See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237380178

Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope

stability

Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · January 2011

DOI: 10.1139/t95-078

CITATIONS READS

115 4,364

1 author:

Harry G. Poulos
University of Sydney
233 PUBLICATIONS 4,622 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Harry G. Poulos on 06 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

808

Design of reinforcing piles to increase

slope stability
Harry G. Poulos

Abstract: This paper describes an approach for the design of piles to reinforce slopes, involving
three main steps: (1) evaluating the shear force needed to increase the safety factor to the desired
value; (2) evaluating the maximum shear force that each pile can provide to resist sliding of the
-.
potentially unstable portion of the slope; and (3) selection of the type and number of piles, and
the most suitable location of these piles within the slope. For step l, stability analyses can be
used to assess the required additional shear force for stability. Step 2 involves the use of a
computer analysis for the response of a pile to laterally moving soil. This analysis can be
implemented via a computer program ERCAP, and enables the resisting shear force developed
by the piles to be evaluated as a function of pile diameter and flexibility and the relative depth
of the soil movement in relation to the pile length. Step (3) involves the use of engineering
judgement in conjunction with the analysis results from steps l and 2. The paper describes the
ERCAP analysis and the characteristics of pile behaviour it reveals. The application of the
approach to a highway bypass problem in Newcastle, Australia, is described in detail. In the final
design, a total of 64 bored piles 1.2 m in diameter were used over a total length of slope cutting
of about 250m. The pile lengths ranged between 6 and 12m, with the spacings varying between
3.2 and 6.0 m.
Key words: analysis, boundary element, piles, soil-pile interaction, slope stabilization, soil
mechanics.

Resume : Cet article presente une approche de calcul de renforcement de pentes par des pieux
selon trois etapes principales : (I) evaluation de Ia force de cisaillement necessaire pour amener
le coefficient de securite a Ia valeur desiree; (2) evaluation de Ia force de cisaillement maximum
que chaque pieu peut fournir pour resister au glissement de Ia section eventuellement instable de
Ia pente; (3) choix du type, du nombre de pieux et de Ia position Ia plus judicieuse de ces pieux
Je long de Ia pente. Pour I' etape I on peut utiliser des analyses de stabilite pour apprecier Ia force
de cisaillement additionnelle necessaire a Ia stabilite. L'etape 2 implique !'utilisation d'un
ordinateur pour analyser Ia reponse d'un pieu a un mouvement lateral du sol. Cette analyse
peut etre faite grace au programme ERCAP et elle permet d'evaluer Ia resistance au cisaillement
developpee par Jes pieux en fonction de leur diametre et de leur flexibilite ainsi que Ia profondeur
relative du mouvement du sol par rapport a Ia longueur du pieu. L'etape 3 fait appel au jugement
de I' ingenieur et s' appuie sur Ies resultats des analyses des eta pes I et 2. L' article decrit I' analyse
par ERCAP et Jes aspects du comportement des pieux qu'elle revele. L'application de cette
approche a un probleme de route de detournement a Newcastle, Australie, est presentee en detail.
Dans Ia conception finale, on a utilise un total de 64 pieux fores de 1.2 m de diametre, sur une
longueur totale d'escarpement de pente d'environ 250m. La longueur des pieux etait comprise
entre 6 et 12 m, avec un espacement variant entre 3.2 et 6.0 m.
Mots chfs : analyse, element frontiere, pieux, interaction sol-pieu, stabilisation de pente,
mecanique des sols.
[Traduit par Ia redaction]

Introduction investigators (for example, Sommer 1977; Esu and D'Eiia

One method that has been used to improve the stability
of slopes has been via the installation of piles. The suc-
cessful use of this method has been described by several
Received November 4, 1994. Accepted May I, 1995.
H.G. Poulos. Coffey Partners International Pty. Ltd.,
12 Waterloo Road, North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia,
and School of Civil and Mining Engineering, The
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
1974; Ito and Matsui 1975; Ito et al. 1982; Nethero 1982;
Morgenstern 1982; Gudehus and Schwarz 1985; Reese et
al. 1992; Rollins and Rollins 1992). Despite these appli-
cations, the methods used for the design of the stabiliz-
ing piles vary widely, and some of the methods appear to
be of doubtful validity.
The purpose of this paper is to set out a relatively sim-
ple framework for the design of the slope-stabilizing piles,
and to describe an analysis which may be used to quan-
tify the response of piles to soil movements arising from

Can. Geotech. J. 32: 808-818 (1995). Printed in Canada I Imprime au Canada

Poulos 809

Fig. 1. Model for piles in soil undergoing lateral movement.

