Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coupled Effects in Stability Analysis of Pile-Slope Systems: Jinoh Won, Kwangho You, Sangseom Jeong, Sooil Kim
Coupled Effects in Stability Analysis of Pile-Slope Systems: Jinoh Won, Kwangho You, Sangseom Jeong, Sooil Kim
www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo
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
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
passive
portion
stable layer
active
portion
provides coupled solutions in which the pile response and ical surface invariably due to addition of piles on the
slope stability are considered simultaneously and thus, pile–slope stability problem. The coupled effects were
the critical surface invariably changes due to the addition tested against other case studies on the pile–slope stabil-
of piles, even though it is computationally expensive ity problem (see Figs. 1 and 2).
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 2. Uncoupled analysis by limit equilibrium method
the minimum shear strength required to prevent failure
[16]. As Duncan [17] points out, F is the factor by which A comprehensive study of uncoupled analyses has
the soil shear strength must be divided to bring the slope been reported by Jeong et al. [10]. They report an uncou-
to the verge of failure. Since it is defined as a shear pled analysis in which the pile response and slope stabil-
strength reduction factor, an obvious way of computing ity are considered separately. Here, the slope–pile
F with a finite element or finite difference program is stabilization scheme analyzed is shown in Fig. 3. The
simply to reduce the soil shear strength until collapse oc- conventional Bishop simplified method is employed to
curs. The resulting factor of safety is the ratio of the determine the critical circular sliding surface, resisting
soilÕs actual shear strength to the reduced shear strength moment MR and overturning moment MD. The resisting
at failure. This Ôshear strength reduction techniqueÕ was moment generated by the pile is then obtained from the
used as early as 1975 by Zienkiewicz et al. [18], and has pile shear force and bending moment developed in the
been applied by Naylor [19], Donald and Giam [20], pile at the depth of the sliding surface analyzed. It is as-
Matsui and San [21], Ugai and Leshchinsky [22], Cai sumed that the lateral soil pressure exerted by the sliding
and Ugai [23] and You et al. [24], etc. slope on the pile results in the mobilization of shear
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 y
Soil pressure
critical failure surface is found automatically. Applica-
z
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 passive portion
practice. interface
In this study, factors of safety obtained with the shear P
active portion
strength reduction technique were investigated for the Pu
pile
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 y
coupled analysis based on the shear strength reduction
method were performed to illustrate the changes of crit- Fig. 2. A pile subjected to lateral soil pressure.
306 J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315
start
Modify flexible
Input soil pressure(Ito & Matsui’s pressure)
rigidity (EI) and
diameter
Analysis the behavior of stabilizing pile
based on pressure-based method
Yes
Calculate bending moment and shear force on
critical surface
Yes
Determine optimized flexible rigidity (EI), diameter,
position and spacing of stabilized pile
end
(a) Nodal velocity vectors by FLAC 3D and critical slip circle by BishopÕs simplified method.
Fig. 9. Comparative results between shear strength reduction and BishopÕs simplified method.
5.2. Effect of pile bending stiffness ably smaller than that of fixed head piles, whereas the
piles with larger YoungÕs modulus (Ep = 25 GPa) have
The effect of the bending stiffness is investigated by almost identical pressure distributions, regardless of
changing only the equivalent YoungÕs modulus, Ep, of the pile head conditions, as shown in Fig. 12(b) and
the piles. The piles are installed with Lx = 12.2 m, and (c). In addition, the pressure on the piles is almost the
the center-to-center spacings of 2.5D, 3.0D, 3.5D, and same for the two bending stiffness values when the pile
4.0D. As shown in Fig. 12(a), the safety factor of a slope head is fixed.
stabilized with piles for different bending stiffness values In this study, the value of EpIp was taken as con-
shows that the pile head conditions have more influence stant by assuming the pile elastic. However, the crack-
on the safety factor of the slope when the piles are more ing of the pile itself may occur in the loading with a
flexible (Ep = 1.43 GPa). However, for piles with larger significant reduction in EpIp. To understand the true
YoungÕs modulus (Ep = 25 GPa), the safety factor is behavior, yielding of the pile is considered by taking
almost the same, regardless of the pile head conditions. into account the compressive strength of the concrete.
