Load Sharing of Anti slide Piles Based

on Three Dimensional Soil Arching

Numerical Analysis

Mudthir Bakri1*, Yuanyou. Xia1, Huabing Wang2

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan University of
Technology, Wuhan, 430070, China
School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science
and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China
corresponding Author email mbbakri@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a three-dimensional model of the load sharing ratio with a three-stage load
sharing pattern for slope stabilizing piles. A definitive new three-stage load transfer pattern is
presented, friction soil arching (Soil Arching between Piles), soil arching behind piles (end-
bearing), and the sliding mass in front of the pile. By virtue of the soil arching effect between the
anti-sliding pile and landslide mass is investigated by utilizing the explicit finite-difference
numerical modelling method, the law of the load sharing ratio at different depths along the anti-
slide piles under different cases. The investigated parameters include pile’s spacing diameter ratio,
the socketed length ratio of the anti-slide pile, and shearing parameters of the sliding mass and the
pile-soil interface. The results show that (a) the influence of soil arching back to the piles is
extended to the four times the pile diameter from the pile face; (b) the soil arching only exits
within a certain pile spacing, and it will become inefficiency beyond the maximum pile spacing;
(c) the socketed length should be more than 15 % of the pile length to ensure the generation of
sufficient soil arching effect ;(d) cohesion and friction angle of the sliding soil showing slight
effect in the top layers of soil but in the inner soil layers, the load sharing is proportionally
increased with cohesion and decrease with the increase of friction angle of sliding soil.
KEYWORDS: slope stabilization, landslide, anti-sliding pile, load transfer, load sharing
ratio, soil arching effect, numerical modelling

I NTRODUCTI ON
With the growth of world economic construction, a lot of people are threatened or potentially
threatened by landslides. Stabilization of slopes and landslides using a row of large-diameter
insitu reinforced concrete piles is widely adopted to control excessive slope movement [1-5] and
today it is looked at as the most substantial measures for controlling landslides[6]. The features of
landslide movement and dribs flows are analyzed by Wang and Sassa[7]. A simulation of
landslide was performed using geotechnical model associated with apparent friction change
model suggested by Wang and Sassa [8, 9]. Strength parameters in the slips of homogeneous
slope can be found using a method developed by Jiang and Yamagami [10, 11].Stabilization
effect is offered by passive resistance of a pile below the slip surface and the load transfer from
sliding mass to underlying stable strata through the piles due to the soil arching mechanism [12-
15]. Ito and Matsui (1975) presented a limit lateral pressure formula based on movement of the
soil mass according to the plastic deformation theory[2]. Wei et al (2009) studied the slopes
reinforced with one row of piles utilizing Strength reduction method[16]. When the excessive
- 17573 -
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17574

movement occurs within the slope above the sliding surface, soil is forced to squeeze between the
piles and shear stresses are formulated by the relative displacement of the two masses in the
interface between the moving and stationary masses. The shearing resistance acts to keep the
yielding mass on its original position by reducing the pressure on the yielding part and increasing
the pressure on the contacting stationary part[17-20] .This transferring process of forces is named
soil arching, it depends on soil properties, pile spacing to diameter ratio, and relative movement
between the soil and the pile, the fixity condition at the pile top[13, 21, 22] . The earliest study of
soil arching performed and presented by Terazaghi using trap door test[23]. Vardoulakis
proposed a new concept of the “transition state” of the soil arching effect[24]. Furthermore,
Chevalier et al. (2007,2008) demonstrated the existence of a “transition state” of the soil arching
effect in detail and put in the deliberate trapdoor test, which is the latest significant test for the
soil arching effect[24-26]. Many indoor tests studies, admitting laboratory and numerical
modelling tests, on landslides and slopes have been conducted. In former stages, many scholars
have studied pile-soil interaction by laboratory modelling tests. Many researchers have carried
out site tests of piles under the horizontal movement of soil mass [27-31]. Matsui et al. (1982)
developed a method to detect the relationship between the soil pressure on the anti-sliding pile
and the displacement of soil mass by using an iron box with different types of soil and anti-
sliding pile[4]. Many researchers have focalized on the pile-soil interaction conducting numerical
modelling tests. For instance, Jeong et al. (2003) and Won et al. (2005) presented the soil-pile
coupling analysis by simulation modelling software. Martin and chen (2005), Fan and Long
(2005) and Uzuoka et al. (2007) discussed the response to the anti-sliding pile under the condition
of slope horizontal movement with different kinds of numerical simulation method [32-34].
Kanagasabai et al. (2011) use three dimensional finite differences to look into the behaviour of
single pile stabilizing slip mass by determination of decrease of the limiting pile–soil lateral force
near to unconfined ground surface, and investigate failure mechanisms categorized by
Viggiani[35]. Although there are many methods conduct the pile-soil interaction mechanism and
the design of stabilizing piles, there is no method available to take into account both the
characteristics of slope or landslide and soil arching effect throughout examining the load sharing
law of the anti-sliding pile. The main purpose of this work is to study the load sharing law of the
anti-sliding piles at different depths based on the soil arching effect. Based on the mechanical
analysis and numerical modelling using the geotechnical finite difference software FLAC3D,
many calculation schemes are introduced for comparative analysis and study. This study provides
a basis for the standard design of the anti-sliding piles.

