Computers and Geotechnics 17 (1995) 1-16

0 1995 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0266-352X195/$9.50
ELSEVIER

SIMPLIFIED PILE-SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

C.Y. Lee, T.S. Hull and H.G. Poulos

School of Civil and Mining Engineering
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006, Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a simplified approach to the study of a row of piles used for
slope stabilization. The approach is based on an uncoupled formulation in which the pile
response and slope stability are considered separately. The pile response when subjected to
external lateral soil movements from slope instability is analysed by a modified boundary
element method. A conventional simplified Bishop slip circle approach is employed to
analyse the slope stability. Applications of the approach are presented and discussed with
emphasis on identifying and optimizing some of the important factors that control the
performance of piles used for slope stabilization. Several conclusions are drawn regarding
the pile-slope stability problem, that of prime importance being the location of the piles
for most effective slope stabilization.

INTRODUCTION

The use of piles to stabilize active landslides, and as a preventive measure in stable

slopes, has become one of the important innovative slope reinforcement techniques in

recent years. Some of the successful applications of such techniques have been reported by

De Beer et al. 1970, Ito and Matsui 1975, Sommer 1977, Fukuoka 1977 and Wang et al.

1979. The piles used in slope stabilization are usually subjected to lateral force by

horizontal movements of the surrounding soil and hence they are considered as passive

piles. Driven timber piles have been used to reinforce the slope stability of very soft clays

in Sweden, while cast-in-place reinforced concrete piles as large as 1Sm diameter have

been used in Europe and the United States to stabilize active landslides in stiff clays
 2

(Bulley 1965 and Offenberger 1981). In Japan steel tube piles of 300mm diameter have

been used to stabilize active landslide areas (Taniguchi 1967). Past experiences suggested

that a sliding slope may be stabilized by increasing its safety factor by a few percent

(Viggiani 1981).

A number of techniques have been developed to evaluate lateral pressures acting

against piles which are used as reinforcement in slopes. Reese et al. (1992) have presented

a “p - y” approach for assessing the improvement in slope stability which arises from

using piles. Rowe and Poulos (1979) developed a two-dimensional finite element approach

that allowed for the three dimensional effect of soil flowing through rows of piles. A three

dimensional elastic finite element approach has been developed by Oakland and Chameau

(1984) for the analysis of stabilization of surcharged slope with drilled piles. Although

such finite element approaches provide versatile solutions, they are relatively expensive

and usually not suitable for routine practical design purposes. Some of the basic failure

mechanisms associated with the use of piles to stabilize slopes have been suggested and

discussed by Viggiani (1981) Hull et al. (1991) and Lee et al. (1991). These failure

mechanisms provide better insight into the pile-slope stability interaction problem. Ito and

Matsui (1975) have incorporated a plastic extrusion deformation model to compute the

lateral pressures acting on a row of passive piles in limit equilibrium solutions for slope

stability. Although this approach appears useful, the model is derived for rigid piles with

infinite length. These piles may not represent the actual piles in the field since the latter

have finite length and also are unlikely to be rigid. Also it may provide doubtful solutions

when the piles are closely spaced.

 3

An alternative approach is presented here in which a modified boundary element

method (Poulos 1973; Hull 1987) is employed to study the response of a row of passive

piles incorporated in limit equilibrium solutions of slope stability. The pile-soil response

may be modelled as an elastic continuum, or as a set of springs, with nonuniform variation

of stiffness and strength with depth. The solution incorporates a nonlinear pile-soil

interface element with the ability to represent a hardening or softening response prior to

reaching an ultimate state. The slope stability analysis is performed using Bishop’s

simplified slip circle approach. A microcomputer-based program (SLOPIL) has been

developed based on the above analyses. Theoretical solutions have been obtained by this

approach in order to study the most effective means of using piles for stabilizing slopes.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The analysis is formulated using an uncoupled approach in which the pile response

and slope stability are considered separately.

