SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 40, No. 1, 73-84, Feb.

2000
Japanese Geotechnical Society

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF THE STABILITY OF A SLOPE

REINFORCED WITH PILES

FBI CAli) and KEIZO UGAiii)

ABSTRACT
The effects of stabilizing piles on the stability of a slope are predicted by the three-dimensional elasto-plastic shear
strength reduction finite element method. The soil-pile interaction is simulated with zero-thickness elasto-plastic inter-
face elements. The numerical results are compared with those obtained by Bishop's simplified method, where the reac-
tion force of the piles is determined by Ito-Matsui's equation. The effects of the pile spacing, pile head conditions,
bending stiffness, and pile positions on the safety factor are analyzed. The shear strength reduction finite element
method shows that the pile head conditions and bending stiffness can considerably influence the stability of the slope,
but this cannot be indicated by the limit equilibrium method. The positions of the pile row have significant influence
on the stability of the slope. The shear strength reduction finite element method indicates that the pile row needs to be
installed in the middle of the slope for maximum safety. By contrast, Bishop's simplified method shows that the piles
should be installed slightly closer to the top of the slope.

Key words: finite element method, interface element, limit equilibrium method, pile, slope stability, three-dimension
(IGC: E6)

and used Bishop's simplified method to study the most

INTRODUCTION
The use of piles to stabilize active landslides, and as a
preventive measure in stable slopes, has been applied suc-
cessfully in the past and proved to be an efficient solu-
tion, since the piles can be easily installed without disturb-
ing the equilibrium of the slope. Some of the successful
applications of this technique have been reported by De
Beer and Wallays (1970), Ito and Matsui (1975),
Fukuoka (1977), and Hong and Han (1996).
The current design practices for pile-reinforced slopes
often use the limit equilibrium method, where the soil-
pile interaction is not considered, and the piles are as-
sumed to only supply an additional sliding resistance (Ito
et al., 1979, 1981, 1982; Poulos, 1995; Lee et al., 1995;
Yamagami and Yamakawa, 1995; Hassiotis et al., 1997).
The key to the limit equilibrium method is an accurate es-
timation of the lateral pressure acting against the stabiliz-
ing piles, that is in turn, the reaction force from the piles
against the slope sliding. Poulos (1973, 1995) reported an
approach to evaluating the pressure on single piles where
a modified boundary element method is employed to
study the response of the passive piles. The solution incor-
porates nonlinear soil-pile interface elements that can
represent a hardening or softening response prior to
reaching an ultimate state. Lee et al. (1995) used the ap-
proach to determine the reaction force from the piles,
il Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Gunma University, 1-5-1 Tenjin-cho, Kiryu, Gunma 376-8515.
iil Professor, ditto.
Manuscript was received for review on November 11, 1998.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before September 1, 2000 to the Japanese Geotechnical Society, Sugayama Bldg. 4F,
Kanda Awaji-cho 2-23, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0063, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.
effective means of using piles for stabilizing slopes. The
assumption that the pile tip is free to displace and to
rotate limits the application of the results. Chow (1996)
presented a numerical model for the same purpose,
where the piles are modeled using finite beam elements
and the soil is modeled using a hybrid method of analy-
sis. This method simulates the soil response at individual
piles using the subgrade reaction modulus, and the pile-
soil-pile interaction using the theory of elasticity. The nu-
merical results of well-documented case histories, where
the lateral soil movements due to slope instability are
recorded, suggest that the approaches presented by
Poulos (1973, 1995) and Chow (1996) are capable of
predicting the behavior of the piles, including the magni-
tude and distribution of the bending moments, shear
forces, pile deflection and rotation.
The solution for a single pile cannot be easily adapted
for the situation of a pile group because the lateral forces
acting on the piles are dependent on the soil movements,
which are affected by the presence of the passive piles.
Several authors have, however, suggested such an ap-
proach (Poulos, 1973; Viggiani, 1981). Other researchers
have considered the problem from the fundamental stand-
point of group (row) action. Winter et al. (1983) consid-
ered the solution of piles placed in a row, taking into ac-
count the spacing between the piles at the beginning of