THEORETI CAL BACKGROUND

Soil Arching Effect
The process of soil arching in the slope/pile system can be categorized to three stages the
initial stage, the transition stage and the final stage. The transition stage is denoted with minimum
principal stresses of soil arching, while the final stage is denoted with the maximum principal
stresses of soil arching. The soil arching between the piles is formed of the end-bearing soil
arching and the friction soil arching[36].According to compared process sequence of the
interaction model of the anti-sliding piles and sliding mass and the mobile door test, it can be
studied similar to the mobile door test. The soil arching effect of the soil-pile is affected by the
depth of the sliding mass, piles spacing, mechanical parameters of both sliding soil, especially
the strength parameters, and pile socketed length is the stable layer [37]. Many researchers
explicated the soil arching development in slope pile system with the case of granular soil. The
principles of the trap door test were simulated by a series of model tests, and numerical finite
element and finite difference analyses on landslide stabilizing piles by many scholars, they
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17575

explained the development of the arching effect in granular soils, whereas the uphill pressure
does not rule particles B, C, and D within the arching zone of soil, as shown in Figure 1.
Moreover, the existence of an arching foothold [zone (1)] in front of the circular pile will lead to
less pressure to act on these piles than on equivalent rectangular piles (i.e. d × d, d=diameter).
However, the deformation on the pile/soil interface, the consequences of pile/soil parameters
on the constitution of arching zone and the different arching mechanisms between granular and
fine-grained soils are unresolved and still need more investigations[12, 13, 18]. Nevertheless,
they did not provide any quantitative estimation for the load transfer behavior from the soil to the
pile.
Acting load
on the pile

Equilateral
triangular arch
A

B
Zone (1)
S=4.0d C
Z=25cm
Pile
D

Figure 1: Soil Arching

Theoret ical Calculat ion Model

The Definit ion of Soil- pile Load Sharing Rat io: -
The installed anti-sliding piles share the driving force of the landslide mass and to study the
load transfer ratio of anti-sliding piles; the ratio of the load transfer portion from the sliding mass
to the anti-sliding piles and the total driving force is defined as the pile load sharing ratio which
can be expressed as:
F −F
λ= u d (1)
F

where Fd is the total force acting on the plane at the interface between the pile and the soil just on
the down slope side and can be determined by double integrating the down slope horizontal
stresses in the x-direction ( σ xd ) one time over the section (S) and the second time over the
thickness of the section in Z-direction, Fu is similarly obtained but at the interface on the
upslope side, and F is sliding force in relative section .To study the load sharing ratio along the
pile ; four distinctive horizontal planes was taken at different depths .Mathematical expressions
for calculating Fd and F is as follows:
zs
F = ∫ ∫ (s xd )dzdy (2)
d
00
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17576

Fish code was written to calculate load transfer factor where stress in all zone adjacent to the
pile up and down slope are summed as Fd and F where both are expressed as summation as
shown in the following equation:
z s
F = ∑ ∑ s xx (3)
d 00

The Load Transfer Process ( Mechanism )

According to the soil arching effect test stated above, the soil arching of the “transition stage”
is the minimum principal stress of soil arching, and the soil arching of the “final stage” is the
maximum principal stress of soil arching. During the transition stage, soil arching behind the piles
plays a dominant role, and part of the landslide’s driving force is transferred to the back wall of
the piles. During the final stage, soil arching between the piles plays predominant role, and
percentage of the landslide’s driving force is transferred to the sidewall of the piles. According to
the different features of the load transfer process between anti-sliding pile and landslide, the soil
arching behind the piles can be called the end-bearing soil arching, and the soil arching between
the piles can be called the friction soil arching. This classification is very clear when we conduct
the rectangular sections while for the circular section, the soil arching between the piles is a
compromise of both end bearing and friction soil arching.
This paper will investigate the load transfer behind and between piles utilizing three-
dimensional finite difference based on FLAC3D. Modeling will be performed to determine the
load sharing ratio for piles installed in one row within the slope body and socketed deep enough
into a stable soil (i.e., rock). We utilize shear reduction method to allow the slope to reach the
failure status whereas the maximum horizontal sliding force will take a place. Subsequently, the
stress in the x-direction at different distances from the pile is checked, where the stress is constant
along the model thickness then it is adopted as sliding stress. The numerical values of λ express
the reduction in the total driving forces within the slope body due to the existence of the pile. In
other words, λ defines the ratio of the forces that the pile will exert on the soil on the down slope
side to the force that the soil will exert on the pile down slope side; λ reflects the amount of
forces that will be transmitted to the down slope soils directly behind the pile.