M
~ H

2 2

P·J

(a) Stresses, forces, and (b) Stresses on (c) Specified horizontal

moments on pile soil movement of soil

slope instability. Estimation of the necessary geotechnical
parameters is then discussed, and finally application of
the design approach to the stabilization of a highway cut-
ting in Newcastle, Australia, is described.
Design procedure for stabilizing piles
The general design approach adopted follows closely that
described by Viggiani (1981) and involves three main
steps: (1) evaluating the total shear force needed to increase
the safety factor for the slope to the desired value; (2) eval-
uating the maximum shear force that each pile can pro-
vide to resist sliding of the potentially unstable portion of
the slope; and (3) selecting the type and number of piles,
and the most suitable location in the slope.
Step 1 makes use of the detailed results of the stabil-
ity analysis. The actual safety factor Fa for a slope can
be defined as follows:
[1] Fa= 'iR
'iFo
where
'iR is the sum of resisting forces along the critical fail-
ure surface; and
'iF0 is the sum of disturbing forces along that surface.
If the actual safety factor Fa is less than the target safety
factor, FT, the piles must provide an additional resistance
I::.R, so that
'i.R+I::.R
[2] FT=---
'i.Fo
From eqs. 1 and 2,
[3] I::.R= 'iF0 (FT- Fa)
This represents the stabilizing force, per unit width of soil,
that must be provided by the piles and can readily be cal-
culated if 'iF 0 is extracted from the stability analysis
results.
For step 2, the most satisfactory procedure is to under-
take an analysis in which the pile is subjected to soil move-
ments that simulate the movement of a sliding mass of
soil over a stable mass.
It should be noted that the safety factor can also be
defined in terms of moments along the failure surface,
rather than only the forces, e.g., NAVFAC (1986). The
principle of the method is the same, regardless of the def-
inition of the safety factor.
Viggiani (1981) has derived dimensionless solutions for
the ultimate lateral resistance of a pile in a two-layer purely
cohesive soil profile. These solutions, while being extremely
valuable, are limited in the following respects: (i) they
apply only to purely cohesive soils in which cohesion of the
unstable and stable soil is assumed constant with depth;
(ii) they apply to the ultimate state only and do not give any
indication of the development of pile resistance with soil
movement; and (iii) they are confined to a simplified rep-
resentation of the distribution of soil movement with depth.
A somewhat more versatile approach, which enables
the above limitations to be overcome, can be developed
by using a pile-soil interaction analysis in which the effect
of soil moving past the pile can be considered. Such an
analysis has been described by Poulos (1973), Poulos and
Davis (1980), and Lee et al. (1991) and makes use of a
simplified form of boundary element analysis to obtain a
solution. A brief description of this analysis is given in
the following section.
Guidelines for step 3, and in particular the optimal loca-
tion of piles in a slope, are not well-established. However,
it is clear that, in order to be effective, stabilizing piles
must have the following characteristics: (i) they must be of
810 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 32, 1995

Fig. 2. Basic problem of a pile in unstable slope: free-field soil movement.