73

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service
74 CAIAND UGAI
the analysis. This method, however, can only be used in
purely cohesive slopes undergoing creep. Ito and Matsui
(1975) proposed a theoretical method to analyze the
growth mechanism of lateral force acting on stabilizing
piles when the soil is forced to squeeze between piles. The
method was developed to specifically calculate the pres-
sures acting on the passive piles in a row. The force that
the failing mass exerts on a row of piles can be expressed
as a function of the soil strength, pile diameter, and pile
spacing. If a portion of that force is assumed to counter-
act the driving force of the slope, the safety factor of the
slope stabilized with piles can be calculated as a function
of the pile size and position based on the limit equilibri-
um method (Ito et al., 1979, 1981, 1982; Yamagami and
Yamakawa, 1995; Hassiotis et al., 1997). Although this
approach appears useful, the model is derived for rigid
piles, which may not represent the actual piles in the field
as they are unlikely to be rigid. The model may also pro-
vide doubtful solutions when the piles are closely spaced.
In the present paper, the effects of the pile spacing, pile
head conditions, bending stiffness, and pile positions are
numerically analyzed with the three-dimensional elasto-
plastic shear strength reduction finite element method.
The soil-pile interaction is simulated by zero-thickness
three-dimensional interface elements. The results of the
shear strength reduction finite element method are com-
pared with Bishop's simplified method, where the reac-
tion force by the piles is determined by Ito-Matsui's equa-
tion.
ANALYSIS METHOD
Shear Strength Reduction Finite Element Method
The slope stability is commonly assessed using limit
equilibrium methods (Bishop, 1955; Morgenstern and
Price, 1965). The ability of the limit equilibrium methods
to determine the stability of slopes reinforced with piles
may be in doubt because of the soil-pile interaction.
However, the elasto-plastic shear strength reduction
finite element method, in which the definition of the
global safety factor is identical to that in the convention-
al limit equilibrium methods, can analyze the slope stabil-
ity under a general frame. A numerical comp'!rison has
shown that the shear strength reduction finite element
method can yield nearly the same safety factor and corre-
sponding critical sliding surface as the conventional limit
equilibrium methods for slopes without piles under either
two-dimensional or three-dimensional conditions (U gai,
1989; Ugai and Leshchinsky, 1995).
The global safety factor of slopes, defined in the shear
strength reduction finite element method, is identical to
the one in limit equilibrium methods. The reduced shear
strength parameters Cp and cfJF are defined as:
c 0
Cp=- (1)
F where Kn is the elastic normal stiffness, and Ks and Kt are
tan c/J)
c/Jp=tan- 1 ( F (2)
where F is the shear strength reduction factor. The
reduced shear strength parameters Cp and cfJF replace the
shear strength parameters c and cjJ of Mohr-Coulomb's
failure criterion in elasto-plastic finite element analysis.
Firstly, a gravity turn-on is implemented under elastic
state to determine the initial stress distribution inside the
slope. Then, stresses and strains are calculated by the
elasto-plastic finite element method. The shear strength
reduction factor, F, is initially selected to be so small that
the materials of the slope are under elastic conditions.
The shear strength reduction factor, F, is then increased
incrementally until the global failure of the slope is
achieved, which means that the finite element calculation
diverges under a physically real convergence criterion.
The global safety factor at failure lies between the shear
strength reduction factor, F, at which the iteration limit
is reached, and the immediately previous value.
For a slope stabilized with piles, the slope completely
consists of the soil when the shear strength reduction fac-
tor, F, is less than unity. The material of the solid ele-
ments within the extent of the pile is changed from the
soil into the pile material when the shear strength reduc-
tion factor, F, reaches unity. The stresses in the pile are
assumed to be zero when the material is changed. Then,
the shear strength reduction factor increases once again,
step by step until the failure of the slope.
One of the main advantages of the shear strength reduc-
tion finite element method is that the safety factor
emerges naturally from the analysis without the user hav-
ing to commit to any particular form of the mechanism a
priori. For a slope reinforced with piles, the slip surface
may not be circular or continuous due to the piles. This
situation cannot be sufficiently considered by the limit
equilibrium method, but is not difficult for the shear
strength reduction finite element method. The shear
strength reduction finite element method can predict the
safety factor of a slope reinforced with piles as a slope
without piles, and the pile behavior characteristics can be
obtained simultaneously.
Simulation of Soil-Pile Interaction
The isoparametric interface element has been de-
scribed by Beer (1985). Such an isoparametric interface
element is fully compatible with isoparametric solid ele-
ments. The interface stresses are characterized by the nor-
mal stress, an, and two shear stresses, Ts, and, Tt. The nor-
mal and shear stresses are related with the constitutive
matrix to the normal and tangential relative displace-
ments of the interface element. For the elastic constitu-
tive matrix, the following simple expression is chosen:
D= 0
Kn 0 0]0
Ks (3)
[
0 Kt
the s-direction and !-direction shear stiffness, respec-
tively. The interface stiffness should be chosen such that
the initial slope of the load displacement relationship
NII-Electronic Library Service
 SLOPE REINFORCED WITH PILES 75

