Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682

www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Uncoupled analysis of stabilizing piles in weathered slopes

Sangseom Jeong*, Byungchul Kim, Jinoh Won, Jinhyung Lee
Department of Civil Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, 120-749, South Korea

Received 2 December 2002; received in revised form 30 June 2003; accepted 23 July 2003

Abstract
This paper describes a simplified numerical approach for analyzing the slope/pile system subjected to lateral soil movements. The
lateral one-row pile response above and below the critical surface is computed by using load transfer approach. The response of
groups was analyzed by developing interaction factors obtained from a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element study. An
uncoupled analysis was performed for stabilizing piles in slope in which the pile response and slope stability are considered sepa-
rately. The non-linear characteristics of the soil–pile interaction in the stabilizing piles are modeled by hyperbolic load transfer
curves. The Bishop’s simplified method of slope stability analysis is extended to incorporate the soil-pile interaction and evaluate
the safety factor of the reinforced slope. Numerical study is performed to illustrate the major influencing parameters on the pile-
slope stability problem. Through comparative studies, it has been found that the factor of safety in slope is much more conservative
for an uncoupled analysis than for a coupled analysis based on three-dimensional finite element analysis.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Slope/pile system; Lateral soil movement; One-row piles; Interaction factor; Safety factor; Coupled/uncoupled analysis

