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

net/publication/354323921

Pile optimization in slope stabilization by 2D and 3D numerical analyses

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · September 2021

DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2021.1972628

CITATIONS READS

8 1,332

4 authors:

Mohamed Amine Benmebarek Sadok Benmebarek

Széchenyi István University, Gyor Université de Biskra
6 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Majid Movahedi Rad Richard P Ray

Széchenyi István University, Gyor Széchenyi István University, Gyor
83 PUBLICATIONS   367 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   546 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Review of Expansive Soils Stabilization Using Chemical & Mechanical View project

SZE-RAIL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Amine Benmebarek on 01 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Pile optimization in slope stabilization by 2D and

3D numerical analyses

Mohamed Amine Benmebarek, Sadok Benmebarek, Majid Movahedi Rad &

Richard Ray

To cite this article: Mohamed Amine Benmebarek, Sadok Benmebarek, Majid Movahedi Rad
& Richard Ray (2021): Pile optimization in slope stabilization by 2D and 3D numerical analyses,
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2021.1972628

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2021.1972628

Published online: 02 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2021.1972628

Pile optimization in slope stabilization by 2D and 3D numerical analyses

a
Mohamed Amine Benmebarek , Sadok Benmebarekb, Majid Movahedi Rada and Richard Raya
a
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, SzéchenyiIstván University, University of Győr, Győr, Hungary; bNmissi Laboratory,
Department of Civil Engineering and Hydraulic, Biskra University, Biskra, Algeria

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, numerical computations using PLAXIS 2D and 3D have been conducted to optimize a row of Received 28 November 2020
piles in cohesive-frictional slope stabilization. First, 2D parametric studies were performed to identify Accepted 21 August 2021
both the optimal location and length of the pile as well as the effect of pile head conditions. Next, more KEYWORDS
rigorous parametric studies taking account of the exact geometry was carried out using 3D analyses. Lope stabilization; finite
According to the obtained results, the fixed pile head located at the slope middle better improves the element analysis; factor of
stability and reduces the optimal length of the pile. Piles with free head contribute marginally to the safety; optimal location;
increased factor of safety of cohesive-frictional slope. In 3D analyses, it is shown that spacing ratio beyond optimal spacing; optimal
S/D = 4 (S: pile spacing, D: diameter of the pile) , the soil will flow between piles leading to a total vanish of length
the arching effect when S/D exceeds 12. Comparing the results, the limitation of 2D analysis for piled
cohesive-frictional slope is highlighted.

Introduction which considers slope stability and pile response separately.

Landslides occurring in both natural and cut slopes often
result in loss of lives and serious damage to property
(Zhang et al. 2018; Tang et al. 2019). In recent two decades
the use of piles as a technique to stabilize slopes or to
improve slope stability, has been proved to be an effective
solution against landslides (Wei and Cheng 2009; Nian
et al. 2008; Guo 2013). Single or multiple rows of stabiliz­
ing piles can be installed on an existing slope or after
earthwork and can also be combined with other slope
stabilization techniques, such as lowering the water table
and using ground anchors. However, the interaction among
piles installed in a slope is a complicated phenomenon and
depends on the slope geometry, soil heterogeneity, pile and
soil strength and stiffness properties, pile length and pile
spacing (S) in a row. Furthermore, the earth pressures
applied to the piles are highly dependent upon the relative
movement of the soil and the piles. Accordingly to analyse
pile-stabilized slopes and to design the piles needed to
stabilize slopes or to reduce the potential for landslides,
a large number of approaches such as limit equilibrium
methods, limit analysis methods and continuum methods
were used.
Both limit equilibrium methods (Ito and Matsui 1975;
Hassiotis, Chameau, and Gunaratne 1997; He et al. 2015;
Poulos 1995; Chow 1996; Chen and Poulos 1997; Jeong
et al. 2003; Galli and Prisco2013) and limit analysis meth­
ods (Ausilio, Conte,and, and Dente 2001; Li, He,and, and
Wang 2006; Nian et al. 2008; Qin et al. 2017; Li et al. 2020)
include uncoupled analysis of the pile–soil interaction,
Usually, in such cases, the location of the slip surface must
be presumed. However, the continuum methods such as
finite element and finite difference methods, incorporate
coupled analysis of the pile–soil interaction. No potential
slip surface has to be assumed before the numerical analy­
sis is conducted. In recent two decades, continuum meth­
ods have been used by several researchers to investigate the
soil–pile interaction in pile reinforced slopes due to drastic
improvement in computing tools(Cai and Ugai 2000; Jeong
et al. 2003; Won et al. 2005; Yamin and Liang 2010;
Kourkoulis et al. 2012; Ho 2017). With fewer simplifying
assumptions, these methods can presently tackle the entire
three-dimensional (3D) problem, taking account of the
exact geometry, soil-pile interaction, and pile group effects.
Many studies have been conducted in order to establish the
optimal location of the piles within a slope, pile length and pile
spacing. However, the results obtained are rather different, and
in some cases even inconsistent and contradictory.
In order to better investigate soil-pile interaction and
optimize pile cohesive-frictional slope stabilization regard­
ing the increase of factor of safety (FS), a review of the
literature was first examined. Thereafter, using numerical
analyses by PLAXIS 2D and 3D FE, parametric studies
were performed to study the effect of the pile head condi­
tions and to identify the optimal location as well the
optimal length of piles within cohesive-frictional stabilized
slope. Finally, more rigorous parametric studies of pile
spacing have been conducted using PLAXIS 3D FE
technique.