closely resembles that obtained by the elastic solution. In 14

this way the influence of interfaces is limited to the case
of true plastic slip. The interface stiffness can be related
12
11.94
to the shear modulus, G, of the soil adjacent to the inter- 10
face, and length of the interface element in the following ...-..
u 9. 14
way: 8
0
'-"
Ks=0t.1G/Is (4) ............ 6 ---11- Rough
0...
(5) --e-- Smooth
Kt=azG/It ---Elastic
4
where Is and It are the s-direction and !-direction length of
the interface element, respectively. The selected interface 2
stiffness should not be dependent on the unit system. Sim-
0
ple shear tests on the sand-steel interface show that the
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0. 10
sliding displacement along the interface is almost zero be-
u/D
fore the yield of the interface (Uesugi and Kishida, 1986;
Kishida and Uesugi, 1987; Fakharian and Evgin, 1996). Fig. 1. Deflection versus pressure on pile-section laterally loaded in
Therefore, the stress-strain relationship of the interface soil
can be considered to be rigid-plastic. The rigid-plastic
constitutive relationship is simulated by elasto-plastic
relationship with a sufficiently large elastic stiffness. It is The limit lateral pressures on the pile, normalized by the
assumed that the interface is isotropic for the shear stress- cohesion, c, are 9.14 and 11.94 for a perfectly smooth
es in the interface, so that a 1 =a2 =a. The following ex- pile and for a perfectly rough pile, respectively. This
ample of a pile-section loaded laterally in ~ soil shows problem has been numerically analyzed by Kooijman
that a= 20 is large enough to make the initial slope of the and Vermeer (1988), and Ng et al. (1997). The pile-sec-
load displacement relationship closely resemble the elas- tion, which is assumed to have a diameter, D, is pushed
tic analytical solution (Fig. 1). The normal stiffness for laterally by a uniform lateral load, P, applied per unit
the interface is taken as a very high value based on the length. The pile-section is embedded at the center of a cir-
reality that the structural and geological media do not cular segment of soil having a radius, R, with R= 15D.
overlap at the interface. The soil is assumed to have a ratio of the shear modulus
An elasto-plastic constitutive law is used in the anal- to the cohesion G I c= 100, the Poisson's ratio of the un-
yses presented here. The formulation of the const~tutive drained purely cohesive soils v=0.49, and the angle of
behavior was based on the plasticity theory. The Mohr- both internal friction cjJ and dilatancy If! equals zero. The
Coulomb failure criterion is used to define the yield func- used mesh consists of 13 layers in the radial direction and
tion, f, and the plastic potential function, g: is divided into 6 wedges in the circumferential direction
for the half pile-section. The calculated pressure-deflec-
!=r-an tan cjJ-c (6)
tion response is shown in Fig. 1. The consistency of the
g=r-an tan If/ (7) numerical and theoretical results gives us confidence in
.J
where r is the shear stress and r= r; + r;, cis the cohe- the reliability of the interface element.
sion, c:p is the friction angle, and If! is the dilation angle.
A full Gaussian integration procedure is used for the Limit Equilibrium Method
numerical integration of the stiffness matrix and related Bishop's simplified method of slip circle analysis
vectors of the interface elements. However, numerical (Bishop, 1955) is employed to determine the safety factor
problems can occur through ill-conditioning of the stiff- of a slope stabilized with piles. This safety factor is com-
ness matrix and high stress gradients in the interface ele- pared with the numerical results obtained by the shear
ments. Reducing the size of the solid elements adjacent strength reduction finite element method. Based on the
to the interface element is an effective measure to resisting moment, MR, of the soil, and the driving mo-
decrease the occurrence of ill-conditioning (Day and ment, Mn, of the sliding body, the safety factor, Fs, is
Potts, 1994). given by:
The pile-section loaded laterally in a soil is a good MR+Mp
benchmark to confirm the interface element. The elastic Fs (8)
Mn
behavior of a perfectly rough circular pile-section load-
ed laterally in the soil under the plane strain condition has The resisting moment by the pile row, MP, can be deter-
been presented by Baguelin et al. (1977) based on a single mined by:
Airy function. For the case of piles with a circular cross- QR
section and embedded in perfectly plastic and purely co- Mp=--cos (} (9)
D1
hesive soils obeying an associated flow rule, Randolph
and Houlsby (1984) developed exact solutions for vari- where R is the radius of the slip circle, D 1 is the center-to-
ous pile-soil adhesions, based on the plasticity theory. center spacing between the piles, (}is the angle between

NII-Electronic Library Service

76 CAIANDUGAI

the tangential direction of the slip circle at the pile posi- with the depth and is not influenced by the pile positions.
tion and the horizontal direction, and Q is the total force The simplex reflection technique, an optimization
exerted on the sliding body by the piles, which is the in- method, is used for locating the critical slip circle that
tegral of the lateral force per unit thickness acting on the has the lowest safety factor. When the slope is stabilized
pile from the top of the pile to the depth of the slip circle with the piles, the critical slip surface is found after addi-
at the pile position. The lateral force per unit thickness tion of the resisting moment by the piles. Thus a smaller
acting on the pile, q, has been shown by Ito and Matsui safety factor can be obtained than that considering the
(1975) to be: effect of the piles with the original critical slip surface
without piles.
q=cA [
N<P tan~
1 1
{exp (D -D N<P
D2
2
tan~ tan(!!._+
8 4
~ ))
1/2 2 tan "-+2N
'P
112
<P + N-
112
<P ]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
- 2N <P tan ~- 1} + N 1; 2 N Model Slope
<P tan~+ <P- 1
112 An idealized slope with a height of 10 m and a gradient
+N- 112
- c D 1 2tan"-+2N
'P <P <P 2D2N - 112
)
of 1 V:1.5 Hand a ground thickness of 10m is analyzed
( 12
N ~ tan ~ + N<P- 1 <P with a three-dimensional finite element mesh, as shown

+:. {A exp ( D,; DN• tan

2
2
¢ tan ( ;
where N<P=tan (n/ 4+~/2), A =D 1(Dd D2 )N~ tan<P+N.,- 1 ,
2
and D 2 is the opening between the piles, as shown in Fig.
2. lto-Matsui's equation is derived for rigid piles, which
may not represent the actual piles. This equation implies
that the lateral force per unit thickness increases linearly
+ :) ) - D,} in Fig. 2. An isoparametric element with 20 nodes is used
for the soil, a prism element with 15 nodes for the pile,
and an interface element with 16 nodes for the soil-pile in-
(10) terface. Two symmetric boundaries are used, so that the
12
problem analyzed really consists of a row of piles with
planes of symmetry through the pile centreline and
through the soil midway between the piles. A small thick-
ness mesh is used around the pile to reduce the ill-con-
ditioning of the interface elements.