FI NI TE DI FFERENCE STUDY OF THE PI LE LOAD

SHARI NG RATI ON
Num erical Com put at ion Met hod
FLAC3D is a three-dimensional explicit finite-difference code specially designed towards
geotechnical engineering calculation. It has been widely used in many applications, such as
mining engineering, tunnel engineering, and civil engineering. Hakami (2001) carried out the
numerical computations to simulate a comprehensive pump test at Sellafield by using
FLAC3D[38]. Cai et al. (2007) used the FLAC/PFC coupled numerical simulation of acoustic
emission in large-scale underground excavations[17].The slope/pile model studied and presented
herein is analyzed using the three-dimensional finite difference program FLAC3D. This program
is adequate to handling nonlinear finite difference analysis for geotechnical engineering
problems. Figure 2 present model views and boundary conditions of the conceptual model used in
the current finite difference simulations. Only one pile is modeled due to symmetric nature of the
problem. This study just uses the gravity load. The boundary conditions used in the model
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17577

simulate the real situation in the field. As illustrated in Figure 2, both upper and lower sides as
depicted in the plan view are restrained in the z-direction but free to move in the x- and y-
directions. The right and left sides as depicted in both views are allowed to move freely in the y-
and z-directions, but not in the x-direction. At the bottom plane of the model, all movements are
restrained (i.e, u x,y,z =0 ).

Finit e Difference Meshing and Model Geom et ry

Figure 3 shows the Accompanying 3D assembly of the slope/pile model generated using
ANSYS14 Program. The generated meshed model is transferred to FLAC3D using special code
written using C++ language. The FEM mesh in ANSYS is well refined at and near the region
where the pile is installed to enable a closer examination of the state of stresses and displacements
at that region. The mesh sensitivity and solution convergence are studied by comparing FDM
results due to the use of a different number of elements. Therefore, it is believed that the mesh
size used in the model to be small enough so that the FDM simulation results are not sensitive to
mesh density. The maximum size adopted within the pile element is 0.40 m while it was 0.50 m
at the adjacent zones of sliding soil and rock layer, whenever we moved away from the pile and
adjacent area, the mesh size dealt to be coarser. In order to reduce the influence of the boundary,
a distant of 10 times pile diameter is left at both sides back and front the anti sliding pile. This
numerical model of the anti-sliding pile and sliding mass has been validated by the laboratory
physical modeling and site investigation Martin (2002)[13].

Sliding 11.0m
Surface

Pile of β=35°
Sliding Soil
Length L Mass
Typical
Horizontal Plane
0.29L

Unit thickness
16.102 m

11.0 m

26.20 m
Socketed
15.0 m

Length
8.0m
Stable Soil layer

38.0 m

Soil
arching
6.0 m

PB4D

PB6D

Sliding Soil
Mass

0.5D
D
Pile Back at 6D
PB6D
Figure 2: Model Layout and Parameters
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17578

Figure 3: Model and Finite Difference meshing

Const it ut ive m odel and param et ers

The constitutive behavior of soil continuum is modeled using Mohr-Coulomb model. The
Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion is widely used for geotechnical materials. The failure envelope
for this model corresponds to a Mohr-Coulomb criterion (shear yield function) with tension cutoff
(tension yield function). The position of a stress point on this envelope is controlled by a non-
associated flow rule for shear failure, and an associated rule for tension failure. For constitutive
behavior of both anti slide pile and stable rock layer, isotropic elastic model is used. The principal
parameters of the base model are selected to let the slope model at verge of failure (FS=1.0). The
main parameters used in model calculation are shown in table1.Slope angle was selected to 35°
while S/D is selected to be 3 in the base model whereas anti slide pile diameter is 2.0 m.
Table 1: Material Properties used in the model computations
Material Properties Antisliding Pile Sliding soil Rock
Density (kg/m3) 2500 2000 2200
Elastic Properties
Young's Modulus (MPa) 1.04E+06 2.00E+02 2.39E+04
Poisson's Ratio 0.2 0.3 0.2
Strength Properties
Cohesion (kPa) 20
Friction Angle(°) 10

Modeling of t he Cont act I nt erface

For slope-pile analysis, the use of interface elements is essential; the use of them allows
relative movements between the soil and the pile, and between sliding and stable soil layers. The
interface governing whether slip or the opening of a gap between the pile and the soil may occur,
both of which are possibilities in an undrained analysis. Three Interface elements are used in this
numerical problem; the first one is between the sliding soil and stable soil layer; the second one is
between the pile and the sliding soil, while the third one is between the embedded part of the pile
and the stable soil.. FLAC3D interface elements have properties of friction, cohesion, dilation,
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17579

normal and shear stiffness, and tensile strength. Itasca (2006) recommends the use of normal and
shear stiffness’s ten times those of the stiffest neighboring element. The apparent stiffness
(expressed in units of stress-per-unit length) of an element (or zone) in the normal direction ( kn )
is