1. Introduction satisfying the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion. This

In many cases, piles are designed to sustain lateral soil
movements when they are used to stabilize unstable
slopes or potential landslides. The lateral loads resulting
from the soil movements induce deflections and bending
moments in the pile, which may lead to their structural
damage or failure. The stabilizing piles under lateral soil
movements are considered as passive piles.
Several empirical and numerical methods for stabiliz-
ing piles have been proposed and they can generally be
classified into three different types: (1) pressure-based
methods [1–5]; (2) displacement-based methods [6–8];
(3) finite element methods [9–12].
The first type of method is based on the analysis of
passive piles subjected to lateral soil pressure. Gen-
erally, the lateral soil pressure on piles in a row is esti-
mated based on the method developed by Ito and
Matsui [3]. This model is developed for rigid piles with
infinite length and it is assumed that only the soil
around the piles is in a state of plastic equilibrium,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-2123-2807; fax: +82-2-364-
5300.
E-mail address: soj9081@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Jeong).
0266-352X/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2003.07.002
inherent approach assumed that the soil is soft and able
to plastically deform around piles. Thus, this model
may not represent the actual piles in the field: this model
does not take account of the finite flexibility of the pile,
soil arching and saturated, soft clayey soils, etc. On the
other hand, the third type of method provides coupled
solutions in which the pile response and slope stability
are considered simultaneously. However it is computa-
tionally expensive and requires extensive training
because of the three-dimensional and nonlinear nature
of the problem.
Because the first and third type of methods have some
degree of weakness in representing the real pile/slope
system, the displacement-based method (the second
method), which can directly use either measured inclin-
ometer data or analytical results by finite element
approach, may be used to overcome the restrictions
associated with inherent assumptions and engineering
practice. The displacement based method may therefore
be useful for design of appropriately stabilized piles in
slopes. Even though the most reliable means of esti-
mating lateral soil movements is from in situ measure-
ments, the lateral soil movements may need to be
assessed by using other methods such as finite element
672 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682
method, empirical correlations and approaches based
on similar case histories.
In this study the influence of the one-row pile groups
on the stability of the weathered slope was investigated
based on an analytical study and a numerical analysis.
An uncoupled analysis, in which the pile response and
slope stability are considered separately, was performed
by quantifying the load transfer of passive pile groups
subjected to lateral soil movements in slope. The results
of the uncoupled analysis are compared with the cou-
pled analysis based on three-dimensional finite element
analysis. Numerical evaluations are presented and
major influencing parameters that control the perfor-
mance of piles used for slope stabilization are discussed.
2. Group interaction factor by finite element analysis
The lateral response of passive pile groups is different
from that for a single pile since the lateral forces acting
on the piles are highly affected by the presence of and
loadings on neighboring piles. Several authors have
considered the group effect from the fundamental
standpoint of group (row) action. However, issues such
as the group effect on the lateral pile response and the
estimation of lateral soil movements are not well
understood. To evaluate the real pile-soil behavior, it is
necessary to simulate the three-dimensional geometry
and nonlinear behavior of the soil. Thus, in this study
three-dimensional finite element analysis was per-
formed.
2.1. Finite element modelling
2.1.1. FE mesh and boundary conditions
A commercial finite-element package, ABAQUS [13],
was used in this study. Table 1 summarizes the cases of
numerical analyses on pile groups with different cap
rigidity and spacing between piles. The cases of a single
pile and pile groups are analyzed for the spacing
between piles and pile head conditions. Fig. 1 shows
representative 3D FE meshes used in the analyses. The
mesh consists of 3D 8-noded solid elements and is
assumed to be resting on a rigid layer, and the vertical
boundaries at the left- and right-hand sides are assumed
to be on rollers to allow movement of soil layers. A
Table 1
Numerical analyses for one-row pile groups
Cap rigidity Free Unrotated
Spacing ratio (s/D)a 2.5 2.5
5.0 5.0
7.0 7.0
Single Single
a
s: center-to-center spacing between piles; D: diameter of pile.
relatively fine mesh was used near the pile–soil interface
while a coarser mesh was used further from the pile.
For certain group configurations, the use of symmetry
reduced the size of the mesh. Two symmetric boundaries
are used, so that the problem analyzed really consists of a
row of piles with planes of symmetry through the pile
centerline and through the soil midway between the piles.
Various sensitivity studies have been performed to design
the most appropriate FE mesh for 3D analyses. The
actual size of the mesh is related to the pile length; the
lower rigid boundary has been placed at a depth equal to
pile lengths and the side boundary has been extended lat-
erally to rm=2.5L(1
) [14]. It is found that this size was
sufficient for the analysis of one-row pile groups.
2.1.2. Constitutive model and material parameters
Table 2 summarizes the material parameters used in
the analyses. An isotropic elastic model was used for the
pile and an associated Mohr–Coulomb model was used
for the surrounding soil. The soil properties used in this
study were chosen to represent a typical weathered
soil (classified as SP or SM by USCS method). This soil
model includes a unit weight of 15.52 kN/m3 for com-
putation of gravity stresses. The elastic modulus was
specified to increase with depth, where Es was taken as
14635.z kPa (where z is the depth below the soil surface,
in m), which was based on the back calculated results
from axially loaded pile tests [15]. This model is thought
to provide a reasonable estimation of the material
properties of weathered soil. Since modeling of the
entire pile installation process is rather complicated [16],
the pile was assumed to be in a stress-free state of the
analysis. The stress change in the soil during pile instal-
lation was therefore not included.
2.1.3. Analysis process and interface modelling
After initial equilibrium stage of geostatic stress
(k0=0.5) in the soil, a prescribed displacement was
applied on the left-hand side boundary to induce soil
movement (Fig. 1). The bending moment was calculated
on the basis of the effective horizontal stress on the ele-
ment centroids by a drained analysis. The elasto-plastic
analyses were run to take into account the local yielding
at the pile-soil interface and horizontal sliding surface
and used an iterative and incremental analysis. The
material stiffness, for an elasto-plastic state, was con-
tinually changed and thus the iterative process was
repeated until the changes in material stiffness between
successive iterations were negligible. The incremental
procedure was composed of dividing the external dis-
Hinged
placement into many small and equal increments which
2.5 are applied incrementally.
5.0 The interface elements were composed of 2D quad-
7.0
ratic 4-node elements, each element a one 4-node sur-
Single
face compatible with the adjacent solid elements (the
two surfaces coincide initially). This model was selected
 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682 673

Fig. 1. Element mesh and boundary condition.

