Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Coupled effects in stability analysis of pile–slope systems

Jinoh Won a, Kwangho You b, Sangseom Jeong a,*
, Sooil Kim a

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Suwon, Hwasung-Si 445-743, Republic of Korea

Received 12 January 2004; received in revised form 11 February 2005; accepted 18 February 2005
Available online 10 May 2005

Abstract

A numerical comparison of predictions by limit equilibrium analysis and 3D numerical analysis is presented for a slope–pile sys-
tem. Special attention is given to the coupled analysis based on the explicit-finite-difference code, FLAC 3D. To this end, an internal
routine (FISH) was developed to calculate a factor of safety for a pile-reinforced slope according to a shear strength reduction tech-
nique. Coupled analyses were performed for stabilizing piles in a slope, in which the pile response and slope stability are considered
simultaneously and subsequently the factors of safety are compared to a solution for a homogeneous slope using an uncoupled anal-
ysis (limit equilibrium analysis). Based on a limited parametric study, it is shown that the factor of safety for the slope is less con-
servative for a coupled analysis than for an uncoupled analysis and thus represents a definitely larger safety factor when the piles are
installed in the middle of the slopes and the pile heads are restrained.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pile–slope system; Limit equilibrium analysis; 3D numerical analysis; Shear strength reduction technique; Coupled/uncoupled analysis;
Homogeneous slope; Factor of safety

1. Introduction represent the behavior of actual piles in the field: this

The stabilization of slopes by placing passive piles is
one of the innovative slope reinforcement techniques
in recent years. There are numerous empirical and
numerical methods for designing stabilizing piles. They
can generally be classified into two different types: (1)
pressure/displacement-based methods [1–10]; (2) finite
element/finite difference methods [11–15].
The first type of method is based on the analysis of
passive piles subjected to lateral soil pressure or lateral
soil movements. Generally, the lateral soil pressure on
piles in a row is estimated based on a method proposed
by Ito and Matsui [3]. This model is developed for rigid
piles with infinite length and is assumed that the soil is
rigid and perfectly plastic. Thus, this model may not
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2123 2800; fax: +82 2 364 5300.
E-mail address: soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Jeong).
model does not take into account the actual behavior
of finite flexible piles, soil arching and soft soil, etc.
[8,23] On the other hand, the corresponding lateral soil
movements are estimated using either measured incli-
nometer data or from an analytical result using the finite
element approach, empirical correlations or based on
similar case histories [9,14]. However, a major problem
with the displacement-based methods is the estimation
of free soil displacements, because lateral soil displace-
ments are notoriously difficult to estimate accurately.
Moreover, the first method for pile-reinforced slopes
often uses limit equilibrium, where soil–pile interaction
is not clearly considered and thereby has some degree
of weakness in representing the real pile–slope system.
The second type of method has been used to investigate
the pile–slope system, which is analyzed as a continuous
elastic or elasto-plastic medium using either finite-
element or finite-difference formulations. This method

0266-352X/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.02.006
 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315 305

lateral soil movement

D
s
s unstable layer

passive
portion

stable layer
active
portion

(b) Pile response.

Lx

(a) Pile–slope system.

Fig. 1. One-row piles undergoing lateral soil movements.

