Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Research Paper

Evaluating the effect of slope angle on the distribution of the soil–pile

pressure acting on stabilizing piles in sandy slopes
Yi He, Hemanta Hazarika, Noriyuki Yasufuku, Zheng Han ⇑
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan

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

Article history: In the past, the response of stabilizing piles subjected to lateral soil movement or lateral force loading has
Received 9 September 2014 been analysed assuming that the piles are embedded in horizontal semi-infinite soil grounds. In this
Received in revised form 9 May 2015 study, a limit equilibrium method analysing the lateral force (soil–pile pressure per unit thickness) on
Accepted 11 May 2015
stabilizing piles embedded in semi-infinite slopes is presented. In addition, the soil arching effects
Available online 5 June 2015
between two neighbouring stabilizing piles are analysed, and the lateral active stress in the rear of the
piles is obtained. Furthermore, the squeezing effect between two piles proposed by Ito and Matsui is
Keywords:
combined with the lateral active stress in the slope to evaluate the distribution of the soil–pile pressure
Stabilizing piles
Sandy slope
per unit length of the stabilizing piles in sandy slopes. A numerical simulation using FLAC3D is used to
Soil arching evaluate the proposed approach. The simulation shows that the proposed model could reasonably predict
Slope angle the shape of the distribution of the soil–pile pressure acting on the stabilizing piles, while some discrep-
Limit equilibrium method ancy exists between the numerical results and predicted values. Furthermore, the prediction of the pro-
posed model is also evaluated through comparison to the experimental data from the published
literature. Parametric analysis is carried out to investigate the influence of the slope angle on the distri-
bution of the soil–pile pressure. The shape of the distribution of the soil–pile pressure acting on the piles
is shown to vary with the angle of the slope, while the magnitude of the soil–pile pressure remains in the
same order.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction have been adopted and developed. The interaction between piles
is governed by the so-called arching effect. Durrani et al. [8] sug-
In the past several decades, installing rows of drilled shafts for gested that the Rankine passive and active pressure coefficients
slope stabilization has proved to be a reliable and effective tech- should be employed to estimate the maximum spacing resulting
nique to prevent excessive slope movement [14,7,19,20,10]. Piles in arching between piles. Viggiani [26] suggested designing slope
are installed through the unstable soil layer and embedded into stabilizing piles using the limit equilibrium method. With such
the stable layer below the sliding surface. The slope is stabilized an approach, the stabilizing contribution given by a single pile
by piles, which are able to transfer part of the force from the failing depends on the pile characteristics (diameter, length, and ultimate
mass to the stable soil layer. For passive piles, the soil–pile pres- bending moment), the soil strength and slide thickness [20].
sure applied on the piles by the unstable layer is dependent on Poulos [24] presented an analysis method in which a simplified
the soil movement, which is in turn affected by the presence of form of the boundary element method (Poulos 1973) was
the piles [28]. employed to study the response of a row of passive piles incorpo-
Evaluating soil–pile pressure acting on stabilizing piles is of rated in limit equilibrium solutions of slope stability. This method
great significance for the study of slope stabilization. In previous revealed the existence of three modes of failure: (i) ‘‘flow mode’’,
research, a horizontal semi-infinite soil ground was typically used (ii) ‘‘short-pile mode’’, and (iii) ‘‘intermediate mode’’. This finding
for the theoretical analysis of the soil–pile pressure on piles contributed to the practical design of stabilizing piles. Poulos
[14,24,26]. Satisfactory results have been predicted by these meth- [24] highlighted that the flow mode created the least damage
ods. In subsequent research [15,16,12,5,29,18,13], these methods effect of soil movement on the pile; if the piles required protection,
efforts should be made to promote this mode of behaviour.
⇑ Corresponding author at: West 2-1108, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka,
Norris [22] developed a strain wedge (SW) model to predict the
Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan. Tel.: +81 092 802 3381; fax: +81 092 802 3378. response of a flexible pile under lateral loading. Generally speak-
E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Han). ing, the SW model allows the assessment of the nonlinear p–y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.05.006
0266-352X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
154 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165

