spatial distribution of maximum ground displacements (b) Plan view and cross-section of the three buildings’ foundation (Sotetsu. where extensive diagonal and horizontal cracking occurred. Error! Reference source not found.60 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides overlying a loose saturated sandy layer which liquefied during the earthquake. as well as at a depth of 9m. which marks a transitional zone in the soil stiffness (very different Nspt values above and beneath hat depth). 1996). . Figure 7. Besides the pile head.3 depicts the failure mode for the foundation of building B. 1996) The buildings were translated by 40-60cm and rotated by 1/39 along the transverse direction.shows the soil profile and the locally measured Nspt values (a) (b) (after Sotetsu. The buildings tilted so much as to actually create a gap beneath the pile head leading to crushing failures of the reinforced concrete and buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. damage was also observed at a depth of 3-4m. while the superstructure's response remained in the elastic range without any serious damage.

4 shows the piled foundation of the tank in cross-section and plan-view.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 61 Figure 7. The tank had a diameter of 15m and a capacity of 2450kl. singled out the strong ground displacement which acted upon the tank foundation during the 1995 Kobe earthquake. beneath which lie gravelly soils Nspt>50). causing serious deformation to the piles. 1997. Ishihara et. as well as the soil profile. A section of the greater area in the vicinity of the tank is seen in Figure 7. Figure 7. After studying the seismic ground response through detailed in-situ surveys. because of the ground improvement performed around the tank perimeter.3 Pile failure in building B (Tokimatsu 1997) 7.0m.5m from the surface. The soil profile comprises a 14m-thick soft soil layer (Νspt=5-6) overlying a 10m-thick silty soil formation (Nspt=20-30). it was founded on 69 high-strength concrete piles with a length of 23m and a diameter of 50cm. a piece of reclaimed land near Kobe port. in which are marked the geometry and dimensions of the . It must be noted that. al.5. The permanent ground displacement due to lateral spreading reached a maximum value of 1.2 OIL TANK IN MIKAGEHAMA ISLAND – KOBE 1995 This particular oil tank was located on Mikagehama Island.. the soil on which the foundation laid exhibited higher Nspt values (up to 20%30% increase). The pile heads were fixed in a 50cm-thick concrete slab. The groundwater table lies at a depth of -2. Along the tank perimeter compaction sandpiles were installed creating a 4m-wide zone of improved ground.

with soil profile Figure 7.4 Plan view and cross-section of the pile grid.62 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides ground movements. al. The permanent lateral ground displacement in the area ranges from 35-55cm. .5 View of the area near the tank and dimensions of the ground displacements in the vicinity (Ishihara et. Figure 7. 1997).

this depth marking the transition zone between the liquefiable surface layer (embankment) and the underlying silty soil.6 Permanent lateral displacement of pile head in plan (above) and distribution of cracks along piles (below). using two of the deformed piles at a distance of about 14m. The results of the investigation (Figure 7. In order for the seismic behaviour of the piles to be established.3 Edgecumbe 1983 earthquake was the development of significant horizontal . as did each pile’s type of response.6) indicate that the horizontal displacement of the pile heads was around 30-50cm. Multiple cracks were discovered.3 R/C BRIDGE IN NEW ZEALAND .EDGECUMBE 1987 One of the key features in the seismic response of Landing Road Bridge during the ML=6. an in-situ investigation took place. concentrated at a depth of 14m from the surface.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 63 Figure 7. this movement took place in various directions that differed significantly for each pile. 7.

64 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides pressures caused by a non-liquefiable crust while its underlying liquefiable layer suffered lateral spreading.8.3m. The stratigraphy can be seen in Figure 7. A longitudinal section of the bridge can be seen in Figure 7. thus forming a fairly stiff monolithic structure. along with SPT results from certain locations along the bridge span. This saturated sandy layer spans across the entire length of the bridge. each with a length of 18. overlying a loose saturated sandy soil 4m thick. Five of the twelve piers were supported additionally through 2 vertical reinforced concrete piles with a diameter of 1. The bridge consists of 13 spans. al. The supporting beams are internally connected through diaphragms to the piers as well as the abutments. The pile cross-section is 406mmx406mm while their length is 9m. 2001) The soil profile comprises a surface layer of clayey silt 1.7 Sketch of foundation along Landing Road Bridge (Berill et. showing the additional pile support of the five piers. The superstructure comprises 5 prefabricated prestressed concrete beams that have an I-shaped cross-section and which support the deck. Each pier is founded on a reinforced concrete slab which in turn is supported by a group of 8 raked prestressed square concrete piles. .5m deep. Figure 7.1m.7 .