provides coupled solutions in which the pile response and
slope stability are considered simultaneously and thus,
the critical surface invariably changes due to the addition
of piles, even though it is computationally expensive
and requires extensive training because of the three-
dimensional and nonlinear nature of the problem.
For slopes, the factor of safety F is traditionally
defined as the ratio of the actual soil shear strength to
the minimum shear strength required to prevent failure
[16]. As Duncan [17] points out, F is the factor by which
the soil shear strength must be divided to bring the slope
to the verge of failure. Since it is defined as a shear
strength reduction factor, an obvious way of computing
F with a finite element or finite difference program is
simply to reduce the soil shear strength until collapse oc-
curs. The resulting factor of safety is the ratio of the
soilÕs actual shear strength to the reduced shear strength
at failure. This Ôshear strength reduction techniqueÕ was
used as early as 1975 by Zienkiewicz et al. [18], and has
been applied by Naylor [19], Donald and Giam [20],
Matsui and San [21], Ugai and Leshchinsky [22], Cai
and Ugai [23] and You et al. [24], etc.
The shear strength reduction technique is used in this
study. It has a number of advantages over the method of
slices for slope stability analysis. Most importantly, the
critical failure surface is found automatically. Applica-
tion of the technique has been limited in the past due
to a long computational run-time. But with the increas-
ing speed of the desktop computer, the technique is
becoming a reasonable alternative to the method of
slices, and is being used increasingly in engineering
practice.
In this study, factors of safety obtained with the shear
strength reduction technique were investigated for the
one-row pile groups on the stability of the homogeneous
slope. The case of an uncoupled analysis using limit
equilibrium analysis and subsequently the response of
coupled analysis based on the shear strength reduction
method were performed to illustrate the changes of crit-
ical surface invariably due to addition of piles on the
pile–slope stability problem. The coupled effects were
tested against other case studies on the pile–slope stabil-
ity problem (see Figs. 1 and 2).
2. Uncoupled analysis by limit equilibrium method
A comprehensive study of uncoupled analyses has
been reported by Jeong et al. [10]. They report an uncou-
pled analysis in which the pile response and slope stabil-
ity are considered separately. Here, the slope–pile
stabilization scheme analyzed is shown in Fig. 3. The
conventional Bishop simplified method is employed to
determine the critical circular sliding surface, resisting
moment MR and overturning moment MD. The resisting
moment generated by the pile is then obtained from the
pile shear force and bending moment developed in the
pile at the depth of the sliding surface analyzed. It is as-
sumed that the lateral soil pressure exerted by the sliding
slope on the pile results in the mobilization of shear
y
Soil pressure
z
passive portion
interface
P
active portion
Pu
pile
y
Fig. 2. A pile subjected to lateral soil pressure.
306 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315

Based on this, the safety factor of the reinforced slope

with respect to circular sliding is calculated as:
F ¼ F i þ DF
M R V cr  R  cos h
M cr þ V head  Y head
¼ þ ; ð2Þ
MD MD
where Fi is the safety factor of unstabilized slope; DF is
increased safety factor of slope reinforced with pile; Mcr
is bending moment developed at critical surface; Vcr is
shear force developed at critical surface; Vhead is shear
force at pile head; R is radius of the sliding surface;
and h is the angle between a line perpendicular to the
Fig. 3. Forces on stabilizing piles and slope.
pile and the failure surface. A computer program has
been developed using an uncoupled formulation to ana-
forces and bending moment. The plastic state theory lyze the pile–slope stability problem as described above
developed by Ito and Matsui [3] is used to estimate the (Fig. 5).
pressure acting on the pile, q, as follows (Fig. 4):
" 


1 D1
D2 p /
q ¼ Ac exp N / tan / tan þ 3. Coupled analysis by strength reduction method
N / tan / D2 8 4
 ð1=2Þ
ð1=2Þ
#
ð1=2Þ 2 tan / þ 2N / þ N / 3.1. Shear strength reduction technique

2N / tan /
1 þ ð1=2Þ
N / tan / þ N /
1
! To calculate the factor of safety of a slope defined in
ð1=2Þ
ð1=2Þ
2 tan / þ 2N / þ N /
ð1=2Þ the shear strength reduction technique, a series of stabil-

c D1 ð1=2Þ

2D2 N / ity analyses are performed with the reduced shear
N / tan / þ N /
1


  strength parameters c0trial and /0trial defined as follows
cz D1
D2 p / (Fig. 6):
þ A exp N / tan / tan þ
D2 ;
N/ D2 8 4
1 0
ð1Þ c0trial ¼ c; ð3Þ
F trial
where c is the cohesion intercept; D1 is center-to-center

1
distance between piles; D2 is opening between piles; / /0trial ¼ arctan 0
tan / ; ð4Þ
is angle of internal friction of soil; c is unit weight of soil; F trial
z is depth from ground surface; N/ = tan2 [(p/4) + (//2)] where c 0 , / 0 are real shear strength parameters and Ftrial
ð1=2Þ
and A ¼ D1 ðD1 =D2 Þ
½N / tan /þN /
1
. is a trial factor of safety. Usually, initial Ftrial is set to be
sufficiently small so as to guarantee that the system is
stable. Then the value of Ftrial is increased by Finc values
until the slope fails. After the slope fails, the Fstart is
replaced by the previous Flow and Finc is reduced by 1/5.
Then the same procedure is repeated until the Finc is less
than user-specified tolerance (e). Fig. 7 shows the flow-
chart of the routine to calculate a factor of safety. This
iterative procedure is based on the incremental search
method. This final value of Flow, by definition, is identi-
cal to the one in limit equilibrium analysis. It should be
noted, however, that in the finite element and finite dif-
ference methods, local equilibrium is satisfied every-
where, whereas in the limit equilibrium analysis, only
global equilibrium for the sliding mass is considered in
the analysis.