0
E
ci
......

X
Lx

IO.Om L=IS.Om IO.Om

35.0m

Fig. 2. Model slope and finite element mesh

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SLOPE REINFORCED WITH PILES
Fig. 3. Vectors of nodal displacement induced by shear strength
reduction and critical slip circle located by Bishop's simplified
method for slope without piles
When the slope is not reinforced with piles, the shear
strength reduction finite element method and Bishop's
simplified method gave safety factors of 1.14 and 1.13, re-
spectively; these compare well with each other. The
failure mechanism in the shear strength reduction finite
element method is represented by the nodal displace-
ments induced by the shear strength reduction, i.e., the
difference between the nodal displacements just before
failure and the nodal displacements when the shear
strength reduction factor, F, is equal to unity. The nodal
displacements are shown with the vectors in Fig. 3. It is
obvious that the nodal displacements inside the sliding
body should be clearly larger, so that the failure mecha-
nism, indicated by the nodal displacements in the shear
strength reduction finite element method, will agree well
with the critical slip circle given by Bishop's simplified
method.
A steel tube pile with an outer diameter of 0.8 m is
modelled by 7 elements in the vertical direction and 6
wedge elements in the circumferential direction which
form a semicircular shape. The piles are treated as a
linear elastic solid material, of which the equivalent
Young's modulus is determined based on the equality of
the bending stiffness. The piles are installed in the middle
of the slope, i.e., the horizontal distance between the
slope toe and the pile position Lx= 7.5 m, and the center-
to-center spacing D1 =3D unless otherwise stated. The
piles are embedded and fixed into the bedrock or a stable
layer. The material parameters of the soil, the soil-pile in-
terface, and the pile are shown in Table 1 (unless other-
wise stated), where the Young's modulus of the piles is
the equivalent value with the same bending stiffness.
Table 1. Material parameters
Parameter Soil Interface
Young's modulus, E (MPa) 200 200
Poisson's ratio, v 0.25 0.25
Unit weight, y (kN/m3 ) 20.0
Cohesion, c (kPa) 10.0 10.0
Friction angle, 4> ( 0 ) 20.0 20.0
Dilatancy angle, If/ ( 0 ) 0.0 0.0
77
1.7
I
I
I I I
-e- Bishop
I
I
I
1.6 ------ FEM(free)
-B- FEM(hinged)
1.5
en
~
1.4
1.3
1.2
0 2 4 6 8
Dl/D
Fig. 4. Effects of pile spacing on safety factor
Effect of Pile Spacing
When the piles with an equivalent Young's modulus,
Ep=60 GPa, are installed withLx=7.5 m, the effect of the
pile spacing on the safety factor of the slope stabilized
with piles is shown in Fig. 4. As expected, the rate of in-
crease in the safety factor increases with decreasing the
pile spacing. As the pile spacing decreases, the piles
become more like a continuous barrier and the influence
of soil arching becomes more pronounced, so the soil
does not reach the limit state until the soil is deformed
greatly. This can be indicated by the pile deflection at col-
lapse, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The numerical results ob-
tained by the shear strength reduction finite element
method show that pile head conditions influence the safe-
ty factor of a slope stabilized with piles. The difference in
the safety factor between the free and hinged pile head
conditions can be explained by the pressure on the piles,
i.e., the lateral force acting on the piles per unit thickness
divided by the diameter of the piles, as shown in Fig. 5.
The pressure is positive when its direction is identical to
that of the sliding of the slope, i.e., opposite to the x-direc-
tion in Fig. 2. The pressure on the piles is identical to the
resisting reaction force to the sliding body in value, in
spite of the fact that their directions are opposite. There-
fore, the larger the pressure on the piles, the larger the
reaction force to the sliding body supplied by the piles,
and the higher the safety factor of the slope reinforced
with piles. The reason for the difference of the pressure
on the piles is explained in the next section.
Figure 4 shows that Bishop's simplified method can ob-
tain a similar rate of change in the safety factor as the
shear strength reduction finite element method.
However, Bishop's simplified method cannot consider
the influence of the pile head conditions on the safety fac-
Pile tor due to the limit of Ito-Matsui's equation, which is der-
60000 ived for rigid piles. A hinged head pile is nearer to the
0.20 rigid pile condition due to its smaller lateral deflection, as
shown in Fig. 5(b). But the safety factor of a slope rein-
forced with a hinged head pile, obtained by Bishop's sim-
plified method, is significantly smaller than that obtained
by the shear strength reduction finite element method. It
NII-Electronic Library Service
78 CAl ANDUGAI

Deflection( em) Bending moment(MN-m) Shear force(MN) Pressure(MPa)

0 2 4 6 8 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0

10 ---- Dl/D=2
-a- Dl/D=3
------- Dl/D=4
-e- Dl/D=6

(a)

Deflection( em) Bending moment(MN-m) Shear force(MN) Pressure(MPa)

0 2 4 6 8 -1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

II

---- Dl/D=2
10 -a- Dl/D=3
~ Dl/D=4
-e--- D 1/D=6

(b)