curve response of a laterally loaded pile based on the envisioned ce

surfa
relationship between the three-dimensional response of a flexible Slope (z)
ure, p
pile in the soil to its one-dimensional beam on elastic foundation pile press
parameters [1]. The SW model has been improved and modified Soil-
to accommodate a laterally loaded pile embedded in multiple soil
rface
layers [1,2]. Undoubtedly, great improvements have been made on er liding su
il lay tial s
the SW model to predict the response of flexible piles under lateral ble so Poten
Unsta
loading [2,3]. In the SW model, the ‘‘flow mode’’ mechanism [24]
mentioned previously was adopted in Ashour and Ardalan’s
research [4]. Such a slope-pile displacement mechanism is also
adopted in the model presented here. Stabilizing pile
In this paper, the authors propose a simple method for estimat- Stable soil layer
ing the ultimate soil–pile pressure per unit length of the pile,
which is induced by flowing soil, assuming that the soil displace-
ment is larger than the pile deflection (Fig. 1). The theory of plastic
deformation [14] is modified, and the soil arching effects between Fig. 2. Stabilizing pile embedded into a semi-infinite slope (adopted from Ashour
two neighbouring piles are considered, which leads to the nonlin- and Ardalan [4]).
ear distribution of the soil–pile pressure per unit length of piles.
Furthermore, the theoretical analysis of the effect of the slope
angle on the soil–pile pressure distribution in sandy slopes is car-
ried out.
In this study, the soil–pile pressure per unit length of the stabi-
lizing pile is analysed in a semi-infinite sandy slope, as shown in
Fig. 2. The general analysis of the soil–pile pressure acting on the
piles involves three main steps: (1) analysing the soil arching zone
adjacent to the piles in the slope; (2) analysing the active lateral
stress in the soil arching zone between two neighbouring piles;
and (3) substituting the active lateral stress into Ito and Matsui’s
approach [14] to estimate the soil–pile pressure acting on each
pile. The piles are assumed to be flexible. In step 1, when the unsta-
ble soil layer slides along the potential sliding surface, the soil layer
deforms. Additionally, soil arching occurs adjacent to the two
neighbouring piles in the failing mass. The plan view of the soil
arching zone between two neighbouring piles is shown by the
hatched area in Fig. 3(a). A typical cross section UU0 is shown in
Fig. 3(b). The area of the soil arching zone is dependent on the
slope angle and the properties of the soil, which are discussed later
in this paper. In step 2, to simplify the analysis of the active stress
on the plane AA0 (referring to Fig. 4), an assumption is made that
when the active stress on the plane AA0 is analysed, the area Fig. 3. Soil arching adjacent to the stabilizing piles in a slope: (a) plan view of the
between the parallel lines AG and AG0 is considered to be the soil soil arching zone; (b) cross section of the soil arching zone in the slope.
arching area. This soil arching area is shown as the shadowed por-
tion in Fig. 4, where rh is the active soil stress induced by the soil
in the soil arching zone is analysed to obtain the active stress. In
arching effects, D1 is the centre-to-centre interval between two
step 3, the approach proposed by Ito and Matsui [14] is adopted,
neighbouring piles, and D2 is the clear interval between piles. In
and the squeezing effects between the piles are evaluated. This
addition, the limit equilibrium condition of the differential element
procedure yields the soil–pile pressure per unit length of the pile.
For the purpose of verifying the proposed model, a numerical
simulation was performed. The shear strength reduction method
Dispalcement
(SRM) is used in the code of FLAC3D. SRM has been used in the sta-
bility analysis of slopes without piles by many previous research-
ers [30,25,9,28]. This method is extended to analyse the safety
Soil
Deflected factor of a slope stabilized with piles. In the studies by Martin
displacement
piles and Chen [21], Won et al. [29], Wei and Cheng [28], and Lirer
Depth below ground level

[20], FLAC3D is used to analyse the response of the stabilizing piles

Failure surface or the safety factor of the reinforced slope with piles. FLAC3D is a
widely used tool for estimating the response of the stabilizing
piles. In this study, the authors use the three-dimensional finite
difference code FLAC3D by SRM to analyse the soil–pile pressure
acting on stabilizing piles during slope slides. The numerical simu-
lation results are compared to the prediction obtained from the
proposed model. Furthermore, the laboratory experiments carried
out by Chen et al. [6] and Guo and Ghee [11] are introduced to
evaluate the proposed model.
Fig. 1. Soil–pile displacement as employed in the model presented here (Ashour
Finally, the validated model is used to evaluate the effect of
and Ardalan’s research [4]). slope angle on the distribution of the soil–pile pressure per unit
 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165 155

 
1 sin b
h1 ¼ u þ b þ arccos ð2Þ
2 sin u
where u is the internal friction angle of the soil, b is the inclined
angle of the slope surface, and h1 is the angle between the slip plane
and the horizontal.