3.2. Explicit finite difference scheme

The response of a slope–pile system is analyzed by

Fig. 4. Plastically deforming ground around stabilizing piles [3]. using a three-dimensional explicit-finite difference
 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315 307

start

Input shape of slope, soil property and pore water

pressure

Assume safety factor of slope and critical surface

by using simplified Bishop methods

Input flexible rigidity (EI), diameter, length and

boundary condition of stabilizing pile

Input position of stabilizing pile in slope

and center-to-center spacing

Calculate ultimate pressure (Pu)

Modify flexible
Input soil pressure(Ito & Matsui’s pressure)
rigidity (EI) and
diameter
Analysis the behavior of stabilizing pile
based on pressure-based method

Calculate displacement, bending moment, shear Modify

force and soil reaction force position and
spacing

No Compare with allowable

displacement and allowable
bending moment

Yes
Calculate bending moment and shear force on
critical surface

Calculate safety factor of stabilized slope

Compare with safety factor No

of un-stabilized slope

Yes
Determine optimized flexible rigidity (EI), diameter,
position and spacing of stabilized pile

end

Fig. 5. Flow chart of computer program.

right-hand sides are assumed to be on rollers to allow

Fig. 6. A relationship between the actual strength and a strength
reduced by a trial factor of safety.
approach. The mesh consists of three-dimensional eight-
noded solid elements and is assumed to be resting on a
rigid layer, and the vertical boundaries at the left- and
movement of soil layers.
The pile element is assumed to remain elastic at all
times, while the surrounding soil is idealized as a
Mohr–Coulomb elasto-plastic material. This model
was selected from among the soil models in the library
of FLAC 3D [25], the commercial explicit finite-differ-
ence package used for this work. Factors of safety are
computed using FLAC 3D. In order to consider the
effect of an interface between a pile and soil, shell
elements, which satisfy the shear-yield constitutive
model, are used. The shear stiffness of the shell element
is assumed to be isotropic and is inferred by the follow-
ing equation:
308 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315
Fig. 7. Flowchart of the calculation routine for factor of safety.
K s ¼ aG=l;
where l is the minimum length of the shell elements and
G is the shear modulus of the soil adjacent to the shell
element. It is assumed that a = 20 is large enough to
make the initial slope of the load displacement relation-
ship closely resemble the elastic analytical solution [23].
The normal stiffness for the interface is taken as a very
high value under the reality that a pile and the surround-
ing soil do not overlap at the interface.
For a given element shape function, the set of alge-
braic equations solved by FLAC is identical to that
solved with finite element methods. In FLAC, however,
this set of equations is solved using dynamic relaxation
[26], an explicit, time-marching procedure in which the
full dynamic equations of motion are integrated step
by step. Static solutions are obtained by including
damping terms that gradually remove kinetic energy
from the system.
The convergence criterion for FLAC is the ratio
defined to be the maximum unbalanced force magnitude
for all the gridpoints in the model divided by the average
applied force magnitude for all the gridpoints. If a model
is in equilibrium, this ratio should be close to zero. For
this study, a simulation is considered to converge to
equilibrium when the ratio becomes less than 10
5.
4. Validation and application of the coupled model
The present coupled method is based on a shear
strength reduction technique using the explicit finite dif-
ference code, FLAC. The validation of the present cou-
pled model was done by the comparison with otherÕs
coupled analysis results.
Cai et al. [23] performed a numerical analysis to
investigate the effect of stabilizing piles on the stability
of a slope. They performed a coupled analysis based
on a three-dimensional finite element method with an
elasto-plastic constitutive model and the shear strength
reduction technique. The numerical results by their cou-
pled analysis were compared with those obtained by the
present method. However, it should be noted that the
final calculated factor of safety by finite difference meth-
ods depends highly on the size of element unlike finite
element methods in which a shape function can be used
within the elements. In general, the finer the size of ele-
ments is, the more precise the result is.
An idealized slope with a height of 10 m and a gradi-
ent of 1V:1.5H and a ground thickness of 10 m is ana-
lyzed with a three-dimensional finite element mesh, as
shown in Fig. 8. A steel tube pile with an outer diameter
(D) of 0.8 m was used. The piles are treated as a linear
elastic solid material and are installed in the middle of
the slope with Lx = 7.5 m, and the center-to-center spac-
ing s = 3D. The piles are embedded and fixed into the
bedrock or a stable layer. The material properties for
prediction purposes were selected based on Cai et al.Õs
assumptions, as shown in Table 1. The safety factor of
ð5Þ
a slope stabilized with piles was compared for two differ-
ent pile head conditions (free and fixed) and two differ-
ent pile YoungÕs modulus values (60 and 200 GPa).
When the slope is not reinforced with piles, the Cai
et al.Õs shear strength finite element method, the finite
Fig. 8. Model slope and finite element mesh [23].
 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315 309