Zs Slide
Unstable zone
soil L
-.z~'l2!:ag" zone

Stable
Stable zone
soil

Assumed
Distribution of
Lateral Soil
Movement

relatively large diameter and relatively stiff; so that a rea-
sonably large stabilizing force can be generated without
causing failure of the pile; (ii) they must extend well below
the critical failure surface so that the failure surface is not
merely shifted downwards below the pile tips with a fac-
tor of safety still less than the target value; and (iii) they
should be located in the vicinity of the centre of the crit-
ical failure circle (or wedge, etc.) to avoid merely relo-
cating the failure surface behind, or in front of, the piles.
Method of analysis of pile resistance
The lateral response analysis used herein relies on the use
of a simplified boundary element analysis. In this case,
the pile is modelled as a simple elastic beam, and the soil
as an elastic continuum. The basic problem is illustrated in
Fig. 1. The lateral displacement of each element of the
pile can be related to the pile bending stiffness and the
horizontal pile-soil interaction stresses. The lateral dis-
placements of the corresponding soil elements are related
to soil modulus or stiffness, pile-soil interaction stresses,
and free-field horizontal soil movements. A limiting lat-
eral pile-soil stress can be specified so that local failure of
the soil can be allowed for, thus allowing nonlinear response
to be obtained.
By consideration of the compatibility of the horizontal
movements of the pile and soil at each element, the fol-
lowing equation may be derived if conditions at the pile-soil
interface remain elastic:
[4]
where
[D] is the matrix of finite difference coefficients for
pile bending;
[Ir 1 is the inverted matrix of soil displacement factors;
KR is dimensionless pile flexibility factor= EI!EsL4 ;
n is the number of elements into which pile is divided;
{Ap} is incremental lateral pile displacements;
{Ape} is incremental free- field lateral soil movement;
EI is the bending stiffness of pile;
Es is average Young's modulus of soil along pile shaft;
and
L is embedded length of pile.
In addition, the horizontal and moment equilibrium
equations, and the pile head and tip boundary conditions,
may be expressed in terms of displacements. After solving
the resulting equations for incremental displacements,
incremental pressures may then be evaluated from the
equation of bending of the pile and added to the existing
pressures to obtain the overall pile-soil pressures. These val-
ues are compared with the specified limiting lateral pres-
sures, and at those elements where the computed pressure
exceeds the limiting value, the compatibility equation for
that element is replaced by the pile bending equation,
which incorporates the condition that the lateral pressure
increment is zero. The solution is then iterated until the
computed lateral pressures nowhere exceed the limiting
values. A FORTRAN 77 computer program, ERCAP (Earth
Retaining Capacity of Piles), has been developed to imple-
ment this analysis. ERCAP is a proprietary program, but
some details of the theoretical analysis, coding, and data
requirements are given in CPI ( 1992).
The lateral response analysis requires a knowledge of the
distributions of lateral soil modulus and limiting lateral
pile-soil pressure with depth, and the free-field horizontal
soil movements. For problems involving slope instability,
a distribution of free-field soil movements such as that
shown in Fig. 2 appears to be appropriate. This assumes that
a large volume of soil (the upper portion) moves as a rigid
body downslope. Below this is a relatively thin zone under-
going intense shearing in the "drag zone." The underly-
ing "stable zone" is stationary. The estimation of lateral
soil modulus and limiting lateral pile-soil pressure will
be discussed later in this paper.
 Poulos
Some observations from the
theoretical analysis
Analyses employing ERCAP have revealed the existence of
the following modes of failure: (i) the "flow mode," when
the slide is shallow and the unstable soil becomes plastic
and flows around the pile; (ii) the "short-pile mode," when
the slide is relatively deep and the length of pile in the
stable soil is relatively shallow; the sliding soil carries the
pile through the stable soil layer and full mobilization of soil
strength in the stable layer occurs; (iii) the "intermediate
mode," when soil strength in both the unstable and stable
soil is fully mobilized along the pile length; and (iv) "long-
pile failure," which occurs when the pile itself yields
because the maximum bending moment reaches the yield
moment of the pile section; this mode can be associated
with any of the three modes of soil failure above, although
experience suggests that it is most likely to occur with the
intermediate mode.