Fig. 5. (a) Pile behavior characteristics for various pile spacing (free head), (b) Pile behavior characteristics for various pile spacing (hinged head)

should be a coincidence that the safety factors obtained
by the two methods compare well with each other for the
free head piles because of the existence of negative pres-
sure on the free head piles, as indicated in Fig. 5(a). The
negative pressure implies that this part of the pile cannot
supply resisting force to the slope; on the contrary, it
makes the safety factor of the slope decrease. But it is im-
possible for Eq. (10) to obtain a negative pressure on the
piles.
The lateral shear force along the x-direction in the pile
reaches the first extreme point at a critical depth, as
shown in Fig. 5. The critical depth can be regarded as the
level of the slip surface although the shear strength reduc-
tion finite element method cannot predict a clear slip sur-
face like the limit equilibrium method. The definition is
valid because the analytical results of the piles under mov-
ing soil show that the first extreme point of the distribu-
tion of the shear force in the piles is developed at the level
of the slip surface (Ito et al., 1981; Poulos, 1995;
Hassi otis et al., 1997). The nodal displacements due to
the shear strength reduction and the critical slip surface
located by Bishop's simplified method are shown in Fig.
6. By comparing the magnitude and distribution of the
nodal displacements inside the slope, especially at the
pile position, as shown in Figs. 3 and 6, it is reasonable
that the critical depth is taken as the level of the slip sur-
face. Table 2 shows the depth of the slip surface at the po-
sition of the piles, determined by the foregoing methods.
For free head piles, the smaller the spacing of the piles,
the deeper the level of the slip surface predicted by the

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SLOPE REINFORCED WITH PILES
D1/D=2.0
Fig. 6. Vectors of nodal displacement induced by shear strength
reduction and critical slip circle located by Bishop's simplified
method
Table 2. Depth of slip surface
Shear strength reduction FEM Bishop's
Pile spacing
DdD simplified
Free head Hinged head method
2.0 6.27 6.27 2.84
3.0 4.98 6.27 3.18
4.0 4.18 6.27 3.34
6.0 4.18 4.98 3.50
shear strength reduction finite element method. For
hinged head piles, however, the level of the slip surface is
not greatly changed by the spacing of the piles. Bishop's
simplified method, however, locates a shallower slip sur-
face for more closely spaced piles. Because Eq. (10) indi-
cates that the reaction force supplied by the piles in-
creases linearly with the depth, the shallower the slip
surface, the smaller the resisting moment, Mp, supplied
by the piles. The total resisting moment reaches the mini-
mum for the critical slip circle in Bishop's simplified
method. The level of the slip surfaces, predicted by the
shear strength reduction finite element method, is deeper
than those located by Bishop's simplified method, regard-
less of the pile head conditions. The depth of the slip sur-
face implies that Bishop's simplified method cannot indi-
cate the true failure mechanism for the slopes reinforced
with piles, as shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 5 shows that the maximum bending moment oc-
curs below the slip surface for free head piles, and above
the slip surface for hinged head piles, regardless of the
spacing between the piles. This is consistent with the ana-
lytical results of the piles under the soil movement (Ito et
al., 1981). The value and depth of the maximum bending
moment increases with decreasing the pile spacing for
free head piles. These values are almost the same,
however, for the hinged head piles. The maximum bend-
ing moment in free head piles is about two times that in
hinged head piles. By contrast, the maximum shear force
in the hinged head piles is around two times that in the
free head piles. Because it is more possible for the stabiliz-
ing piles to be yielded by the bending moment than by the
shear force (Ito and Matsui, 1979}, the hinged head piles
79
are recommended to stabilize the slopes.
Effects of Pile Head Conditions and Pile Bending Stiff-
ness
Based on the boundary condition at the top of the
piles, the following four possible pile head conditions ex-
ist: (1) free head (displacement and rotation); (2) unro-
tated head (displacement without rotation); (3) hinged
head (rotation without displacement); and (4) fixed head
(neither displacement nor rotation). The unrotated pile
head condition can be obtained by connecting the pile
heads with a buried reinforced concrete beam to restrain
the rotation of the pile heads. The hinged head can be
reached with tie-rods or tension anchors to restrain the
displacement of the pile head. The fixed head can be ob-
tained by connecting the pile heads with a buried beam
fixed by tie-rods or tension anchors to restrain the dis-
placement and rotation of the pile head. Some examples
of buried beams and tie-rods or tension anchors can be
seen in Design Guideline for Steel Pipe Pile to Stabilize
Landslide (1990).
The effect of the bending stiffness is simulated by
changing only the equivalent Young's modulus, Ep, of
the piles. The piles are installed with Lx=7.5 m, and the
center-to-center spacing D 1=3D. The safety factor of a
slope stabilized with piles for various pile head condi-
tions and for various bending stiffness values, listed in
Table 3, shows that the pile head conditions have more
influence on the safety factor of the slope when the piles
are more flexible (Ep=60 GPa). However, for piles with
larger bending stiffness (Ep=200 GPa), the safety factor
is the same, regardless of the pile head conditions. When
the piles are under the hinged or fixed head condition, the
safety factor is almost the same for the two bending stiff-
ness values of the piles. This is because that the pressure
on the piles shows that the reaction force is almost the
same for the two bending stiffness values when the pile
head is hinged or fixed, as shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b).
When the piles are more flexible (Ep=60 GPa}, the pres-
sure on free or unrotated head piles is considerably
smaller than that on hinged or fixed head piles. The pres-
sure on the free head pile is even negative over some
depth. The local top views of the nodal displacements in-
duced by the shear strength reduction around the piles
are shown in Figs. 8(a) and 8(b). From these figures, it can
be observed that the free head pile movement can exceed
the soil movement for the more flexible pile (Ep = 60
GPa) when it is acted on by a force induced by the soil
movement under a certain depth. This results in negative
pressure on the piles. This part of the pile with the nega-
tive pressure pushes the surrounding soil and decreases
the stability of the slopes. Satoh et al. (1998) observed
negative pressure on stainless steel tube piles in a static
centrifuge test to investigate the behavior of free head
piles in lateral flowing sand due to the moving of a quay
wall. However, Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) show that the pressure
on the piles is positive for hinged or fixed pile head condi-
tions even when the piles are more flexible (Ep=60 GPa),
and for all pile head conditions when the piles are of
NII-Electronic Library Service
80 CAIAND UGAI