It is evident that the critical zone of the pile coincides with the transition zone in the soil. 2001).8 Soil profile and SPT results along the bridge Figure 7.9 describes the failure mechanism of a typical pier in this bridge.B. namely the interface between the liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil. 1995. and Tokimatsu. 1999. This conclusion is in good agreement with other in-situ observations made by Tazoh and Gazetas. al. .9 Failure mechanism of a typical pier due to passive earth pressures by non-liquefiable surface layer (J.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 65 Figure 7. Figure 7.Berill et.

metal) piles. which demonstrated the critical contribution of kinematic loading due to both cyclic and permanent ground displacement (Kugawara and Yoneda. Piled foundations surrounded by diaphragm walls or pile-walls did not exhibit critical failure modes. Inertial forces acting on piles differ depending on the use of stiff (e. In several cases. thus resulting in tilting of the superstructure. Piles not carrying any significant vertical load have exhibited severe damage. especially for stiff piles. .4 CONCLUSIONS ON SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PILES IN SOILS SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT Using observations on the behaviour of deep foundations that lie within soils subjected to lateral spreading during the 1995 Kobe and other earthquakes. depending on the depth and thickness of the liquefiable soil layer. What seems important in such cases is the distance of each pile from the location of maximum observed ground displacement. the following conclusions may be drawn (Tokimatsu. 1999): • • • • • • • Failures due to ground displacement may occur not only at the pile head but also near the middle or even the end of the pile. Seismic response is directly dependent on the type of pile foundation.g.g. In the case of low ductility piles. high strength prestressed concrete) or ductile (e. 1998).66 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 7. damage tends to concentrate mostly at the interface between the liquefiable soil layer and its neighbouring layers. Existence of a non-liquefiable surface layer overlying a formation susceptible to liquefaction results in significant horizontal pressures which constitute a particularly crucial loading factor. piles belonging to the same group have exhibited varying responses due to lateral spreading of the surrounding soil.

Imamura et al. It was shown that the number and layout affected the rate of pore water pressure generation. Soil layering. namely the effect of a 1-layer and a 2-layer profile on pile response. The single-layer profile was made of saturated silt. 2004. 2001. Figure 8. Wilson 1998. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF PILE RESPONSE IN SOILS SUBJECTED TO LATERAL SPREADING Extensive centrifuge and shaking table tests as well as in-situ tests have demonstrated the importance of several factors on the seismic response of piles which lie within loose sandy soils susceptible to liquefaction. 2000.1 depicts the ground displacement profiles with depth at the end of the excitation (t=10s) for each of the two soil profiles used. Tsukamoto et. al.8. Finn 2005). Boulanger et. al. 2000. a single-layer one and a double-layer one so as to examine the effect of layering. al. and hence the degree to which the group response differs from the single-pile response. The piles had a diameter of 80cm and a bending stiffness EI=744MNm2 (scale of prototype). which in the double-layer case was covered by a surface layer of Toyoura sand of medium density (Dr=70%). . 1997. pile tips were fixed while their heads were free to move. Existence of a non-liquefiable surface soil layer. The seismic excitation was of a sinusoidal form. Abdoun and Dobry 2001. as well as very soft clayey soils (Imamura et. al. particularly within the surface layer.2g and had a 10s duration. performed centrifuge tests with a centrifugal acceleration of 50g in order to investigate the effect of the number and layout of a group of piles on their response under lateral spreading. Existence of a very soft surface layer of clay. They used two different soil profiles. reached a maximum level of 0. The direction of the pile layout with respect to the direction of the soil spreading – observations of pile failures indicate that the response differs depending on whether the piles are arranged parallel or transverse to the direction of spreading.. Kamijo et. The crucial factors usually examined are the following: • • • • • The number and layout of piles.

The modification introduced by the double-layered profile is a relative decrease in the absolute value of displacement. an increase in the number of piles used tends to cause smaller displacements which are relatively uniform down to a certain depth.3 have demonstrated a significant increase in moments and forces during the lateral spreading process (Τsakamoto et.g. the pile in the double-layered soil sustains larger moments due to the surface layer not liquefying. The soil used was saturated Kasumigaura sand of medium relative density (Dr=68%). Increasing the number of piles and decreasing the distance between them results in decreasing lateral displacements.68 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides The legends in the figure refer to the different pile layouts used (soil profile. In terms of absolute values. In the case of the doublelayered profile a change in the sign of the moment is observed at a depth of about 3H1. namely. which may be explained by the partial relief of pore water pressure towards the sandy surface layer. Similar results are derived for the double-layered profile. . e.. pile number. Figure 8.74 103 kNm2.: S-4P-2D means Single-layer profile with 4 piles spaced at 2 diameters.1 Ground displacement profiles with depth at the end of the excitation for each of the two soil profiles (single. a diameter of 20cm and a bending stiffness of 2.2 shows the bending moments exhibited by the piles. where H1 represents the thickness of the surface layer.and double-layered). Similar experiments performed on a large scale shaking table and shown in Figure 8. The piles used were high-strength free-head piles with a length of 5m. al. 1999). Single-layer profile Double-layer profile Figure 8. pile distance).

