Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Analysis of pile stabilized slopes based on soil–pile interaction

Mohamed Ashour ⇑, Hamed Ardalan
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper presents a new procedure for the analysis of slope stabilization using piles. The developed
Received 13 May 2011 method allows the assessment of soil pressure and its distribution along the pile segment above the slip
Received in revised form 26 August 2011 surface based on soil–pile interaction. The proposed method accounts for the influence of pile spacing on
Accepted 7 September 2011
the interaction between the pile and surrounding soils and pile capacity. The paper also studies the effect
Available online 7 October 2011
of soil type, and pile diameter, position and spacing on the safety factor of the stabilized slope. Specific
criteria are adopted to evaluate the pile capacity, ultimate soil–pile pressure, development of soil flow-
Keywords:
around failure and group action among adjacent piles in a pile row above and below the slip surface.
Slope stabilization
Soil–pile interaction
The ability of the proposed method to predict the behavior of piles subject to lateral soil movements
Pile group due to slope instability is verified through a number of full scale load tests.
Lateral loads Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Safety factor

1. Introduction
The use of piles to stabilize active landslides, as a preventive
measure in stable slopes, has become one of the important innova-
tive slope reinforcement techniques in last decades. Piles have
been used successfully in many situations in order to stabilize
slopes or to improve slope stability and numerous methods have
been developed for the analysis of piled slopes [1–5].
The piles used in slope stabilization are usually subjected to lat-
eral force by horizontal movements of the surrounding soil and
hence they are considered as passive piles. The interaction behav-
ior between pile and soil is a complicated phenomenon due to its
3-dimensional nature and can be influenced by many factors, such
as the characteristics of deformation and the strength parameters
of both pile and soil.
The interaction among piles is complex and depends on soil and
pile properties, and the level of soil-induced driving force. Further-
more, the earth pressures applied to the piles are highly dependent
upon the relative movement of the soil and the piles. In practical
applications, the study of a slope reinforced with piles is usually
carried out by extending the methods commonly used for the sta-
bility analysis of slopes to incorporate the reaction force exerted on
the unstable soil mass by the piles.
The characterization of the problem of slope instability and the
use of piles to improve the stability of such slopes requires better
characterization of the integrated effect of laterally loaded pile
behavior, pile-structure-interaction, and the nonlinear behavior
of pile materials (steel and/or concrete) on the resultant slope
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 256 824 5029; fax: +1 256 824 6724.
E-mail address: ashour@eng.uah.edu (M. Ashour).
stability condition. The driving force of the soil mass that acts
along the pile segment above the slip surface is transmitted to
the lower (stable) soil layers, as shown in Fig. 1. Such a scenario re-
quires representative modeling for the soil–pile interaction above
the failure surface that reflects and describes actual distribution
for the soil driving force along that particular portion of the pile.
In addition, the installation of closely spaced pile row would create
an interaction effect (group action) among adjacent piles not only
below but also above the slip surface.
One approach has been to calculate the soil passive resistance
(driving force) based on Broms’ method [6] as characterized in
NAVFAC [7]. Another alternative is to use the ultimate soil reaction
from the traditional p–y curve. Neither of these ultimate resis-
tances was envisioned for sloping ground, and neither considers
group interference effects in a fundamental way, certainly not for
sloping ground conditions. In addition, flow-around failure of soil
around the pile is a significant phenomenon that should be consid-
ered in the current practice. It should be noted that the flow-
around failure governs the amount of force (PD) acting on the pile
above the failure surface.
The presented method allows the determination of the mobi-
lized driving soil–pile pressure per unit length of the pile (pD)
above the slip surface based on soil–pile interaction in an incre-
mental fashion using the strain wedge (SW) model technique
developed by Norris [8] and Ashour et al. [9]. The buildup of pD
along the pile segment above the slip surface should be coherent
with the variation of stress/strain level that is developed in the
resisting soil layers below the slip surface. The mobilized non-
uniformly distributed soil pressure (pD) is governed by the soil–pile
interaction (i.e. soil and pile properties) and developing flow-
around failure above and below the slip surface. In addition, the

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.09.001
86 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97

using theoretical equations, derived previously by Ito and Matsui

su rface
Slope [10] based on the theory of plastic deformation and considering
oil
ized s plastic flow of the soil through the piles. The ultimate soil pressure
Mobil e (p D)
pressu
r on the pile segment which is induced by flowing soil depends on
e the strength properties of the soil, overburden pressure, and spac-
g s urfa c
Slidin ing between the piles and is independent of pile stiffness as a rigid
mass
lid i n g soil pile with infinite length. Also, the equations are only valid over a
S limited range of spacings, since, at large spacing or at very close
spacings, the mechanism of flow through the piles postulated by
Ito and Matsui [10] is not the critical mode [2]. Large increase in
Pile extended into the value of the soil–pile pressure (pD) can be observed by reducing
stable soil
the clear spacing between piles.
Soil-pile Hassiotis et al. [11] have extended the friction circle method by
resistance (p) defining new expressions for the stability number to incorporate
the pile resistance in slope stability analysis using a closed form
solution of the beam equation. The ultimate force intensity (soil–
pile pressure) is calculated based on the equations proposed by
Ito and Matsui [10] assuming a rigid pile. The finite difference
method is used to analyze the pile section below the critical sur-
Fig. 1. Driving force induced by displaced soil mass above the sliding surface.
face as a beam on elastic foundations (BEF). However, the safety
factor of the slope after inserting the piles is obtained based on
the new critical failure surface, which is not necessarily the one be-
e
surfac fore pile installation [11].
Slope
soil Poulos [2] and Lee et al. [12] presented a method of analysis in
lized
Mobi e (p D) which a simplified form of boundary element method [13] was em-
s s ur
pre e
surfac
g
ployed to study the response of a row of passive piles incorporated
Slidin in limit equilibrium solutions of slope stability in which the pile is
mass
g s oi l modeled as a simple elastic beam, and the soil as an elastic contin-
Slidin
uum. The method evaluates the maximum shear force that each
pile can provide based on an assumed input free field soil move-
ment and also computes the associated lateral response of the pile.
(Beam on Elastic Foundation)

Stable soil The prescribed soil movements are employed by considering the
compatibility of the horizontal movement of the pile and soil at
each element. While pile and soil strength and stiffness properties
are taken into account to obtain soil–pile pressure in this method,
Soil-pile resistance