Deflection( em) Bending moment(MN-m) Shear force(MN) Pressure(MPa)

0 2 4 6 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

10 ----Free
-a- Unrotated
-e-- Hinged
~Fixed
- - lto-Matsui

15
(a)

Deflection( em) Bending moment(MN-m) Shear force(MN) Pressure(MPa)

0 2 4 6 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
0

10 ---- Free
-a- Unrotated
-e-- Hinged
--e- Fixed
-- Ito-Matsui
············ Ito-Matsui(fs)
15 -----'-----------'
(b)

Fig. 7. (a) Pile behavior characteristics for various pile head conditions (EP = 60 GPa), (b) Pile behavior characteristics for various pile head condi-
tions (EP = 200 GPa)

larger bending stiffness (Ep=200 GPa). Table 3. Effects of pile head conditions and bending stiffness on safe-
Even for piles with larger bending stiffness (Ep=200 ty factor
GPa), Fig. 7(b) shows that the pressure on the piles varies Young's Shear strength reduction FEM Bishop's
considerably with different pile head conditions because modulus simplified
of piles (GPa) Free Unrotated Hinged Fixed method
of the relative displacements between the soil and pile
(Fig. 8(b)), that is in turn, the mobilized shear strength of 60 1.36 1.45 1.54 1.55 1.37
the soil-pile interface. The pressure on piles with larger 200 1.55 1.57 1.55 1.56 1.37
bending stiffness, predicted by the shear strength reduc-
tion finite element method, is significantly larger than
that estimated by lto-Matsui's equation, as shown in Fig. ment method, is significantly larger than that obtained by
7(b), where the notation Ito-Matsui(fs) means that the Bishop's simplified method, as shown in Table 3.
pressure is calculated by Ito-Matsui's equation using the The pile behavior characteristics for various pile head
reduced shear strength parameters Cp and cf>p. The larger conditions are shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b ). The hinged
pressure on the piles is one of the reasons why the safety head condition results in the smallest bending moment in
factor, predicted by the shear strength reduction finite ele- the piles, followed in order by the fixed, unrotated, and

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SLOPE REINFORCED WITH PILES 81

15cm 15cm
~ L____j

- -=--
---

(a) free head (a) free head

15cm I Scm
L___j L___j

- -:=.--

(b) unrotated head (b) unrotated head

3cm 3cm
L___j L___j

(c) hinged head (c) hinged head

3cm 3cm
L___j L___j

(d) fixed head (d) fixed head

initial pile position initial position

position after deflection position after deflection

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. (a) Local top views of nodal displacements induced by shear strength reduction (Ep=60 GPa), (b) Local top views of nodal displacements
induced by shear strength reduction (Ep = 200 GPa)

free head condition. Because it is more possible for the
stabilizing piles to be yielded by the bending moment
than by the shear force (Ito and Matsui, 1979), a re-
strained pile head (hinged or fixed) is recommended, and
the free head condition should be avoided due to its maxi-
mum bending moment in the piles. A restrained pile head
can also result in a larger safety factor for slopes rein-
forced with flexible piles. If the restrained head condition
cannot be obtained, the bending stiffness should be in-
creased in order to prevent possible negative pressure on
the piles.