Table 1 the slip surfaces predicted by the FLAC 3D analysis

Material properties and geometries [23] are deeper than those located by BishopÕs simplified
Soil method, where the reaction force of the piles is deter-
Unit weight (kN/m3) 20.0 mined by Ito–MatsuiÕs equation (Fig. 9(b)). In addition,
Plastic (Mohr–Coulomb)
Cohesion (kPa) 10.0
the slip surface by the FLAC is divided into two differ-
Friction angle () 20 ent segments around the pile element, compared with
Dilation angle () 0 the unique single line by BishopÕs simplified method.
Elastic Thus, the depth and distribution of the slip surface im-
Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.0 · 105 plies that BishopÕs simplified method cannot indicate
PoissonÕs ratio 0.25 the true failure mechanism for the slope reinforced with
piles.
Steel pile
BishopÕs simplified method can not incorporate the
Unit weight (kN/m3) 78.5
Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.0 · 108, 6.0 · 107 pile head conditions well on the calculation of the safety
PoissonÕs ratio 0.2 factor due to the limitation of Ito–MatsuiÕs equation,
Diameter (m) 0.8 which is derived for rigid piles. In this respect, Table 2
shows that BishopÕs simplified method can obtain a
Interface smaller value of the safety factor, compared with the
Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.0 · 105
PoissonÕs ratio 0.25
fixed head pile of FLAC 3D. The reason for this is that
Cohesion (kPa) 10.0 because of the larger soil pressure, followed in order of
Friction angle () 20 fixed and Ito–MatsuiÕs pressure, the safety factor pre-
Dilation angle () 0 dicted by the FLAC 3D is definitely larger than that ob-
tained by BishopÕs simplified method, as shown in Fig.
10 and in Table 2.
difference code, FLAC and BishopÕs simplified method
gave safety factors of 1.14, 1.15 and 1.13, respectively.
Based on this, it is obvious that the failure mechanism, 5. Comparison with other coupled analysis
indicated by the nodal velocities in the shear strength
reduction techniques, agree well with the critical slip 5.1. Model slope
circle given by BishopÕs simplified method.
On the other hand, the safety factor of a slope stabi- Hassiotis et al. [8] proposed a methodology for the
lized with piles for two different pile head conditions and design of slopes reinforced with a single row of piles.
two youngÕs modulus values, were summarized in Table To estimate the pressure acting on the piles, they used
2. Here, the critical depth was taken as the level of the the theory developed by Ito and Matsui [3] and pro-
slip surface associated with the lowest factor of safety posed a stability number by the friction circle method
although the FLAC could not predict a clear slip surface to take into account the critical slip surface changes
like the limit equilibrium method. By comparing the due to the addition of piles. This is a pressure-based cou-
magnitude and distribution of the nodal velocities inside pled analysis. The slope in Fig. 11 has a height of
the slope (Fig. 9(a)), especially at the pile position, the 13.7 m, a slope angle of 30, and is made of a homoge-
finite difference code, FLAC shows slightly higher values neous material with cohesion 23.94 kN/m2, friction an-
in terms of predicted safety factors, compared with the gle 10 and unit weight 19.63 kN/m3. The water table
results by the shear strength reduction finite element was not considered here. It was found that the safety
method. This is because there is a difference in mesh factor of the slope (without the pile reinforcement)
refinement in the region surrounding the piles between was about 1.08.
the two methods, even though in this study, a relatively The slope is simulated by the FLAC 3D. Two sym-
fine mesh was used near the pile–soil interface and be- metrical boundaries are used, so that the problem ana-
came coarser further from the pile. It can be said that lyzed really consists of a row of piles with planes of
these compare fairly well with each other with respect symmetry through the pile centerline and through the
to the calculated safety factors. However, the depth of soil midway between the piles. The actual size of the
mesh is related to the pile length; the lower rigid bound-
ary has been placed at a depth equal to pile lengths and
Table 2
Comparison of numerical methods on safety factor the side boundary has been extended laterally to
rm = 2.5L(1
t) [27]. It is found that this size was suffi-
YoungÕs modulus FLAC 3D Cai and Ugai [23] Bishop
of piles (GPa) cient for the analysis of one-row pile groups. The mate-
Free Fixed Free Fixed Free
rial properties used for prediction purposes were
60 1.46 1.56 1.36 1.55 1.49 described in Table 3. A numerical comparison of predic-
200 1.55 1.56 1.55 1.56 1.49
tions by the two analyses is presented below.
310 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315