Figure 3 illustrates characteristics of pile behaviour for
the flow mode, the short-pile mode, and the intermediate
mode. The results are for a 15 m long steel tube pile with
an external diameter of 0.5 m and a wall thickness of
15 mm. In the upper sliding zone, the soil is a clay with an
undrained shear strength of 30 kPa, while in the lower
"stable" zone, the undrained shear strength is 60 kPa. The
soil movement in the slide zone is assumed to be constant
with depth and equal to 0.4 m, and no "drag" zone has
been considered.
The following observations are made from Fig. 3: (i) the
maximum shear force in the pile is developed at the level
of the slide plane; (ii) for the flow mode, the maximum
moment occurs below the slide plane, in the stable soil,
and the pile movement is considerably less than the soil
movement; (iii) for the short-pile mode, the maximum
moment occurs well above the slide plane in the unstable
soil, and the soil and pile movements are similar; and
(iv) for the intermediate mode, large moments are devel-
oped both above and below the slide zone, and the pile
head movement can exceed the soil movement.
The largest shear force occurs when the soil slide depth
is between about 0.5 and 0.6 times the pile length. The
effect of yielding of the pile is to reduce the maximum
shear force, especially for slide depths between about
0.25 and 0.9 times the pile length.
Two important practical implications may be drawn
from Fig. 3: Firstly, the flow mode creates the least dam-
.· aging effect of soil movement on the pile; if protection of
the piles is being attempted, efforts should be made to
promote this mode of behaviour. Secondly, the intermedi-
ate mode develops the largest shear force and bending
moment in the pile; hence, if piles are being used to sta-
bilize the slope, they should be designed so that the inter-
mediate mode of behaviour occurs. This can be done by
varying the depth of embedment of the pile in the stable
zone in the analysis until a maximum value of shear force
is found.
The soil failure mode will depend on the length, diam-
eter, and section of the pile, strength and deformation prop-
erties of the pile material, strength properties of the soils
in the unstable and stable regions, relative lengths of the pile
811
in the unstable and stable regions, and the spacing between
adjacent piles. It is possible to develop design charts that
relate the resistance developed by piles to the above vari-
abies, as described later in the paper.
Estimation of soil parameters
Key parameters required for lateral response analysis of
a pile are Young's modulus of the soil, E,, and limiting
lateral pile-soil pressure, Py· Assessment of these param-
eters is usually made on the basis of (i) correlation with
strength properties of soil; (ii) correlation with in situ test
data (e.g., CPT, SPT); (iii) in situ test measurements
(e.g., via the pressuremeter of the dilatometer); and
(iv) interpretation of lateral pile load test data.
A brief review of some correlations for E, and Py is
made below.
Young's modulus, Es
For clays, Young's modulus E, is usually related to the
undrained shear strength ell as follows:
[5] E, = a1eu
Assuming a nonlinear analysis is to be used, so that E,
represents a secant modulus for relatively low load levels,
the value of a 1 typically lies between 150 and 400 (Poulos
and Davis 1980; Banerjee and Davies 1978; Decourt 1991).
For overconsolidated clays, Decourt (1991) suggests
the following correlation with SPT value N:
[6] E, = 2N (MPa)
For sands, it is customary to assume that the modulus
varies linearly with depth, so that
[7] E, = Nhz
where z is depth below ground surface. Typical values of
Nh for saturated loose, medium, and dense sands are 1.5,
5.0, and 12.5 MPa/m, respectively (Decourt 1991).
Kishida and Nakai (1977) relate E, to SPT value N as
follows:
[8] E, = 1.6N (MPa)
Ultimate lateral pressure, Py
Ito and Matsui (1975) have developed a theory for flow
of soil through a row of piles. Their equations show that the
limiting pressure Py developed on a pile by flowing soil
depends on the strength properties of the soil, overburden
pressure, and the spacing between the piles relative to their
diameter. Their equations are meant to apply for the portion
of the piles in the unstable or moving soil. However, the
equations are only valid over a limited range of spacings,
since, at large spacings or at very close spacings, the
mechanism of flow through the piles postulated by Ito and
Matsui is not the critical mode.
In clay soils, it is usual to adopt a total stress approach
in which Py is related to undrained shear strength ell as
follows:
[9] Py = NPell
where NP is the lateral capacity factor. For a single pile,
NP may be assumed to increase linearly from 2 at the
812 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 32, 1995