and double-layered). Abdoun and Dobry.4 depicts ‘snapshots’ of the free-field soil displacement distribution at several points in time along with the respective variation in bending moments. 2003. It was examined whether the pile response progresses in step with the ground spreading process. Soil displacements tend to become significant and increase at a faster rate while the lateral spreading progresses.3 Large scale shaking table model (Tsukamoto et. Figure 8. al.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation Single-layer profile 69 Double-layer profile Figure 8. The configuration of the experiment can be seen . Figure 8.2 Bending moment profiles with depth for the two soil profiles (single. further investigated the progress with time of a single pile response under lateral spreading. 1997). while the bending moments tend to increase at the same rate as the displacements.

The second and third plots in Figure 8. 1998. the surrounding soil exerts a lower level of loading onto the pile and thus the pile response successively decreases.5 correspond to the pile displacement and bending moment time-histories at the level of the interface of the two soil layers. Following that. Ishihara and Cubrinovski 2004). At the exact time when the pile response reaches peak values the maximum soil strength is mobilized and hence that’s when the pile receives maximum lateral loading from the surrounding soil.4 (a) Distribution of ground displacement with depth (b) Distribution of moments with depth In the experiment the surface layer completely liquefied almost at the beginning of excitation.5. (a) (b) Figure 8. as seen in the first plot in Figure 8. This experimental result is corroborated by several field observations of piles that failed under earthquake induced lateral spreading (Τοkimatsu et. The maximum bending moment acting upon the pile at any given time appeared at the depth of the soil layer interface.5 along with simultaneous plots of the time varying soil displacement and pile response (displacement and moment) as they march in time. . The maximum value of ground displacement measured at the surface was of the order of 80cm. Thus it may be derived that the critical cross-sections of a pile under lateral spreading are those neighbouring the interfaces of liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils. bringing on the start of lateral displacement of the soil at an increasing rate. due to its continuing lateral spreading and its decrease in strength. Both the displacement and the moment reach their peak values in the middle of duration of excitation and then decrease even though the free-field ground displacement continues increasing. al.70 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides in Figure 8.

2003). The layout used in the test is shown in Figure 8. indicating that the response is dictated mainly by the two non-liquefiable soils above and beneath it. an explosion caused by a remote source excites a structure which is founded on a 2x2 pile group. A large scale experiment was conducted by Kamijo et..Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 71 Figure 8. . al. One of the objectives of the field test was to fully study non-linear soil-pile-structure interaction. 2003.7. the horizontal pressures on the pile due to the in-between layer are negligible. kinematic interaction between piles and soil of low stiffness and inertial loads on the superstructure. The pile foundation penetrates a liquefiable soil layer. since this case combined the effect of liquefaction. 2004. In the particular large-scale experiment. along which the moment distribution was studied. as seen in Figure 8. while the critical cross-sections (where peak moment values are observed) are found at the same depths as the interfaces of the liquefiable layer with its surrounding layers. Figure 8. The moment variation within the liquefiable soil is linear. also investigated the effect of a non-liquefiable surface layer underlain by a loose sandy-silty soil. Abdoun and Dobry.5 Device used in the experiment and simultaneous plots of soil displacement and pile response plots derived (Abdoun and Dobry.6(a). under actual soil conditions. The presence of the nonliquefiable surface layer resulted in an increase of the maximum pile moment up to 40%. A single pile was driven into a three-layer soil profile.6(b) shows the moments along the pile at the end of the excitation.

14g and high-0.7 Layout used in the field test (N. Kamijo et.6 (a) Experimental model used to study the effects of non-liquefiable layers (b) Bending moment distribution along pile The sand used in the test pit had a shear wave velocity of about 70m/s while the natural mudstone layer had a velocity of 200m/s near the surface which increased up to 500700m/s at greater depths. In order to produce liquefaction phenomena of increasing intensity.72 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 8. medium-0. three different tests were performed with the intensity of the blast (and hence of the excitation) increasing each time. in . The foundation consisted of four steel pipes while the superstructure comprised two R/C slabs connected through four steel ‘I’ columns. Figure 8.58g. al. 2004).02g. Thus the results refer to three different levels of seismic excitation: low-0. For each level of excitation the acceleration time-histories were recorded and the respective response spectra calculated for different locations (at free-field conditions as well as within the founding ground and in the superstructure).

both in terms of peak acceleration as well as in terms of the general shape of response distribution with depth. .Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 73 order to investigate how the motion was modified. the pile response differs significantly from that of the soi. However. in the case of high intensity seismic motion.8 (a) (b) (c) Figure 8. By comparing the acceleration distribution for each intensity level it is shown that the pile response follows that of the surface sandy layer in the cases of low and medium level of excitation. which would mean stronger liquefaction phenomena. the pile and the superstructure according to the level of excitation seen in Figure 8.14g (c) 0.58g. the pile and the superstructure according to the level of excitation: (a)0.8 Distribution of maximum acceleration within the soil.02g (b) 0. The modification in the distribution of maximum acceleration within the soil.