Fig. 2. Proposed model for soil–pile analysis in pile-stabilized slopes.
presented technique allows the calculation of the post-pile instal-
lation safety factor (i.e. stability improvement) for the whole
stabilized slope, and the slope portions uphill and downhill the
pile. The size of the mobilized passive wedge of sliding soil mass
controls the magnitudes and distribution of the soil–pile pressure
(pD) and the total amount of the driving force (PD) transferred via
an individual pile in a pile row down to the stable soil layers.
The presented technique also accounts for the interaction among
adjacent piles (group effect) above and below the slip surface.
Fig. 2 shows the soil–pile model as employed in the proposed tech-
nique. The ability of this method to predict the behavior of piles
subject to lateral soil movements due to slope instability is verified
through a comparison with two case histories. Also, the efficiency
of using stabilizing pile in a slope is discussed by examining the
influence of pile location in the slope, pile spacing, and pile
diameter and stiffness.
2. Methods of analysis
Ito et al. [1] proposed a limit equilibrium method to deal with
the problem of the stability of slopes containing piles. The lateral
force acting on a row of piles due to soil movement is evaluated
group effects, namely piles spacing, are not considered in the anal-
ysis of soil–pile interaction. Poulos [2] recommends the installation
of stabilizing piles be located in the center of the failure surface to
avoid any slope failure behind or in front of the pile. A constant soil
Young’s modulus that varies linearly with depth has been used
along with an ultimate lateral pressure, pD. For the practical use,
Poulous [2] promoted the flow mode that creates the least damage
effect of soil movement on the pile where the soil movement is lar-
ger than the pile deflection. Such a slope-pile displacement mech-
anism coincides with the suggested soil–pile interaction model
presented in this paper.
Chow [14] presented a numerical approach where the piles are
modeled using beam elements as linear elastic materials and soil
response at the individual piles is modeled using an average mod-
ulus of subgrade reaction. In this method, the sliding soil move-
ment profile are assumed or measured based on the field
observation and the problem is analyzed by considering the soil–
pile interaction forces acting on the piles and the soil separately
and then combining those two by the consideration of equilibrium
and compatibility. Ultimate soil pressure acting on the piles in this
method for cohesive and cohesionless soils are calculated based on
the equations proposed by Viggiani [15] and Broms [6], respec-
tively. These equations are strictly for single piles, while studies
such as those by Chen and Poulos [16] shows that the ultimate soil
pressure are affected by the pile spacing and group arrangement.
The influence of one row of pile groups on the stability of the
weathered slope was investigated by Jeong et al. [17] based on
an analytical study and a numerical analysis. A model to compute
load and deformations of piles subjected to lateral soil movement
based on the transfer function approach was presented. In this
method, a coupled set of pressure–displacement curves induced
 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97
in the substratum determined either from measured test data or
from finite-element analysis is used as input to study the behavior
of the piles which can be modeled as a BEF. The study assumes the
ultimate soil pressure acting on each pile in a group to be equal to
that adopted for the single pile multiplied by the group interaction
factor evaluated by performing three-dimensional finite element
analysis.
Ausilio et al. [18] have used the kinematic approach of limit
analysis for the stability of slopes that are reinforced with piles.
The case of a slope without piles is first considered where the slid-
ing surface is described by a log-spiral equation, and then a solu-
tion is proposed to determine the safety factor of the slope,
which is defined as a reduction coefficient for the strength param-
eters of the soil. Then, the stability of a slope containing piles is
analyzed. To account for the presence of the piles, a lateral force
and a moment are assumed and applied at the depth of the poten-
tial sliding surface. To evaluate the resisting force (FD), which must
be provided by the piles in a row to achieve the desired value of the
safety factor of the slope, an iterative procedure is used to solve the
equation obtained by equating the rate of external work due to soil
weight and surcharge boundary loads to the rate of energy dissipa-
tion along the potential sliding surface. Nian et al. [19] developed
the similar approach to analyze the stability of a slope with rein-
forcing piles in nonhomogeneous and anisotropic soils.
Zeng and Liang [4] presented a limit equilibrium based slope
stability analysis technique that would allow the determination
of the safety factor (SF) of a slope that is reinforced by drilled
shafts. The technique extends the traditional method of slice ap-
proach to account for stabilizing shafts by reducing the interslice
forces transmitted to the soil slice behind the shafts using a reduc-
tion (load transfer) factor obtained from two-dimensional finite
element analysis generated load transfer curves.
A similar approach presented by Yamin and Liang [20] uses the
limit equilibrium method of slices where an interrelationship
among the drilled shaft location on the slope, the load transfer fac-
tor, and the global SF of the slope/shaft system are derived based
on a numerical closed-form solution. Furthermore, to get the re-
quired configurations of a single row of drilled shafts to achieve
the necessary reduction in the driving forces, a newly generated
design charts utilizing three-dimensional finite element are used
with arching factor.
3. Proposed method
3.1. Model characterization
The strain wedge (SW) model technique developed by Norris [8]
and Ashour et al. [9] for laterally loaded piles based on soil-structure
interaction is modified to evaluate the mobilized non-uniformly
distributed soil–pile pressure (pD) along the pile segment above
the anticipated failure surface (Fig. 1) assuming a flow mode for soil
mass above the slip surface. The presented technique focuses on the
calculation of the mobilized soil–pile pressure (pD) based on the
interaction between the deflected pile and the sliding mass of soil
above the slip surface using the concepts of the SW model. The pile
deflection is also controlled by the associated profile of the modulus
of subgrade reaction (Es) below the sliding surface (Fig. 2). It should
be emphasized that the presented model targets the equilibrium be-
tween the soil–pile pressure calculated above and below the slip
surface as induced by the progressive soil mass displacement and
pile deflection. Such a sophisticated type of equilibrium requires
the synchronization among the soil pressure and pile deflection
above the failure surface and the accompanying soil–pile resistance
(i.e. Es profile) below the slip surface. While pD is governed by the
soil–pile interaction and its ultimate value (i.e. soil and pile proper-
ties and developing flow-around failure (Ashour and Norris [21]),
87
the pile capacity is limited to its plastic moment (structural/material
failure). The capabilities of the SW model approach have been used
to capture the progress in the soil flow-around the pile and the dis-
tribution of the induced driving force (PD = R pD) above the slip sur-
face based on soil–pile interaction (i.e. soil and pile properties).
A full stress–strain relationship of soil within the sliding mass
(sand, clay, C  / soil) is employed in order to evaluate a compat-
ible sliding mass displacement and pile deflection for the associ-
ated slope factor of safety. As seen in Figs. 1 and 2, the soil–pile
model utilizes a lateral driving load (above the failure surface)
and lateral resistance from the stable soil (below the failure sur-
face). Shear force and bending moment along the pile are also cal-
culated. Thereafter, the safety factor of the pile-stabilized slope can
be re-evaluated. The implemented soil–pile model assumes that
the sliding soil mass imposes increasing lateral driving force on
the pile as long as the shear resistance along the sliding surface
up-slope the pile cannot achieve the desired stability safety factor.
As seen in Fig. 3, a mobilized three-dimensional passive wedge
of soil will develop into the sliding soil zone above the slip surface
(upper passive wedge) with a fixed depth (Hs) and a wedge face of
width (BC) that varies with depth (xi) (i.e. soil sublayer and pile
segment i).
ðBCÞi ¼ D þ ðHs  xi Þ2ðtan bm Þi ðtan um Þi xi 6 H s ð1Þ
ðum Þi
ðbm Þi ¼ 45 þ ð2Þ
2
The horizontal size of the upper passive wedge is governed by
the mobilized fanning angle (/m), which is a function of the soil
stress level (SL) (Fig. 3a). /m in clay is determined based on the
effective stress analysis (Ashour et al. [9], Fig. 4). It should be men-
tioned that the effective stress (ES) analysis is employed with clay
soil as well as with sand and C  / soil (Fig. 4) in order to define the
three-dimensional strain wedge geometry with mobilized fanning
angle (Ashour et al. [9]). To account for the effective stress in clay,
the variation of the excess pore water pressure is determined using
Skempton’s equation [22] where the water pressure parameter
varies with the soil stress level [9]. The sliding mass of soil above
the slip surface is assumed in the current analysis to experience
lateral displacement larger than pile deflection, (Fig. 5).
The mobilized fanning angle, /m, of the upper (driving) passive
soil wedge due to the interaction between the moving mass of soil
and the embedded portion of the pile (Hs) increases with the pro-
gress in soil displacement (i.e. SL in soil). e50 is the normal strain in
soil at SL = 0.5 and /m is determined as a function of SL, which is
calculated from the constitutive stress–strain model presented by
Ashour et al. [9] (Fig. 6).
The soil strain (es) in the upper passive wedge (i.e. sliding soil
mass) is increasing gradually in an incremental fashion (a step by
step loading process). In each loading step, the distribution of pD
(Figs. 1 and 2) along the pile length embedded into the sliding soil
layer(s) is determined as,
ðpD Þi ¼ ðDrh Þi BC i S1 þ 2si DS2 ð3Þ
i¼n at X
slip surface
where PD ¼ pD
i¼1
pD is the soil–pile pressure per unit length of the pile (F/L) at the
current effective confining pressure r  3c (i.e. overburden pressure
assuming isotropic conditions, K = 1) and soil strain es in the soil
sublayer i at depth xi. D is the width of the pile cross section, and
BC is the width of the soil passive wedge at depth xi. S1 and S2, on
the other hand, are shape factors that are 0.75 and 0.5, respectively,
for a circular pile cross section, and 1.0 for a square pile [9]. s is the
pile–soil shear resistance along the side of the pile (Fig. 3a). Drh is
88 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97