NII-Electronic Library Service

82
1.6
1.5
1.4
~ 1.3
1.2 -II- FEM(free)
-B- FEM(hinged)
1.1 -e- Bishop
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lx/L
Fig. 9. Effects of pile positions on safety factor
Effect of Pile Positions
The pile positions in the slope are indicated with a
dimensionless ratio of the horizontal distance between
the slope toe and the pile position, Lx, to the horizontal
distance between the slope toe and slope shoulder, L, as
shown in Fig. 2. The equivalent Young's modulus of the
piles, EP = 60 GPa, and the center-to-center spacing
D1 =3D. The influence of the pile positions on the safety
factor of a slope stabilized with piles is shown in Fig. 9.
The numerical results, obtained with the shear strength
reduction finite element method, show that the safety fac-
tor of slopes reinforced with hinged head piles is larger
than that with free head piles. The difference is more sig-
nificant when the piles are installed in the middle portion
of slopes. Therefore, a restrained pile head (hinged or
fixed) is recommended once again. The improvement of
the safety factor of slopes reinforced with piles is largest
when the piles are installed in the middle of the slopes,
regardless of pile head conditions. However, Bishop's
simplified method shows that the safety factor increases
with the horizontal distance between the slope toe and
the pile position, Lx, until the piles are placed considera-
bly closer to the top of the slopes. This is the same as the
results of the limit equilibrium methods obtained by Ito
et al. (1979) and Hassiotis et al. (1997). When the piles
are placed in the lower portion of the slopes, the pressure
on the piles is positive even for the free head condition
due to the shallow sliding soil mass. Figure 9 shows that
the difference in the safety factor obtained by these two
methods is small when Lx/ L is less than 0.3. When the
hinged head piles are installed in the middle portion of
the slopes, the safety factor obtained by the shear
strength reduction finite element method is significantly
larger than that predicted by Bishop's simplified method.
This is mainly because the pressure on the piles, predict-
ed by the shear strength reduction finite element method,
is larger than that obtained by Ito-Matsui's equation, as
shown in Fig. lO(b).
The pile behavior characteristics for various pile posi-
tions are shown in Figs. lO(a) and lO(b). These figures
CAIANDUGAI
show that when the piles are placed in the lower and mid-
dle portions of the slopes, the pressure on the piles is
larger because the numerical results show that the relative
soil-pile displacement is so large that the shear strength
of the soil-pile interface is sufficiently mobilized. But, it
is clear that the shear strength of the soil-pile interface is
not sufficiently mobilized when the piles are installed in
the upper portions of the slopes, because the pressure on
these piles is smaller than that on the piles in the lower
and middle portions of the slopes. However, Eq. (10)
shows that the influence of the pile positions on the pres-
sure on the piles cannot be considered by Ito-Matsui's
method, which is used to determine the reaction force of
1.0 the piles in Bishop's simplified method. Because the reac-
tion force of the piles, determined by Ito-Matsui's equa-
tion, is the same regardless of the pile positions, Bishop's
simplified method predicts the maximum safety factor
when the piles are installed a little closer to the top of the
slopes. Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show that the pile behav-
ior characteristics are significantly influenced by the posi-
tions of the piles, and that the bending moment and the
shear force in the piles are maximum when the piles are
placed in the middle of slopes.
CONCLUSIONS
The three-dimensional shear strength reduction finite
element method is used to predict the stability of a slope
reinforced with piles, where the soil-pile interaction is
simulated by zero-thickness, three dimensional, elasto-
plastic interface elements. The numerical results obtained
by this method are compared with those based on
Bishop's simplified method where the reaction force of
the piles is determined by Ito-Matsui's equation. As the
results of the numerical analyses of the effects of the pile
spacing, pile head conditions, bending stiffness, and pile
positions, the following conclusions can be obtained:
(1) The stability of a slope can be improved with piles,
and as might be expected, the improvement of the
safety factor increases with reducing the spacing be-
tween the piles. The safety factor, obtained by the
shear strength reduction finite element method, is
significantly larger than that predicted by Bishop's
simplified method for hinged head piles, which is
closer to the assumption of the rigid piles in Ito-
Matsui's equation. The two methods can obtain a
similar rate of change in the safety factor with
decreasing the pile spacing.
(2) The pile head conditions and the bending stiffness
influence the pressure on the piles, and thus the safe-
ty factor of the slopes. If the piles are more flexible,
the pressure on free head piles is negative over a cer-
tain depth. Therefore, the safety factor of the slope
is significantly smaller than that of a slope rein-
forced with restrained head piles. This implies that
a restrained pile head (hinged or fixed) should be
recommended, and the free head condition should
be avoided when piles are used to stabilize slopes.
For restrained pile head conditions, the safety fac-
NII-Electronic Library Service
 SLOPE REINFORCED WITH PILES 83

Deflection( em) Bending moment(MN-m) Shear force(MN) Pressure(MPa)

0 1 2 3 4 5 -1. 0 -0. 6 -0. 2 0. 2 0. 6 -0. 3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
0

10

- - - Lx!L= 1/6
-a- Lx!L= 1/3
15 -e- Lx/L= 112
-e- Lx!L=2/3
_._ Lx!L=5/6
- - Ito-Matsui
20
(a)

Deflection( em) Bending moment(MN-m) Shear force(MN) Pressure(MPa)

0 1 2 3 4 5 -1. 0 -0. 6 -0. 2 0. 2 0. 6 -0. 3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4

5
s
::ci
-+-=' )
p..
CD
t::::1 ~
10
- - - Lx/L=l/6
-a- Lx!L= 1/3
-e- Lx/L= 112
15 ~ -e- Lx/L=2/3
- A - Lx!L=5/6
- - Ito-Matsui
j~

20
(b)

F1g. 10. (a) Pile behavior characteristics for various pile positions (free head), (b) Pile behavior characteristics for various pile positions (hinged
head)

tor predicted by Bishop's simplified method is over-
ly conservative.
(3) The numerical results of the shear strength reduc-
tion finite element method show that the pressure
on piles is larger only when the piles are placed in
the lower and middle portion of the slopes. This is
because the relative displacements of the soil-pile in-
terface are so large that the effect of the piles is
sufficiently mobilized. Therefore, piles should be in-
stalled in the middle of slopes for the maximum safe-
ty factor. By contrast, the reaction force supplied
by piles is assumed to mobilize sufficiently, regard-
less of the pile positions, in Ito-Matsui's equation.
Therefore, Bishop's simplified method shows that
the piles should be placed slightly closer to the top
of the slope for the largest safety factor.
REFERENCES
1) Baguelin, F., Frank, R. and Said, Y. H. (1977): "Theoretical study
of lateral reaction mechanism of piles," Geotechnique, Vol. 27,
No. 3, pp. 405-434.
2) Beer, G. (1985): "An isoparametric joint/interface element for
finite element analysis," Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engrg., Vol. 21, pp.
585-600.
3) Bishop, A. W. (1955): "The use of the slip circle in the stability of
slopes," Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 7-17.
4) Chow, Y. K. (1996): "Analysis of piles used for slope stabiliza-
tion," Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., Vol. 20, No.9, pp.
635-646.
5) Day, R. A. and Potts, D. M. (1994): "Zero thickness interface ele-
ments-numerical stability and application," Int. J. Numer. Anal.