Fig. 3. Pile behaviour characteristics for various modes.

Deflection (m) Moment (kNm) Shear (kN) Pressure (MPa)
0 0.5 -1000 0 1000-500 0 500-0.6 0 0.6
o I :
5 ~ _l_l
§ (
Soil Slide
movement plane
10

15 L------'
Deflection Moment Shear Pressure
z,IL=0.2 p 5 =0.40m

(a) Flow Mode

Deflection (m) Moment (kNm) Shear (kN) Pressure (MPa)

0 0.5 -1000 0 1000 -500 0 500 -0.6 0 0.6
0..------n
I
I

15
Deflection Moment Shear Pressure
z 5 IL = 0.6 Ps = 0.40m

(b) Intermediate Mode

Deflection (m) Moment (kNm) Shear (kN) Pressure (MPa)

0 r-0--,.0...,.5 -1000 0 1000 -r-5o:..:o_ _ _or-_--...:5:...;,oo -o 6 o o6

5 Soil
§
..c::
a Slide
<!)

c:l plane / -
10 1-

--~- f--
"i
15
Deflection Moment Shear Pressure

z, IL = 0.9 Ps = 0.40m

(c) Short Pile Mode

 Poulos 813

Fig. 4. Typical geotechnical profiles. Table 1. Soil strength parameters adopted

CBHl CBH2 for stability analyses.
0 Topsoil

~
Topsoil

2 ~
Clay
% Clay
Depth
below surface
(m)
c'
(kPa)
¢'
(0)
Bulk density
(t/m3)
-¥--- - -¥--
EW-HW Fill 10 25 2.0
- Claystone
4 0-2 5 25 2.0
EW-MW 2-8 5 22 2.0
g Claystone
8-11 0 25 2.0
.c 6 11+ 20 30 2.0
0..
<1)
Q
HW-SW
8 Siltstone
EW-MW
Siltstone Example of application: State
10 .:......:... 1....--- ....:........:._ --- Highway 23, Newcastle, Australia
In 1990, the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South
Wales (RTA) commenced construction of a north-south
12 bypass around the city of Newcastle. Part of this project
Note: EW =Extremely weathered
involved construction of an interchange between State
HW = Highly weathered
MW =Moderately weathered
Highway 23 (SH23) and a cross road (Sandgate Road).
SW =Slightly weathered SH23 was to be located in a cutting about 4.5 m below
natural surface level, but in parts of the cutting, fill was to
be placed for interchange ramps and bridge approach
ground surface to a limiting value of NP = 9 at a depth of abutments, so that slopes with a total height of up to 8 m
3.5 pile diameters or widths and beyond i.e., were to be created.
As described below, stability analyses were undertaken
[10] Np=2(1+~)>-9 of various sections along the cutting, and areas were iden-
tified in which the factor of safety against instability was
where considered inadequate. In such areas, stabilizing piles were
to be installed, and the design of these piles is detailed in
z is depth below ground surface; and
the following sections. A number of alternative options
d is pile diameter or width.
for stabilization were also considered, including use of
Theoretical studies by Chen and Poulos (1993) provide soldier beams, soil nailing, and construction of retaining
some indications of the influence of group effects on NP. walls, but the piling option was chosen because it was
Such effects may reduce NP if the piles are arranged in a assessed to be the lowest cost solution.
line parallel to the direction of soil movement.
For piles in sands, the simplest approach is to use the Site conditions
suggestion of Broms (1964) in which A summary of the geotechnical profiles revealed by two
[11] Py = aKPa~ 0 of the boreholes from the site investigation is given in
Fig. 4. No in situ test data on engineering properties were
where
available.
KP is the Rankine passive pressure coefficient, KP = Four soil or rock units were identified at the site: (i) top-
tan 2 ( 45 + <j>/2); soil, typically 0.3 m thick; (ii) high plasticity clay, rela-
<!> is the angle of internal friction of soil; tively stiff and probably of residual origin, 1.5-2 m thick;
•• a~ 0 is the effective overburden pressure;
a is a coefficient ranging between 3 and 5.
(iii) claystone, fissured and extremely weathered, but with
no evidence of slickensides or earlier slips, 5.0-5.5 m
Randolph and Houlsby (1984) have developed an analy- thick; and (iv) siltstone; the cored boreholes were terminated
sis for drained conditions in clay in which the coefficient in this material.
a in eq. 11 is KP. Groundwater levels immediately after drilling were
It is noted by De Beer (1977) and Viggiani (1981) that about 2.6 m below the surface, but appeared to become
different values of the coefficients NP and a in eqs. 9 and lower with time and were considered to be subject to sea-
11 may apply for the sliding and stable portions of the sonal fluctuations.
soil profile. Typically, the values in the stable soil have
been taken to be those given in eqs. 10 and 11 above, Stability analysis
while the values in the sliding soil have been taken to be Estimates of the factor of safety against slope instability
about half of those values. However, other than for the were made using the following assumptions: (i) the slip
near-surface effects, there appears to be no reason why surface was circular and Bishop's simplified method of
such differences should exist. slices was employed; (ii) the water table was assumed to
814 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 32, 1995

Fig. 5. Computer safety factor versus chainage. Fig. 7. Resistance developed by 1.2 m diameter bored
1.8 .----.,---...,.----,----,-----,--.---.,---...,.----, piles, 6 m long.
200 r----r---,---.....,.----r------.

>, 1.6
~
\ Target value
E' c/c spacing (m)
....0
(/)
---_',_,.__---_j___----------------
'
---"'~ /
"z
c
160
', I
2 2.4
2"'
', I
.... ...,_ I
~ 1.4
', I 0::::
"5
<!)
'\\ >-, 120
0. .D
\ /
E \ /
""'0.
~
0 0,)
u 1.2
'----\~:~ern side 0
v>
Western side

~
0,) 80
Q
1.0 L__.J....__..J.__...J...._ _J..._--I._ _L__.J....__..J.__ _J 0,)
u
3 I 65 3 I 80 3 I 95 32 I0 3225 3240 3255 3270 3285 3300 c::
Chainage (m) z:l
"'
·v; 40
&
Fig. 6. Required stabilizing force (for FS = 1.5) versus
chainage. OL------1----l...--.....J...--....1.------J
200.---.,---...,.---r--r-~-~r--r--~-, 0 2 3 4 5
Depth of Plane below Pile Top (m)
Western side
Fig. 8. Resistance developed by 1.2 m diameter bored
piles, 9 m long.
500 r - - - - - r - - - - r - - - - r - - - ,

,.....__
8 c/c spacing (m)
50 ,'; . -.. 1______ . . . . . . . . . "z
c
400
' ' (/)
_ .... ,..,."'"' Eastern side \\, <I)

---
0 L--~~~--'--~-~-~--~-~,~-~~
s:
>-,
3 I 65 3 ISO 3195 3210 3225 3240 3255 3270 3285 3300 .D
300
Chainage (m)
""'0.
<I)

0
v>
<I) 200
Q
be 1 m below ground level at the toe of the cut, rising to <I)
about half slope height level at the head of the slope; and u
c::
(iii) a surcharge loading of 30 kPa, located 1 m away from B
(/)
·;;;; 100
the top of the slope, was included to represent the effects
of traffic loading. ~
The shear strength parameters adopted for the analyses
are summarized in Table 1 and were based largely on lim- 0
ited laboratory data. It was assumed that the fill material 0 2 4 6 8 !