F1 Real stressed zone

C Slope surface
φm

Δσh
e
passiv
τ ed soil
Mobiliz pper wedge)
A φm A (u
mass wedge
Pile g soil
No shear stress because Slidin
these are principal stresses
urface
Slip s
Side shear (τ) that
influences the oval Lower mobilized wedges
shape of the stressed
zone φm B Soil sublayers
F1 Plane taken to simplify
analysis (i.e. F1 ’s cancel)

(a) Force equilibrium in a slice of the wedge at depth x.

Yo
Sublayer 1
σV
x
i-1 O
KσVO Δσh
Hs Hi i
Sublayer i+1

δ (c) Mobilized passive soil wedges.

βm
(b) Forces at the face of a simplified soil upper passive wedge
(Section elevation A-A).
Fig. 3. Characterization of the upper soil wedge as employed in the proposed technique.

the deviatoric stress calculated at the current soil strain es in sublay- the mobilized friction angle (tan /m) and mobilized cohesion
er i with confining effective stress ðr 3c ¼ overburden pressure r  v o ). (Cm) in the mobilized wedge. Of course, /s and Cs are limited to
Therefore, the horizontal stress change at the face of the wedge at the fully developed friction angle (/) and cohesion (C) of the soil
depth x becomes, (Cs 6 C and tan /s 6 tan /).
The ultimate value of pD is governed by the soil full passive
Drh ¼ SLDrhf ð4Þ
pressure (SL = 1) and the flow of soft/loose soil around the pile. It
where should be noted that pD could reach its ultimate value (i.e. soil
h  u i starts flowing around the pile) to cease the growth of the upper
 v o tan2 45 þ
Drhf ¼ r  1 ðsandÞ ð5aÞ passive soil wedge and its interaction with the pile segment.
2
Flow-around failure in a soil sublayer i detected via parameter A
Drhf ¼ 2Su ðclayÞ ð5bÞ and its ultimate value Ault.
ðpD Þi =D BC i S1 2 s i S2
 h  Ai ¼ ¼ þ ð7Þ
C
 v o tan2 45 þ
u i ð Dr h Þ i D ðDrh Þi
Drhf ¼ þr  1 ðC  usoilÞ ð5cÞ
tan u 2
The progress in soil mass displacement (i.e. pD and soil–pile-
The side shear stress, si, is determined as interaction) continues until the targeted slope safety factor is
achieved or the pile fails to interact with sliding soil mass. There-
si ¼ ðr v o Þi tanðus Þi where tan us ¼ 2 tan um and tan us fore, no additional soil driving force is transferred to the stable soil
6 tan u ðsandÞ ð6aÞ layer(s) below the failure surface.
The SW model is applied to assess the modulus of subgrade
si ¼ ðSLt Þi ðsult Þi where sult is a function of Su ðclayÞ ð6bÞ reaction profile (Es) along the pile length below the slip surface
(i.e. p) as shown in Fig. 2). Ashour et al. [9] presents detailed infor-
si ¼ ðr v o Þi tanðus Þi þ 2Cs where tan /s ¼ 2 tan /m and C s mation on the assessment of the Es profile below the slip surface as
employed in the current analysis for the BEF.
¼ 2C m ðC  u SoilÞ ð6cÞ
C and Cm are the cohesion intercepts for ultimate and mobilized 3.2. Failure criteria and ultimate soil–pile pressure above the slip
resistance, respectively. SLt is the stress level of the pile side shear surface
strain in clay (Ashour et al. [9]), and Su is the undrained shear
strength of clay soil. In Eq. (6), the mobilized side shear angle The presented technique accounts for different failure mecha-
(/s) and adhesion (Cs) are taken to develop at twice the rate of nisms that include pile and soil failure and limiting values for
 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97 89
Shear Stress (τ)

Displacement

Δσ h tan 2 (45 + ϕ m / 2) − 1 ϕ
SL = =
Δσ hf tan 2 (45 + ϕ / 2) − 1 Soil movement
Deflected pile
ϕm

Depth below ground level

Failure surface

(σ vo )1 (σ vo ) 2 (σ vo )3 (σ vo ) 4 Normal Stress (σ)

(a) Sand
Lab total stress (or field
total stress minus static Undrained excess
pore water pressure) pore water pressure Effective stress
Δσ h
Fig. 5. Soil–pile displacement as employed in the presented model.
σ vo + Δσ h − Δu
σ vo Δu

σ vo _ σ vo − Δu
=
Shear Stress (τ)

ϕm

SL Su

σ vo + Δσ h
σ vo − Δu σ vo σ vo + Δσ h − Δu Normal Stress (σ)

(b) Clay
Shear Stress (τ)

ϕ Fig. 6. Soil stress–strain relationship as developed by Ashour et al. [9].

ϕm embedment into the stable soil (i.e. less flexural deformation). MP

is determined from the moment–curvature relationship of the pile
cross section.
The second failure mechanism reflects the development of a
flow-around failure when parameter A reaches its ultimate value
(Ault). The assessment of Ault in sand was initially developed by
Reese [23] and modified by Norris [8].
(Ci ) m Normal Stress (σ)