CONTACT Sadok Benmebarek s.benmebarek@univ-biskra.dz Nmissi Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering and Hydraulic, Biskra University, BP 145,
Biskra 07000, Algeria
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. A. BENMEBAREK ET AL.
Literature review
Pile location
Many studies have been carried out in order to establish the
most suitable location of the piles within a slope stabilized by
piles. Ito, Matsui, and Hong (1979) conducted the stability
analysis of slope reinforced with row piles. They concluded
that the maximum effect of piles on slope stability is when they
are placed in the upper-middle part of the slope. In agreement
with this conclusion are the conclusions from Poulos (1995)
and Jeong et al. (2003) using coupled analysis. Hassiotis,
Chameau, and Gunaratne (1997) and Lee, Hull, and Poulos
(1995) from the uncoupled analysis presented that the optimal
location will be in the upper part of the slope closer to the top.
Lee, Hull, and Poulos (1995), using the simplified Bishop’s slip
circle approach, analysed the case of a purely cohesive soil
slope, and they found that the most effective pile positions
are at the toe and crest. A similar conclusion was made by Li
et al. (2012) using limit analysis approach. Rho et al. (2017)
concluded that the optimum location of the piles is between
the middle and top of the slope. Ausilio, Conte,and, and Dente
(2001) and Nian et al. (2008) found as optimal location near
the toe of the slope. Li et al. (2020) proposed analytical model
to analyse optimal location of double-row pilestabilized slopes.
The authors concluded that the optimal locations of double-
rowpiles lie within middle-lower part of the corresponding
stabilized part of the slope.
Cai and Ugai (2000) using 3Dfinite element (FE) method,
have noted that the piles should be located in the middle of the
slope to achieve the maximum factor of safety(FS) for the
slope. Won et al. 2005, using the finite difference code
FLAC3D, drawn the conclusion that the piles should be
installed in the middle of slope where the pressure acting on
the piles is the largest. Wei and Cheng (2009), using the code
FLAC3D,have arrived at the conclusion that the improvement
of the FS of slopes reinforced with piles is the largest when the
piles are installed in the middle of the slopes. Ho (2017) used
2D and 3D ABAQUS FEcodes to examine the behaviour of
homogeneous slope with foundation reinforced by a row of
piles. He found that the highest FS for both free and fixedhead
piles takes place in the middle of portion of a slope.
From the above review, the results obtained by numerical
analyses indicated that the optimal location of piles is in the
vicinity of the middle of the slope, whereas, the results of the
limit equilibrium and limit analysis showed that the optimal
pile location is dispersed: near the toe, middle and top of the
slope. The divergences in limit equilibrium and limit analysis
methods are due to the fact that the force provided by the piles
was considered in different ways (Li et al. 2012).
Pile length
Pile length has a considerable effect on slope stabilization
costs. Hence, it is tried to reduce pile length to the extent
that it does not significantly affect the growth of FS. The
literature has indicated that a number of presented case
studies can be observed regarding pile length used in engi­
neering applications. Ausilio, Conte,and, and Dente (2001),
proposed a pile length two times the height of the pile above
the slip surface. Liu and Liu (2011)examined the effects of
pile spacing and pilehead conditions on the critical pile
length, and they noted that the critical pile length increases
with decreasing pile spacing. Kourkoulis (2012), used hybrid
method, concluded that the critical embedment depth to
achieve fixity conditions at the base of the pile is found to
range from 0.7 to 1.5 the slope height, depending on the
relative strength of the unstable ground compared to that of
the stable ground. Based on numerical analyses, Ho (2017)
studied homogeneous cohesive-frictional slope stabilized by
piles. He concluded that the ratio of pile length to slope
height greater than 0.7 is the optimal pile length for slope
reinforced with fixedhead piles. From the abovementioned,
more studies are needed to better interpret the pile-slope
interaction.
Pile spacing
Moreover, pile spacing has also a considerable effect on slope
stabilization costs. Increasing the spacing ratio S/D generates
the soil arching effect between piles leading to lowering the
cost. However, beyond a critical value, the soil can flow
between the piles limiting the arching effect and therefore the
reinforcement of the slope. So,spacing effects are not easy to
model using the 2D FE technique and the more suitable
approach is to use the 3D geometry. According to Reese et al.
(1992), and Liang and Zeng (2002), pile spacing S ≤ 5D is
required to generate soil arching effect between the piles. For
S > 5D, the soil will flow between them. Kahyaoglu et al.
(2009), using 3D FE analysis, reported that arching is not
effective after larger spacing than 8D. Kourkoulis et al. (2011,
2012) concluded that the most economical and optimal pile
spacing ratio that results in the formation of the arching effect
in the soil is S/D = 4. Ho (2017), using 2D and 3D ABAQUSFE,
found that FSfrom the 3D analyses was close to FS from the 2D
analyses when the S/D is close to 4. The author concluded that
the 2D FE analysis will be less conservative if S/Disgreater
than 4.
From the above, the results of the analytical and numerical
approaches are consistent with the common engineering prac­
tice consideringS/D = 4 as the optimal pile spacing in slope
stabilization applications.
Stability analysis of slopes using strength reduction
method
In recent years, the strength reduction method (SRM) has
increasingly been used associated with finite element and finite
difference methods for slope stability analyses. The successful
use of this method is also well documented (Zienkiewicz,
Humpheson, and Lewis 1975; Griffiths and Lane 1999;
Stianson, Fredlund, and Chan 2011; Nian et al. 2012). The
application of the SRMhas been shown to be a powerful and
a useful alternative to conventional limit equilibrium methods
slope stability analysis technique (Griffiths and Lane 1999;
Griffiths and Marquez 2007) and is increasingly incorporated
in commercial finite element codes like PLAXIS (2017),
ABAQUS (2012) and FLAC (Itasca Consulting Group Inc
FLAC 2015).