would be similar to the excavated material, but that com-

paction would be sufficient for an effective cohesion of
Depth of Slide Plane below Pile Top (m) '
10 kPa to be developed, with an effective angle of fric-
tion of 25°. a considerable portion of the eastern side, had a computed
Stability analyses were carried out for slopes along factor of safety less than 1.5 and therefore required some
SH23 between chainages 3165 and 3300, at 15 m inter- form of stabilization. The minimum safety factor was about
vals. Slope profiles along both the eastern and western 1.15 for chainage 3225 on the western slope, where the
sides were considered. cut was about 5 m in natural materials.
The analysis results are summarized in Fig. 5, which
plots the computed factor of safety as a function of chainage. Design of stabilizing piles
Because of the potentially severe consequences of slope From the detailed output of the stability analyses, the
failure on the operation of this main highway, a factor of required stabilizing force was computed for each section
safety of 1.5 was selected as the minimum adequate value. analyzed, using eq. 3. Stabilizing forces thus computed
Figure 5 indicates that virtually all of the western side, and are plotted against chainage in Fig. 6. The largest forces
Poulos 815

Fig. 9. Resistance developed by 1.2 m diameter bored Fig. 11. Influence of pile spacing on resistance developed
piles, 12 m long. by row of 1.2 m diameter bored piles.
1000 r----.--..,....-----,--..., 500 r--------,r-----~
Slide Plane 4 m below Pile Top
c/c spacing (m)

800 1
"'
(])
400

b:
600 £ 300
"d
(])
0..
0
0
400 ~ 200
Q
(])
(.)
§
+-'
200 ·~ 100
~

0 ~-~--~--._-~ OL...------.1..--------J
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 2 3 4
Depth of Slide Plane below Pile Top (m) Pile Spacing (m)

Fig. 10. Influence of pile length on resistance developed Fig. 12. Influence of pile diameter on resistance
by 1.2 m diameter bored piles at 3.6 m spacing. developed by row of 1.2 m diameter bored piles.
500 ~----~----~------~----~-/~~ 500 r-----r----.----,--...,
/
c/c spacing= 3.6m / 9 m long piles
I c/c spacing= 3.0 m
400 I 6.0
400
I
Pile length (m) I
Depth of slide 4.5
I
300 plane below 3.0
12/ 300 pile top (m)
/
/
I
200 1.5
/ 9 200
./.-----
.;
/
/
100 /
6

0
/
OI£...-----"---J..-----L...--....L------J
2 4 6 8 10
100

0 ~-~--~--._-~
Depth of Slide Plane below Pile Top (m) 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pile Diameter (m)
required were on the western side of the cutting and reached
a maximum of about 150 kN/m at chainage 3180. on a pile was taken to be 4.5 times the Rankine
Using the program ERCAP, design charts were prepared passive pressure. Each pile was assumed to be reinforced
for bored concrete piles 1.2 m in diameter. The strength with steel bars, equivalent to an area of 2.5% of the cross-
properties of soils along the pile were assumed to be those sectional area of the pile. The yield stress of the rein-
shown in Table 1. Young's modulus of the soil was assumed forcement was taken as 260 MPa.
to increase linearly with depth, from a value of 5 MPa at the Figures 7 to 9 show the charts for embedded lengths
surface, at a rate of 3 MPa/m. In the unstable zone, the of 6, 9, and 12 m and for centre to centre spacings of 2.4,
limiting lateral pressure on each pile was computed in 3.0, and 3.6 m. In each case, the resistance developed by
ERCAP from the theoretical solutions of Ito and Matsui the pile is plotted against the depth of the sliding plane
(1975), while in the stable zone, the limiting lateral pressure below the top of the pile. The influence of depth of the
816 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 32, 1995

Fig. 13. Scheme developed for stabilization of slopes with bored piles.
10 Note: o represents location of 1.2 m
g diameter bored pile

0 000000
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o o o

3170 3180 3190 3200 3210 3220 3230 3240 3250 3260 3270 3280 3290 3300
Chainage (m)
Toe of
slope
(A) WESTERN SIDE

Toe of
slope
Chainage (m)
~
"3150 3160 3170 3180 3190 3200 3210 3220 3230 3240 3250 3260 3270 3280 3290 3300
10
g
<!)