Pile Response

The sliding soil mass above the failure surface is assumed to be strengthened by

the discretely placed piles to fomi a barrier that resists soil movements and transfers loads

to the more stable underlaying layers. The portion of the piles embedded in the sliding

slope is subjected to large lateral soil movements (see Figure 1). The vertical soil

movements are ignored here. The pile shear forces and bending moments developed at the

sliding surface by the external lateral soil movements are evaluated using a modified

boundary element method as described by Hull et al. (1991), and employed by Lee et al.

(1991).
 4

(a) Piled-Slope Stability Problem (h) Pile Rc~pon~e

FIG.1 SIMPLIFIED PILED-SOIL STABILITY ANALYSIS

An incremental approach has been developed in which the analysis can be carried

out with defined soil deformation up to the limiting pile-soil pressure. A restriction to

complete mobilisation of pile-soil interface element strengths is the basic requirement that

equilibrium must be maintained (i.e., some elements may remain linear in order to balance

the forces and moments produced by the distributed loads). When the piles yield, it is

assumed that the maximum pile bending moments developed are equal to the yield

moment of the piles. The soil mass is assumed to be elastic but nonlineu effects are

incorporated in the analysis by allowing the pile-soil interfaces to yield when they reach

the specified pile-soil limiting pressures. The interaction effects of identical loaded piles

within a group may also be included. Different pile head and base fixities may be

modelled. In a clay soil, the Young’s modulus E, and pile-soil limiting pressure py may be

correlated to the undrained shear strength c, by multipliers K, and K,, respectively.

Typical values of K, and K,, are 250-1000 and 3-12, respectively (Hull et al. 1991, Lee et
 5

al. 1991). The pile-soil interaction problem is solved by an incremental analysis for

increasing lateral soil movements up to and beyond the state at which full pile-soil

interface strength has been mobilised.

Slope Stability

The conventional Bishop simplified method of slip circle analysis (Bishop 1955) is

employed to determine the critical sliding surface, resisting moment I$, and overturning

moment M,. The resisting moment M, generated by the pile is then obtained from the

pile shear force and bending moment developed in the pile at the depth of the sliding

surface analysed, as described in the previous section. Thus the final overall factor of

safety of the piled-slope Frs may be determined as follows:

M +Mv_M
FP=L---L (1)
MO MO

A microcomputer based computer program, “SLOPIL” has been developed using

the uncoupled formulation to analyse the pile-slope stability problem as described above.

PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS

Theoretical solutions have been obtained for a row of hypothetical cast-in-place

reinforced concrete piles installed into both a unifonn soil and a two-layered soil slope.

The uniform soil slope problem analysed is shown in Figure 2. The slope is 10m high

with the rigid base at 1Om below the ground surface. The slope is inclined at an angle of

20 degrees to the ground surface. The soil is assumed to be uniform soft clay with an

undrained shear strength of 30 kN/m’ and undrained Poisson’s ratio of 0.5. The soil
 6

density is assumed to be 18.5 kN/m3. The soil Young’s modulus and pile-soil limiting

pressure are taken to be 500 and 9 times the undrained shear strength, respectively. The

diameter of the concrete piles is lm and these are discretely placed at 3m centre-to-centre

intervals.

Standard Paratneters

c, = 30 kN/m2
Soil density = 18.5 kN/m”
KEs = 500
KPY = 9
EP = 26 x lo6 kN/&
, xP /

LX
I I

FIG.2 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF HOMOGENEOUS SLOPE

The piles are assumed to be positioned between the toe and crest of the slope. The pile

tips are resting on the rigid base but derive no support from the base. The pile heads and

tips are free to displace and rotate unless otherwise stated. The piles are divided into 20

elements and the slope is divided into 100 slices across the modelled geometry. When the

pile section reaches its yield moment, the analysis is terminated regardless of any soil

strength not mobilised. All the solutions are presented in terms of an improvement ratio