Table 2
Material properties and geometries

Material Model Properties

Soil Mohr-Coulomb Unit weight (kN/m3) 15.52

Friction angle ( ) 34
Elastic modulus (kPa) 1.46104.za
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0 0.5
Steel pile Isotropic elastic Unit weight (kN/m3) 77
Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.1108
Poisson’s ratio 0.25
Length (m) 20
Diameter (m) 0.4
Thickness (mm) 9
Interface Friction coefficient, Z Soil–soil 0.68
Pile–soil 0.37
a
z: depth below the soil surface, in m.

in the element library of ABAQUS. As shown in Fig. 2,
the interface elements of zero thickness can only trans-
fer shear forces across their surfaces when a compressive
normal pressure (p0 ) acts on them. When contact occurs,
the relationship between shear force and normal pres-
sure is governed by a modified Coulomb’s friction the-
ory. Thus, these elements are completely defined by
their geometry, a friction coefficient, , where =tan
(), an elastic stiffness, and a limiting displacement
crit response of each individual pile within a group will be
used to provide convergence. A limiting displacement of
5 mm was assumed for full mobilization of skin friction
as suggested by Broms [17].
2.2. Group interaction factors
Fig. 3 shows deformed pile and soil element meshes
for the three different cap rigidities subjected to a pre-
scribed displacement. As expected, due to different pile
head conditions, different pile deflections were observed.
In order to investigate the effect of pile–soil–pile inter-
action on the magnitude of free-field soil movement, the
compared with that of a single pile. Group effect may be
assessed in terms of loadings or bending moments and
deflections for laterally loaded piles. For the present
674 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682

to be noted that the group effect would be largely inde-

pendent of cap rigidity for relatively large displacements
(10, 20 and 30 mm) studied.
Fig. 5 shows the maximum bending moment as a
function of three different soil movements for the three
head conditions. As the soil movement increases, the
maximum bending moment of the pile with different
head conditions and pile spacings tends to increase. As
expected, the maximum bending moments is highly
dependent on the pile spacings and head conditions.
Fig. 2. Soil behavior at the interface before and after yielding. However, there was slight difference in interaction fac-
tors [defined as Eq. (1)] with an increase of lateral soil
study, the group effect was primarily assessed based on movement from 10 to 30 mm. Based on the numerical
the predicted bending moments. In using pile bending analysis, the interaction factors are presented for cap
moment for evaluating the group effect on the lateral rigidity, magnitude of soil movement and three spacing
pile response, an interaction factor is introduced which ratios (Table 3). From this table, there is a group effect
compares the maximum bending moment of a pile from and therefore a certain variation in interaction factors
a pile group test with that of the single pile test at the
same amount of the free-field soil movement, and is Table 3
expressed as follows; Interaction factors ()
MGðmaxÞ Cap Spacing Magnitude of soil displacement (mm)
¼ ð1Þ
MSðmaxÞ rigidity ratio
(s/D) 10 20 30 Average
where =group interaction factor, MG(max)=maximum
Free 2.5 0.58 0.65 0.69 0.64
bending moment of the pile in a group, and MS(max)=
5.0 0.80 0.76 0.77 0.78
maximum bending moment of the single pile. 7.0 0.87 0.86 0.93 0.89
Fig. 4 shows the bending moment profiles depending Single 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
on the magnitude of soil movements (10, 20 and 30 mm) Unrotated 2.5 0.84 0.81 0.80 0.82
for a spacing of 2.5 diameter (D) for the three different 5.0 0.93 0.97 0.91 0.94
7.0 0.97 0.98 0.95 0.96
head conditions, together with that for the single pile. At
Single 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
each displacement stage of soil movement, the bending Hinged 2.5 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.77
moment is slightly greater for a single pile than 2.5 D pile 5.0 0.90 0.94 0.91 0.92
groups; this shows almost similar behavior of bending 7.0 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.97
moment in the overall distribution and magnitude. It is Single 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Fig. 3. Deformed meshes for different cap rigidities.

 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682 675

Fig. 5. Maximum bending moment vs. soil movement curves.

for the three spacings and for the three soil movements
studied. However, as shown in Table 3, the average
value of interaction factor was used as input to study
group effect on an uncoupled analysis since there is
relatively small difference between the interaction fac-
tors in piles at 10 mm and 20 mm displacements and
those in 30 mm displaced piles.