σ vo σ vo + Δσ h σ vo + Δσ hf ðK a Þi ½ðK p Þ4i  1 þ ðK o Þi ðK p Þ2i tan ui

ðAult Þi ¼ ð8Þ
(c) C-ϕ soil ðK p Þi  1

Fig. 4. Mobilized effective friction angle with the variation of soil stress as where Ka and Kp are the Rankine active and passive coefficients of
employed in current study. lateral earth pressure, and Ko is the coefficient of earth pressure
at-rest. (Ault)i of clay is presented by Norris [8]as
ðpult Þi
D ðpult Þi
the soil–pile pressure (pD) that the sliding mass could deliver to the ðAult Þi ¼ ¼ ¼ 5S1 þ S2 ð9Þ
ðDrhf Þi D2ðSu Þi
pile (per pile unit length) through the progressive soil–pile interac-
tion. A structural (pile material) failure takes place when the Such a behavior may occur while pD in sublayer i is still less
bending moment in the pile reaches its ultimate value Mp (plastic than its ultimate value (pD)ult (Ashour and Norris [21]), especially
moment) to form a plastic hinge. However, this might not be in soft clay where Ault can be reached at SL < 1. This ends the
possible to achieve with short piles because of inadequate pile progress of pD and the interaction between the pile section and
90 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97
slipping sublayer of soil. As a result, no additional soil pressure is
transferred via the pile segment embedded into that soil sublayer
(i).
A third soil–pile interaction controlling mechanism would take
place when pD is equal to (pD)ult in soil sublayer (i) above the slip
surface (i.e. SL = 1).
½ðpD Þult i ¼ ðDrhf Þi BC i S1 þ 2ðsf Þi DS2 ðsandÞ
½ðpD Þult i ¼ 10ðSu Þi DS1 þ 2ðSu Þi DS2 ðclayÞ
In addition, the fixed depth of the upper passive wedge (Hs)
would prevent the face of the soil wedge (BC) and pD at that depth
from growing. In fact, the soil–pile interaction mechanism above
the slip surface is influenced by the depth of the slip surface at
the pile location (Hs) as presented in the parametric study section.
Pile length and bending stiffness (i.e. the pile relative stiffness)
have also a significant effect on the pile deflection pattern, and in
return the soil–pile interaction. The developed (pD) is expressed as
ðpD Þi ¼ Ai Des Ei
E is the soil Young’s modulus (E = SL Drhf/es).
3.3. Pile row interaction above the failure surface
The number of piles required for slope stabilization is calculated
based on pile spacing and the interaction among the piles. The pile
group interaction technique developed by Ashour et al. [24] is used
to estimate the interaction among the piles above and below the
sliding surface assuming soil displacement to be larger than pile
deflection. The safety factor of the pile-stabilized slope can be re-
evaluated based on the distributed lateral force (PD) induced by soil
mass and carried by the pile down to the stable soil below the slide
surface.
The fourth soil–pile interaction controlling mechanism adopted
in the presented technique is based on monitoring the horizontal
stress overlapping among stabilizing piles above and below the slip
surface. The horizontal growth of the upper mobilized passive soil
wedge governs the build up of the soil–pile driving pressure (pD) in
any sublayer (i) as a result of adjacent soil wedge overlapping. The
upper soil wedges developed into the up-slope portion of the slid-
ing soil mass overlap according to the pile spacing and level of soil
stress (Fig. 7). Consequently, the stresses into adjacent soil inten-
sify (compared to the case of isolated pile) until pD reaches its ulti-
mate value or the flow-around failure takes place.
The current study utilizes the technique presented by Ashour
et al. [24] that was developed to assess the lateral interaction
among the piles in a group based on soil and pile properties and
Adjusted uniform stress at the face of the soil wedge
r
BC
Soil wedge Soil wedge
Pile Pile
Uniform pile
face movement
Overlap of stresses based on elastic theory
Fig. 7. Horizontal passive soil wedge overlap among adjacent piles.
pile spacing using the SW model. The SW model is used to account
for the effect of neighboring piles (one row) on the characterization
of the soil–pile pressure above and below the slip surface (pD and
p), respectively. The average stress level in a soil layer due to
passive wedge overlap (SLg) is evaluated based on the following
relationship (Ashour et al. [24]),
X
ð10aÞ ðSLg Þi ¼ SLi ð1 þ Rj Þ1:5 6 1 ð12Þ
ð10bÞ where j is the number of neighboring passive wedges in soil layer i
that overlap the wedge of the pile in question (j = 2 for a single pile
row). R is the ratio between the length of the overlapped portion of
the face of the passive wedge (r) and the width of the face of the
passive wedge (BC) (Fig. 7). R (which is less than 1) is determined
for both sides of the pile overlap.
SLg and the associated soil strain (eg) will be assessed for each
soil sublayer. eg is Pe of the isolated pile (no group effect) and is
determined based on the stress–strain relationship (r vs. e) pre-
sented by Ashour et al. [9] (Fig. 6). The angles and dimensions
ð11Þ (geometry) of the passive wedge (/m, bm, and BC) obtained from
Eqs. (1) and (2) would be modified for the group effect according
to the calculated value of SLg and eg. The average value of deviatoric
stress (Drh)g developed at the face of the passive wedge in a par-
ticular soil sublayer i is
ðDrh Þg ¼ SLg Drhf ð13Þ
The soil Young’s modulus Eg and the soil–pile pressure (pD) due to
soil wedge overlap are determined as follows,
SLg Drhf
Eg ¼ where Eg 6 E of isolated pile case ð14Þ
eg
ðpD Þg ¼ ðAg Þi Dðeg Þi ðEg Þi ð15Þ
Compared to the isolated pile, the soil mass in contact with the
pile row maintains a softer response (i.e. less pD at the same y) as a
result of pile interaction (soil wedge overlap effect). To avoid
repetition, the interaction among adjacent piles in a pile row below
the slip surface and the resulting modulus of subgrade reaction
(Es)g profile are determined as presented by Ashour et al. [24].
3.4. Iteration in the proposed model
To clarify the procedure employed in the suggested model, the
flowchart presented in Fig. 8 demonstrates the calculation and iter-
ation process as implemented in the current model. A small initial
value of soil strain above and below the slip surface (es and e,
respectively) is assumed to determine (1) pD as summarized in
Eq. (11) and related equations for A and E; and (2) Es profile below
the slip surface [24]. The current pile head deflection (Yo) is evalu-
ated using the SW model procedure [24] to obtain (Yo)SWM that is
compared to the pile head deflection (Yo)BEF calculated from the
BEF analysis using current pD distribution and Es profile. If (Yo)SWM
is larger than (Yo)BEF, es is adjusted (increased) till acceptable con-
vergence between (Yo)SWM and (Yo)BEF is achieved. On the other
side, e will be increased if (Yo)SWM is less than (Yo)BEF. It should
be noted that adjusting es (i.e. pD) will also affect the Es profile as
a result of changing the dimensions of the lower wedges (i.e. softer
Es profile). Therefore, es is always increased in slower rate com-
pared to e in order to capture the desired convergence of pile head
deflection. The next increment of loading will be followed by
increasing es and adjusting (increasing) e of soil below the slip sur-
face (i.e. new Es profile) to calculate (Yo)SWM and (Yo)BEF. The pre-
sented methodology aims at the state of soil–pile equilibrium
where the deflected pile would interact with surrounding soils to
induce balanced driving (pD) and resisting (p) soil pressure above
and below the slip surface. Practically, there is only a single pile
 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97
INPUT DATA
Soil properties, slope profile, pile properties
and desired safety factor of supported portion
Perform slope stability analysis
(modified Bishop) with no piles.
Calculate the driving force (FD ) along the slip
surface of the upslope (supported) part of the
slope that is needed to acheive the desired safety
factor of the supported portion.
1. Divide soil layers into thin sublayers (i) with thichness Hi.
2. Calculate effective vertical stress (σvo) for each sublayer.
3. Assume an initial small soil strain εs in soil above the slip surface.
4. Assume a very small soil strain (ε) in soil layers below the slip surface.
Apply the SW model concepts/Eqns (1 thr. 7) to do the following:
1. Use εs to calculate Δσh = σd, SL, ϕm, BC, E, and pD for sublayers above
slip surface. The depth of the upper passive wedge is always equal to the
depth of slipping mass (H s).
2. Use ε to calculate Δσh = σd, SL, ϕm, BC, E, and Es for sublayers
below slip surface [9] (i.e. E s profile along the pile for current ε).
3. Check soil wedge geometry and overlap above/below the slip surface.
4. Use Eqns 12 and 13 to adjust εs and ε for group action [24].
5. Repeat step 1 and 2 for adjusted εs and ε.
6. Detemine the pile-head deflection (Y o)SWM based on the SW model [9].
1. Use Es profile to solve the pile problem as a BEF under driving
soil pressure p D acting on the pile segment above the slip surface.
2. Obtain the pile head deflection, (Y o) BEF, from the BEF analysis.
IF No IF(Yo)SWM > (Yo)BEF Increase εs
(Yo)SWM = (Yo)BEF
IF(Yo)SWM < (Yo)BEF Increase ε
Yes
1. Accepted loading increment, p D and p above and below the slip surface,
Yo and Es profile.
2. Calculate bending deflection, moment, shear Force, distribution of
driving forces (p D), and safety factor.
3. Current driving force (P D) = Σ(pD)i above the slip surface.
IF Yes
Increase the value
PD < FD of εs by Δε
No
STOP
Fig. 8. Flowchart for the analysis of pile-stabilized slopes.
deflection pattern that could maintain the state of equilibrium
between the pile and surrounding soil above and below the slip
surface. The analysis stops indicating pile failure when the
moment in the pile reaches its ultimate value (plastic moment).
3.5. Input data
One of the main advantages of the SW model approach is the
simplicity of the required soil and pile properties. Those properties
represent basic and most common properties of soil and pile, such
91
as the effective unit weight, angle of internal friction (/), un-
drained shear strength (Su) and pile geometry, bending stiffness
and plastic moment. Boundaries of soil layers in addition to the
location of the driven pile need to be also identified. The soil profile
is divided into thin sublayers (0.5 or 1 ft thick) and each sublayer is
treated as an independent entity with its own properties. In this
fashion, the variation in soil properties (such as e50 and / in the
case of sand, or Su in the case of clay) of each sublayer of soil can
be explored. e50 is obtained from the charts presented in [9]. The
computer software (PSSLOPE), which is written in Visual Basic
and FORTRAN, has been developed to implement the presented
technique for pile stabilized slopes including the slope stability
analysis (with no piles) using the modified Bishop method.
3.6. Safety factor
As mentioned in the previous section, the modified Bishop
method of slices is used to analyze the slope stability. The safety
factor before installing the stabilizing pile is defined as
F rs
FS ¼ ð16Þ
Fd
where Frs and Fd are the resisting and driving force of soil mass
(along the critical or potential failure surface) which are determined
by the method of slices in the slope stability analysis of landslide as
shown in Fig. 9a. In this method, the safety factor of the whole pile-
stabilized slope is calculated by including the total resistance pro-
vided by piles for one unit length of the slope (Frp) as follows:
F r ðF rs þ F rp Þ
FS ¼ ¼ ð17Þ
Fd Fd
Also, the safety factor of supported and unsupported portion of the
stabilized slope is obtained in current study as follows (Fig. 9b):
F r ðF rsðsupportedÞ þ F rp Þ
FSðsupportedÞ ¼ ¼ ð18Þ
Fd F dðsupportedÞ
Fr
FSðunsupportedÞ ¼
Fd
F rsðunsupportedÞ
¼
F dðunsupportedÞ þ ½ðF dðsupportedÞ  F rsðsupportedÞ Þ  F rp 
ð19Þ
where Frs(supported) and Fd(supported) are the resisting and driving force
of soil mass along the supported portion of the critical failure sur-
face. The resisting and driving force of soil mass along the unsup-
ported portion of critical failure surface Frs(unsupported) and
Fd(unsupported) are also calculated using the slope stability method
of slices as shown in Fig. 9b. Frp in Eqs. (17) and (19) is calculated
from Eq. (18) after the desired safety factor of the supported (up-
slope) portion of the slope (FS(supported)) is identified. By calculating
Frp, the targeted load carried by each pile in the pile row can be eval-
uated (FD = Frp  S). FS(supported) needs to be identified with a mini-
mum value of unity.
The achievement of the minimum factor of safety
(FS(supported) = 1) indicates that the stabilizing pile is able to provide
enough interaction with the sliding mass of soil in order to take a
force equal to the difference between the driving and resisting
forces along the slip surface of the supported portion of the slope
(Frp = Fd(supported)  Frs(supported)). As a result, the second term of
the denominator in Eq. (19) would be zero. However, the minimum
safety factor may not be achieved as a result of reaching the ulti-
mate soil–pile interaction as presented in the previous section.
Therefore, the rest of driving force (the second term of the denom-
inator in Eq. (19)) will be delivered (flow) to the lower segment of
the slope (the unsupported portion).
92 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97