In this method, the SRF is applied to reduce the strength of
soil to the point of failure. The SRF, regarded as the factor
equivalent to the FS in the limit equilibrium analyses, is the
basis of a safety analysis used in PLAXIS to calculate a global
FS (PLAXIS 2017). The reduction of strength parameters
(cohesion and tangent of the friction angle) is controlled by
the total multiplier ΣMsf (Equation 1). ΣMsf is set to 1.0 at the
start of a calculation to set all material strengths to their
unreduced values and increased in step-by-step procedure
until failure occurs. The strength parameters of the soil, as
well as the interfaces, are reduced in the same proportion:
XM tangφinput
cinput
sf ¼ ¼ (1)
tangφreduced creduced
Where the strength parameters with the subscript ‘input’ refer
to the properties entered in the material sets and parameters
with the subscript ‘reduced’ refer to the reduced values used in
the analysis. The safety factors (Equation 2) is then defined as
value at failure:
Availablestrength XM
SF ¼ ¼ valueof sfatfailure
Strengthatfailure
Cases study
In order to optimize pile location, pile length and pile spacing,
and to analyse the effect of pile head conditions for cohesive-
frictional soil piled slopes, 2D and 3D FE techniques were
used. First to validate the accuracy of the results of the numer­
ical models of slope stability analysis, the geometry and the soil
characteristics are consistent with some previous studies done
by Griffiths and Lane (1999) and Rockscience (2004), which
were used as benchmark case to study the applicability of 3D
FE analyses to slope stability. This case concerns
a homogeneous cohesive-frictional soil slope with foundation
layer. Then, using PLAXIS 2D and 3D,the effect of the rein­
forcement of this case of slope with a row of piles is analysed
and compared to results reported by Ho (2014, 2017). At last,
parametric studies are investigated to optimize pile location,
pile length, and pile spacing for piled slope with different fixity
conditions of the pile head.
2D and 3D FE analyses
The 3D numerical modelling is computationally intensive and
time consuming particularly for parametric studies.
Accordingly, the 2D numerical modelling has been widely
employed and applied for solving problems of landslides and
2
Figure 1. Homogeneous slope with foundation. Slope angle 2 H/V, ϕ’ = 20°, c’H/γ = 0.05 (Griffiths and Lane 1999; Ho 2017).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3
slope stabilizing using piles. However, the soil flow between
piles and the spacing effects are not easy to model using the 2D
technique. The 3D numerical modelling was employed to
overcome the limitations observed in 2D numerical analysis
as the arching effect and the soil flow between piles. Therefore,
finite element analyses for unpiled and piled slopes are carried
out by developing 2D and 3D models in PLAXIS2D and 3D
(PLAXIS 2017). In PLAXIS 2D FE analyses, the 15-node ele­
ment is used to model soil formations, however, cylindricalpi­
lesareconverted into plain strain pile wall modelled using plate
elements. For PLAXIS 3D FE analyses, the soil formations and
the pile volume are modelled by 10 nodes tetrahedral mesh
elements. The material behaviour of soil in this study is simu­
lated with a linear elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive law
using the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion which is still widely
accepted by most researchers for laterally loaded pile problem,
as it does not require complex parameters. The interaction
between piles and surrounding soil is modelled by using inter­
face elements. In general, for real soil–structure interaction
interface is weaker and more flexible than the soil and in the
(2) absence of detailed information, a partially rough interface is
considered by using the strength reduction factor interface
(Rinter = 0.75). This factor relates the interface strength to the
surrounding soil strength. The model is first brought to an
equilibrium stress-state under gravitational loading before the
installation of the pile. In the next stage of analysis, the model
is brought into equilibrium after the installation of the pile. In
2D analyses, the row of piles is converted into a plain strain
pile wall modelled using plate elements connected to the soil
mesh via interface elements attached on both sides of the plate
elements. In 3D analyses, the installation is modelled by acti­
vating the interface and changing the properties of the pile
zones from the properties representing the soil material to
those representing the pile material. Finally, at equilibrium,
the SF is computed by means of SRM. The outcomes are
presented, compared and discussed in the following.
Slope stability analysis for unpiled slopes
In order to develop an acceptable analysis scheme for later
parametric studies, preliminary simulations by testing the size
of the domain, the mesh refinement, and the boundary condi­
tions have been first carried out. Then, the benchmark case
presented by Griffiths and Lane (1999) is investigated. This
case is characterized by a slope angle 26.57°, slope height
H = 40 m and underlined by a foundation layer of thickness
H/2 (Figure 1). The parameters used for this case are shown in
Table 1. In the 2D FE analysis, using the standard fixity of
1 H
0.5 H
4 M. A. BENMEBAREK ET AL.