3. Uncoupled analytical model

3.1. Analysis of stabilizing piles

The sliding soil mass above the failure surface is

assumed to be reinforced by the placed rows of piles
that resist soil movements and transfer loads to the
more stable underlying layers. Fig. 6 shows a passive
pile subjected to lateral soil movement, where the soil
mass is divided into an unstable layer (the passive pile
portion) and a stable layer (the active pile portion) [18].
In this paper, a model to compute load and deform-
ations of piles subjected to lateral soil movement based
on the transfer function approach is introduced. The
problem is decomposed into two components. First, the
pressure-displacement (P–) curves induced in the sub-
stratum is determined either from measured test data or

Fig. 4. Bending moment curves for different cap rigidities. Fig. 6. A pile undergoing lateral soil movement.
676 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682
from finite-element analysis. Second, a coupled set of P–
 curves is used as input to study the behavior of the
piles which can be modeled as a beam resting on non-
linear soil spring supports. Simple numerical solution
procedures are developed for fairly general conditions
(non-linear stress-strain behavior at the pile–soil inter-
face and non-homogeneous soil conditions). The gov-
erning equation for the pile deflection can be expressed
in separate forms for the pile segments along its z axis at
node i above [Eq. (2)] and below [Eq. (3)] the interface
(Fig. 7).
 4 
d w
EI ¼ p ¼ Ki ½ðys Þi
wi Þ ¼ Ki i
dz4 i
 4 
d w
EI þKi wi ¼ 0
dz4 i
where w=lateral pile displacement, ys=free-field soil
movement at each depth before pile installation, Ki=e-
lastic constant of soil (Es), EI=flexural rigidity of the
pile, i=relative displacement between free-field soil
movement (ys) and lateral pile displacement (w). The
elastic constant (Es) is related to the coefficient of sub-
grade reaction and a coupled set of P– curves is used as
input to study the behavior of piles which can be modeled
as a beam resting on nonlinear soil spring supports. A
hyperbolic function was used to describe the relationship
of the P– curve (Fig. 8) which has an ultimate pressure
(Pu) and an initial tangent stiffness (Es). The initial tan-
gent stiffness used in this study [19] was assumed to vary
linearly with depth z as specified in FE analysis case.
In P– curve analysis, it is common practice to esti-
mate a different ultimate lateral soil pressure Pu for each
pile in a group. In this study, the Pu value for each pile
in a group was assumed to be equal to that adopted for
the single pile multiplied by the group interaction factor
Fig. 7. A pile subjected to lateral soil displacement.
 as shown in Table 3. Here the Pu value for the single
pile was taken to 4.6 Pp for passive portion and 3.0 Pp
for active portion, where Pp is the Rankine’s passive
pressure (Fig. 7). A similar approach has been used
successfully to study the effects of the Pu value on the
response of each pile in a group [20].
A finite difference scheme was chosen to solve Eqs. (2)
and (3). It has been found that a convenient and pow-
erful procedure for solving the problem for non-homo-
geneous soil profiles and complicated inelastic P–
curves is to formulate a full set of nonlinear equations
by applying those equations and prescribed pile head
condition. In this study, the following four possible pile
ð2Þ head conditions were considered: (1) free head (allows
both displacement and rotation); (2) hinged head
(allows rotation without displacement); (3) unrotated
head (allows displacement without rotation); and (4)
ð3Þ fixed head (allows neither displacement nor rotation).
The nonlinear analyses were done to take into
account the theoretical P– curves for subgrade reaction
modulus through an iterative procedure. For each
iteration, the pile displacements from the previous solu-
tion are used to enter the nonlinear P– curves and
solution procedures are repeated until two successive
iterations obtain sets of displacements that agree with a
user-specified closure tolerance at all nodal points.
3.2. Safety factor of stabilized slope
The slope/pile stabilization scheme analyzed in this
study is shown in the Fig. 9. The conventional Bishop
simplified method is employed to determine the critical
circular sliding surface, resisting moment MR and over-
turning 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 assumed that the lat-
eral soil movement exerted by the sliding slope on the
pile results in the mobilization of shear forces and
Fig. 8. Hyperbolic P– curve.
 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682 677

Fig. 9. Forces on stabilizing piles and slope.