 4 
kn =
10 × max (K + G ) ∆Z min  (4)
 3 
where
K = bulk modulus of the stiffest neighbouring element
G =shear modulus of the stiffest neighbouring element
ΔZmin = smallest dimension of an adjoining element in the normal direction (see Figure 4)

Figure 4: Element dimension used in stiffness calculation (taken from Itasca, 2006)

However, Itasca (2006) does not explain how to choose other properties (e.g. cohesion) for an
interface.

Load Sharing Pat t ern

From the results of the numerical calculation model above, the load transfer mechanism
emanates from the soil arching effect can be determined by FLAC3D software. To determine the
normal stress distribution in the X direction( σ xx ) under the condition of a free front boundary,
seven representative profiles are chosen to show the stress distribution, two sections are taken
next to the pile up and down slope direction while another one is taken in the middle centerline
between the piles. Back to the pile side four sections we take sections at distances 0.5,2,4, and six
times the pile diameter to investigate the sliding stress and extension of anti slide pile influence.
The stress distribution of these sections is shown in Figures 5.a, 5.b, 5.c, 5.d worthy outcomes
can be received from Figure 6. As shown in Figure 5 where horizontal spacing refer to distant
between piles, the normal stress is taken for section at depth equal 0.16L (from the Pile top) is
showing an equal magnitude at distant equal 6D back to the anti-slide pile (PB6D), it is
approximately equal to 104 kPa along the transverse direction, while it is 103 kPa at distance 4D
back to the pile (PB4D).
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17580

The difference is very small between the normal stress at PB46D and PB4D; this means; the
soil arching effect due to the installation of the pile is limited to horizontal distant of 4D (i.e. far
enough from the back wall side of the pile). Therefore, we yield to that the soil arching effect is
very weak beyond the 4D at depth of 0. 16L. The stress in section next to the pile back dropped to
just 33.3 kPa in the mid distant between the pile where we can Figure out that the load sharing of
anti slide pile system is 68% of the sliding stress. The stress is increases in the zone near to the
pile. It is the result of formation of the soil arching foothold[13, 18]; from Figures above the
extension of the foothold zone is limited within 0.5D from the face of the anti slide pile.
Furthermore, the load sharing has changed from PB4D /PB6D to the Pile Back and Pile center to
pile-back, as demonstrated in Figure 6 the shaded area shows the amount of reductions in soil
stress behind the anti slide pile, the remaining force in front of the anti sliding pile is 18% of the
sliding force. The profile of soil lateral stress between Piles shows that the transferred stresses
from slide mass to the piles is 82% of sliding force. We can conclude that the transfer force from
sliding mass to the pile is mainly occurred and take place between the anti slide piles; this is
confirmed with theory of plastic deformation by Ito and Matsui.

a) at depth 0.16L b)at depth 0.29L

c)at depth 0.41L d)at depth 0.60L

Figure 5: stress distribution at different distances from the pile center

Figure 5 shows typical profiles at different depths along the anti slide pile; the influence of
soil arching at depth of 0. 29L (Figure 5.b) became weaker and extended just up to PB2D while at
depth of 0. 40L (Figure 5.c)) there is no soil arching effect at PB2D. The stress in soil back to the
pile shows no reduction at the joining surface between sliding and stable rock layer as shown in
Figure8; the state of stress reduction at this level yield that soil arching is vanishing back to the
pile but still the reduction is occurred and take place in the zone between anti slide piles. Figure .7
shows the load sharing percentage for the pile, pile back, and pile front soil arch at different
depths along the pile above the surface between sliding and stable rock layer. It yields that the
load transferring process of the pile-soil interaction is a kind of three-stage load sharing pattern.
The soil arching in the piles back, the soil arching between the piles and, and soil arching in pile
front. Cleary it can be seen from Figure7 that the anti slide piles takes Most of the load up to
specific depth (0.38L) , then after this depth most of the load is taken by the pile front.
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17581

