Slope stabilization with piles

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. | www.geo-slope.com

1200, 700 - 6th Ave SW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 0T8
Main: +1 403 269 2002 | Fax: +1 888 463 2239

Introduction
Piles can be used to stabilize a slope under certain circumstances. Analyzing the effect of piles on
stability using SLOPE/W requires knowledge of the shear mobilized within the piles. This is a difficult
value to determine because the bending moments and shear stresses within the pile depend on the
deformation characteristics of the soil, geometry and structural properties of the piles, and depth of
installation. These are factors which SLOPE/W cannot consider. The alternative is to look at this soil-
structure interaction problem using SIGMA/W. Thus, this example illustrates how to model the
stabilizing effect of piles on a failing slope using stress-based types of analyses.

Numerical Simulation
Figure 1 shows the problem configuration. The slope is marginally stable due to the underlying weak
layer. Consequently, the slope is slowly moving periodically. The objective is to stabilize the slope by
installing piles from the lower bench through the weak layer and into the underlying stiff competent
material.

Figure 1. Problem configuration.

1
Site investigations have shown that the water table on the left is at 14 m, and beyond the slope on
the right the water table is in essence is at the ground surface. A simple steady-state SEEP/W
seepage analysis can be performed to establish the pore-water pressure distribution within the
slope. The SEEP/W results can then be used in a SIGMA/W Insitu analysis to establish the stress-state
in the ground.

SIGMA/W has a special analysis type, ‘Insitu’, designed to compute the stress state in the ground due
to gravity. The key soil properties required for this analysis are the total unit weight of the material
and the Ko conditions. The specified soil stiffness (E) does not come into play in this calculation. The
Ko value is controlled by the specified Poisson’s Ratio (ν). Poisson’s Ratio is specified here as 0.4 for
all materials. This makes Ko equal to 2/3 (0.6667) as displayed in the materials dialog box.

To establish the correct effective stress conditions, it is necessary to use Effective-Drained

Parameters. In a gravity activated analysis like this, it is usually best to use a common Poisson’s
Ratio. Significant variations in Poisson’s ratio can result in unrealistic stress concentrations. It is
important to remember that the stresses in the ground are the result of some long term geological
loading and unloading process. A SIGMA/W Insitu analysis cannot recover this process. In spite of
this, a simplified SIGMA/W Insitu analysis provides a reasonable picture of the current stresses in the
ground provided the specified Poisson’s Ratio (Ko) is fairly uniform for all the materials.

An in situ analysis requires the assumption of linear elasticity, which can result in over-stressing; that
is, stress states that sit above the failure surface. Stress states can be returned to the failure surface
by means of a Stress Redistribution analysis (Number 4 in the Analysis Tree).

The next step is to consider the stress states in the ground with the pile(s) in place. The sliding mass
will continue to move, putting pressure on the pile. If the pile is sufficiently strong, the movement
will come to a halt.

For illustrative purposes, let us assume the piles are steel pipe piles with an outside diameter of 300
mm and a wall thickness of 10 mm and that the piles are spaced 2 m on center in out-of-plane
direction.

The E-modulus of steel is around 200 GPa (2e+8 kPa).

The moment of inertia of circular structural element is: [π (do^4 – di^4)] / 64

This makes I = 9.6e-5 m4

With a wall thickness the cross-sectional area is 9.1e-3 m2 - [π (do^2 – di^2)] / 4

In a SIGMA/W analysis, these become the beam properties.

Since the piles are spaced at 2 m, it is necessary to normalize the pile stiffness effect for a 1 m thick
analysis. This is done by dividing the E-modulus by the spacing. For the analysis here then the
E-modulus becomes 1e+8 kPa.

2
It is useful to consider the fundamental finite element equation in order to understand the
procedure for simulating the ongoing movement:

[K] {d} = {F}

The matrix [K] embodies the stiffness properties of every element. The vector {d} is the nodal
displacement vector, and {F} is the nodal forcing vector.

Boundary conditions can be specified as a displacement or a force. If a displacement is specified, the

resulting reaction force will be computed; if a nodal force is specified, the resulting displacement is
computed. In the case of simulating the slope movement, neither the nodal displacement nor the
nodal forces are known. So another approach is required.

We can make use of the concepts inherent in a nonlinear elastic-plastic analysis, which ensures that
the computed stress states do not exist beyond the soil strength. If a computed stress state is
outside the yield surface, the excess stresses are redistributed through an iterative process until all
the stress states within the domain are on or below the yield surface. Such a stress redistribution
manifests itself in movements.

This concept is used in the Strength Reduction technique for computing slope safety factors based
on FE stresses. These techniques are illustrated in a companion SIGMA/W example called “Strength
Reduction Stability”. In this approach, the soil is assigned an artificially reduced strength. The
reduced strength means that the previously established ground stresses may now exceed the soil
strength and, consequentially, a stress redistribution is required.

This same approach can be used to simulate the slope movement. Assigning the failing soil a
reduced strength leads to slope movements which in turn put pressure on the pile.