bending moment. Thus, the safety factor of the reinforced
slope with respect to circular sliding is calculated as:
F ¼ Fi þ DF
MR Vcr  R  cos
Mcr þ Vhead  Yhead
¼ þ
MD MD
where Fi=safety factor of un-stabilized slope;
F=increased safety factor of slope reinforced with
pile; Mcr=bending moment at critical surface;
Vcr=shear force at critical surface; and Vhead=shear
force at pile head. A microcomputer based computer
program (RSSP) has been developed using uncoupled
formulation to analyze the pile-slope stability problem
as described above (Fig. 10).
An idealized slope with a height of 10 m and a gradient
of 1 V:1.5 H and a ground thickness of 10 m is analyzed
with a three-dimensional finite element mesh, as shown
in Fig. 11. A steel tube pile with an outer diameter (D) of
0.8 m was used. The piles are treated as a linear elastic
ð4Þ
solid material and are installed in the middle of the slope
with Lx=7.5 m, and the center-to-center spacing s=3D.
The piles are embedded and fixed into the bedrock or a
stable layer. The material properties for prediction pur-
pose were selected based on their results, as shown in
Table 4. The horizontal soil movement was assumed: the
profile was back calculated by fitting their calculated
lateral deflections on different head conditions to that
computed by the present method.
When the slope is not reinforced with piles, the pre-
sent method and Cai et al. shear strength finite elemnt

4. Validation and application of the analytical model

Table 4
Material properties and geometries
The present uncoupled method is based on the load-
transfer of row of piles subjected to lateral soil move- Material Model Properties
ment. The validity of the uncoupled model was tested Soil Mohr–Coulomb Unit weight (kN/m3) 20.0
by comparison with other’s coupled analysis result. Cohesion(kPa) 10
Cai et al. [21] performed numerical analysis to inves- Friction angle ( ) 20
Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.0105
tigate the effect of stabilizing piles on the stability of a
Poisson’s ratio 0.25
slope. They performed a coupled analysis based on a Coefficient of earth 0.66
three-dimensional finite element method with an elasto- pressure at rest, K0
plastic constitutive model and shear strength reduction Steel pile Isotropic elastic Unit weight (kN/m3) 78.5
technique. The actual factor of safety is the ratio of the Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.0108
soil’s shear strength to the reduced shear strength at 6.0107
failure. So, in shear strength reduction technique, the Poisson’s ratio 0.2
factor of safety is calculated using a finite element Diameter (m) 0.8
method by reducing the soil shear strength until collapse Interface Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.0105
occurs. The numerical results by their coupled analysis Poisson’s ratio 0.25
Cohesion (kPa) 10
were compared with those obtained by present method
Friction coefficient, Z 0.364
(uncoupled analysis).
678 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682

Fig. 10. RSSP flow chart of computer program.

method gave safety factors of 1.13 and 1.14, respec-
tively; these compare well with each other. The failure
mechanism in the shear strength reduction finite element
method was represented by the difference between the
nodal displacements just before failure and the nodal
displacements when the shear strength reduction factor
is equal to unity. On the other hand, the safety factor of
a slope on pile spacings is shown in Fig. 12. As expec-
ted, the rate of increase in the safety factor increases
with decreasing the pile spacing. This figure also shows
that the present method (uncoupled analysis) can obtain
a quite similar rate change but higher value in the safety
factor compared to the shear strength reduction finite
element method (coupled analysis) proposed by Cai et
al. However, Bishop’s method based on limit equili-
brium method cannot consider the influence of the pile
head conditions on the safety factor due to the limit of
Ito-Matsui’s pressure equation, which is derived for
rigid piles.
Fig. 13 shows coupling effects in the safety factor on
pile positions obtained in this study with the solution
presented by Cai et al. The coupled results, obtained
 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682 679

Fig. 11. Model slope and finite element mesh.

Fig. 12. Effect of pile spacings on safety factor. Fig. 13. Effect of pile positions on safety factor (s/D=3).

