Status and Progress of Soil Arching

Effect Research
Miaojun Sun1 , Xinli Hu1* , Fulin Tan1 , and Yuming Zhang1
1

Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei,

430074, China

ABSTRACT
Engineering practices and model tests have shown that the formation of the soil arching
around passive piles is a crucial stabilizing mechanism in the soil-pile systems. Soil arching
theory traditionally has been applied to soils resting on horizontal supports or resting
against vertical retaining walls. It is an important reason of the difference between the earth
pressures on supporting structure with that calculated by the Coulombs or Rankines earth
pressure theory. It has been over one century since soil arching effect was brought up.
However, some problems are still left unsolved. This paper aims at summarizing and
categorizing current studies about soil arching effect. The factors affecting soil arching and
stress sharing ration are also discussed. Moreover, two types of research methods, i. e. the
theoretical analysis method and the experimental method, as well as their characteristics
and applicability, are reviewed. At last, it is pointed out that the perfection of interface
constitutive model, the improvement of computational method, and the combination of
numerical analysis with experimental study are the trend of further research on soil arching
in the soil-pile system.

KEYWORDS: soil arching, soil mechanics, earth pressures

THE FORMATION OF SOIL ARCHING EFFECT

Since Terzaghi[1] proved the existence of soil arch effect in soil mechanics, two conditions
are thought to be essential for the generation of this effect based on the description of soil
arching pressure distribution: the first is an uneven or relative displacement of soil mass, and
the second is the existence of arch springing. Chang Baoping [2] believes soil arch effect can be
formed provided anti-slide piles are of sufficient structural strength and appropriate distance at
an appropriate position of the slip. McNulty [3] believes that soil arch effect is the ability of
load transference between materials caused by relative uneven movement of different parts, and
load transference follows the law of shear stress. While Jia Haili [4] et al tend to believe that
- 4293 -

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Q

4294

besides the two conditions brought up by Terzaghi, soil arch effect cannot be formed unless a
third condition is meet in which shear stress of the soil mass is smaller than the shear resistance
where the arch is formed. Wu Zishu [5] studied conditions of soil arch in clayey soils, and
points out that soil arch effect can be neglected when the soil layer is of low compactness and
high moisture.
The soil mass is a granular system, whose compacting process can result in the formation of
an arch. Therefore, compactness in the arch part is bound to be larger than the adjoining part. A
number of theory research, field observation and model tests have confirmed the existence of
this phenomenon. The author believes that generation of soil arch effect relies on the anti-shear
strength of the soil, and shearing strength at the arching body is not necessarily smaller than the
anti-shearing strength for the generation of soil arch effect. When shear strength in the soil mass
is larger than shearing resistance, an arch is also generated, but instable. Therefore, with certain
shearing resistance, a soil mass can always generate stable arching action.
The principles of the trap door test were simulated by a series of model tests and numerical
finite element analyses on landslide stabilizing piles by Adachi. They explained the
development of the arching effect in granular soils, where the uphill pressure does not govern
particles B, C, and D within the arching zone of soil. Moreover, the existence of an arching
foothold in front of the circular pile will cause less pressure to act on these piles than on
equivalent rectangular piles. However, the deformation on the pile/soil interface, the effects of
pile/soil parameters on the formation of arching zone and the different arching mechanisms
between granular and fine-grained soils are unresolved. For this reason, numerical Researches
on pile spacing based on soil arch effect technically and economically, rational pile spacing is
the larger the better premising safety of the slope is guaranteed. So far in the engineering work,
pile spacing is controlled at an empirical value, and checked by whether frictional force
between soil mass and adjoining piles is larger than the sliding force between piles. A rational
pile space is designed to guarantee stability of slide mass between piles, so as not be squeezed
out. Existing studies on pile spacing are to be discussed as follows.
Wang Shichuan[6] and his coworkers derived an anti-slide pile spacing formulation from
the rational arch axis equation, considering soil arch effect and factors including the frictional
force and adhesive force of soil, and brought up the term of anti-slide pile spacing lower limit.
Chang Baoping[7], et al built a model to calculate pile spacing based on arch strength, but the
conditions for balance between frictional force of anti-slide piles and pushing force of the slip
mass was not taken into consideration. Based on the analysis of force acting and transferring on
the arch and deformation of it, Wang Chenghua[8] derived an equation to calculate maximum
pile spacing to meet the condition that frictional force of anti-slide piles be larger than pushing
force of the slip mass. However, influence from the arch strength was neglected in his study. By
analyzing parabolic structure using structural mechanics, Zhou Peide[9] et al derived three
balance equations to determine spacing between anti-slide piles, which are balanced between
static force, balance of strength at mid-span section, and that at arch springing. Chen[10] et al
studied pile group effect using a series of model tests and observed no pile group effect when
pile spacing is larger than or equal to 8 times of pile diameter.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Q