DI FFERENT FACTORS THAT I NFLUENCE SOI L

ARCHI NG
Soil Arching Effect under Different Pile I nt ervals
In order to study the soil arching effect under different pile intervals; various intervals in
terms of pile Diameter D are chosen to investigate the relationship between the pile interval and
the soil arching effect. The adopted intervals are as follows: 1.5D, 2D, 3D, 4D, and 5D. In this
study, the Diameter of the anti-sliding pile D is assumed to be 2.0m. The different pile intervals
show distinctive characteristics of the soil arching effects, and consequently; we conduct the
effect of different intervals on the factor of safety. The contour graph of maximum and minimum
principal stress and displacement are obtained for the different intervals as shown in Figures (8-
12). Based on results presented in Figures (8-12), the following determinations can be made: (1)
With the increase of pile spacing, the rate of reduction of stress behind piles due to the soil
arching is dropped progressively until it disappears as seen in Figures (8-12a, b), while the drop
of stress in the zone between piles is gradually increase and becomes stronger until the pile
interval reaches a certain limit value. (2) The maximum stress of the soil arching acted on the
zone adjacent to piles is formed as a result of the soil mass between the anti-slide piles. The stress
foothold of the soil arching is on the sidewall of the piles. The width of soil arching zone is
reduced as the pile spacing increases. When the pile spacing reaches 5D, the soil arching effect
almost vanishes; this is associated with reduction in factor of safety to be 1.3 as shown in Figure
13. (3) According to the minimum stress contour graph, the minimum stress soil arching acted on
the back wall of the adjacent piles is caused by soil mass behind the piles. The stress zone the soil
arching between the piles is in the back wall of the piles. The soil arching stress showing rapid
drop when the pile spacing increased.

Figure 6: Stress distributions at different distances from the pile center.

 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17582

Figure 7: Load Sharing Ratio at different depths

The width of soil arching zone is reduced as the pile spacing increases. When the pile spacing
reaches 5D, the soil arching effect almost vanishes; this is associated with reduction in factor of
safety to be 1.3 as shown in Figure 13. (3) According to the minimum stress contour graph, the
minimum stress soil arching acted on the back wall of the adjacent piles is caused by soil mass
behind the piles. The stress zone the soil arching between the piles is in the back wall of the piles.
The soil arching stress showing rapid drop when the pile spacing increased. When the pile
spacing is 5D the soil arching effect behind the piles almost vanishing and disappears. (4) The
horizontal displacement contour in Figures (8-12c) shows that, the displacement of the anti-
sliding piles is very small compared to the displacement in the adjacent because of its huge
stiffness. On the reverse, the displacement of the sliding mass increases with the increase of the
pile spacing. (5)Figure 13 shows that the factor of safety is decreased rapidly with the increase of
pile's intervals, after the pile interval becomes greater than 3D, the rate of reduction is reduced; it
indicates the effect of soil arching is vanishing.

Analysis on Different ial Displacem ent in Soil Arching

The differential displacement between sliding soil and the pile is the main cause of soil
arching, basically, influences the pile load sharing ratio. As indicated in Figures. 8, 9, 10, 11, and
12c different pile spacing has different affect on the lateral displacement δx contour. When the
S/D<4 the displacement contour graph between the anti-sliding piles is integral, it yields that the
soil arching is stable under these cases. On the reverse, the displacement contour between the
anti-sliding piles is separated by the driving force when S/D>3, which means that the soil arching
is decreasing, and it is vanishing gradually. Consequently, it can be concluded that the soil
arching only exits within a certain S/D and it is ineffective if S/D exceeds this specific limit. The
results of minimum and maximum principal stress shown in Figure (8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) and
factor of safety relation with pile spacing as shown in Figure 13 in well agreement with the above
analysis.

Pile Spacing Effect on t he Load Sharing Rat io

The pile spacing as shown in section of Differential Displacement affects the soil arching
stress; in addition, it influenced the load sharing ratio mechanism. For the analysis purposes (S/D)
is defined to distinguish the relationship between the pile interval and the pile cross section. The
pile intervals are S=1.5D, 2D, 3D, 4D, and 5D. The analysis process is similar to that above.
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17583

Figure17 shows the relation of S/D ratio and Pile sharing ratio different depth along the pile. The
results obtained from Figure 14 establish that the undertaken load by the pile is gradually
decreased from 86% when S/D=1.5 to 41% when S/D=2, and after this point, the slope factor of
safety is dropped to be less than 1.27 (Figure 13) which means the slope is on the verge of
failure (the slope at this point needs to be reinforced).

Figure 8: Soil Arching influence contour under S=1.5D (a) Maximum Stress, (b) Minimum
Stress, (c) X-displacement contour

Figure 9: Soil Arching influence contour under S=2D (a) Maximum Stress, (b) Minimum Stress,
(c) X-displacement contour

Figure 10: Soil Arching influence contour under S=3D (a) Maximum Stress, (b) Minimum
Stress, (c) X-displacement contour
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17584

Figure 11: Soil Arching influence contour under S=4D (a) Maximum Stress, (b) Minimum
Stress, (c) X-displacement contour

Figure 12: Soil Arching influence contour under S=5D (a) Maximum Stress, (b) Minimum
Stress, (c) X-displacement contour