(a) Nodal velocity vectors by FLAC 3D and critical slip circle by BishopÕs simplified method.

(b) Comparison of the depth and shape of critical slip surface.

Fig. 9. Comparative results between shear strength reduction and BishopÕs simplified method.

5.2. Effect of pile bending stiffness
The effect of the bending stiffness is investigated by
changing only the equivalent YoungÕs modulus, Ep, of
the piles. The piles are installed with Lx = 12.2 m, and
the center-to-center spacings of 2.5D, 3.0D, 3.5D, and
4.0D. As shown in Fig. 12(a), the safety factor of a slope
stabilized with piles for different bending stiffness values
shows that the pile head conditions have more influence
on the safety factor of the slope when the piles are more
flexible (Ep = 1.43 GPa). However, for piles with larger
YoungÕs modulus (Ep = 25 GPa), the safety factor is
almost the same, regardless of the pile head conditions.
This is because the pressure on the free headed pile with
smaller YoungÕs modulus (Ep = 1.43 GPa) are consider-
ably smaller than that of fixed head piles, whereas the
piles with larger YoungÕs modulus (Ep = 25 GPa) have
almost identical pressure distributions, regardless of
the pile head conditions, as shown in Fig. 12(b) and
(c). In addition, the pressure on the piles is almost the
same for the two bending stiffness values when the pile
head is fixed.
In this study, the value of EpIp was taken as con-
stant by assuming the pile elastic. However, the crack-
ing of the pile itself may occur in the loading with a
significant reduction in EpIp. To understand the true
behavior, yielding of the pile is considered by taking
into account the compressive strength of the concrete.
Fig. 13 shows the typical reduction distribution of the
EpIp as the bending moment is increased; therefore, a
 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315 311

Displacement (cm) Displacement (cm)

0 3 6 9 12 15 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 0

3 3

6 6

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

9 9

12 12
Flac 3D (free) Flac 3D (free)
Flac 3D (fixed) Flac 3D (fixed)
Bishop (Ito-Matsui [3]) Bishop (Ito-Matsui [3])
15 15

Soil pressure (kPa) Soil pressure (kPa)

0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
0 0

3 3

6 6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

9 9

12 12
Flac 3D (free) Flac 3D (free)
Flac 3D (fixed) Flac 3D (fixed)
Bishop (Ito-Matsui [3]) Bishop (Ito-Matsui[3])
15 15

(a) Pile modulus, Ep = 60 GPa. (b) Pile modulus, Ep = 200 GPa.

Fig. 10. Pile behavior characteristics by FLAC 3D.