4295

When we calculate pile spacing considering influence from soil and arch, soil arch effect of
anti-slide piles with adhesive soil and non-adhesive soil is not distinguished. It is generally
assumed that a big principle stress arch is form between piles. However, researches indicate
that a stable big principle stress arch can be generated provided that anti-slide piles embedded
in cohesiveless soil have a small pile spacing; when pile spacing is relatively large, only small
principle stress arch will be formed. Some problems remaining in a cohesiveless situation are
that when small principle stress arch is generated, how soil interacts with piles, how load
transfer from soil to adjoining piles, and how an anti-slide pile functions. These issues remain
unexplored so far. In the situation of adhesive soil, because the interaction between soil and
piles is not clear and the explanation of anti-slide pile mechanism using soil arch theory is
complicated, the calculation of a threshold pile spacing using this theory is controversial.
Further study in this area is needed.

Factors impacting on soil arching effect

The generation, existence and impact on the slope stability of an arch is determined by
many factors, such as pile spacing, pile section, cantilever pile length, parameter and
mechanical characters of rock-soil parameter, soil thickness above the arch crown, all of which
play an role in the existence of an arch and the functioning of soil arch effect.
Han Aimin[11] et al summarized from his research that change of soil strength as well as
elasticity modulus have faint effects on the forming mechanism of arch, while frictional
characters of soil and pile, such as dilatancy and Poissons ratio, affect not only the generation
of an arch, but also the failure of forces acting on soil adjoining piles. Bosscher[12] simulated
soil arch effect by modeling a sandy slope. Considering the impact on archs generation of four
factors, namely, soil compactness, pile diameter, pile spacing and friction coefficient between
sandy soil and foundation, the experiment leads to the proportion of load transferred under
different pile spacing. A curve of this relationship is drawn correspondently.
Forces imposed on the arch are different under different conditions, while the change of
this force has a direct impact on the force acting on an anti-slide pile and the stability of slope.
In our predecessors researches, the impact of pile modulus, different settlement of soil and pile
and parameter of foundation soil are tend to be neglected, and soil layer are presumed to be
uniform. Besides, the assumption of a plane situation is oversimplified. All these analytical
methods lead to a result very different from actual state in practical engineering work.

Factors of pile-soil stress ratio

Zhang Jianxun[13] and his coworkers analyzed the impact of contact surface between pile
and soil, quantity of load under lateral displacement, characters of pile group and soil mass on
the soil arch effect and pile-soil stress ratio. Their analysis showed that pile spacing plays the
biggest role among factors considered. Calculation proved that when there is a minor relative
displacement of pile and soil, the shape of arch are similar under the influence of different but
evenly distributed load, and the arch has a resistant function against the slip mass as a result of
soil arch effect. Under the influence of different evenly distributed load, ratio of pile-shared to

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Q

4296

total load constantly stays at the level of about 80%. XJ. Hewlctt et al used experimental models
to analyze soil arch effect at a square setup packing with dry sand and wet sand respectively. In
their model, when 3 piles are used, readings of the stress detector show that piles share 45% of
load from packing sand at the upper layer, and this percentage is 66% when 5 piles are used.
It is known that in a model test, frictional force from side walls of a model box will have
an impact on forces acting on the boundary and conditions for deformation. In a plane strain
situation, impact of box width is attempted to be eliminated. Using a retaining wall with
reinforced soil, Santamarina[14] proved that height to width ratio of a model has an impact on the
acceleration of model failure. The wider the model is, the smaller the acceleration will be,
which fully supports the conclusion that in a wider model, frictional force on the side walls are
smaller. Malushitsky[15] studied impact of model width on the damage of sliding surface by soil
mass. An obvious bend is observed on the sliding surface 8~12cm from the side wall due to
frictional force. Only soil mall in the middle meets the condition of plane strain. Soil arching
has also verified by model test that when internal diameter of the model box is 5 times that of
foundation, frictional resistance on the side wall is 10%~20% higher than estimated.
Guangming Xu[16] and his coworkers repeated Ovesens experiment with coarse sand, and
came to a similar conclusion. Therefore, the ratio of height to width in the model should be
taken into consideration for the design of a model test.
Handy[17] studied soil arch action for a soil mass loaded between two walls, simulating a
bin. Soil arching action was depicted as a trajectory of minor principal stress that approximates
to a catenary. Its development can be initiated from the rotation of principal stresses. The
second stage of arching reduces the vertical and horizontal pressures near the base of the wall.
The result of the arching effect on pile caps[18] showed that static equilibrium requires arches to
be semi-circular, of uniform thickness and with no overlap. Within each arching zone, the
tangential direction and the radial direction are the direction of major and minor principal
stresses, respectively. The Adachi et al.[19] model test defined the arching zone by an equilateral
triangular arch. Other shapes of arches had also been observed in different physical
phenomena, including parabolic, hemispherical, domal and corbelled[20]. The following
sections study the arching effect from the viewpoint of stress transfer in the pile-slope
interaction analysis. Rigid piles in sand and clay slopes are modeled in the 2-D analyses.
In numerical research, soil arch effect between piles is a complicated mechanism of
3-dimentional stress transfer. When it is simplified to a 2-dimentional situation, attention
should be paid to about the following issues: settlement depth is different as soil layer depth
differs. There must be some sort of interaction between the two factors, which is neglected in a
2-dimentional analysis; under the influence of the load from earth surface, the interaction
between pile and soil is very complicated and displacement of soil mass occurs vertically and
laterally; any kind of constraints on the pile crown and tip will lead to lateral movement of the
pile body as the soil layer is moving laterally. However, in a 2-dimentional situation, the pile
body is holonomic displacement constraint.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Q