Figure 13: Influence of S/D on the Factor of safety

I nfluence of t he Sliding Mass Param et ers on t he Load

Sharing Rat io
I nfluence of Sliding Mass Cohesions on Load Sharing Rat io
The effect of cohesion of sliding mass on pile load sharing is investigated at two different
friction angle 10º,30° and S/D=3 , while different cohesion (c) values ranging from5kPa to
40kPa are selected to study the pile sharing ratio . Figure 15 shows the influence of cohesion of
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17585

the soil on the pile sharing ratio at different depths. It is obvious that there is no change in the
ratio of the load tackled by the anti slide in the top layers; as shown in Figure, there is a very
slight change in the load sharing ratio at depth 0.16L and 0. 29L.Load sharing ratio is increased
with the increase of cohesion at the internal layers of the sliding soil; the reason behind that is the
depth of sliding surface is increased proportionally with cohesion of the soil. In the inner layers,
the nature of the pile sharing ratio is changed from negative towards positive, when the sharing
ratio is negative it means the pile tackle a reaction force in reverse direction of the sliding; while
the positive mean the anti-slide pile is still taking apart of sliding mass force.

Figure 14: Pile sharing ratio under different s/d ratio

Figure 15: Pile sharing ratio under different cohesion of sliding soil layer

I nfluence of I nt ernal Frict ion Angles of t he Sliding Mass on Load Sharing

Rat io
The cohesion of the sliding mass was set to20 Kpa, and different internal friction angles
φ(5°,10°,15°, 20°, 25°,30° respectively) are chosen to investigate the load transferring law under
the condition S / D =3. The effect of internal angle of friction on load sharing ratio is shown in
Figure 16; clearly there is slight change in the load contracted by the anti slide piles in the top
layers. Load sharing ratio is rapidly dropped at depth of (0.41L and0.6L) with the increase of
sliding layer friction angle. The results reveal that the internal friction angle of the sliding mass
has limited influence on the effect of soil arching.
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17586

I nfluence of t he Pile- soil I nt erface on t he Load Sharing Rat io

Chen and Martin (2002) conducted soil-pile numerical modeling to simulate the roughness of
the interface between the soil and pile by the friction angle parameters of the interface using
FLAC3D[13]. Analysis of soil arching is performed under the case of full interface and frictional
interface to investigate the effect of the interface properties on the load sharing ratio of the anti
slide pile. Figure17 shows the different load transferring graphs under full and frictional interface.
The results show that the load undertaken by the soil arching to the anti-slide piles is slightly
changed; however, at the surface between the rock layer and sliding soil (at depth of 0. 6L from
pile top) the sharing ratio of the piles is marginally greater in the case of the frictional interface.
In general, the internal friction angle of the interface has a slight influence on the effect of the soil
arching.
I nfluence of t he socket ed lengt h on t he Load Sharing Rat io
Anti-slide piles should be embedded into firm rock to avoid being uprooted or overturned;
however, the effective socketed length in the stable rock layer should be insured to let the
slope/pile system to generate soil arching. The socketed length in stable layer and the embedded
length affecting the displacement and pile deformation[39, 40] thus it affects the soil arching, and
subsequently; it affects the load sharing ratio of anti-slide piles. Assuming that the other
parameters above the same. Figure 18 shows the relation between socketed length and load
sharing ratio; as shown in the Figure, the pile sharing ratio is increased gradually until the
socketed length becomes 0. 12L then after this point the change in the pile sharing ratio is
insignificant.

Figure 16: Pile sharing ratio under a different friction angle of sliding soil layer

I nfluence of t he socket ed lengt h on t he Load Sharing Rat io

Anti-slide piles should be embedded into firm rock to avoid being uprooted or overturned;
however, the effective socketed length in the stable rock layer should be insured to let the
slope/pile system to generate soil arching. The socketed length in stable layer and the embedded
length affecting the displacement and pile deformation[39, 40] thus it affects the soil arching, and
subsequently; it affects the load sharing ratio of anti-slide piles. Assuming that the other
parameters above the same. Figure 18 shows the relation between socketed length and load
sharing ratio; as shown in the Figure, the pile sharing ratio is increased gradually until the
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17587

socketed length becomes 0. 12L then after this point the change in the pile sharing ratio is
insignificant. The results establish that the above factors play substantial roles in the effect of the
soil arching between the anti-sliding piles and sliding mass. Generally, the pile spacing, friction
angle, cohesion, and the socketed lengths are the key factors and increasing the pile spacing or
using socketed length less than 0. 12L undermines the soil arching results significantly.

CONCLUSI ONS
The interaction mechanism of the slope pile system has the same trend as in Terzaghi’s trap
door test; it can be divided into three stages: initial stage, transition stage and final stage. In this
paper, we utilize this concept definition to draw the level of load transfer from the sliding mass to
the anti-slide pile, and then we use it to evaluate the affectivity of using anti-sliding by computing
the corresponding principal stress, displacement, and factor of safety. The Pile load sharing
ratio for different cases, including Pile spacing to the diameter ratio S/D the portion of socketed
length, and shearing parameters of the sliding mass and pile-soil interface, has been examined in
detail using the three-dimensional explicit finite-difference numerical modeling method.