~
§ 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ooooooooooooo 0 0
<t:
<!)
u
§
i5"' 0
(B) EASTERN SIDE

sliding plane becomes more marked as the pile length
increases, and there appears to be an optimum depth at
which pile resistance developed is a maximum; this opti-
mum depth is generally of the order of 0.6 to 0.75 times the
length of pile, for which the intermediate mode of soil
failure is operative.
Figure 10 summarizes computed pile resistance versus
depth of slide plane, for the three pile lengths considered
and for a centre to centre pile spacing of 3.6 m. The pile
resistance increases as the depth of slide plane increases, up
to the optimum depth. For shallow depths of sliding, pile
resistance is independent of pile length, since the domi-
nant mechanism is "flow-through" of the soil past the
piles. However, for larger slide depths the resistance devel-
oped by the pile increases significantly as length of the
pile increases.
Figure 11 summarizes the general effect of pile spac-
ing on pile resistance. As would be expected, reducing
spacing increases pile resistance significantly.
Figure 12 shows an example of the effect of pile diam-
eter on pile resistance for a given spacing. In general, the
resistance developed by a 1.2 m diameter pile is of the
order of twice the resistance for a 0.9 m diameter pile.
Diameter piles of 1.2 m appear to represent a reasonable
compromise between inadequate pile resistance provided
by 0.9 m diameter piles and high construction costs that
may be associated with 1.5 m diameter piles. Therefore
the pile stabilization scheme developed was based on the
use of 1.2 m diameter piles.
Pile stabilization scheme
Based on the design charts in Figs. 7-12, and the pile
resistance requirements for stability in Fig. 6, a pile sta-
bilization scheme was developed. In assessing require-
ments for stabilizing piles, the following factors were taken
into account: (1) The piles must be of a length and spacing
that would develop the required resistance (indicated in
Fig. 6) to increase the factor of safety for the critical cir-
cle to at least 1.5. (2) Other possible failure surfaces were
also investigated to check whether a more critical surface
existed near or below the pile tips, i.e., to check whether
the critical failure surface near or below the pile tips had
a safety factor that was still less than 1.5. If that was the
case, the pile length was increased accordingly. (3) To be
most effective, the lateral location of the piles was such
that they were near the lowermost point of the critical fail-
ure surface in the soil. This is often found to be in the
vicinity of the midpoint of the slope.
A plan of the recommended pile stabilization scheme
is shown in Fig. 13. A total of 40 1.2 m diameter piles
were used on the western side, with lengths below the sur-
face of the slope varying between 6 and 12 m. In a number
of cases, the pile length was increased over the value
required to provide the resistance indicated in Fig. 5, so
that the pile tip was below potential failure surfaces with
a factor of safety of less than 1.5. A typical example is
shown in Fig. 14 for chainage 3225 on the western side.
The original critical circle is shown together with the sta-
bilizing pile as designed and the critical circle for failure
 Poulos 817

Fig. 14. Typical example of stabilized section: chainage 3225, western side. FS, stabilizing
force; HW, highly weathered; SW, slightly weathered.
20 r----------r----------~--------~--------~
FS=I.5 ~

FS = 1 15 --k '
. ·~~
' 20 kPa---
s
~

'-../

s 10 Critical circle prior to

;:I
...... stabilization
~· ro
Q
<!)
>
0
.n
ro
......
..c
Of)
'a) SW Siltstone
:::r::
Circle with FS = 1.5 (pile toe
extends beyond this) Pile, 1.2 m diameter, 9 m long

-10 ~--------~----------~--------~--------~
0 10 20 30 40
Offset (m)

in the vicinity of the toe of the pile. On the eastern side, Fig. 15. Computed maximum bending moment in stabilizing
where stabilizing requirements were more modest, 24 such piles. Centre-to-centre spacing = 3.0 m; diameter = 1.2 m.
piles were used. In general, the piles were located within 4000 r-------------~--------------,
the slope, at a distance of between 5 and 6 m from the
Estimated yield moment of pile section
toe. The centre to centre spacing varied between 3.2 and 6
5.0 m.
The recommended scheme involved a total length of
z
~ -~~:~~:: __________ _
piles of 521 m. Construction is planned to commence ~ 3000
within the next 2 to 3 years. .s Depth of slide plane (m)
t::
(1)
Structural requirements for piles E
0
Stabilizing piles are subjected to shears and bending ~ 2000
moments caused by movement of the soil past the piles. 0/J
c
The program ERCAP provided details of the distributions :.ac 3.0
of shear and bending moment along the pile, and a sum- (1)
o::l
mary of the computed maximum bending moment in the
pile is shown in Fig. 15 for a centre to centre spacing of § 1000
3.0 m. The maximum bending moment generally increased
E 1.5
·~
as the length of pile increased and as the depth to the slide ~
plane increased. For piles longer than about 7 m, and slide
plane depths of more than about 4 m, the bending moment 0 ~------------~------------~
could reach the yield moment of the pile section. For these 6 9 12
circumstances, it was necessary to increase the amount of Pile Length (m)
reinforcement in the pile.