4297

Earlier works by DeBeer and Wallays[21] and Begemann and DeLeeuw[22] where nineteen
field observations and an assumption of soil elasticity were made, Oteo[23] derived design charts
for calculating the maximum lateral displacement and bending moment in piles in soft soil
subjected to adjacent surcharging. The effect of soil-pile interaction was accounted for in a
basic way. Also, Baguelin et al.[24] load-transfer relationship expressed by lateral load on the
pile based on the relative pile-soil lateral displacement and stiffness properties of the soil was
reinterpreted by Springman[25] and Springman and Bolton[26]. It was subsequently used by
Stewart et al. to describe pile-soil interaction in plane strain analyses of undrained passive pile
loading. The work described above has been extended by Bransby[27], using results from FEM
analyses. Poulos[28] reviewed some available methods for design of piles through embankment
and presented comparison with the results of the application of the method.
The slip surface of landslides is substantially weaker (softer) than the materials above or
below it. This zone has been referred to as the discrete shear zone[29]. One way to improve the
resistance at the weak shear zone is employing piles. Reinforced cylindrical piles that pass
through the landslide are anchored at their lower end instable soil or bedrock. The pile
anchorage provides lateral bearing resistance near the base of the moving ground. Design of the
reinforcement steel is controlled by the maximum bending moment developed in the pile.
Poulos[30] reported that the prediction of soil lateral movements requires a knowledge of the
distribution of lateral soil modulus and limiting lateral pile-soil pressure with depth, and the
free-field orizontal soil movements. For problems involving slope instability, a distribution of
free-field soil movements appears to be appropriate. He concludes that none of the previously
available methods appears able to provide a consistent means of estimating the lateral response
of piled embankment. The method by Kelesoglu and Cinicioglu[31] is capable of producing soil
stiffness degradation curves, which are the outcome of real field behavior through free-field
measurements. The proposed method was described by applying the procedure on
Cubzac-les-Ponts test embankment case at which free-field response and soil investigation data
was available. The same problem was also solved with Plaxis 3D to provide comparisons

Conclusions

In the authors view, existing experiments and researches are limited and to be
optimized in future study in the following aspects:
(1) Boundary of soil arch between piles is a vague term. Because components and structure
of the arch is the same as soil surrounding the arch, so there is no clear boundary line to
distinguish the soil arch and non-arch soil. Thickness of arch along the sliding path is not clear,
either.
(2) Predecessors researches involved mostly arches of horizontal direction caused by
anti-slide piles, while researches on that of vertical direction and its application are relatively
rare.
(3) Due to immature experiment conditions and theories, plenty of problems call for further
study in the exploration of soil arch theory, which includes the shape of arch, existence form
and shape of arch springing and its influence, geometrical parameters of pile body.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Q