Figure 17: Pile sharing ratio under full and frictional interface

Figure 18: Pile sharing ratio under different socketed length

 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17588

The results show that these factors play significant exchanged roles in the effect of the soil
arching between the anti sliding piles and sliding mass. The effect of the soil arching effect is
extended to four times the pile diameter; however, the effect is extending to six times pile
diameter with depth along the pile is changed. The main factors affecting the pile sharing ratio
include, the pile spacing diameter ratio S/D , socketed length, and friction angle are the
fundamental factors, and increasing the pile spacing, decrease the socketed length less than 0.
15L weakens the soil arching effect significantly.
The soil arching only exits within a certain pile spacing and it will get inefficiency after the
maximum pile spacing. Regarding the strengthened parameters of the sliding mass, when the
cohesion or the internal friction angle increases to a certain threshold value, in top layers of the
anti slide pile the load sharing ratio shows a slight change; and in the inner layer, it decreases
with an increase of friction angle and increase with the increase of cohesion strength. The
frictional pile-soil interface showing no significant effect in load sharing pattern compared with
the full interface; however, the load sharing ratio is slightly less in case of the frictional interface
than the case of the full interface.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (NSFC) (No. 41372296) and the Ministry of National Science and Technology for their
funding support (2012BAK10B00). In addition, partial support from the Doctoral Fund from the
Ministry of Education of China (20100142110059) is acknowledged. A special note of
appreciation is extended to the Key Program of Natural Science Foundation of Hubei
(2009CDA007).

REFERENCES
1. H. Sommer, "Creeping slope in a stiff clay," in Proc. 10th Spec. Session, 9th Int. Conf. Soil
Mechs and Found. Engrg., Tokyo, 1977, pp. 113-118.
2. T. Ito and T. Matsui, (1975) “Methods to estimate lateral force acting on stabilizing piles,"
Soils and foundations,
3. T. Ito, T. Matsui, and W. Hong, (1981) “Design method for stabilizing piles against
landslide--one row of piles," Soils and foundations,
4. T. Ito, T. Matsui, and T. Wonsui, (1982) “extended design method for multi-row stabilizing
piles against landslide," Soils and foundations, vol. 22,
5. C. Viggiani, "Ultimate lateral load on piles used to stabilize landslides," in Proceedings of
the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1981, pp.
555-560.
6. J. Won, K. You, S. Jeong, and S. Kim, (2005) “Coupled effects in stability analysis of pile–
slope systems," Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 32, pp. 304-315.
7. G. Wang, K. Sassa, and H. Fukuoka, (2003) “Downslope volume enlargement of a debris
slide–debris flow in the 1999 Hiroshima, Japan, rainstorm," Engineering Geology, vol. 69,
pp. 309-330.
8. F. Wang and K. Sassa, (2010) “Landslide simulation by a geotechnical model combined
with a model for apparent friction change," Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts
A/B/C, vol. 35, pp. 149-161.
9. W. Fawu and K. Sassa, (2000) “A modified geotechnical simulation model for the areal
prediction of landslide motion," Kyoto Daigaku Bōsai Kenkyūjo nenpō, pp. 129-139.
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17589