Table 3
Material properties and geometries [8]
Soil
D s Unit weight (kN/m3) 19.63
s Plastic (Mohr–Coulomb)
Cohesion (kPa) 23.94
16.7m

1:1.7
Friction angle () 10
Dilation angle () 0
Elastic
Elastic modulus (kPa) 4.79 · 103
3.0m

PoissonÕs ratio 0.35

Concrete pile
Lx Unit weight (kN/m3) 23.0
PoissonÕs ratio 0.2
10.0m L=23.7m 20.0m s/2
Diameter (m) 0.62
53.7m Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.5 · 107 1.43 · 106
Compressive strength of the concrete (kPa) 2.74 · 104 89.63
Yield strength of the re-bar (kPa) 4.14 · 105
Fig. 11. Model slope and element mesh [8].
312 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315

1.8
safety factor

1.6

1.4

Ep=25Gpa Ep=1.43Gpa
1.2 Flac 3D (free) Flac 3D (free)
Flac 3D (fixed) Flac 3D (fixed)
Hassiotis et al. [8]
Bishop
1
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(a) s/D
Soil Pressure (kPa) Fig. 13. Bending stiffness, EpIp as a function of bending moment for a
0 100 200 300 pile.
0

2 It is important to mention that in the numerical

results obtained by the FLAC analysis, the safety factor
of slopes reinforced with fixed head piles is larger than
4
Depth (m)

free head
that with free head piles when the piles are more flexible
2.5D (Ep = 1.43 GPa). Therefore, a restrained pile head
3.0D
6 3.5D
(fixed) is recommended to stabilize the slope. For a fixed
4.0D pile head condition, the safety factor predicted by
fixed head uncoupled analysis (e.g., BishopÕs simplified method) is
2.5D
8
3.0D
excessively conservative.
3.5D
4.0D
10
(b) Ep =1.43 GPa 5.3. Effect of pile spacing (s/D)
Soil Pressure (kPa)
80 120 160 200 240 280 When piles with an equivalent YoungÕs modulus,
0 Ep = 25 GPa are installed with the horizontal distance
between the slope toe and the pile position, Lx of 7.6,
12.2, and 17 m, the effect of pile spacing on the safety
2
factor is shown in Fig. 14 for two different pile head con-
ditions; free and fixed. As expected, the safety factor in-
4 creases significantly as the pile spacing decreases. Here,
Depth (m)

free head spacing equal to or larger than 2.5 diameters were

2.5D
3.0D selected because the ratios less than 2.5 are not practical.
6 3.5D When a center to center spacing-to-diameter ratio is 2.5,
4.0D
the safety factor of the slope approaches its maximum
fixed Head
2.5D
value. This is explained by the fact that the lateral soil
8
3.0D movement between the piles is resisted more and more
3.5D by the piles as the spacing becomes closer and closer.
4.0D
10 Fig. 14 also shows coupled effects in the safety factor
(c) Ep =25 GPa on pile spacings. The present method (FLAC analysis)
shows that the pile head conditions have more influence
Fig. 12. Effect of pile bending stiffness and soil pressure. (b) Ep =
1.43 GPa; (c) Ep = 25 GPa.
on the safety factor of the slope. The safety factor of a
slope reinforced with fixed head piles, obtained by the
present method is a quite similar rate change but is
modification in EpIp may be needed for accurate com- significantly higher than that obtained the pressure-
putations, especially if deflection will control the based coupled analysis proposed by Hassiotis et al. and
loading. BishopÕs simplified method. The difference in the safety
 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315 313

2 2
Flac 3D (free)
Flac 3D (fixed)
Hassiotis et al. [8]
1.8 Bishop 1.8
safety factor

safety factor
1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2 Flac 3D (free)

Flac 3D (fixed)
Hassiotis et al. [8]
Bishop
1 1
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 2.5 3.5 4.5
s/D s/D

(a) Lx = 7.6 m (Lx/L = 0.32). (b) Lx = 12.2 m (Lx/L = 0.51).

2

1.8
safety factor

1.6

1.4

1.2
Flac 3D (free)
Flac 3D (fixed)
Bishop
1
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
s/D

(c) Lx = 17 m (Lx/L = 0.72).