Table 1
Pile properties.
Critical Failure
Unit weight (kN/m3) 23
Surface
Diameter (m) 1.2
Fd Elastic modulus (kPa) 2.6  107
Compressive strength of concrete (kPa) 3.0  104
Plastic moment (kN-m) 5000
Frs Yield strength of the rebar (kPa) 4.14  105

(a) Slope stability under driving and resistance forces.
Frp
Fd(unsupported)
Frs(unsupported)
(b) Forces acting on a pile-stabilized slope.
Fig. 9. Slope stability pre- and post-pile installation.
To reach the ultimate safety factor of the stabilized slope, an
increasing value of the safety factor of the supported portion of
the slope should be used (i.e. transferring more soil pressure
through the piles) until maximum interaction between the piles
and surrounding soil is observed. However, the stabilizing piles
may fail under plastic moment before reaching the ultimate soil–
pile interaction.
located at 4 m below the ground surface at the slope toe. For both
cases, the soil is assumed to be a C  / soil such as a silty or clayey
sand. The safety factor of both slopes before stabilization is about
1.03 obtained by performing slope stability analysis using the
modified Bishop method and the corresponding critical failure sur-
faces are shown in Fig 10. As depicted in Fig. 10, the critical failure
surface for Case II is deeper than that of Case I because of the dif-
ferent soil properties in both cases (Case II is more cohesive and
less frictional compared to Case I).
One row of 1.2-m diameter reinforced concrete piles with the
properties summarized in Table 1 has been installed to increase
the stability of the slopes. In order to carry out this study, the piles
are assumed to have enough embedment into the weathered rock.
The pile head maintains free head conditions (free rotation and dis-
placement), which is very common in practice. The parametric
study carried out is based on the pile properties listed in Table 1
unless otherwise stated. Pile analysis results showed that stresses
caused by the moment in the piles are more critical than those
caused by shear. Therefore, in the following study the ratio of the
pile maximum moment to its plastic moment (Mmax/Mp) is consid-
ered as an indication of pile structural stability (i.e. pile material
failure).
4.1. Effect of pile position