NII-Electronic Library Service

84 CAIAND UGAI
Meth. Geomech., Vol. 18, pp. 689-708.
6) De Beer, E. E. and Wallays, M. (1970): "Stabilization of a slope in
schists by means of bored piles reinforced with steel beams,'' Proc.
2nd Int. Congress Rock Mech., Beograd, Vol. 3, pp. 361-369.
7) Fakharian, K. and Evgin, E. (1996): "An automated apparatus for
three-dimensional monotonic and cyclic testing of interfaces,'' Ge-
otech. Testing J., Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 22-31.
8) Fukuoka, M. (1977): "The effects of horizontal loads on piles due
to landslides," Proc. lOth Spec. Session, 9th Int. Conf. on SMFE,
Tokyo, pp. 27-42.
9) Hassiotis, S., Chameau, J. L. and Gunaratne, M. (1997): "Design
method for stabilization of slopes with piles," J. Geotech. and Ge-
oenvir. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 123, No.4, pp. 314-323.
10) Hong, W. P. and Han, J. G. (1996): "The behavior of stabilizing
piles installed in slopes," Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Landslides,
Rotterdam, Vol. 3, pp. 1709-1714.
11) Ito, T. and Matsui, T. (1975): "Methods to estimate lateral force
acting on stabilizing piles," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 15, No.4,
pp. 43-59.
12) Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W. P. (1979): "Design method for
the stability analysis of the slope_ with landing pier,'' Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 43-57.
13) Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W. P. (1981): "Design method for
stabilizing piles against landslide-one row of piles," Soils and Foun-
dations, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 21-37.
14) Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W. P. (1982): "Extended design
method for multi-row stabilizing piles against landslide,'' Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
15) Japanese Committee on Stabilizing Technology of Landslide
(1990): "Design guideline for steel pipe pile to stabilize landslide,"
(in Japanese).
16) Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M. (1987): "Tests of the interface between
sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus," Geotechnique, Vol.
37, No. 1, pp. 45-52.
17) Kooijman, A. P. and Vermeer, P. A. (1988): "Elastoplastic analy-
sis of laterally loaded piles," Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Numer.
Meth. Geomech., Innsbruck, Vol. 2, pp. 1033-1042.
18) Lee, C. Y., Hull, T. S. and Poulos, H. G. (1995): "Simplified pile-
slope stability analysis," Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 17, No.
1, pp. 1-16.
19) Morgenstern, N. R. and Price, V. E. (1965): "The analysis of the
stability of general slip surfaces," Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp. 79-93.
20) Ng, P. C. F., Pyrah, I. C. and Anderson, W. F. (1997): "Assess-
ment of three interface elements and modification of the interface
element in CRISP90," Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 21, No.
4, pp. 315-339.
21) Poulos, H. G. (1995): "Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope
stability," Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 808-818.
22) Randolph, M. F. and Houlsby, G. T. (1984): "The limiting pres-
sure on a circular pile loaded laterally in cohesive soil," Geotech-
nique, Vol. 34, No.4, pp. 613-623.
23) Satoh, H., Ohbo, N. and Yoshizako, K. (1998): "Dynamic test on
behavior of pile during lateral ground flow," Proc. Int. Conf. Cen-
trifuge 98, Tokyo, pp. 327-332.
24) Uesugi, M. and Kishida, H. (1986a): "Influential factors of friction
between steel and dry sands," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 26, No.
2, pp. 33-46.
25) Uesugi, M. and Kishida, H. (1986b): "Frictional resistance at yield
between dry sand and mild metal," Soils and Foundations, Vol.
26, No.4, pp. 139-149.
26) Ugai, K. (1989): "A method of calculation of global safety factor
of slopes by elasto-plastic FEM," Soils and Foundations, Vol. 29,
No. 2, pp. 190-195 (in Japanese).
27) Ugai, K. and Leshchinsky, D. (1995): "Three-dimensional limit
equilibrium and finite element analyses: a comparison of results,"
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 1-7.
28) Viggiani, C. (1981): "Ultimate lateral load on piles used to stabilize
landslides," Proc. lOth Int. Conf. on SMFE, Stockholm, Vol. 3,
pp. 555-560.
29) Winter, H., Schwarz, W. and Gudehus, G. (1983): "Stabilization
of clay slopes by piles," Proc. 8th Eur. Conf. on SMFE, Vol. 2, p.
545.
30) Yamagami, T. and Yamakawa, 0. (1995): "A simplified design
method for the landslide stabilizing piles based on the
Morgenstern-Price method," Proc. of JSCE, No. 511/III-30, pp.
117-126 (in Japanese).
NII-Electronic Library Service