For illustrative purposes here, the moving soil strength is reduced by a factor of 1.3. The upper soil
strength parameters are φ = 30 degrees and c = 20 kPa. The reduced parameters then are:

φ = arctan (tan30/1.3) = 23.95 degrees and c = 20/1.3 = 15.39 kPa

For the weak layer the reduced parameters are:

φ = arctan (tan10/1.3) = 7.725 degrees and c = 0/1.3 = 0.0 kPa

Results and Discussion

Figure 2 shows the computed vertical effective stresses for the Insitu analysis.

3
Figure 2. Computed vertical effective stress.

An Insitu type of analysis in SIGMA/W uses linear-elastic properties even though non-linear elastic
properties are specified. Such linear-elastic computed stresses give a reasonable factor of safety.
Figure 3 shows the slip surface with the minimum factor of safety.

Figure 3. Factor of safety for the Insitu stress conditions.

Figure 4 shows the factor of safety after the Insitu stresses have been redistributed (Analysis 4a).
The factor of safety drops slightly from 1.10 to 1.06, but overall the effect of the redistribution was
rather negligible.

4
Figure 4. Factor of safety after stress redistribution.

As noted earlier, the stress redistribution manifests itself in movement. Figure 5 shows the resulting
movement (exaggerated 50x).

20

15
Elevation (m)

10
Weak Layer

-5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Distance (m)

Figure 5. Slope movement from a specified strength reduction.

Figure 6 shows the resulting deflection in the pile. It is the bending in the pile that creates the
induced moments and shear. The curvature is the highest in the area of the weak layer which is
reflected in the moment and shear distribution shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8.

5
 Deflection in pile
10

7
Y (m)

1
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035

X-Displacement (m)

Figure 6. Lateral deflection in the pile..

Pile moment
10

7
Y (m)

1
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Moment (kN-m)

Figure 7. Pile moment distribution.

Pile shear
10

7
Y (m)

1
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Shear Force (kN)

Figure 8. Pile shear distribution.

6
Figure 9 shows the factor of safety after the simulated slope movement, but with the same soil
strengths (it is assumed here that the movement has not altered the soil strength). The changing
stresses from the movement, but with the pile in place, only increases the factor of safety from 1.06
to 1.08.

1.083

20

15
Elevation (m)

10

-5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Distance (m)

Figure 9. Factor of safety after the simulated movement.

The movement and resistance provided by the pile alters the stress distribution. Figure 10 compares
the mobilized shear along the slip surface before the movement and after the movement with the
pile in place. Note how the mobilized shear has diminished behind and in front of the pile, but has
sharply increased at the pile location. This confirms that the stress has been redistributed, but this
does not alter the factor of safety.

Mobilized shear along slip surface

Before simulated movement After simulated movement with pile in place

70

60

50
Shear - kPa

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Slice number

Figure 10. Mobilized shear along slip surface before and after simulated movement

7
The effect of the pile on the slope movement can be further understood by comparing the simulated
movement with and without the pile in place. Figure 11 shows the effect of the pile on the simulated
movement. Once again, if the bending and shear does not exceed the structural integrity of the
piles, the slope movement will come to a halt.

With no pile With pile

12

10

8
Elevation

0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Horizontal movement - m

Figure 11. Comparison of simulated movements with and without the pile in place

Earlier, it was noted that installing the pile does not alter the stresses in the ground sufficiently to
change the overall global factor of safety. In traditional Limit Equilibrium stability analyses, the
objective is to apply a force which represents the shear resistance of the pile. Usually, the objective
is to ensure that the pile has a capacity to withstand a shear force such that the factor of safety
increases, say to 1.3. This puts it in the context of the usual margins of safety for stable slopes.
Another way to look at this is that even if the soil strength were to drop by a factor of 1.3, the system
would still maintain limiting equilibrium.

In a stress-based analysis such as presented above, the 1.3 factor in strength reduction is somewhat
the same. In a strength-reduction stress-based stability analysis, the factor by which the strength is
reduced is deemed to be the factor of safety. In the example here, the strength is reduced by a
factor of 1.3 to simulate the movement. This can be interrupted as the slope having a factor of safety
of 1.3 with the pile in place. Like with a Limit Equilibrium analysis, it can be inferred that even if the
soil strength were to fall by a factor of 1.3, the pile would be able to prevent slope movements.

So in summary, in a stress-based stability analysis, the strength reduction factor used to simulate
movement can be considered the margin of safety against a slope failure. Thinking of the problem in
this manner makes it possible discuss the pile effectiveness in terms of convention limit equilibrium
factors of safety.

8
Summary and Conclusions
It is important to comprehend the fact that the objective of the piles is to halt the slope movement,
and not to necessarily increase the factor of safety. To discuss and present the analysis results in
term of safety factors, it is necessary to adopt the factor of safety definition associated with the
strength reduction approach.

To help with making the piles act like a wall, it always advisable to tie the piles together at the top
with a heavily reinforced grade beam. Generally, pile are only effective in stabilizing slopes if the base
of the pile is founded in competent material below sliding mass. If the pile is only within fairly similar
material, there will be little bending in the pile and, consequently, offer little resistance to the
movement. There is a danger that the pile will simply go for a ride along with the moving mass.