Table 1. Slope dimension and material properties. with the conclusions found by several other authors (i.e.
C’ γ H E Duncan 1996; Griffiths and Marquez 2007; Nian et al. 2012;
(kPa) ϕ’ (°) (kN/m3) (m) (MPa) υ
Ho 2017).
40 20 20 40 100 0.3
Figures 2 and 3 show the slope failure mechanisms for
PLAXIS 2D and 3D FE analyses respectively. These mechan­
Table 2. Comparison of FS for stability analyses using LE and FE methods.
isms are visualized by shading the increments of total displace­
ment. It can be observed that the same shape failure is obtained
Slope stability analysis method
by PLAXIS 2D and 3D FE analyses.
Limite quilibrium method Finite element method
Type of failure surface/FS
Method Circular Log-spiral Method FS 2D and 3D FE analyses of piled slope stability
Janbu 1.290 1.280 Ho (2017) ABAQUS 2D 1.38
Bishop 1.376 1.361 Ho (2017) ABAQUS 3D 1.39 A study on the effect of pile slope location, pile length and pile
Spencer 1.373 1.363 Griffiths and Lane (1999) 1.37 spacing on the stability of piled slope is performed using
GLE 1.378 1.348 Presentresult 1.36
PLAXIS 2D PLAXIS 2D and 3D FE techniques. The geometry and the
Ordinary 1.309 1.287 Presentresult 1.38 characteristics of pile are the same used by Ho (2017) for
LAXIS 3D comparison purpose. The 3D model of FE for the pile-slope
system is presented in Figure 4.
For baseline calculation, the S/D is taken equal 4 because it
PLAXIS 2D, the left and right vertical boundary conditions are
is a critical value to compare with the 2D analyses and it is
restricted in horizontal movement and the bottom is restricted
recommended in literature to be cost effective in design.
in both horizontal and vertical directions. To have a FS inde­
In PLAXIS 2D FE analyses, the pile is modelled as a plate
pendent on the length used in the third direction in the 3D FE
with equivalent stiffness and strength in which the pile stiffness
analysis, the roller-roller boundary conditions are applied. In
is divided by the spacing S. It is assumed that the piles are
order to reduce the computational time and for purpose com­
elastic without plastic deformation. The Young’s modulus of
parison with the results presented by Ho (2017) the length is
the pile is 30 GPa and the Poisson’s ratio is 0.28 the same
defaulted to be 25% H = 10 m.
values adopted by Ho (2017) for comparison purpose.
The results are compared with limit equilibrium and
For the pile tips, no restrictions are applied. The boundary
ABAQUS 2D and 3D FE results given by Ho (2017). The
conditions of pile heads are assumed to be fixed head (neither
results of slope stability analyses using these methods are
displacement nor rotation), hinged head (rotation without
summarized in Table 2.
displacement), non-rotated head (displacement without rota­
The FS obtained by PLAXIS 2D and PLAXIS 3D are 1.36
tion) and free head (displacement and rotation) in the ana­
and 1.38 respectively. These results are in agreement with the
lyses. For slope reinforced with one row of piles, fixed or
results (1.38 and 1.39) from ABAQUS 2D and 3D obtained by
hinged head conditions would be difficult to be accomplished
Ho (2017) and the result 1.37 given by Griffiths and Lane
in field, unless the pile heads are connected with strong beam
(1999) using 2D FE analysis. The FS obtained by FE analyses
or retaining wall and strongly anchored.
using PLAXIS as well as ABAQUS concord well with the limit
equilibrium methods mainly Bishop, Spencer, GLE. However
Ordinary and Janbu methods show less value of FS. The FS Optimal pile location
obtained using the PLAXIS 3D FE analysis is 1.38 which is As discussed previously, some studies recommend the optimal
about 1.5% higher than the results using the 2D FE analysis. pile location is the middle, others at the crest and some at the
The result is found without being given a major difference toe of the slope based on different approaches. To verify the
between 2D and 3D FE models. The results are convenient best location of the piles to stabilize the slope, 2D and 3D FE
analyses are carried out. The pile position is denoted by the
dimensionless ratio of the horizontal distance between the

Figure 2. PLAXIS 2D FE slope failure mechanism visualized by shadings of the total displacement increments.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

Figure 3. PLAXIS 3D FE slope failure mechanism visualized by shadings of the total displacement increments.

Figure 4. Piled slope system model (Xp/X = 0.50, L = 35 m) (Ho 2017).

slope toe and the pile position, Xp, to the horizontal distance the relative position of the pile row on the slope for 2D and 3D
between the slope toe and the slope shoulder, X, as shown in
Figure 4. Figures 5 and Figures 6 show the FS as a function of