10 . J.-C. Jiang and T. Yamagami, (2006) “Charts for estimating strength parameters from slips
in homogeneous slopes," Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 33, pp. 294-304.
11 . J.-C. Jiang and T. Yamagami, (2008) “A new back analysis of strength parameters from
single slips," Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 35, pp. 286-291.
12 . L. Chen, H. G. Poulos, and T. S. Hull, (1997) “Model tests on pile groups subjected to
lateral soil movement," Soils and foundations, vol. 37, pp. 1-12.
13 . C.-Y. Chen and G. Martin, (2002) “Soil–structure interaction for landslide stabilizing
piles," Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 29, pp. 363-386.
14 . M. R. Kahyaoglu, G. Imançli, O. Önal, and A. S. Kayalar, (2012) “Numerical analyses of
piles subjected to lateral soil movement," KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 16, pp.
562-570.
15 . S. Hosseinian and M. C. Seifabad, (2013) "Optimization the Distance between Piles in
Supporting Structure Using Soil Arching Effect," Optimization, vol. 3, pp. 386-391.
16 . W. Wei and Y. Cheng, (2009) “Strength reduction analysis for slope reinforced with one
row of piles," Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 36, pp. 1176-1185.
17 . M. Cai, P. Kaiser, H. Morioka, M. Minami, T. Maejima, Y. Tasaka, (2007) “FLAC/PFC
coupled numerical simulation of AE in large-scale underground excavations," International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 44, pp. 550-564.
18 . T. Adachi, M. Kimura, and S. Tada, (1989) “Analysis on the preventive mechanism of
landslide stabilizing piles," Numerical Models in Geomechanics, vol. 15, pp. 691-698.
19 . J. Amšiejus, N. Dirgėlienė, A. Norkus, and D. Žilionienė, (2009) “EVALUATION OF
SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS VIA TRIAXIAL TESTING BY HEIGHT
VERSUS DIAMETER RATIO OF SAMPLE," Baltic Journal of Road & Bridge
Engineering, vol. 4,
20 . P. J. Bosscher and D. H. Gray, (1986) “Soil arching in sandy slopes," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 112, pp. 626-645.
21 . M. R. Kahyaoğlu, O. Onal, G. Imançlı, G. Ozden, and A. Ş. Kayalar, (2012) “Soil arching
and load transfer mechanism for slope stabilized with piles," Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management, vol. 18, pp. 701-708.
22 . R. Y. Liang and M. Yamin, (2010) “Three ‐dimensional finite
behavior in slope/drilled shafts system," International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 34, pp. 1157-1168.
23 . K. Terzaghi, (1936) “Stress distribution in dry and in saturated sand above a yielding trap-
door,"
24 . I. Vardoulakis, B. Graf, and G. Gudehus, (1981) “Trap ‐ door problem with dry sand: A
statical approach based upon model test kinematics," International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 5, pp. 57-78.
25 . B. Chevalier, G. Combe, and P. Villard, (2007) "Load transfers and arching effects in
granular soil layer," 18ème Congrès Français de Mécanique (Grenoble 2007)
26 . B. Chevalier, G. Combe, and P. Villard, "Experimental and numerical studies of load
transfers and arching effect," in Proc., 12th Int. Conf. of the Int. Association for Computer
and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) Goa, India, 2008, pp. 273-280.
 Vol. 19 [ 2014] , Bund. Z 6 17590

27 . H. Leussink, and Wenz, K. P. , "Storage yard foundations on soft clay," in 7th ICSMFE,
1969, pp. 149-155.
28 . L. Heyman, "Measurement of the influence of lateral earth pressure on pile foundations," in
Soil Mech & Fdn Eng Conf Proc/Canada/, Montreal, 1965, pp. 257-260.
29 . E. Beer and M. Wallays, "Forces induced in piles by unsymmetrical surcharges on the soil
around the piles," in Fifth Eur Conf On Soil Proc/Sp/, 1972.
30 . H. G. Poulos, (1973) "Analysis of piles in soil undergoing lateral movement," Journal of
the soil mechanics and foundations division, vol. 99, pp. 391-406.
31 . C. Franx and G. Boonstra, "Horizontal pressures on pile foundations," in Proceedings 2nd
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, 1948, pp. 131-135.
32 . C.-C. Fan and J. H. Long, (2005) “Assessment of existing methods for predicting soil
response of laterally loaded piles in sand," Computers and Geotechnics, vol. 32, pp. 274-
289.
33 . G. Martin and C.-Y. Chen, (2005) “Response of piles due to lateral slope movement,"
Computers & structures, vol. 83, pp. 588-598.
34 . R. Uzuoka, M. Cubrinovski, H. Sugita, M. Sato, K. Tokimatsu, N. Sento (2008) “Prediction
of pile response to lateral spreading by 3-D soil–water coupled dynamic analysis: Shaking in
the direction perpendicular to ground flow," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
vol. 28, pp. 436-452.
35 . S. Kanagasabai, J. Smethurst, and W. Powrie, (2011) "Three-dimensional numerical
modelling of discrete piles used to stabilize landslides," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol.
48, pp. 1393-1411.
36 . J.-b. Ye, Q. Xie, X.-b. Zhao, and Y.-r. Zhao, (2014) "Soil Arching Effect of Double-row
Piles: Laboratory Test and Numerical Interpretation," Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering,, vol. 19,
37 . C. Li, H. Tang, X. Hu, and L. Wang, (2013) "Numerical modelling study of the load
sharing law of anti-sliding piles based on the soil arching effect for Erliban landslide,
China," KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 17, pp. 1251-1262.
38 . H. Hakami, (2001) "Rock characterisation facility (RCF) shaft sinking—numerical
computations using FLAC," International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, vol. 38, pp. 59-65.
39 . O. Zienkiewicz, C. Humpheson, and R. Lewis, (1975) “Associated and non-associated
visco-plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics," Geotechnique, vol. 25, pp. 671-689.
40 . D. Griffiths, H. Lin, and P. Cao, "A comparison of numerical algorithms in the analysis of
pile reinforced slopes," in GeoFlorida 2010@ sAdvances in Analysis, Modeling & Design,
2010, pp. 175-183.

© 2014 ejge