4. Parameters affecting the SF of pile-stabilized slopes
There are several parameters that could affect the slope-pile
interaction and the amount of resistance that the stabilizing pile
can provide to increase the safety factor of the stabilized slope.
Some of these influencing factors can be outlined as the geometry
and material properties of the pile, soil properties, pile position in
the slope (i.e. the depth of slip surface at pile location), and the
spacing of adjacent piles.
To examine the effect of the above mentioned parameters on
slopes stabilized by one row of piles, two slopes (Cases I and II)
with the same geometry but different soil properties are studied
(Fig. 10). The slopes are 10 m high with an inclination angle with
the horizontal ground surface of 30°. A weathered rock deposit is
The effect of pile position on the safety factor of pile-stabilized
slopes is illustrated in Fig. 11. A constant center-to-center pile
spacing versus pile diameter ratio (S/D) of 2.5 is maintained in
the analysis. For both slopes, the most effective pile position is
located between the middle and the crest of the slope as found
by Hassiotis et al. [11], Jeong et al. [17], and also Lee et al. [12]
for the two-layered soil slope case where the upper soft layer is
underlain by a stiff layer. This optimum position of the pile row
is also influenced by the pile characteristic length that is embedded
into the unstable and stable regions. Compared to Case I, a larger
force carried by the pile (Frp) (Fig. 11a) and less safety factor
(Fig. 11b) can be observed in Case II due to the deeper slip surface
at the pile position and larger associated driving force (Fd). It
should be mentioned that the Hs /D ratio has a significant effect

C = 7.5 kPa C = 14 kPa

10 m 10 m
Hs ϕ = 17O ϕ = 10O
Hs
30o γ = 19 kN/m3 30o γ = 18 kN/m3

4m 4m
Firm Layer Firm Layer
L L
Lx (Weathered Rock) Lx (Weathered Rock)
C = 700 kPa C = 700 kPa
ϕ = 0O ϕ = 0O
(Case I) γ = 20 kN/m3 (Case II) γ = 20 kN/m3

(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Illustrative examples of pile stabilized slopes.
 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97 93

Resistance developed by each pile (PD), kN 1000 1.2

(a) S/D = 2.5

1
800

0.8

Mmax/MP
600
0.6

400 S/D = 2.5 0.4

0.2 Case I
200
Case I
Case II
Case II
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Lx /L Lx/L

Fig. 13. Variation of pile efficiency ratio (Mmax/MP) versus pile position.

(b) enced by the shape of the failure surface (i.e. soil properties) and
1.6 pile properties.
Fig. 12 also presents the variation of the safety factor of the
unsupported portion of the slope versus the pile position. It should
SF(Whole slope)

be emphasized that the safety factor of the unsupported portion of

the slope should not be less than the desired safety factor of the
1.4 whole slope as determined from Eq. (17). Such a scenario could take
place when the stabilizing pile is installed close to the crest of the
slope. For example, if the pile is located at Lx /L > 0.8 and
S/D = 2.5 Lx/L > 0.9 in Cases I and II, respectively, the safety factor of the unsup-
ported part would be less than the safety factor of the whole slope.
1.2 Fig. 13 shows the efficiency ratio (Mmax/Mp) of the stabilizing
Case I
piles with respect to their position in the slope (Lx/L). Mmax and
Case II
MP are maximum and plastic moment, respectively. From Fig. 13,
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 it can be noticed that for Case II at Lx/L > 0.6 the safety factor is con-
Lx/L trolled by the strength of pile materials (i.e. structural failure and
the formation of a plastic hinge where Mmax = MP) while for other
Fig. 11. Effect of pile position on the load carried by the pile and SF of the slope. pile positions in Case II and the entire slope of Case I the maximum
safety factor of the stabilized slope is obtained based on the ulti-
mate interaction between the pile and sliding mass of soil.
7
S/D = 2.5 4.2. Effect of pile spacing
6
The effect of pile spacing on the factor of safety of the slopes is
SF (Unsupported portion)

expressed via the relationship of the factor of safety versus S/D ra-
5 tio. Fig. 14 shows the effect of pile spacing (i.e. group action among
neighboring piles) on the factor of safety assessed at the ultimate
4 state of soil–pile interaction in Cases I and II at a particular pile po-
sition Lx /L = 0.7. The factor of safety of the slopes, as expected, is
decreasing by increasing the pile spacing. It is significant to note
3 Case I that the closer the pile spacing the larger the interaction among
Case II the piles below the slip surface. Therefore, larger pile deflection
2 is anticipated.

1 4.3. Effect of soil type

0.5 0.6 0.7
L x /L
Fig. 12. Effect of pile location on SF of the unsupported portion of the slope.
on the soil–pile interaction and the amount of force transferred by
the pile down to the stable soil layer. Thus, designers should not
rely on just a general position ratio (Lx/L) for pile installation to
capture the largest safety factor. The desired pile location is influ-
0.8 0.9 1
Fig. 15 shows the soil pressure per unit length of the pile (pD)
above the slip surface for piles located at Lx/L = 0.5 in Cases I and II
where the values of Hs are 3.8 and 5.5 m, respectively. The distribu-
tion of pD in both cases corresponds to the ultimate slope-pile inter-
action. In order to avoid the pile material failure in Case II before
reaching the ultimate interaction of the pile with surrounding soil,
Lx /L < 0.6 has been used. More soil–pile interaction should be
expected with less soil plasticity (i.e. soils with higher / and less C).
94 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97

2 1.7
Lx /L = 0.7 Lx/L = 0.7
1.6 S=3m

1.8
1.5

SF(Whole slope)
SF(Whole slope)

1.4
1.6
1.3

1.2
1.4

Case I 1.1 Case I

Case II Case II
1.2 1
1 2 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
S/D D, m

Fig. 14. Effect of pile spacing (adjacent pile interaction) on slope stability. Fig. 16. Effect of pile diameter on the slope safety factor using a constant spacing of
3 m.

Soil-pile pressure (p D), kN/m

1.7
0 40 80 120 160 200 L x/L = 0.7
0
1.6 S/D = 2.5
L x /L = 0.5
1
1.5
SF(Whole slope)

2
1.4
Depth, m

3
1.3
Slip surface for Case I
4
1.2

5
Slip surface for Case II 1.1 Case I
Case II
6 Case I
1
Case II 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
7 D, m

Fig. 15. pD Along the pile segment above the slip surface. Fig. 17. Effect of pile diameter on the slope safety factor for a constant S/D of 2.5.