1.9

1.80 Free head

1.8
Non-rotated head
1.79
Fixed head
1.7
Hinged head
Factor of Safety

1.6
1.60
1.51 1.55
1.5 1.54

1.44 1.45 1.38

1.4 1.43
1.38
1.36
1.36 1.38

1.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Xp/X

Figure 5. FS versus Xp/X for different pile head conditions using PLAXIS 2D.
6 M. A. BENMEBAREK ET AL.
1.9
1.8
1.7
Factor of Safety
1.6
1.54
1.5
1.4 1.39
1.3
0 0.2
Figure 6. FS versus Xp/X
FE analyses respectively. The results indicate that, for all pile
head conditions, the highest FS takes place in the middle of the
portion of a slope (Xp/X = 0.5).
The stabilizing piles are found to have little effect on the
stability improvement when they are placed at the crest (Xp
/X = 1.0) and at the toe Xp/X = 0.0), regardless of the condition
of the pile head. For 2D analyses, the FSobtained at the crest
(1.38) is very close to the FS of the un-piled slope (1.36). If the
piles are placed in the middle of the slope (Xp/X = 0.5), for 2D
analyses, theFS will increase to 1.80, 1.79, 1.60 and 1.45 for
fixed, hinged, non-rotated and free head piles respectively. As
well, for 3D analyses, the FS will increase to 1.79, 1.60 and 1.47
for fixed, non-rotated and free head piles respectively. From
these results, it can be concluded that the optimal pile location
is at the middle portion of the slope, where Xp/X = 0.5 and
fixed head and hinged head lead to more improvement of FS.
The non-rotated head increases the FS but less than fixed head
and higher than free head pile.
Thus, pile location and pile head fixity strongly influence
the FS. This influence can be consolidated by three different
failure mechanisms captured depending on the pile position in
the case of fixed pile head. As shown in Figure 7, when the piles
are located between the crest and near the middle of the slope,
potential failure will occur in the downslope below the top of
the piles. However, when the piles are installed between the
middle and the toe of the slope, potential failure will occur in
the up-slope. These different captured failure mechanisms are
consistent with failure modes noted by Li et al. (2020) from
centrifuge model tests examining the effect of pile location on
piled slope. The sensitivity of the failure mechanism to pile
location explains the difference obtained for FS.
Pile length optimized
A ratio (L/H) between the actual pile length (L) and the slope
height (H) is used to study the effect of pile length. The actual
length of the pile varies from 8 to 38 m and the height of the
1.79
Free head
Non-rotated head
Fixed head
1.62
1.60
1.57
1,51
1.47 1.47 1.43
1.44 1.44
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Xp/X
for different pile head conditions using PLAXIS 3D.
slope is 40 m. The range of the ratio, L/H, is between 0.2 and
0.95. Figure 8 presents four results with respect to free, non-
rotated, hinged and fixed pile heads for PLAXIS 2D analysis.
However, two results with respect to free and fixed pile heads
are claimed in Figure 9 for PLAXIS3D analyses. For fixed head
with L/H ≥ 0.5, the FS remains equal to 1.80 and 1.79 respec­
tively for 2D and 3D FE analyses. When L/H < 0.5, FS
decreases and 3D FE analyses are more critical than 2D FE
analyses. For the hinged head, the FS increases with the
increase of pile length until L/H = 0.7 and beyond that remains
equal to 1.79. For non-rotated head no optimal length is
obtained. The FS increases from 1.36 to 1.61 when the L/H
increases from 0.5 to 0.95 for 2D FE analyses. Also, for the free
head piles, the FS increases from 1.36 to 1.45 when the L/H
increases from 0.5 to 0.95 and remains constant for L/H ≤ .05.
But the increase rate of the FS is very limited, with only a 7%
difference. In this analysis, the optimal L/H ratio for the fixed­
head pile is about 0.5, and no particular optimal pile length
ratio can be observed for free head pile. The results for the free
head pile indicate the increase of FS is very marginal.
Effect of pile spacing
Figure 10 compares the spacing effect in the 2D and 3D FE
analyses considering elastic behaviour for piles. In the 2D ana­
lysis results, the spacing effect was not visible in this model even
though the equivalent pile stiffness is reduced as a function of
pile spacing. In the 3D model, the ratio S/D = 4 is found to
obtain a FS close to that of the 2D model. If the spacing ratio
keeps increasing, the reduction of FS is more pronounced for S/
D ≥ 4 and will approach the FS for un-piledslope. Based on
these results, it can be deduced that 2D FE analyzes will be less
conservative if S/D greater than 4 is analysed.
To more understand the sensibility of FS to the spacing and
the pile head conditions effects, potential failure mechanisms
for different space (S/D = 2, 4, 8, 12) are investigated and
plotted in Figures 11–14.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

Figure 7. Effect of pile position with fixed pile head on failure mechanism of slope reinforced with piles.
8 M. A. BENMEBAREK ET AL.

1.9
1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
1.8 1.75
1.78 1.79 1.79
Free head
1.7
Fixity head
1.65
Factor of Safety 1.6 1.61 Non-rotated head
1.59
Hinged head
1.51 1.52
1.5
1.46 1.41
1.38 1.45
1.4 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.43
1.38
1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36
1.3
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
L/H

Figure 8. FS versus L/H (PLAXIS 2D).

1.9
Pile internal forces
1.79 1.79 1.79 Shear and bending moment diagrams at piled slope failure
1.8 are the key parameters for design piles in slope stabiliza­
1.75
tion. Figures 15–16 show the effect of pile head conditions
1.7 on shear and bending moment diagrams at piled slope
1.65
Factor of Safety