N,, which is defined as follows:

(2)

where F,= minimum factor of safety of piled-slope problem and F,= minimum factor of

safety of the slope stability problem without piles. The value of the parameters in the
 7

problem have been chosen so that F, for the uniform soil slope is approximately 1.00,

(a) Homogeneous Soil Slope

Figure 3 shows the effect of the pile position along the slope on the improvement

ratio NrS. The most effective pile positions are near the toe and crest of the slope with a

piled-slope improvement ratio of about 1.08. When the piles are positioned close to the

middle of the slope the piled-slope improvement ratio becomes 1.0, indicating that the

presence of the piles has no effect on stability. This is because the critical sliding surface

is near the pile tips. Little influence was found on the stability with the pile heads fixed

against rotation since the sliding surfaces are not in close proximity to the pile heads.

1.20 I I I I

0 Free Head Pilc

+ Fixed Hcnd Pi
1.16

G 1.12
D.?
II

z” 1.08

1.04

1.00 _
II 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o
xp/Lr

FIG.3 EFFECT OF PILE POSITION ON HOMOGENEOUS SLOPE

The following parametric solutions are obtained for piles located at the toe (toe

piles) and crest (crest piles), positions at which the piles appear to be most effective.

The piled-slope improvement ratio increases with increasing pile diameter as

 8

illustrated in Figure 4 (where d,=standard pile diameter). Larger diameter piles induce

larger pile resisting moments and shears, hence increase the resistance of the slope to

failure. For pile diameter ratio, d/d,, greater than 1.0, the toe piles appear to be more

effective than the crest piles since the critical sliding surface is closer to the pile top at the

toe piles where larger pile resisting moments are generated.

1.20 . I I

1.16 -

o Tot Pile
l Crest Pile

1.0 1.5 2.0

d/d s

FIG.4 EFFECT OF PILE DIAMETER ON HOMOGENEOUS SLOPE

The effect of pile spacing is shown in Figure 5 and as expected, the piled-slope

improvement ratio reduces with increasing pile spacing. The resisting moments contributed

from the piles become smaller with larger pile spacing which allows more soil to move

through the larger clear space between the piles. In contrast, as the pile spacing decreases

the piles become more like a continuous barrier and the influence of soil arching becomes

more pronounced and decreases the soil movements and hence increases the slope

stability.
 1.20 +L._ o Toe Pile
l Crest Pile
1.16 -

g 1.12 -
B
II

z” 1.08 -

1.04 -

1 I I
1.00 ’
1 2 3 4 5
s/d s

F1G.S EFFECT OF PILE SPACING ON HOMOGENEOUS SLOPE

1.20 I I I I I
0 Toe Pile
l Crest Pile
1.16 -

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

KPY JKPYS

FIG.6 EFFECT OF PILE-SOIL LIMITING PRESSURE MULTIPILJER

ON HOMOGENEOUS SLOPE
 10

Figure 6 shows that the piled-slope improvement ratio increases almost linearly

with increasing multiplier -standard

K,, (where KPYS- pile-soil limiting pressure multiplier).

Larger pile-soil limiting pressure allows the piles to develop larger pile resisting moments

and increases the stability, since the piles are relatively rigid.

It is found that the soil modulus and pile stiffness have little or no effect on the

pile failure response and in turn on the piled-slope stability, since the pile failure occurs at

the ultimate condition. However they may influence the pile response prior to failure.

(b) Two-Layer Soil Slope

Figure 7 shows hypothetical piles embedded in the two-layer soil slope. For

Case A, the upper soft layer is underlain by a stiff layer. The soil Young’s modulus and

limiting pile-soil pressure multipliers are assumed to be the same as those used in the

homogeneous soil slope. For Case B, the lower soft layer is overlain by a stiff layer. The

value of F, for Case A and Case B is about 1.03 and 1.18, respectively.