with the shear strength reduction finite element method
show that the improvement of the safety factor of slopes
reinforced with piles is largest when the piles are instal-
led in the middle of the slopes, irrespective of pile head
conditions. However, present uncoupled solution shows
that the piles should be placed slightly closer to the top
of the slope for the largest safety factor. This is the same
as the results of the Bishop’s method. The reason for
this is that when the piles are placed in the middle por-
tions of the slopes, the strength of the soil–pile interface
is sufficiently mobilized by the fact that the pressure
acting on the piles is larger than that on the piles in the
upper portions of the slopes. This figure also shows
that the safety factor of slopes by uncoupled analysis is
larger than that by coupled analysis. This clearly
demonstrates that there exists pile/slope coupling, so
that the critical surface invariably change due to addi-
tion of piles and thus, the uncoupled analysis con-
sidering a fixed failure surface is limited in its
application.
680 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682
5. Parametric study
To examine the most effective means of using piles for
stabilizing slopes, a series of numerical analyses on sta-
bilizing piles were performed based on the major influ-
encing parameters such as the spacing between piles,
cap rigidity, the relative position of the pile row on the
slope, and profiles of lateral soil movements. A row of
piles embedded in a weathered soil as shown in Fig. 14
was analyzed. The steel pile considered is 400 mm in
diameter, 10 mm in thickness and has a Young’s mod-
ulus of 21011 kN/m2. The properties of homogeneous
weathered soil are: cohesion 5 kN/m2, friction angle 25
and unit weight 15 kN/m3. The water table was not
considered here. It was found that the safety factor of
the slope (without the pile reinforcement) was about
1.61. After insertion of a row of piles subjected to a
uniform soil movement, with 50 mm from the soil sur-
face to the critical failure surface, the slope/pile system
was analyzed by the present method (uncoupled analy-
sis). Factors influencing the factor of safety of the rein-
forced slope will be discussed in detail.
5.1. Effect of pile spacing (s/D)
The effect of pile spacing on the safety factor for pile
heads assumed to be free, unrotated, and hinged condi-
tion is shown in Fig. 15. As expected, the safety factor
increases significantly as the pile spacing decreases.
Here, spacings equal to or larger than 2.5 diameters
were selected because the ratios less than 2.5 are not
Fig. 14. Configuration for parametric studies.
practical, and this lower limit gives the maximum safety.
The numerical results, obtained with the uncoupled
analysis, show that the safety factor of slopes reinforced
with hinged head piles is larger than that with free head
piles. Therefore, a restrained pile head (hinged or fixed)
is recommended, and the free head condition should be
avoided due to its maximum bending moment in the
piles. A restrained head conditions can be reached with
tie-rods or tension anchors to restrain the displacement
of the pile head (i.e., hinged head) or obtained by con-
necting the pile heads with a buried beam fixed by tie-
rods or tension anchors to restrain the displacement and
rotation of the pile head (i.e., fixed head). Some exam-
ples of buried beams and tie-rods or tension anchors
can be seen in Design Guideline for Steel Pipe Pile to
Stabilize Landslide [22].
5.2. Effect of pile positions
Fig. 16 shows the safety factor as a function of the
relative position of the pile row on the slope and the pile
head conditions. Here, the pile positions in the slope are
shown with a dimensionless ratio of the horizontal dis-
tance between the slope toe and the pile position, Lx, to
the horizontal distance between the slope toe and slope
shoulder, L. The present uncoupled method predicts the
maximum safety factor when the piles are installed a
little closer to the top of the slopes, whereas the coupled
results as presented above show the largest safety factor
when the piles are installed in the middle portion of
slopes.
 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682
Fig. 15. Effect of pile spacings on safety factor.
Fig. 16. Effect of pile positions on safety factor.
5.3. Effect of soil movement profiles
Lateral soil movements due to slope failure have been
assessed as triangular, trapezoidal, and rectangular
profiles, with the maximum value at the soil surface,
varying to the level of the slip surface, as shown in
Fig. 17. Accurate assessments of lateral soil movements
are vital for prediction of the safety factor on slope.
Fig. 18 shows the safety factor as a function of the
profiles of lateral soil movement on the slope and the
pile head conditions. The rectangular shape results in
the largest safety factor, followed in order by the trape-
zoidal and triangular soil profiles. This is because the
shear strength of the soil–pile interface is sufficiently
681
Fig. 17. Profiles of lateral soil movements.
Fig. 18. Effect of lateral soil movement profiles on factor of safety.
mobilized by the maximum shear force acting around
the pile–soil slip surface in case of a rectangular soil