.

2003). 9. so that ratios L/H and D0/H are non-dimensional. al. O’Rourke and Hamada 1992) as well as experimental results (Abdoun et. In the case of a pile group: the number and distance between piles.2 ESTIMATION OF PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENT Based mainly on observations of actual events.. al. 2003. Shamoto and Hotta. 1992. The stiffness of the liquefiable layer. some empirical correlations have been suggested between the length (L) of the area undergoing lateral spreading and the maximum ground displacement (D0). al. 1996. PILE DESIGN METHODOLOGIES AGAINST LATERAL SPREADING 9. The thickness and properties of the liquefiable soil layer. as well as the orientation of the layout with respect to the direction of lateral spreading.1. The relation between L and D0. al. while Do is usually measured as the displacement of a quay-wall on the (Tokimatsu et. al. A selection of such empirical correlations can be seen in Figure 9. Tokimatsu et. both normalized by H.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS After combining observations based on actual events (Hamada et. 1997.9. Dobry et. the critical parameters that affect pile response under lateral spreading were found to be the following: • • • • • • The distribution shape and values of permanent ground displacement with depth which act as lateral loading on the pile. in which L and D0 are normalised by the thickness (H) of the liquefiable layer. The stiffness of the superstructure and the inertial forces acting on it. L is also referred to as the range of influence of ground displacement. The material that piles are made of and their stiffness. is described by an equation of this form: . 1996).

Dimensions L.76 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides L D = (25 to 100) 0 H H (9.1) Figure 9. D0 may be estimated through the following equation: D 0 = min(Dmax . D0 and H are illustrated in Figure 9. as well as the characteristics of seismic excitation. Figure 9.2 Illustration of the geometric parameters involved Based on the above equation it is obvious that the lateral spreading may extend to a length of up to 50 times the maximum displacement observed near the quay-wall.2) In this equation Dw is the quay-wall displacement.. Dmax can be . al.2. its design method and the properties of the soil behind and beneath it. while Dmax is the maximum displacement that can possibly occur at the surface of the liquefiable soil. The maximum permanent displacement (D0) is directly dependent on the type of quay-wall. 1996).1 Correlation of range of influence of lateral spreading (L) with maximum observed ground displacement (D0) (Tokimatsu et. D W ) (9.1997 and Shamoto and Hotta.

For each of the two cases. proper design should account for the different loading pattern that each pile of a group may exhibit due to the particular variation in ground displacement. and Ishihara et. 1996. the displacement is given by the following equations: f ls (z i .Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 77 estimated based on the Nspt values of the soil and the shear stresses involved. al. since the load will depend on the distance (x).4a) for z i > z w (9.. x i ) = D(x i ) ⎛ 1 − (z i − z w ) ⎞ f ls (z i . as a member of the pile group. 1997: 5x ( ) D(x) = 0. After estimating the displacement D0 at the quay-wall.3) This equation also accounts for the fact that if the piled foundation is fairly spaced out. 1997. The relation between D0 and D(x) is given by Shamoto and Hotta.z) at each pile of the group (horizontal distribution-x) and along the pile’s length (vertical distribution-z). the displacement D(x) at the piles is estimated based on distance x[m] between the piles and the shore. The effect of the ground water table is simulated by modifying the value of ground displacement fls(x. the detailed methodology is given by Ishihara.5 L D0 (9.3.4b) . This final loading model is described in Figure 9. the ground water table effect must be accounted for. The distribution of displacement along each pile can then be considered as the actual loading acting upon it. then the ground displacement occurring at the quay will not load each pile of the group equally.x i ) = ⎜ ⎟ D(x i ) H ⎝ ⎠ for z i < z w (9. When the displacement D(x) acting on each pile has been estimated. Thus. This is done depending on whether the depth (z) where the displacement is inflicted is located above or beneath the water table level (zw).

. 9. The coefficient of subgrade . DP is the pile diameter and k=khDP is the modulus of subgrade reaction (FL-2). such as the Winkler theory of a beam resting on non-linear springs. When ground displacement fls(z) is included as a loading parameter in the aforementioned p-y relation. I its moment of inertia. kh is the coefficient of subgrade reaction (FL-3). al.3 DETERMINING P-Y CURVES FOR THE LIQUEFIABLE SOIL LAYER Simplified pseudostatic design methods using p-y curves. E is the elasticity modulus of the pile.5) In this equation. yp its the horizontal displacement. 1999: ⎛ d4 y ⎞ EI⎜⎜ 4 ⎟⎟ = k h ⋅ DP ⋅ (fls (z) − y) = k ⋅ (fls (z) − y) ⎝ dz ⎠ (9. the displacement is applied to the ends of the Winkler springs and the equation is transformed into the following according to Tokimatsu et.6) Consequently.3 Detailed model of the loading of a pile group in which each pile sustains different permanent ground displacement.78 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 9. are based on the following relation: ⎛ d4 y ⎞ EI⎜⎜ 4 ⎟⎟ = k h ⋅ DP ⋅ y = k ⋅ y ⎝ dz ⎠ (9. the p-y curves corresponding to liquefiable soils are derived from modifying the usual p-y curves used on non-liquefiable soils.