4298

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. Begemann, H.K.S. and De Leeuw, E.H. (1972). Horizontal Earth Pressures on
Foundation Piles as Result of Nearby Soil Fills, In Proc. 5th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech.
& Fdn. Engrg., Madrid. 1: 1-9.
3. Bransby, M. F. (1995). Piled foundations adjacent to surcharge loads,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, England.
4. Bransby, M.F. and Springman, S.M.(1996). 3-D finite element modeling of pile
groups adjacent to surcharge loads, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 19, No. 4,
pp. 301-324.
5. Bransby MF. (1996). The difference between load transfer relationships for
laterally loaded pile groups: Active p-y or passive p-delta, J of Geotech Eng,
ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 12, pp. 1015-1033.
6. Bransby, M.F., and Springman, S. (1999). Selection of load transfer functions for
passive lateral loading of pile groups, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol.24, pp.
155-184.
7. Broms, B.B. (1965). Design of Laterally Loaded Piles. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. SM3, pp. 79-99.
8. Brown, D.A., and Shie, C.F. (1992). Some numerical experiments with three
dimensional finite element model of a laterally loaded pile, Computers and
Geotechnics, Vol. 12, pp. 149-162.
9. Bulley, W.A. (1965). Cylindrical Pile Retaining Wall Construction-Seattle
Freeway. Paper presented at Roads and Streets Conference, Seattle, Washington.
10. Carter, J.P. (1982). A Numerical Method for Pile Deformations due to Nearby
Surface Loadings, In Proc. Int. Conf. On Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Edmonton, Vol. 2, pp. 811-817.
11. Chaudhuri, D. (2005). Pile foundation response to lateral ground movement, In
Advances in Deep Foundations (GSP 132). Part of Geo-Frontiers 2005.
Proceedings of the Sessions of the Geo Frontiers 2005 Congress.
12. Chen, L.T., Poulos, H.G. and Hull, T.S. (1997). Model tests on pile groups
subjected to lateral soil movement, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.
1-12.
13. Chen, L.T., and Poulos, H.G. (1997). Piles subjected to lateral soil movements,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 9, pp.
802-811.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Q

4299

14. Chow, Y.K. (1996). Analysis of piles used for slope stabilization, International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 20, No. 9,
pp. 635-646.
15. Chow, Y.K. and Yong, K.Y., (1996). Analysis of piles subject to lateral soil
movements, Journal Institute of Engineers, Singapore, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 43-49.
16. De Beer, E.E. and Wallays, M. (1972). Forces Induced in Piles by Unsymmetrical
Surcharges on the Soil around the Pile. In Proc. 5th European Conf. On Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol 1, The Spanish Society for Soil
Mechanics and Foundation, Madrid.
17. Desai, C.S. and Appel, G.C. (1976). 3-d Analysis of Laterally Loaded Structures.
In Proceedings of the II International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechanics, Blacksburg, Virginia.
18. Ellis E.A. (1997). Soil-Structure Interaction for Full-Height Piled Bridge
Abutments Constructed on Soft Clay. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Cambridge, London.
19. Ellis E.A. and Springman S.M. (2001). Modeling of soil-structure interaction for a
piled bridge abutment in plain strain FEM analyses, Computers and Geotechnics,
Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.79-98.
20. Esu, F. and DElia, B. (1974). Interazione terreno-struttura in un palo sollecitato
dauna frana tip colata, Rev. Ital di Geot. III: 27-38.
21. Finno, R.J., Samir, A.L., Allawh, N.F. and Harahap, I. S. (1991). Analysis of
performance of pile groups adjacent to deep excavation, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 6, pp. 934-955.
22. Franke, E. (1977). German Recommendations on Passive Piles. In Proc. 9th Int.
Coft. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.
193-194.
23. Goh, A.T.C, Wong, K.S., The, C.I. and Wen, D. (2003). Pile response adjacent to
braced excavation, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
Vol. 129, No. 4, pp. 383-386.
24. Gudehus, G. and Schwarz, W. (1985). Stabilisation of Creeping Slopes by
Dowels. In Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. 3, pp. 1697-1700.
25. Fukuoka, M. (1977). The Effects of Horizontal Loads on Piles due to Landslides.
In Proc. 10th Spec. Session, 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs and Fndn. Eng., Tokyo,
pp27-42.
26. Guo, W.D. (2006). On limiting force profile, slip depth and response of lateral
piles, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 47-67.

Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Q

4300

27. Hassiotis, S., and Chameau, J.L. (1984). Stabilization of Slopes Using Piles. In
Slope stabilization, Report FHWA/IN/JHRP-84-8 (pp. 181). Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana.
28. Ito, T., and Matsui,T. (1975). Methods to estimate lateral force acting on
stabilizing piles. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 43-59.
29. Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W.P. (1982). Extended design method for multi-row
stabilising piles againts landslides. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.
1-13.
30. Kok, S.T., Bujang, B.K.H., Jamoloddin, N., Mohd. Saleh, J., and Gue, S.S. (2009).
A case study of passive piles failure in open excavation, DFI Journal, Vol. 3, No.
2, pp. 50-57.
31. Morgenstern, N.R. (1982). The Analysis of Wall Supportsto Stabilize Slopes. In
Application of Walls to Landslide Control Problems (pp.19-29). Edited by R.B.
Reeves R.B. Ed.; ASCE.

2014 ejge