1.6
1.5
1.42 1.43
1.4
1.3
0.1 0.3
Figure 9. FS versus L/H (PLAXIS 3D).
For all S/D ratios with free head, the failure mechanism
affects the total height of the slope and seems to be the same
rotation pile about its toe. This is in good agreement with the
weak improvement of the FS with the decrease of S/D
(Figure 10). From the comparison of the two model face in
the third direction for total fixed head (Figure 11) vertical
plane of symmetry at the centre between piles (Face A) and
vertical plane of symmetry passing through the axis of the pile
(Face B), the failure mechanism is the same and located at the
upslope pile. It can be concluded that for S/D = 2 with fixed
head pile the soil doesn’t flow between the piles and the arch­
ing effect is totally formed.
For S/D = 4, 8 and 12 (Figures 12–14), only fixed head pile
affects and devises the failure mechanism to upslope and down­
slope pile at the face A. However at the face B, the effect of the
presence of pile on potential failure mechanism decreases and
for S/D = 12 the effect is totally marginal. This observation is in
good agreement with the decrease of FS until S/D = 12.
Free head failure state for two selected pile locations Xp/X = 0.5
Fixed head and 0.75 respectively. At location Xp/X = 0.5 (Figure 15),
the pile shear and bending moment diagrams have the
same shape but more loaded than at Xp/X = 0.75
1,47 1.47 (Figure 16). This is in agreement with the higher obtained
1.44 1.45
value of FS at the middle of the slope (Xp/X = 0.5).
Restrained pile head generates different shapes of shear
and bending moment depending on the restriction of pile
head and the pile movement.
By analysing Figures 15–16, it can be noted that for the free
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
pile head, the shear and bending moment are the lowest except
L/H
for the increase of shear at the lower part of the pile which can
be attributed to the concentration of the shear band near
potential failure surface. This type of pile, which marginally
increases FS, should be avoided for the stabilization of cohesive-
frictional slopes. Furthermore, non-rotated head pile leads to
the highest bending moment but with a moderate increase of FS
between the cases of free and fixed or hinged head.
For the cases of fixed head and the hinged head, the max­
imum shear and bending moment are close but at different
locations. This behaviour is in agreement with the sensibility of
FS to pile head conditions. In accordance with close values of
FS, maximum pile solicitations for hinged head are compar­
able to the case of fixed head. So, in practice aspect, it can be
concluded that pile with hinged head is the suitable technique
compared to fixed pile head which is difficult to ensure in
practice than hinged head.
In order to investigate the effect of pile length on shear and
bending moment, the case of H/L = 0.5 at the optimal location
(Xp/X = 0.5) is computed and presented in Figure 17. The
results show that free head and non-rotated head pile, leading
to FS = 1.36 and 1.38 respectively, bear low solicitations. This is
due to their location in unstable zone of the slope, therefore it
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9

1.9

1.8

1.7 No pile
Free head
1.6
Total fixed head

Factor of Safety
1.5
2D analyis
1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24

S/D

Figure 10. Comparison of FS versus pile spacing (2D and 3D analyses).

Figure 11. Failure mechanism captured for S/D = 2.

is noted null contribution to the increase of FS. However,
hinged and fixed head pile bring more solicitations and lead
to FS equals to 1.60 and 1.8 respectively.
Conclusions
2D and 3D FE analyses have been carried out in order to
optimize pile location, pile length, and pile spacing for piled
cohesive-frictional slope with different pile head fixity condi­
tions. The main conclusions from the overview of the previous
work and the obtained results can be summarized as follows:
● Both computational results from 2D and 3DFE analyses
do not give a significant difference in terms of the FS for
un-piled slope stability analyses:
● Pile with free head contributes marginally to the stability
of piled slope and the corresponding failure mechanism
affects the total height of the slope regardless of pile
location and spacing. Therefore, it is inadequate and
should be avoided for the stabilization of cohesive-
frictional slopes;
10 M. A. BENMEBAREK ET AL.
Figure 12. Failure mechanism captured for S/D = 4.
Figure 13. Failure mechanism captured for S/D = 8.
● Fixed and hinged head pileslead to more improvement
ofFS than non-rotated head, which improves FSslightly
more than free head condition for all pile locations.
Consequently, fixed and hinged head piles generate
high shear and bending moment;
● Pile position with fixedhead significantly affects FS of
piled slope. When moving the pile location from the
crest to the toe of the slope, the captured failure mechan­
ism changes from the down-slope failure to the up-slope
failure. These failure mechanisms, approved by experi­
mental observations, explain the sources of difference
and discrepancy obtained for FS and highlight the limita­
tion of limit equilibrium and limit analysis approaches
adopting a fixed failure surface;
● Both 2D and3D FE results show that fixed or hinged pile
head located at the slope middle perform more efficiently
to increase FS of the piled slope when compared to the
free and non-rotated head pile;
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 11

Figure 14. Failure mechanism captured for S/D = 12.

35 35

30 30

25 25
Free head

Non-rotated
Pile length (m)

20
Pile length (m)

20 head
Hinged head

15 Fixed head
15

Free head
10 10
Non-rotated
head
Hinged head
5 5
Fixed head

0 0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Bending moment (kN.m,x103) Shear force (kN,x103)
Bending moment diagrams Shear force diagrams

Figure 15. Shear and moment diagrams at failure state for different pile head conditions located at Xp/X = 0.5 with H/L = 0.9.

● Fixed and hinged pile heads reduce the optimal pile
length to 0.5 and 0.7 the slope height respectively and
no optimal pile length can be observed for free-head and
non-rotated piles;
● In 3D analyses, the reduce of FS is more pronounced for
S/D ≥ 4 and will approach the FS for un-piledslope when
S/D reaches 12. From failure mechanisms, S/D = 4 is the
critical pile spacing which is the largest spacing that can
still generate soil arching between piles. For S/D < 4, the
soil is restrained between piles. However, beyond S/D = 4,
the soil will flow between piles leading to total vanish of
arching effect when S/D exceeds 12;
12 M. A. BENMEBAREK ET AL.

35 35

30 30

25 25
Pile length (m)

Pile length (m)

20 20 Free head
Non,-rotated head
Hinged head
15 15
Fixed head
Free head

10 10
Non,-rotated
head
Hinged head
5 5
Fixed head
0 0
-13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Bending moment (kN.m,x103) Shear force (kN,x103)

Bending moment diagrams Shear force diagrams

Figure 16. Shear and moment diagrams at failure state for different pile head conditions located at Xp/X = 0.75 with H/L = 0.95.

20 20

16 16

Free head
Pile length (m)

12 12
Pile length (m)

Non-rotated
head
Hinged head
Free head
Fixed head 8 8
Non-rotated head
Hinged head
4 4 Fixed head

0 0
-29 -25 -21 -17 -13 -9 -5 -1 3 7 11 15 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Bending moment (kN.m, x103)
Shear force (kN,x103)
Bending moment diagrams Shear force diagrams

Figure 17. Shear and moment diagrams at failure state for different pile head conditions located at Xp/X = 0.5 with H/L = 0.5.