movement profile.
6. Conclusions
In this study a simplified analysis of slopes stabilized
with a row of piles has been presented and discussed
based on an analytical study and a numerical study. A
limited study of numerical analysis was carried out to
examine the group interaction factor for different pile
head conditions and spacing-to-diameter ratios varying
from 2.5 to 7.0. Moreover, an uncoupled analytical
method to consider pile–soil interaction in weathered
soil was introduced by using load-transfer analysis.
From the findings of this study, the following conclu-
sions are drawn:
(1) The uncoupled pile/slope analysis based on a dis-
placement-based method is intermediate in theoretical
accuracy between coupled analysis (continuum ana-
lysis) and uncoupled analysis based on pressure-based
method (Bishop’s method) developed by Ito and
Matsui.
682 S. Jeong et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 30 (2003) 671–682
(2) Single pile P– curves can be applied well for piles
in a row by considering pile–soil–pile interaction
effect. It is noted that the analysis for each pile in a
group was introduced by adopting ultimate pressure
for the single pile multiplied by the group interaction
factor.
(3) Through comparative studies, it has been found
that the prediction in the factor of safety in slope is
much more conservative for an uncoupled analysis
than for a coupled analysis based on three-dimen-
sional finite element analysis. However, the two
methods can obtain a similar rate of change in the
safety factor with decreasing the pile spacing.
(4) The pile top should be restrained (hinged or fixed)
when piles are used to stabilize slopes. This is because
a slope reinforced with restrained head piles shows
significantly larger safety factor of the slope. A
restrained head condition can be obtained by con-
necting the pile heads with a buried beam which is
fixed by the tie-rods or tension anchors.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by the Korean Ministry of
Construction and Transportation (Project No. 970009-
2). This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] De Beer EE, Wallays M. Forces induced in piles by unsymme-
trical surcharges on the soil round the piles. Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1972;1:325–32.
[2] Tschebotarioff GP. Lateral pressure of clayey soils on structures.
Proc, 8th ICSMFE Specialty Session 5, Moscow 1973;4(3):227–80.
[3] Ito T, Matsui T. Methods to estimate lateral force acting on sta-
bilizing piles. Soils and Foundations 1975;15(4):43–59.
[4] Springman SM. Lateral loading on piles due to simulated
embankment construction. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge,
1989.
[5] Hassiotis S, Chameau JL, Gunaratne M. Design method for sta-
bilization of slopes with piles. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(4):314–23.
[6] Poulos HG. Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1995;32:808–18.
[7] Cartier G, Gigan JP. Experiments and observations on soil nail-
ing structures. In: Proc. 8th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1983.
[8] Chen LT, Poulos HG, Hull TS. Piles subjected to lateral soil
movements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(9):802–11.
[9] Rowe RK, Poulos HG. A method for predicting the effect of piles
on slope behavior. Proc 3rd ICONMIG, Achen 1979;3:1073–85.
[10] Oakland MW, Chameau JLA. Finite-element analysis of drilled
piers used for slope stabilization. Laterally Loaded Foundation,
American Society for Testing and Materials 1984:182–93.
[11] Goh ATC, The CI, Wong KS. Analysis of piles subjected to
embankment induced lateral soil movements. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(4):
312–23.
[12] Poulos HG, Chen LT. Pile response due to excavation-induced
lateral soil movement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, ASCE 1997;123(2):94–9.
[13] Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. ABAQUS Version 5.8.
[14] Randolph MF, Wroth CP. Analysis of deformation of vertically
loaded piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 1978;104(12):1465–88.
[15] Kim SI, Jeong SS, Cho SH, Park IJ. Shear load transfer char-
acteristics of drilled shafts in weathered rocks. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 1999;
125(11):999–1010.
[16] Baquelin F, Frank R. Theoretical studies of piles using the finite
element method. Foundation Engineering. Presses Ponts et
Chaussees, 1982.
[17] Broms B. Negative skin friction. Proc 6th Asian Regional conf
Soil Mech Foundation Engineering, Singapore 1979;2:41–75.
[18] Chen LT. The effect of lateral soil movements on pile founda-
tions. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1994.
[19] Reese LC, William RC, Francis DK. Analysis of laterally loaded
piles in sand. Proc. 6th annual Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas. Paper No. 2080.
[20] Poulos HG. Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1995;32:808–18.
[21] Cai F, Ugai K. Numerical analysis of the stability of a slope
reinforced with piles. Soils and Foundation, Japanese Geo-
technical Society 2000;40(1):73–84.
[22] Design guideline for steel pipe pile to stabilize landslide. Japanese
Committee on Stabilizing Technology of Landslide, 1990.