9b) The values of these coefficients are almost equal (AIJ 2001) and vary depending on the Nspt soil profile as shown in Figure 9. This modification can be modeled through scaling factors α and β: k h l = β ⋅ k ho (9. 1998). The response of these piles is shown in Fig. stiffness decreases while displacement y increases. 1997. as well as the maximum soil pressure pyo.4 Coefficient of subgrade reaction kh and maximum reaction pressure pyo In the usual case of non-liquefiable soils. according to this equation: kh = kho y (1 + ) y0 . al. The effect of these parameters on the response of piles was investigated through back analyses performed on two buildings founded on piles which exhibited significant deformations during the Kobe earthquake (Tokimatsu et.5.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 79 reaction of pile kh and the maximum reaction pressure pyo can be defined for the case of non-liquefiable soils according to AIJ. where y 0 = p yo k ho (9.75 p y o = 3 ⋅ K p ⋅ σ΄vo (7a) (7b) Figure 9.. the increase in displacement y results in modification of the initial gradient (kho) and shape of the p-y curve.9a) p yl = α ⋅ p yo (9. . where Κp is the coefficient of passive earth pressures and σvo΄ is the in-situ effective vertical stress: k h o = 56 ⋅ N SPT ⋅ D −p0. 1998 and JRA. 25 for several combinations of scaling factors α and β.8) In the case of soils subjected to lateral spreading.

20 the pile response is realistically and adequately represented. 1998. ranging from 0. 2000). this is a very wide range of values.05-0. that it may even be considered .100 to 0.5 Variation of scaling factors α and β with Nspt profile (AIJ 2001). al.80 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Figure 9. 1998). Based on the above figure it is seen that for a range of values α=β=0. The stiffness of a liquefiable soil is so much smaller than that of a stiff. Azuma and Tamura. while the variation of ground displacement is also accounted for. thus it is possible to describe the difference in deformation between land-side and sea-side piles. non-liquefiable soil. Orense et.. Figure 9.001 (Ishihara and Cubrinovski. al. 1999. Several values have been suggested in literature for the soil stiffness reduction factors.6 The effect of scaling factors α and β on pile deformation (Tokimatsu et.

However. modeled the soil stiffness through the trilinear p-y law shown in Figure 9. 1998) In order to approximate the response of a pile resting in liquefiable soil over the entire range of ground displacement values.7. 1994.10b) Figure 9. al. y p = 0. The coefficient of subgrade reaction (khl) is estimated by applying a reduction factor Rf both to the maximum reaction pressure (pu) and to the gradient of the p-y curve (kh).7 Modification of the non-linear p-y curve for a liquefiable soil (Tokimatsu. 2000). its non-linear p-y curve is located lower than that of a non-liquefiable soil for the entire range of displacement y.015D (9.8.75D (9. Non-liquefiable Liquefiable kh = khl y − f (z) (1 + l ls ) yo where: yl = p yl k hl (9. Goh and O’Rourke. 2000. .10a) (9. as shown in Figure 9. as shown in Figure 9.8 Trilinear p-y curve model (Goh and O’Rourke. A simplified model for the reaction pressure during lateral displacement of a pile was given by Meyersohn. Due to the reduced soil reaction of a liquefiable layer. who used a bilinear p-y law to describe the reduction in stiffness of a liquefiable soil.11b) where D=pile diameter Figure 9.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 81 negligible in some cases (Dobry et.9(a)..11a) y min = 0. 2003). the specific reduction values applied in each case must be selected according to the soil particular soil profile under study.

12a) (9. the amount of stiffness reduction suffered by the soil depends on these factors: • The value of the coefficient of liquefaction potential (FL). defined as the ratio of cyclic shear stress (R) to cyclic shear strength (L). In cases where FL ≤ 1 . The convergence between analytical and observed response values is illustrated in Figure 9. • The value of cyclic shear stress (R). especially following the 1995 Kobe earthquake which demonstrated the important effects that lateral spreading of liquefiable soils can have on the seismic response of piles.9(b) and appears satisfactory over a range of Rf values from 20 to 60.82 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides This bilinear model was calibrated as to the value of Rf based on in-situ measurements of pile deformation performed on the NFCH building following the 1964 Niigata earthquake.4 JAPANESE DESIGN CODES (JRA 1996) Similar reduction factors have been adopted by the Japanese design codes (JRA 1996). (a) (b) Figure 9. 1994). 9. (b) Calibration of suggested model.12b) .9 (a) Bilinear p-y model (Meyersohn. More specifically. • The depth from the free surface (x). the stiffness (kSL) and maximum reaction pressure (pSL) of the liquefiable soil are reduced by applying coefficient cL to the initial values kS and pS: k SL = c L ⋅ k S pSL = c L ⋅ pS (9.

Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 83 The range of values assumed by the coefficient CL. This is shown in Figure 9.10 Distribution of earth pressures in the analytical model according to the kind of soil generating them (JRA 1996). the Japanese codes assume a loading model based on the equivalent earth pressures acting on a piled foundation during lateral spreading of the surrounding ground. are shown in the following table: Table 9-1 Values of coefficient CL based on depth and cyclic shear stress and stress-to-strength ratio Reduction factor cL FL ≤ 1 3 1 ≤F ≤2 3 L 3 2 ≤ F ≤1 3 L Depth from free surface x(m) Cyclic shear stress R R ≤ 0.0 0 ≤ x ≤ 20 1.3 0 ≤ x ≤ 10 0 1/6 0 ≤ x ≤ 20 1/3 1/3 0 ≤ x ≤ 10 1/3 2/3 0 ≤ x ≤ 20 2/3 2/3 0 ≤ x ≤ 10 2/3 1. Figure 9. The analytical loading model distinguishes between the distributed load generated on a pile by a liquefiable and a non-liquefiable soil layer. depending on depth and cyclic shear stress and stress-to-strength ratio.0 1. .0 After estimating the reduction coefficient cL.3 R ≥ 0 .10.

This approach is based on the assumption that the earth pressures acting on the pile during the lateral spreading process constitute a quasi-static loading in the direction of the spreading.11(b).5 LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHOD Based on experimental results from centrifuge tests (Dobry et.11 (a) Theoretical loading model . 2003.. and Abdoun et. al. developed theoretical models using the limit equilibrium method in order to estimate the maximum bending moment acting on a single pile. for different ground profiles and different boundary conditions at the pile head. The moment calculated is then: . al.84 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides 9.. This is shown in Figure 9.the free body diagram The maximum bending moment to develop at interface A of the liquefiable layer is theoretically calculated from the system’s equilibrium equations and the (experimentally proven) assumption that the moments at interfaces A and B are equal for low levels of ground displacement. Dobry et. which depicts the free body diagram corresponding to the non-liquefiable surface layer (FBD 1). al. 2003. (a) (b) Figure 9. For the case of a three-layer ground profile with a non-liquefiable surface layer (Figure 9.11(a)). 2003).three-layer soil profile (b) Theoretical loading model . the suggested theoretical loading model accounts for the change in the direction of earth pressures which takes place at depth zps.

however. namely by considering reduced stiffness at the springs.12. while h is the thickness of the surface layer. JAPAN) The Seismic Deformation Method (SDM) takes into account the kinematic loading acting on a pile through earth pressures due to relative ground displacement. lateral spreading takes place near the end of the seismic excitation or even after that. by modifying the lateral loading in case of an in-between liquefiable layer etc.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation M A.12 Analytical model used in the Seismic Deformation Method (Railway Code. This may be applied to liquefiable soils if modified accordingly. As has already been mentioned.max ≈ poh 3 L 10. by that time.6 SEISMIC DEFORMATION METHOD (RAILWAY CODE. The analytical model is presented in Figure 9. Figure 9. the acceleration and hence the inertial loads have already diminished. This discrepancy of superimposing loads that occur at different points in time is accounted for through the use of corrective coefficients. Japan 1999) . 9.13) where L is that part of the pile length which lies within the second soil layer. This formula holds true for the usual case in which L≥2h. The method provides a way of combining the inertial loads of the superstructure with the kinematic type of loading due to the ground displacement.23 + 6 h 85 (9.

taking into account the non-linear behaviour of the soil and foundation-superstructure system. (9.13. a large number of parametric dynamic analyses were performed. as determined from experimental and analytical studies by Murono.13 Diagram for estimating correcting factors β and γ. Thus. the ratio of the fundamental period of the system TS to that of the soil profile Tg: α= Ts Tg This is shown schematically in Figure 9. factors β and γ modify their values so that they may be considered as acting simultaneously.15) . connecting β and γ with α. The superposition of these two actions can be regulated by correcting factors β and γ.14) where Rt is the load due to both the inertial and the kinematic loading interaction. In order to calibrate the values of correcting factors β and γ. these two loadings do not reach their peak values at the same time.86 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Based on the analytical model the pile loading is due to the inertial loads (Ra) coming from the oscillation of the superstructure and also due to the ground displacement (Rg). Figure 9. From these analyses a correlation was derived. 2000. The formula used is the following: Rt = β ⋅ Ra + γ ⋅ Rg (9. Due to the phase lag between the inertial loading and the ground displacement.