● By comparing the results of 2D and 3D analyses of the pile Disclosure statement

spacing effect, the 3D FE analysis proves to be more rigor­
ous than the 2D analysis. For S/D < 4, the 2D FE analysis is
few conservative than the 3D FE analysis. However, for S/
D > 4, increasing the spacing generates more overestima­
tion of FS using 2D FE analysis compared to 3D FE analy­
sis. It can be concluded that 2D FE analysis is not
appropriate when S/D is greater than the critical value.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Mohamed Amine Benmebarek is a PhD student at Department of
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Széchenyi István University
Egyetemtér 1, Gyor Hungary. His research interests include slope stability
analysis, numerical modeling, discrete element model, pile behavior and
grain crushing.

Sadok Benmebarek is Professor and laboratory director at Biskra
University, Algeria. After his PhD research at the University of
Constantine (Algeria) and INSA de Lyon (France), he has been involved
in geotechnical research, consulting and education for more than 20 years.
His research interests include soil-structure interaction, numerical mod­
eling of geomaterials, underground construction, dams, stone columns,
geosynthetic soil reinforcement and shallow foundations.
Majid Movahedi Rad obtained his PhD degree in civil engineering
Budapest University of Technology and Economics in 2011 and his
habilitation in Széchenyi István University, Hungary in 2019. His research
interests include Elastic-plastic optimal design of structures, structural
dynamics, discrete element model.
Richard Ray is Professor and laboratory director at Department of
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Széchenyi István University
Egyetemtér 1, Gyor Hungary. After his MSE and PhD in Civil
Engineering at University of Michigan, he has been involved in geotech­
nical research, consulting and education for more than 38 years. His
research interests include earthquake engineering; laboratory testing for
dynqmic soil properties and field studies of contaminated sites.
ORCID
Mohamed Amine Benmebarek http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3108-6444
References
ABAQUS. 2012. ABAQUS Documentation, Version 6.12: ABAQUS/CAE
User’s Manual. RI: Simlulia, Providence.
Ausilio, E., E. Conte,and, and G. Dente. 2001. “Stability Analysis of Slopes
Reinforced with Piles.” Computers and Geotechnics 28 (8): 591–611.
doi:10.1016/S0266-352X(01)00013-1.
Cai, F., and K. Ugai. 2000. “Numerical Analysis of the Stability of a Slope
Reinforced with Piles.” Soils and Foundation 40 (1): 73–84.
doi:10.3208/sandf.40.73.
Chen, L., and H. G. Poulos. 1997. “Piles Subjected to Lateral Soil
movement.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, American Society of Engineers 123 (9): 802–811.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:9(802).
Chow, Y.K. 1996. “Analysis of Piles Used for Slope Stabilization.”
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics 20 (9): 635–646. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9853(199609)
20:9<635::AID-NAG839>3.0.CO;2-X.
Duncan, M. 1996. “State of the Art: Limit Equilibrium and Finite-element
Analysis of Slopes.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122, (7):
577–596. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:7(577).
Griffiths, D.V., and P. A. Lane. 1999. “Slope Stability Analysis by Finite
Elements.” Géotechnique 49 (3): 387–403. doi:10.1680/
geot.1999.49.3.387.
Griffiths, D.V., and R.M. Marquez. 2007. “Three-dimensional Slope
Stability Analysis by Elasto-plastic Finite Elements.” Géotechnique
57 (6): 537–546. doi:10.1680/geot.2007.57.6.537.
Guo, W. D2013“Pu-Based Solutions for Slope Stabilizing Piles” Int J.
Geomech., 13(3) :292–310
Hassiotis, S, J.L. Chameau, and M. Gunaratne. 1997. “Design Method for
Stabilization of Slopes with Piles.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 123 (4): 314–323. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:4(314).
He, Y., H. Hazarika, N. Yasufuku, J. Teng, Z. Jiang, Z. Han. 2015.
“Estimation of Lateral Force Acting on Piles to Stabilize Landslide”.
landslidesNatural Hazards 79: 1981–2003. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-
1942-0.
Ho, I.H. 2014. “Parametric Studies of Slope Stability Analyses Using
Three-dimensional Finite Element Technique: Geometric Effect.”
Journal of Geoengineering 9 (1): 33–43.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 13
Ho, I.H. 2017. “Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis for Soil Slopes
Stabilisation Using Piles.” Geomechanics and Geoengineering 12 (4):
234–249. doi:10.1080/17486025.2017.1347286.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc FLAC. 2015. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
Continua User’s Guide. Minneapolis.
Ito, T., and T. Matsui. 1975. “Methods to Estimate Lateral Force Acting on
Stabilizing Piles.” Soils and Foundations 15 (4): 43–59. doi:10.3208/
sandf1972.15.4_43.
Ito, T., T. Matsui, and W.P. Hong. 1979. “Design Method for the Stability
Analysis of the Slope with Landing Pier.” Soils andFoundations 19 (4):