Fig. 14. Effect of pile spacings on safety factor (Ep = 25 GPa).

factor between the coupled and uncoupled analyses can stalled in the middle of the slopes, irrespective of pile
be explained by the pressure acting on the piles pre- head conditions. However, HassiotisÕs coupled solution
sented earlier: the larger the pressure on the piles, the shows that the piles should be placed slightly closer to
larger the reaction force to the sliding body supplied the top of the slope for the largest safety factor. This is
by the piles, and the higher the safety factor of the slope the same as the results of the BishopÕs method. The
reinforced with piles. reason for this is that when the piles are placed in
the middle portions of the slopes, the shear strength
5.4. Effect of pile positions of the soil–pile interface is sufficiently mobilized by
the fact that the pressure acting on the piles is larger
Fig. 15(a) shows the safety factor as a function of than that on the piles in the upper portions of the
the relative position of the pile row with s/D of 2.5 slopes (Fig. 15(b)).
on the slope. Here, the pile positions in the slope are Fig. 16 shows coupling effects in the safety factor
shown with a dimensionless ratio of the horizontal dis- both on pile positions and on pile spacings. The safety
tance between the slope toe and the pile position, Lx, factors of slopes analyzed by coupled analyses are larger
to the horizontal distance between the slope toe and than those by uncoupled analysis, as pile spacing de-
slope shoulder, L. The coupled FLAC results, obtained creases. This clearly demonstrates that the coupled effect
with the shear strength reduction technique, show that exists between piles and soil so that the critical slip sur-
the improvement of the safety factor of slopes rein- face can change due to the addition of piles. It is noted,
forced with piles is the largest when the piles are in- therefore, that the uncoupled analysis, which can only
314 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315

(a) 2.4 consider a fixed failure surface, should be limited in its

Flac 3D (free)
application.
Flac 3D (fixed)
2.2 Bishop
Hassiotis et al. [8]
2
6. Conclusions
Safety factor

1.8
In this study, a coupled analysis of slopes stabilized
1.6 with a row of piles has been presented and discussed
based on an analytical study and a numerical study.
1.4 The numerical results are compared with those obtained
by the limit equilibrium method for slope stability anal-
1.2 ysis. A limited study of numerical analysis was carried
out to examine the pile–slope coupling effect on relative
1 pile position and different pile spacings. The numerical
0.51 0.72
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 results have clearly demonstrated the important cou-
Lx/L pling effect of stabilizing piles in a slope with different
head conditions and pile bending stiffness. From the
(b) Soil Pressure (kPa)
findings of this study, the following conclusions are
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
drawn:
0

(1) A coupled effect has been identified between piles

2 and soil, so that the critical slip surface invariably
changes due to the addition of piles. It is noted,
therefore, that the uncoupled analysis, which can
4 only consider a fixed failure surface, should be lim-
Depth (m)

ited in its application. Hassiotis et al.Õs coupled

analysis based on the modified friction circle
Lx/L=0.51
6
Flac 3D (free) method is a relatively effective for a pile–slope sys-
Flac 3D (fixed) tem. However, their approach is intermediate in
Bishop (Ito-Matsui [3])
theoretical accuracy between coupled FLAC anal-
8 Lx/L=0.72 ysis and uncoupled analysis (BishopÕs simplified
Flac 3D (free)
Flac 3D (fixed) method).
Bishop (Ito-Matsui [3]) (2) Through comparative studies, it has been found
10
that the pile head conditions and the bending
Fig. 15. Effect of pile positions on safety factor (s/D = 2.5) and soil stiffness influence the safety factor of the slopes.
pressure (Ep = 25 GPa). If the piles are more flexible, the safety factor of
the slope is significantly smaller than that of a
2.2
2.5D (Flac 3D) slope reinforced with fixed head piles. However,
3.0D for piles with larger YoungÕs modulus
2 3.5D (Ep = 25 GPa), the safety factor is almost the
4.0D
same, regardless of the pile head conditions. As
1.8 a result, for fixed pile head condition, the predic-
tion in the factor of safety in slope is much more
Safety factor