Case A Case B

w Shear Stren,gh (kPd Density (kN/d)

I 25 16.7
II SO 18.6

FIG.7 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF TWO-LAYER SLOPE

 11

The effect of pile positions on the piled-slope improvement ratio for pile heads

assumed to be free and fixed against rotation is illustrated in Figure 8. For Case A, the

most effective pile positions are between the middle and crest of the slope. However for

Case B, the most effective positions are at the toe and crest of the slope. If the piles are

located at the middle of the slope for Case B, the sliding surface intersects near the pile

tip resulting in little or no advantage being gained from the piles. In general, the pile head

fixities have very little effect on the stability of the piled-slope for both cases.

15

q o Free-Head Pile

1.4
+ x Fixed-Head Pile

1.3

II

2 1.2

1.1

1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

FIG.8 EFFECT OF PILE POSITION ON TWO-LAYER SLOPE

 12

Figure 9 shows the effect of pile diameter on the two-layer slope stability when the

piles are located at the crest. The piled-slope improvement ratio increases almost linearly

with pile diameter for Case A because most of the critical sliding surfaces intersect along

the upper half of the piles where higher pile bending moments and shear

1.1

1.0 L I , I
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
d/ds
FIG.9 EFFECT OF PILE DIAMETER ON TWO-LAYER SLOPE
(FREE-HEAD CREST PILE)

forces are developed. The influence of pile diameter for Case B is much less pronounced

since most of the critical sliding surfaces intersect close to the pile tips, where lower

bending moments and shear forces are developed.

Similarly the pile spacing has more effect for Case A than Case B, as illustrated in

Figure 10. At a pile spacing, s/d,, of 1.5, the piled-slope improvement ratio for Case A is

about 25% higher than Case B. However, the ratio decreases faster with increasing pile

spacing for Case A, implying that Case B is less dependent on pile spacing.
 13

13 I I I I I I

1.4

g 1.3
rs”
II

zg 1.2

1.1

1.0. .
1 .s 2.0 2.s 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 S.0
s/d,

FIG. IO EFFECT OF PILE SPACING ON TWO-LAYER SLOPE

(FREE-HEAD CREST PILE)

Figure 11 shows that the piled-slope improvement ratio increases with increasing

pile-soil limiting pressure for both cases, with the value of the ratio being higher for

Case A than for Case B.

1.5 I I I I I

1.4 -

K PY1K PYS
FIG.1 1 EFFECT OF PILE-SOJL LIMITING PRESSLJRE MULTIPLIER ON
TWO-LAYER SLOPE (FREE-HEAD CREST PILE)
 14

In general, the results confirm the obvious expectation that it is desirable to have

the piles embedded through the soft (weak) layers well into the firm (stable) underlying

layers.

It should be emphasized that the slope stability analysis in this paper considers

circular failure surfaces only. In many practical cases, a non-circular surfnce may be more

critical than a circular surface. Extension of the approach presented herein to non-circular

failure surfuces is straightforward.

CONCLUSIONS

A simplified pile-slope stability analysis has been presented and discussed in which

the pile response to lateral soil movements is incorporated in a slope stability analysis.

Based on the analysis, some of the important factors affecting the performance of piles

used in stabilizing unstable slopes and as a preventive measure in stable slopes, have been

investigated. For a homogeneous soil slope, the theoretical solutions indicate that piles

located at the toe or crest of the slope may provide the most effective slope stabilization.

The pile diameter, pile spacing, and pile-soil limiting pressure are some of the important

factors affecting the performance of the stabilizing piles. However the soil modulus and

pile stiffness appear to have little effect on the overall piled-slope stability response. As

would be expected, for a layered soil slope, the piles are most effective when they are

embedded through the soft layers and extended into the firm or stable layers. The

effectiveness of the piles is also affected by the pile diameter, spacing and pile-soil

limiting pressure in a layered soil slope. Theoretical solutions presented here require

verification by laboratory experiments (e.g. in a centrifuge) and by field measurements.