dependent on the S/D ratio, but also is a function of Hs /D ratio

4.4. Effect of pile diameter
The effect of pile diameter on the safety factor (SF) of the slope
has been studied for a constant center-to-center pile spacing of
3.0 m and Lx /L = 0.7, where pile stiffness and strength properties
are taken into account (Fig. 16). As expected, the safety factor of
the stabilized slopes increases as pile diameter increases from
0.9 m to 1.6 m. However, a slow increase in the safety factor can
be observed beyond pile diameter 1.0 m and 1.4 m in Cases I and
II, respectively, as a result of decreasing Hs/D ratio. It should be also
noted that increasing the pile diameter within the constant pile
spacing (3.0 m) would increase the interaction among adjacent
piles above and below the slip surface.
Fig. 17 shows the effect of pile diameter on the safety factor of
stabilized slopes using S/D = 2.5 (i.e. varying D and S with a con-
stant ratio of S/D) at the same pile location (Lx/L = 0.7). As observed
in Fig. 17, the safety factor (SF) of the slope is governed by the pile
strength (i.e. pile failure) and grows by the increase of pile diame-
ter until SF reaches its optimum value at a certain pile diameter.
Thereafter, the safety factor is decreasing by the increase of pile
diameter (i.e. no pile failure) due to the decrease of Hs /D ratio.
Consequently, the safety factor of the stabilized slope is not only
and soil properties. In practice, it is an important issue to choose
appropriate pile spacing and diameter to provide adequate pile
resistance and avoid high construction costs that may be associ-
ated with large diameter piles.
5. Case studies
5.1. Reinforced concrete piles used to stabilize a railway embankment
Instrumented discrete reinforced concrete piles were used to
stabilize an 8-m high railway embankment of Weald Clay at
Hildenborough, Kent, UK (Smethurst and Powerie [25]) (Fig. 18).
Remediation of the embankment was carried out to solve long-
term serviceability problems, including excessive side slope dis-
placements and track settlements. Stability calculations carried
out after an initial site investigation showed the north slopes of
the embankment to be close to failure. A 3.5 m high rockfill berm
was constructed at the toe of the embankment, and 200 piles were
installed along two lengths of the embankment at a spacing of
2.4 m to increase the factor of safety of the whole slope to the re-
quired value of 1.3. Smethurst and Powerie [25] estimated the soil
driving (shear) force required to achieve the desired safety factor
 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97 95

1.0 m Displacement, mm
cess
10 m 6.0m 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
Ballast
1 Rockfill

4.5 m
2

Depth below ground level, m

Rockfill
24 o
3 Embankment fill
3.5 m Weald Clay
30 o 4
embankment fill
Intact weathered
5 and unweathered
Weathered Weald Clay
Weald Clay
6
Measured [25]
Design failure surface Average slope displacement, day 42
Intact Weald Clay 7
Average slope displacement, day 1345
Average pile displacement, day 42
8
Average pile displacement, day 1345

9 Proposed Method
Fig. 18. Embankment profile after the construction platform had been regraded Uncracked section
[25]. 10 Cracked section

Fig. 19. Measured and computed pile displacements.

and transferred by the pile to be 60 kN. Soil strength parameters
reported by Smethurst and Powerie [25] and also used in current
analysis are based on data from the site investigation and associ- Bending moment, kN-m
ated triaxial tests (Table 2). -100 0 100 200
As reported by Smethurst and Powerie [25], the 0.6-m diameter 0
and 10-m long bored concrete piles were constructed at a spacing
of 2.4 m. Each pile contains six (high tensile) T25 reinforcement
bars over their full length, and six T32 bars over the bottom 7 m, 2
giving an estimated ultimate bending moment capacity (plastic
moment, MP) of 250 kN-m over the top 3 m, and 520 kN-m over
the bottom part of the pile.
After pile construction, the granular rockfill material was re- 4
Depth, m

graded into a two-stage slope with the suggested failure surface

shown in Fig. 18. The reported pile bending stiffness (EI) was
187  103 kN-m2 for the lower 7 m of the pile and 171  103
kN-m2 for the top 3 m. EI of 171  103 kN-m2 is taken to be the
EI of the whole pile in linear analysis. EI = 115  103 kN-m2 is con-
sidered in current analysis to be the bending stiffness of the par-
tially cracked section (2/3 of the initial EI).
Strain gauges were installed in three adjacent piles to measure
the bending moments induced in the pile by slope movements.
Displacement data for the soil and piles were obtained from the
inclinometer tubes in the slope midway between the piles and
the inclinometer tubes in Piles.
The average pile and soil displacements for 42 days, shortly
after the rockfill on the slope surface had been regraded, and
1345 days are shown in Fig. 19 [25]. Using the soil parameters
presented in Table 2, the Modified Bishop method is applied in
the current procedure to study the stability of the given slope
without piles. A safety factor of 1.176 is obtained. No specific
slope safety factor value was reported by Smethurst and Powerie
[25]. It should be noted that the slope safety factor is very
sensitive toward any slight change in the slip surface
coordinates.
6
8
Measured [25]
Proposed method - Uncracked section
10 Proposed method - Cracked section
Fig. 20. Measured and computed bending moment along pile C.
Figs. 19 and 20 show the calculated pile lateral response in com-
parison with the measured data. The computed results are based
on 89 kN of shear force transferred by the pile which is larger than
the shear force (60 kN) anticipated by Smethurst and Powerie [25].
In addition, the negative moment measured in the upper portion of
the pile affects and reduces the lower peak of the positive moment
(Fig. 20). This could be referred to the top rock-fill layer displace-
ment, which is less than the pile deflection as shown in Fig. 19.

Table 2
Design soil parameters [24].
0 0
Soil type Unit weight, c (kN/m3) Friction angle, / (degrees) Effective cohesion, c (kPa)
Weald Clay embankment fill 19 25 20.9
Softened Weald Clay embankment fill 19 19 20.9
Weathered Weald Clay 19 25 20.9
Weald Clay 20 30 104.4
Rockfill 19 35 0
96 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97

Soil-pile pressure (pD), kN/m 40

0 20 40 60 80
0

Vertical distance, m
G.W.T
30
Rockfill
1
Soil No. 1 (Sand)
Depth, m

2 20 Soil No. 2 (Sand) Pile

Weald Clay embankment fill

Rock Failure surface

3
10
20 30 40 50
Horizental distance, m

4 Fig. 22. Soil–pile profile of the test site at Tygart Lake [26].

Fig. 21. Soil–pile pressure (pD) along the pile segment above the critical surface.

Displacement, mm
The distribution of bending moment with depth from the two sets
of gauges in Pile C is shown for day 1345 in Fig. 20. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
Fig. 21 exhibits the variation of mobilized pD along the pile seg-
ment embedded into two different types of soils above the slip sur- 1
P
face. The current method provides 89 kN of shear force ( pD in
Fig. 21) transferred by the pile which is larger than the initially cal- 2
culated shear force (60 kN) and smaller than the shear force
(110 kN) that was back-calculated from the strain gauge data after 3
1345 ‘s by Smethurst and Powerie [25]. Substantial amount of the
4
Depth, m

driving force is caused by the interaction between the pile and the
rockfill layer compared to the underlying clay fill. As presented in 5
Fig. 21, the proposed technique allows the assessment of the mobi-
lized soil–pile pressure based on soil and pile properties assuming 6
soil movement larger than pile deflection.
7

5.2. Tygart lake slope stabilization using H-piles 8 Pile 4 [26]

Richardson [26] conducted full scale load tests on pile-
stabilized slopes at the Tygart Lake site, West Virginia. The slope
movement at that site has occurred periodically for a number of
years. As reported by Richardson [26], ten test holes were made
and soil and rock samples were collected for laboratory testing.
In five of the test holes, slope inclinometer casing was installed
and monitoring wells were installed in the other five test holes.
Based on the data collected in the test holes, the bedrock at the
site dipped and ranged from 6.7 to 9 m from the ground surface
near the road edge to 11 to 15.5 m below the ground surface down-
slope. After about a year of slope monitoring, test piles were in-
stalled near the test holes giving the most movement. Test holes
2 and 6 were the first to show signs of a similar slip plane. Holes
of 18-inch diameters were augured to accommodate the HP
10  42 test piles that were lowered in place and filled with grout
at 1.22 m pile spacing. The results of this case study are based on a
section cut between Test Borings 2 and 6. Detailed information
about the test site and monitoring and soil description is provided
by Richardson [26].
Pile 5 [26]
9 Proposed method
10
Fig. 23. Measured and computed pile deflection of the Tygart Lake Test.
The failure surface suggested in Fig. 22 is given based on the
slope stability analysis of the profile. The soil strength parameters
(Table 3) used in the slope stability analysis were back-calculated
based on impending failure. The sand peak friction angle is deter-
mined from the SPT-N (blowcounts) (NAVFAC [27]), and the rock
strength is obtained from unconfined compression tests [26]. Pile
movement under working conditions was collected via inclinome-
ter data as presented by Richardson [26].
Table 3 presents (1) the disturbed cohesion and residual friction
angle of the soil along the impending failure surface for slope sta-
bility analysis; and (2) the undisturbed cohesion and full friction
angle of the soil along the length of the pile. The failure surface
coordinates shown in Fig. 22 and the soil properties presented in

Table 3
Soil properties input data utilized in current study based on reported data.