[2002] ‘Liquefaction and piled foundations: Some issues’ Journal Of Εarthquake Εngineering. Special Issue 1. Schlosser F. Franck R. Berill J. Guilloux A.. ‘Pile response to Lateral Spreads: Centrifuge Modeling’. De Buhan P. [1986] "La stabilisation des pentes instables par clouage". Wiley-Interscience. Vol. Cartier G.. Anthoine A. Brinch-Hansen J. [2002]. 22. pp. pp. n° 141. © Imperial College Press.. Debanik C.. Phd Thesis.. Revue Française de Géotechnique n° 50. [1984] "Talren: méthode de calcul des ouvrages en terre renforcée". 1987.. Bulletin de liaison des LPC. 129. Vol. pp. Abramson Lee W. et al. Abdoun T. Paris. O’Rourke T. Blondeau F. 869-878. Comptes rendus du colloque international « Renforcement en place des sols et des roches ». Christiansen M. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering. 1-41. 1051-1058. Analyse de la stabilité des ouvrages en sols renforcés par une méthode d’homogénéisation. Vol. Bulletin de liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées nº 84. [2001] Slope stability and stabilization.. Cornell Uuniversity. Revue Française de Géotechnique n° 41. [1998] ‘Liquefaction and Lateral Soil Movement Effects on Piles’. Guegan Y. Baguelin F. . [1990] "Une méthode pour le dimensionnement à la rupture des ouvrages en sols renforcés". Dobry R. [1961] "The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces". USA. Dobry R.10.. Bulletin of the Danish Geotechnical Division nº 12.. Yasuda S. ‘Evaluation of pile foundation response to lateral spreading’ Soil Dynamics and Εarthquake Εngineering. Salençon J.REFERENCES Abdoun T. Goh S. [2003].. [1976]"Calcul sur ordinateur des pieux sollicités horizontalement ou subissant des poussées parasites".6. 2nd edition. No.

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. [1985] "Stabilization of creeping slopes by dowels". [1993] "Slope stabilization using soil nailing in France: design methods and cases histories". Guilloux A. Paper SOAP 5. Proccedings of the 8th US-JAPAN Workhop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifelines Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction.. Berche J. Dobry R.. [2003] ‘Single piles in Lateral Spreads: Field Bending Moment Evaluation’ Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering.129.. Proccedings of the 8th US-JAPAN Workhop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifelines Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction. M. 5th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering..and Fujita N. edited by Hamada. No... 22. Kurita M. P. [1986] "Une nouvelle méthode de dimensionnement des pentes instables par clouage : programme PROSPER".. pp. Proceedings of the 8th US-JAPAN Workshop on . Schwarz W.C. New York. edited by Hamada.. pp. Vol. Vol. [2003] ‘Characteristics of the External Force acting on a pile during Liquefaction – induced Lateral Flow of the Ground’.. Hirao A. Finn L. Hong W. edited by Hamada. nº 141. Hamada M. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering... [1997] "Stability of a cut slope reinforced by stabilizing piles".H. Gudehus G. O’Rourke and Bardet... Washington DC. Goh S. 731-742. 497-505.. Finn L. Abdoun T. Cartier G. Fujita N. G. Matsuda T. Nam J. 879-889.. pp. 489-496. Ishihara K.88 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Delmas P. 471-488. O’Rourke and Bardet. pp. [2003] ‘An experimental study on external forces from flowing liquefied soil on foundations piles’. O’Rourke T. [2002] ‘Seismic response of large diameter cast in place concrete piles in layered liquefiable soils’. Proceedings of the 8th US-JAPAN Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifelines Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction. [2002] ‘Behaviour of piles in Group undergoing Lateral Flow in Centrifuge Tests’. Han J.10. Imamura S. Hagiwara T. Higuchi S. April 13-17... O’Rourke and Bardet. Bulletin de liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées. Jang J. 72nd Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board. Cubrinovski [2004] ‘Case studies of pile foundations undergoing lateral spreading in liquefied deposits’... Tsukamoto Y. San Francisco. [2002] ‘Piles in liquefiable soils:seismic analysis and design issues’ Soil Dynamics and Εarthquake Εngineering. pp. Ishihara K. Abdelhedi A.