 15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described in this paper foms part of a program of research project on

the effect of seafloor instability on foundations, which was supported by a grant from the

Australian Research Council.

REFERENCES

Bishop, A.W. (19.55). “The use of slip circle in the stability analysis of earth
slopes.” Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 7-17.

Bulley, W.A. (1965). “Cylinder pile retaining wall construction- Seattle Freeway.”
Roads and Streets Conference, Seattle, Washington.

De Beer, E.E. and Wallays, M. (1972). “Forces induced in piles by unsymmetrical

surcharges on the soil around the pile.” Proc. 5th European Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, The Spanish Society for Soil
Mechanics and Foundation. Madrid.

4. Fukuoka, M. (1977). “The effects of horizontal loads on piles due to landslides.”

Proc. 10th Spec. Session, 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs. and Fndn. Eng., Tokyo, pp.
27-42.

5. Hull, T.S. (1987). The static behaviour of laterally loaded piles. PhD Thesis,
University of Sydney, Australia.

6. Hull, T.S., Lee, C.Y. and Poulos, H.G. (1991). “Mechanics of pile reinforcement
for unstable slopes.” Research Report No. 636, School of Civil and Mining
Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia.

7. Ito, T. and Matsui, T. (1975). “Methods to estimate lateral force acting on

stabilizing piles.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 43-60.

8. Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W.P. (1979). “Design method for the stabilizing
analysis of the slope with landing pier.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.
43-57.

9. Lee, C.Y., Poulos, H.G. and Hull, T.S. (1991). “Effect of seafloor instability on
offshore pile foundations.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 28, pp. 729-737.

10. Oakland, M.W. and Chameau, J.-L. A. (1984). “Finite-element analysis of drilled
piers used for slope stabilization.” Laterally Loaded Deep Foundations: Analysis
and Performance, ASTM STP 835, J.A. Langer, E.T. Mosley and C.D. Thompson,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 182-193.
 16

11. Offenberger, J.H. (1981). “Hillside stabilized with concrete cylinder pile retaining
wall.” Public Works, Vol. 112, No. 9, pp. 82-86.

12. Poulos, H.G. (1973). “Analysis of piles in soil undergoing lateral movement.”
JSMFD, ASCE, Vol. 99, SM5, pp. 391-406.

13. Reese, L. C., Wang, S-T. and Fouse J. L. (1992). “Use of drilled shafts in
stabilizing a slope.“ASCE, Geot. Spec. Pub. No. 31, Stability and performance of
slopes and embankments - II, Vol. 2, pp. 1318-1332.
14. Rowe, R.K. and Poulos, H.G. (1979). “A method for predicting the effect of piles
on slope behaviour.” Proc. 3rd ICONMIG, Achen, Vol. 3, pp. 1073-1085.

15. Somner, H. (1977). “Creeping slope in a stiff clay.” Proc. 10th Spec. Session, 9th
Iut. Conf. Soil Mechs. and Fndn. Eug., Tokyo, pp. 113-118.

16. Taniguchi, T. (1967). “Landslides in reservoirs.” Proc. 3rd. Asian Regional Conf.
Soil Mechs. and Fndns. Eng., Bangkok, Vol. 1, pp. 258-261.

17. Viggiani, C. (1981). “Ultimate lateral load on piles used to stabilize landslides.”
Proc. 10th. Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol.
3, pp. 555560.

18. Wang, M.C., Wu, A.H. and Scheessele, D.J. (1979). “Stress and deformation in
single piles due to lateral movement of surrounding soils.” Behavior of Deep
Foundations, ASTM 670, Raymond Lunggren, Ed., American Society for Testing
and Materials, pp. 578-591.

Received 11 January 1993; revised version recewed 20 August 1993; accepted

28 August 1993