Soil Soil Unit weight (kN/ Average Disturbed cohesion, Cd Residual friction angle, /r Undisturbed cohesion, Cu Peak friction angle, /
number type m3) SPT-N (kPa) (degree) (kPa) (degree)
1 Sand 17.3 14 0 19 0 35
2 Sand 20.4 37 0 30 0 42
3 Rock 20.4 – 2068 0 2068 30
 M. Ashour, H. Ardalan / Computers and Geotechnics 39 (2012) 85–97 97

Moment, kN-m tation Center of Alabama (UTCA). The authors would also like to
thank Mr. Joseph (Joe) Carte, Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Douglas,
-50 0 50 100 150 200
0 Mr. Jim Fisher and Mr. Mark Nettleton for their support and valu-
able feedback.
1

2 References

3 [1] Ito T, Matsui T, Hong PW. Design method for stabilizing piles against landslide
– one row of piles. Soils Found 1981;21(1):21–37.
4 [2] Poulos HG. Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability. Can Geotech J
Depth, m

5 [3] Chen LT, Poulos HG. Piles subjected to lateral soil movements. J Geotech
6 [4] Zeng S, Liang R. Stability analysis of drilled shafts reinforced slope. Soils Found
7 [5] Won J, You K, Jeong S, Kim S. Coupled effects in stability analysis of soil–pile
8 Pile 4 [26]
Pile 5 [26]
9 [7] NAVFAC. Foundations and earth retaining structures design manual. Dept of
Proposed method
10
Fig. 24. Measured and computed pile moment of the Tygart Lake Test.
Table 3 yield a slope safety factor of 0.976 using the modified
Bishop method. A comparison between measured (piles 4 and 5)
and calculated deflection and moment is presented in Figs. 23
and 24. Good agreement between measured and computed pile
deflection and bending moment can be observed.
6. Conclusions
An approach has been developed to predict the behavior and
safety factors of pile-stabilized slopes considering the interaction
between the pile and surrounding soil assuming soil displacement
larger than pile deflection. The lateral soil pressure acting on the
pile segment above the slip surface is determined based on soil
and pile properties (i.e. soil–pile interaction). The developed tech-
nique accounts for the effect of pile diameter and position and the
center-to-center pile spacing on the mobilized soil–pile pressure
(pD). The development of the ultimate interaction between the pile
and sliding mass of soil is determined via the consideration of the
strength of pile material, soil flow-around failure, soil resistance,
and pile interaction with adjacent piles. The study also shows that
the position of the pile into the slope, the depth of the failure sur-
face at the pile position, soil type, pile diameter and pile spacings
have a combined effect on the maximum driving force that the pile
can transfer down to the stable soil. The presented case studies
exhibit the capabilities of the current technique via the comparison
with measured results and the prediction of the soil–pile pressure
above the slip surface.
Acknowledgment
This research was sponsored by the West Virginia Division of
Highways (WVDOH, Project RP-213) and the University Transpor-
1995;32:808–18.
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 1997;123(9):802–11.
2002;42(2):93–102.
systems. Comput Geotech 2005;32(4):304–15.
[6] Broms B. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech Found Div
ASCE 1964;90:123–56.
Navy, DM 7.2, Alexandria, VA, USA; 1982.
[8] Norris G. Theoretically based BEF laterally loaded pile analysis. In: Proceedings
of third international conference on numerical methods in offshore piling.
Nantes, France; 1986. p. 361–86.
[9] Ashour M, Norris G, Pilling P. Lateral loading of a pile in layered soil using the
strain wedge model. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 1998;124(4):303–15.
[10] Ito T, Matsui T. Methods to estimate lateral force acting on stabilizing piles.
Soils Found 1975;15(4):43–59.
[11] Hassiotis S, Chameau JL, Gunaratne M. Design method for stabilization of
slopes with piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 1997;123(4):314–23.
[12] Lee CY, Hull TS, Poulos HG. Simplified pile-slope stability analysis. Comput
Geotech 1995;17(1):1–16.
[13] Poulos HG. Analysis of piles in soil undergoing lateral movement. J Soil Mech
Found Div ASCE 1973;99(5):391–406.
[14] Chow YK. Analysis of piles used for slope stabilization. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 1996;20:635–46.
[15] Viggiani C. Ultimate lateral load on piles used to stabilize landslides. In:
Proceedings of 10th international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Stockholm, Sweden; 1981. p. 555–60.
[16] Chen L, Poulos HG. Analysis of soil–pile interaction under lateral loading using
infinite and finite elements. Comput Geotech 1993;15(4):189–220.
[17] Jeong S, Kim B, Won J, Lee J. Uncoupled analysis of stabilizing piles in
weathered slopes. Comput Geotech 2003;30(8):671–82.
[18] Ausilio E, Conte E, Dente G. Stability analysis of slopes reinforced with piles.
Comput Geotech 2001;28(8):591–611.
[19] Nian TK, Chen GQ, Luan MT, Yang Q, Zheng DF. Limit analysis of the stability of
slopes reinforced with piles against landslide in nonhomogeneous and
anisotropic soils. Can Geotech J 2008;45(8):1092–103.
[20] Yamin M, Liang RY. Limiting equilibrium method for slope/drilled shaft
system. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2010;34(10):1063–75.
[21] Ashour M, Norris G. Modeling lateral soil–pile response based on soil–pile
interaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2000;126(5):420–8.
[22] Skempton AW. The pore-pressure coefficients A and B. Géotechnique
1954;4(4):143–7.
[23] Reese LC. Behavior of piles and pile groups under lateral load. In: Report to the
US department of transportation, Federal highway administration, Office of
research, development, and technology, Washington, DC; 1983.
[24] Ashour M, Pilling P, Norris G. Lateral behavior of pile groups in layered soils. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2004;130(6):580–92.
[25] Smethurst JA, Powrie W. Monitoring and analysis of the bending behaviour of
discrete piles used to stabilise a railway embankment. Geotechnique
2007;57(8):663–77.
[26] Richardson TM. Experimental and analytical behavior of slide suppressor pile
walls embedded in bedrock. West Virginia Department of Highway (WVDOH),
Project No. RP-121; 2005.
[27] NAVFAC. Soil mechanics design manual. Dept of Navy, DM 7.1, Alexandria, VA,
USA; 1982.