Conclusions
An approach has been described for the design of piles to
stabilize slopes. The resistance that the piles can provide
is assessed via an analysis of the response of piles to lateral
soil movement. It has been demonstrated that such an analy-
sis identified three possible modes of failure of the soil
around the pile: the flow mode, the intermediate mode, and
the "short pile" mode. In addition, failure of the pile itself
can be associated with any of these modes. The resistance
that the pile can provide to help stabilize a slope is great-
est when the intermediate mode of soil failure is operative.
The application of the approach to the design of stabi-
lizing piles for a highway embankment has demonstrated
that (i) relatively large diameter piles are required to resist
shear and moments; (ii) the centre-to-centre spacings
required typically range between 2 and 4 diameters; and
(iii) substantial reinforcement may be required in the pile
to avoid the possibility of yielding of the pile itself.
818
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the permission of
the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales
(RTA) to publish the information in relation to the State
Highway 23 project. Mr R. Handley was the Project
Manager for the RTA, and his constructive comments
are also acknowledged.
References
Banerjee, P.K., and Davies, T.G. 1978. The behaviour of axi-
ally and laterally loaded single piles embedded in non-
homogeneous soils. Geotechnique, 28(3): 309-326.
Broms, B.B. 1964. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless
soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divi-
sion, ASCE, 90(SM3): 123-156.
Chen, L., and Poulos, H.G. 1993. Analysis of pile-soil inter-
action under lateral loading using infinite and finite ele-
ments. Computers and Geotechnics, 15: 189-220.
CPl. 1992. Users manual for program ERCAP. Coffey Part-
ners International Pty Ltd., North Ryde, Australia.
De Beer, E. 1977. Piles subjected to static lateral loads.
9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Proceedings, Special Session
No. 10, Tokyo, pp. 1-14.
Decourt, L. 1991. Load-deflection prediction for laterally loaded
piles based on N-SPT values. Proceedings, 9th Pan-
American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering.
Esu, F., and D'Elia, B. 1974. Interazione terreno-struttura in
un palo sollecitato dauna frana tip colata. Rev. Ita!. di Geot.,
111: 27-38.
Gudehus, G., and Schwarz, W. 1985. Stabilisation of creeping
slopes by dowels. Proceedings, 11th International Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
San Francisco, Vol. 3, pp. 1697-1700.
Ito, T., and Matsui, T. 1975. Methods to estimate lateral force
acting on stabilising piles. Soils and Foundations, 18( 4 ):
43-59.
Ito, T., Matsui, T., and Hong, W.P. 1982. Extended design
method for multi-row stabilising piles against landslide.
Soils and Foundations, 22(1): 1-13.
View publication stats
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 32, 1995
Kishida, H., and Nakai, S. 1977. Large deflection of single
pile under horizontal load. Special Session No. 10, 9th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineers, Tokyo, pp. 87-92.
Lee, C.Y., Poulos, H.G., and Hull, T.S. 1991. Effect of seafloor
instability on offshore pile foundations. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, 28(5): 729-737.
Morgenstern, N .R. 1982. The analysis of wall supports to sta-
bilise slopes. In Application of walls to landslide control
problems. Edited by R.B. Reeves. American Society of Civil
Engineers, pp. 19-29.
NAVFAC. 1986. Soil mechanics. United States Naval Facili- .,
ties, Engineering Command, Virginia, Design Manual 7.01.
Nethero, M.F. 1982. Slide control by drilled pier walls. In Appli-
cation of walls to landslide control problems. Edited by
R.B. Reeves. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 61-76.
Poulos, H.G. 1973. Analysis of piles in soil undergoing lat-
eral movement. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, ASCE, 99(SM5), pp. 391-406.
Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and
design. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Randolph, M.F., and Houlsby, G.T. 1984. The limiting pres-
sur eon a circular pile laterally loaded in cohesive soil. Geo-
technique, 34(4): 613-623.
Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T., and Fouse, J.L. 1992. Use of drilled
shafts in stabilising a slope. In Stability and performance
of slopes and embankments-H. Edited by R.B. Seed and
R.W. Boulanger. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 2, pp. 1318-1332.
Rollins, K.M., and Rollins, R.L. 1992. Landslide stabilisation
using drilled shaft walls. In Ground movements and struc-
tures, Vol. 4. Edited by J.D. Geddes. Pentech Press, London.
pp. 755-770.
Sommer, H. 1977. Creeping slope in a stiff clay. Proceedings,
Special Session No. 10, 9th International Conference on
Soil mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo,
pp. 113-118.
Viggiani, C. 1981. Ultimate lateral load on piles used to stabilise
landslides. Proceedings, 1Oth International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm,
Vol. 3, pp. 555-560.