Karkee M. [1997] ‘Investigation of damaged foundations in the Great Hanshin earthquake disaster’. pp. Geotechnical Special Publication No 34. f. H.D. Phd Thesis. & Yasuda F... Vol. Helsinki. 207-223. [1999] ‘Significance of ground response effect in piles under earthquake loading’.P. Gudehus G. 367-376. 441-448. Earthquake Geotechnical Enginnering. Q. 529-540.. Paine N.. Inst.. Humbert P. Kusama K. Experimentelle Ergebnisse und ihre physikalische Deutung". pp. USA. Meyershon W. Proceeding of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. [1976] "Deformations-und Festigkeitsverhalten bindiger Erdstoffe. [1992] ‘Effects of Liquefaction on Lateral pile responses’. Nanjo A. Woods R. I. [1994] ‘Pile response to liquefaction induced lateral spread’. Kamijo N. Shamsher Prakash (ed). Kitazawa M. 235-242. [1998] ‘Shaking table scale model tests of Nonlinear Soil-Pile-Superstructure Interaction In Soft Clay’. Rotterdam. ASCE. edited by Hamada. Bodenmech. Rio Janeiro. Seco e Pinto (ed) © 1999 Balkema. [1984] "Design methods for steep reinforced embankments". Seismic Behaviour of Ground and Geotechnical Structures... Saito H. R. Kagawa T. Matsui T. Sugimura Y. Proceedings of the Symposium Polymer Grid Reinforcements in Civil Engineering. Fujiwara K. Jewell. [2004] ‘Seismic tests of a pile supported structure in liquefiabe send using large scale blast excitation’ Nuclear Engineerin and Deisign. Shaffie S. Karlsruhe. Lippomann R. Phd Thesis.. 228. pp. Meymand J.. Proceedings Piles Under Dynamic Loads. Department of Civil and Enviromental Engineering. Schlosser F. Nigbor R.. [1983] "Study of soil-bar interaction in the technique of soil nailing". Felsmech. Kontani O... Seco e Pinto (ed) © 1997 Balkema. Veröff. University of California at Berkeley. Guenot A. Cornel University. . Univ.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 89 Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifelines Facilities and Countermeasures Against Liquefaction. O’Rourke and Bardet... London Juran I. Leinenkugel. Rotterdam. pp. J. USA. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. pp.. [1989] "Dowelled clay slopes: recent examples". u.

Tolleson A. Besson C. [1974] "Calcul de la stabilité des pentes en rupture non circulaire". Rapport de recherche des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussées.... U. Unterreiner P. [1983] Calcul à la rupture et analyse limite. Iwasaki. paper No. Rio Janeiro. [1989] "Stabilisation d'un glissement par drainage et barrettes ancrées".90 LESSLOSS – Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Murono Y. Guilloux A. H. 2081. Guilloux A. [2000] ‘Evaluation of seismic force of pile fouondation induced by inertial and kinematic interaction’ Proccedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Walbron B. Salençon J. Papot G. [1988] "General report: stabilization and drainage".. Toubol A. Sembenelli P. Schlosser F.. Federal Highway Administration. H. 244-259.Gazetas [1996] ‘Pile foundations subjected to large ground deformations: Lessons from Kobe and Research needs’. traité Construction.. Techniques de l’Ingénieur. Vol. Lausanne.. 12. R. Paper no. pp. [1995] Renforcement des sols par inclusions. 5th International Symposium on Landslides.. Tazoh T.1496. Rio de Janeiro. and Hamada. Tokida. Soil Nailing Recommendations [1991] (Recommandations CLOUTERRE 1991). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Bangkok. Acapulco – MEXICO. Presses de l’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées. Matsumoto. Auckland. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Department of Transportation. [1982] "Use of Reinforced Earth in mountain access road to Frejus tunnel". Nishimura A. New Zealand.. Raulin P. Symposium on Recent Developments in Ground Improvement Techniques. 11th World Conference on Εarthquake Εngineering. S. [1989] "Geogrid reinforced slopes with convex and concave curvature". Rouquès G. Schlosser F. and G. Rimoldi P. K. .. Montanelli F. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Soil Nailing Field Inspectors Manual [1994] Soil Nail Walls-Demonstration Project 103. T. [1993] ‘Liquefaction potential and drag force acting on piles in flowing soils’ Soils Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering...

&Yoshiharu A... Earthquake Geotachnical Engineering. Shamoto Y. Seismic Behaviour of Ground and Geotechnical Structures. 1). 361-369. Yamabe S. Rotterdam. Seco e Pinto (ed) 1999 Balkema. W. Tsakamoto Y. Seco e Pinto (ed) © 1997 Balkema. Tokimatsu K. Rotterdam. Nakawaza A. G.Sub-Project 3 – Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stabilisation 91 Tokimatsu K. Jensen.. Oh-Oka H. pp. P. [2005] "Landslide stabilization using soil nail and mechanically stabilized earth walls: case study". Ishihara K. pp.. & Hyodo J.. Seco e Pinto (ed) © 1999 Balkema.. J. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Turner. Rotterdam (Vol. [1999] ‘Behaviour of piles in the liquified deposit undergoing lateral spreading’. . [1999] ‘Performance of pile foundations in laterally spreading soils’ Earthquake Geotechnical Enginnering. [1997] ‘Effects of liquefaction induced ground displacement on pile damage in 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake’. & Nanba S. 957-964.