This is because the pressure on the free headed pile with Fig. 13 shows the typical reduction distribution of the
smaller YoungÕs modulus (Ep = 1.43 GPa) are consider- EpIp as the bending moment is increased; therefore, a
J. Won et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 32 (2005) 304–315 311
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
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
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
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
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)
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
1.8
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
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
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
References [14] Goh ATC, The CI, Wong KS. Analysis of piles subjected to
embankment induced lateral soil movements. J Geotech Geoen-
[1] De Beer EE, Wallays M. Forces induced in piles by unsymmet- viron Eng, ASCE 1997;123(4):312–23.
rical surcharges on the soil round the piles. Conf Soil Mech [15] Poulos HG, Chen LT. Pile response due to excavation-induced
Found Eng 1972;1:325–32. lateral soil movement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE
[2] Tschebotarioff GP. Lateral pressure of clayey soils on structures. 1997;123(2):94–9.
In: Proceedings of the 8th ICSMFE Specialty Session 5, Moscow, [16] Bishop AW. The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of
vol. 4(3); 1973. p. 227–80. slopes. Geotechnique 1955;5:7–17.
[3] Ito T, Matsui T. Methods to estimate lateral force acting on [17] Duncan JM. State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite-element
stabilizing piles. Soils Found 1975;15(4):43–59. analysis of slopes. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1996;122(7):577–96.
[4] Baguelin F, Frank R, Said YH. Theoretical study of lateral [18] Zienkiewicz OC, Humpheson C, Lewis RW. Associated and non-
reaction mechanism of piles. Geotechnique 1977;27(3):405–34. associated visco-plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics. Geo-
[5] Bourges F, Frank R, Mieussens C. Calcul des efforts et des technique 1975;25(4):671–89.
déplacements engendres par des poussées latérals de sol sur les [19] Naylor DJ. Finite element and slope stability. Num Meth
pieux. Note Technigue. Paris: Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Geomech. In: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study
Chausées; 1980. Institute, Lisbon, Portugal; 1981. p. 229–44.
[6] Springman SM. Lateral loading on piles due to simulated [20] Donald IB, Giam SK. Application of the nodal displacement
embankment construction. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge; method to slope stablilty analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th
1989. Australia–New Zealand conference on geomechanics, Sydney,
[7] Poulos HG. Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability. Australia; 1988. p. 456–60.
Can Geotech J 1995;32:808–18. [21] Matsui T, San KC. Finite element slope stability analysis by shear
[8] Hassiotis S, Chameau JL, Gunaratne M. Design method for strength reduction technique. Soils Found 1992;32(1):59–70.
stabilization of slopes with piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, [22] Ugai K, Leshchinsky D. Three-dimensional limit equilibrium and
ASCE 1997;123(4):314–23. finite element analysis: a comparison of result. Soils Found
[9] Chen LT, Poulos HG. Piles subjected to lateral soil movements. J 1995;35(4):1–7.
Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 1997;123(9):802–11. [23] Cai F, Ugai K. Numerical analysis of the stability of a slope
[10] Jeong S, Kim B, Won J, Lee J. Uncoupled analysis of stabilizing reinforced with piles. Soils Found, Jpn Geotech Soc
piles in weathered slopes. Comput Geotech 2003;30:671–82. 2000;40(1):73–84.
[11] Rowe RK, Poulos HG. A method for predicting the effect of piles [24] You KH, Park YJ, Dawson EM. Stability analysis of jointed/
on slope behavior. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ICONMIG, weathered rock slopes using the Hoek–Brown failure criterion.
Aachen, vol. 3; 1979. p. 1073–85. Geosyst Eng 2000;3(3):90–7.
[12] Oakland MW, Chameau JLA. Finite-element analysis of drilled [25] FLAC, Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua, version 3.3, Itasca
piers used for slope stabilization. Laterally Loaded Foundation. Consulting Group; 1995.
American Society for Testing and Materials; 1984. p. 182–93. [26] Otter JRH, Cassell AC, Hobbs RE. Dynamic relaxation. Proc
[13] Bransby MF, Springman SM. 3-D finite element modelling of pile Inst Civil Eng 35:633–56.
groups adjacent to surcharge loads. Comput Geotech 1996; [27] Randolph MF, Wroth CP. Analysis of deformation of vertically
19(4):301–24. loaded piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1978;104(12):1465–88.