43–57. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.19.4_43.
Jeong, S., B. Kim, J. Won, and J. Lee. 2003. “Uncoupled Analysis of
Stabilizing Piles in Weathered Slopes.” Computers and Geotechnics
30: 671–682. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2003.07.002.
Kahyaoglu, M.R., G. Imancli, A.U. Ozturk and A.S. Kayalar. 2009.
“Computational 3D finite element analyses of model passive piles.”
Computational Materials Science 46(1):193–202
Kourkoulis, R., F. Gelagoti, I. Anastasopoulos, and G. Gazetas. 2012.
“Hybrid method for analysis and design of slope stabilizing
piles.”Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
138 (1):1–14
Kourkoulis, R., F. Gelagoti, I. Anastasopoulos, and G. Gazetas. 2011.
“Slope Stabilizing Piles and Pile-groups: Parametric Study and
Design Insights.” Journal of Geotech and Geoenvironmental Eng.,
ASCE 137 (7): 663–678. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000479.
Kourkoulis, R., F. Gelagoti, I. Anastasopoulos, and G. Gazetas. 2012.
“Hybrid Method for Analysis And design of Slope Stabilizing Piles.”
Journal of GeotechnicalandGeoenvironmental Engineering 138 (1): 1–14.
Lee, C.Y., T.S. Hull, and H.G. Poulos. 1995. “Simplified Pileslope Stability
Analysis.” Computers and Geotechnics 17: 1–16. doi:10.1016/0266-
352X(95)91300-S.
Li, C., W. Chen, Y. Song, W. Gong and Q. Zhao. 2020. “Optimal Location
of Piles in Stabilizing Slopes Based on a Simplified Double-Row Piles
Model.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 24(2):1–13
Li, C., W. Chen, Y.W. Song. Gong, and Q. Zhao. 2020. “Optimal Location
of Piles in Stabilizing Slopes Based on a Simplified Double-Row Piles
Model.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 24: 377–389. doi:10.1007/
s12205-020-0712-z.
Li, X.P., S.M. He,and, and C.H. Wang. 2006. “Stability Analysis of Slopes
Reinforced with Piles Using Limit Analysis Method.” Geotechnical
Special Publication 9 (151): 105–112.
Li, X.P., X.J. Pei, M. Gutierrez, and S.M. He. 2012. “Optimal Location of
Piles in Slope Stabilization by Limit Analysis.” ActaGeotechnica 7 (3):
253–259.
Liang, R., and S. Zeng. 2002. “Numerical study of soil arching mechanism
in drilled shafts for slope stabilization.” Soils and foundations42(2):
83–92
Liu, Q.S.,and, and D.F. Liu. 2011. “Study on Embedded Pile Length in
Slope Reinforced.” Appl. Mech. Mater 105: 1497–1504. doi:10.4028/
www.scientific.net/AMM.105-107.1497 .
Nian, T.K., G.Q Chen, M.T. Luan, Q. Yang and D.F. Zheng. 2008. “Limit
analysis of the stability of slopes reinforced with piles against landslides
innonhomogeneous and anisotropic soils.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 45(8):1092–1103
Nian, T.K., R.Q. Huang, S. S. Wan, and G.Q. Chen. 2012. “Three
Dimensional Strength Reduction Finite Element Analysis of Slopes:
Geometric Effects.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49 (5): 574–588.
doi:10.1139/t2012-014.
PLAXIS. 2017. PLAXIS Reference Manual. Delft: Plaxis.
Poulos, H.G. 1995. “Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 32(5):808–818
Qin, C.B., S.C. Chian, and C.Y. Wang. 2017. “Kinematic analysis of
pile behavior for improvement of slope stability in fractured and
saturated Hoek -Brown rock masses.” International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 41(6):803–827
14 M. A. BENMEBAREK ET AL.
Rao, P.P., L.X. Zhao, Q.S. Chen and L. Li. (2017). “Limit analysis
approach for accessing stability of three-dimensional (3-D) slopes
reinforced with piles.” Marine Georesources and Geotechnology 35
(7):978–985
Reese, L.C., S.T. Wang and J.L. Fouse. 1992. “Use of Drilled Shafts in
Stabilizing a Slope. In Stability and Performance of Slopes and
Embankments-II, Seed, R.B and Boulanger.” R.W. Eds. ASCE, Vol.
2:1318–1332
Rocscience Inc. “Application of the Finite Element Method to Slope
Stability.” Rocscience.2004
Stianson, J.R., D.G. Fredlund, and D. Chan. 2011. “Three Dimensional
Slope Stability Based on Stresses from a Stress Deformation Analysis.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48 (6): 891–904. doi:10.1139/t11-006.
Tang, H.M., J, Wasowskiand, C.H. Juang. 2019. “Geohazards in the three
gorges reservoir area, China - Lessons learned from decades of
research.”Engineering Geology 261:105267
View publication stats
Wei, W.B. and Y.M. Cheng. 2009. “Strength reduction analysis for slope
reinforced with one row of piles.” Computers and Geotechnics 36
(7):1176–1185
Won, J, K. You, S. Won, J, K. You, S. Jeong and S. Kim. 2005. “Coupled
effects in stability analysis of pile–slope systems.” Computers and
Geotechnics 32(4):304–315
Yamin, M. and R. Y. Liang, 2010. “Limiting equilibrium method for
slope/drilled shaft system.” International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 34(10):1063–1075
Zhang, S.L., Z.H. Zhu, S.C. Qi, Y.X. Hu, Q. Du and J.W. Zhou. 2018.
“Deformation process and mechanism analyses for a planar sliding
in the Mayanpo massive bedding rock slope at the Xiangjiaba
Hydropower Station.” Landslides 15(10):2061–2073
Zienkiewicz, O. C., C. Humpheson, and R. W. Lewis. 1975. “Associated
and Nonassociatedvisco-plasticity and Plasticity in Soil Mechanics.”
Géotechnique 25 (4): 671–689. doi:10.1680/geot.1975.25.4.671.