conservative for an uncoupled analysis than for a

1.6
coupled analysis.
(3) The numerical results show that the pressure act-
1.4 ing on the piles is the largest when the piles are
placed in the middle portion of the slope. There-
2.5D (Bishop)
1.2 3.0D
fore, the piles should be installed in the middle
3.5D of slopes and restrained in the pile head, when
4.0D the stability of a slope is required to be improved
1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
optimally. A restrained head condition can be
Lx/L obtained by connecting the pile heads with a bur-
ied beam which is fixed by the tie-rods or tension
Fig. 16. Effects of pile positions and pile spacings on safety factor. anchors.
 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315
References
[1] De Beer EE, Wallays M. Forces induced in piles by unsymmet-
rical surcharges on the soil round the piles. Conf Soil Mech
Found Eng 1972;1:325–32.
[2] Tschebotarioff GP. Lateral pressure of clayey soils on structures.
In: Proceedings of the 8th ICSMFE Specialty Session 5, Moscow,
vol. 4(3); 1973. p. 227–80.
[3] Ito T, Matsui T. Methods to estimate lateral force acting on
stabilizing piles. Soils Found 1975;15(4):43–59.
[4] Baguelin F, Frank R, Said YH. Theoretical study of lateral
reaction mechanism of piles. Geotechnique 1977;27(3):405–34.
[5] Bourges F, Frank R, Mieussens C. Calcul des efforts et des
déplacements engendres par des poussées latérals de sol sur les
pieux. Note Technigue. Paris: Laboratoire Central des Ponts et
Chausées; 1980.
[6] Springman SM. Lateral loading on piles due to simulated
embankment construction. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge;
1989.
[7] Poulos HG. Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability.
Can Geotech J 1995;32:808–18.
[8] Hassiotis S, Chameau JL, Gunaratne M. Design method for
stabilization of slopes with piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng,
ASCE 1997;123(4):314–23.
[9] Chen LT, Poulos HG. Piles subjected to lateral soil movements. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 1997;123(9):802–11.
[10] Jeong S, Kim B, Won J, Lee J. Uncoupled analysis of stabilizing
piles in weathered slopes. Comput Geotech 2003;30:671–82.
[11] Rowe RK, Poulos HG. A method for predicting the effect of piles
on slope behavior. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ICONMIG,
Aachen, vol. 3; 1979. p. 1073–85.
[12] Oakland MW, Chameau JLA. Finite-element analysis of drilled
piers used for slope stabilization. Laterally Loaded Foundation.
American Society for Testing and Materials; 1984. p. 182–93.
[13] Bransby MF, Springman SM. 3-D finite element modelling of pile
groups adjacent to surcharge loads. Comput Geotech 1996;
19(4):301–24.
315
[14] Goh ATC, The CI, Wong KS. Analysis of piles subjected to
embankment induced lateral soil movements. J Geotech Geoen-
viron Eng, ASCE 1997;123(4):312–23.
[15] Poulos HG, Chen LT. Pile response due to excavation-induced
lateral soil movement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE
1997;123(2):94–9.
[16] Bishop AW. The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of
slopes. Geotechnique 1955;5:7–17.
[17] Duncan JM. State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite-element
analysis of slopes. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1996;122(7):577–96.
[18] Zienkiewicz OC, Humpheson C, Lewis RW. Associated and non-
associated visco-plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics. Geo-
technique 1975;25(4):671–89.
[19] Naylor DJ. Finite element and slope stability. Num Meth
Geomech. In: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study
Institute, Lisbon, Portugal; 1981. p. 229–44.
[20] Donald IB, Giam SK. Application of the nodal displacement
method to slope stablilty analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th
Australia–New Zealand conference on geomechanics, Sydney,
Australia; 1988. p. 456–60.
[21] Matsui T, San KC. Finite element slope stability analysis by shear
strength reduction technique. Soils Found 1992;32(1):59–70.
[22] Ugai K, Leshchinsky D. Three-dimensional limit equilibrium and
finite element analysis: a comparison of result. Soils Found
1995;35(4):1–7.
[23] Cai F, Ugai K. Numerical analysis of the stability of a slope
reinforced with piles. Soils Found, Jpn Geotech Soc
2000;40(1):73–84.
[24] You KH, Park YJ, Dawson EM. Stability analysis of jointed/
weathered rock slopes using the Hoek–Brown failure criterion.
Geosyst Eng 2000;3(3):90–7.
[25] FLAC, Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, version 3.3, Itasca
Consulting Group; 1995.
[26] Otter JRH, Cassell AC, Hobbs RE. Dynamic relaxation. Proc
Inst Civil Eng 35:633–56.
[27] Randolph MF, Wroth CP. Analysis of deformation of vertically
loaded piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1978;104(12):1465–88.