3. Theoretical analysis

3.1. Rotation of the major and minor stresses in the soil arching zone

In the study of retaining walls, soil arching is assumed to occur

in a circular arc. Paik and Salgado [23] have evaluated the active
soil stress based on the soil arching theory. In this paper, the
approach proposed by Paik and Salgado [23] is adopted and
extended to analyse an inclined soil mass. The rotation of the prin-
cipal stress on the line AB (Fig. 5) is described in Fig. 6(a) and (b). In
the rear of line AB, the trajectory of the minor principal stress on
the differential element is represented by dotted lines assumed
as an arc, while the major principal stress is the normal to the
arc. The active earth pressure acting on line AB includes two com-
ponents: the active lateral stress rh and the shear stress s.
As shown in Fig. 6(a), on the left side of the differential element,
the force equilibrium in the triangular element at point E is consid-
ered. The lateral stress is calculated as follows:
Fig. 4. Plastic deformation of soil between neighbouring piles (adopted from Ito
and Matsui [14]). rh ¼ r1 cos2 h þ r3 sin2 h ð3Þ
Similarly, at an arbitrary point D on the arc, whose original
thickness on the stabilizing piles. The main finding of this paper is location is point F, the lateral force is given by
that the distribution shape of the soil–pile pressure varies with the
slope angle, while the magnitude of the soil–pile pressure remains rah ¼ r1 cos2 w þ r3 sin2 w ð4Þ
in the same order. where w is the angle between the normal of the arc at point D and
the horizontal, and rah is the lateral stress at point D. Considering
2. The soil arching zone when the soil is in an active condition, substituting r3/r1 = 1/N into
Eq. (4) yields
In a semi-infinite inclined soil mass, the soil arching that occurs  
adjacent to stabilizing piles has been studied by Wang and Yen 1 2
rah ¼ cos2 w þ sin w r1 ð5Þ
[27]. However, the area of the soil arching zone was not specified. N
Paik and Salgado [23] assumed that the slip plane behind a retain- where N = tan2(45° + u/2).
ing wall had an angle of 45° + u/2 and that the area between the In Fig. 7(a), the vertical stress rv, which is applied on the surface
slip plane and the wall was the soil arching zone. In this study, of the differential element, includes two components: one perpen-
the soil arching zone is analysed using geometry. It is assumed that dicular to the line EP, r0v , and one parallel to the line EP, rf. The
when the unstable soil layer slides along the potential sliding sur- ratio of rv to r0v is as follows:
face, the soil layer deforms, and a slip plane occurs behind the
piles, which is inclined at an angle h with respect to the slope sur- 1
rv =r0v ¼ ð6Þ
face (Fig. 5). The area ABC in Fig. 5 is the soil arching zone. The cos b
geometry in the soil arching zone is analysed and shown in
Because rah  r3 = r1  rv, substituting for rah yields
Appendix A. The angle between the slip plane and the horizontal  
is expressed as follows: rv0
2 1
  ¼ cos b sin w þ cos2 w ð7Þ
1 sin b
r1 N
h¼ u  b þ arccos ð1Þ
2 sin u Because the angle w (Fig. 6(a)) is not a constant, an average
stress r
 0v is introduced to replace r0v at every point. This average
stress is given by

V0
r 0v ¼ ð8Þ
rface S
su
Slope
where V 0 is a component of the total stress applied on the differen-
tial element, which is perpendicular to EP, and S is the width of the
differential element (referring to Fig. 6(b)). Considering the geome-
try depicted in Fig. 6(b), S is calculated by
cosðhw þ nÞ
S¼ R ð9Þ
cosðb þ nÞ
where n is the angle between the normal line OQ and the vertical
Fig. 5. Profile of the soil arching zone and the geometric relationships in the zone. and R is the radius of the circle.
156 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165

Fig. 6. Stress on the differential element in the soil arching zone: (a) the major and minor principal stresses; (b) schematic of the vertical total force on the differential
element (based on [23].

 
0 2 1 Rdw sin w
dV ¼ r0v dA ¼ r1 cos b sin w þ cos2 w  ð11Þ
N cos b
Solving Eq. (8)–(11) yields
 
cosðb þ nÞ N1
r 0v ¼ cos hw 1  cos2 hw r1 ð12Þ
cosðhw þ nÞ 3N
To simplify the analysis process, the angle x (referring to Fig. 6) is
assumed to be 0.
Comparing this result to Eq. (6), it is reasonable to express the
average vertical stress on the differential element as
1
r v ¼ r 0 ð13Þ
cos b v
Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (13) yields
 
cosðb þ nÞ N1
r v ¼ cos hw 1  cos2 hw r1 ð14Þ
cosðhw þ nÞ cos b 3N
Using Eqs. (3) and (14), a ratio Kan of the active lateral stress act-
ing on the plane AB to the average vertical stress over the differen-
tial element is derived:

rh cosðhw þ nÞ cos b 3ðN cos2 hw þ sin2 hw Þ

K an ¼ ¼  ð15Þ
r v cosðb þ nÞ cos hw 3N  ðN  1Þ cos2 hw

Fig. 7. Stress on the differential element: (a) major and minor principal stresses 3.2. The limit equilibrium equation on the differential element
applied on the right edge of the differential element; (b) two components of the
vertical stress on the differential element; (c) stress on the main part of the To evaluate the lateral stress on the line AB (Fig. 6(a)), a detailed
differential element. analysis of the differential element is required. On the right edge of
the differential element (Fig. 6(a)), because the direction of the
major principal stress is along the line OG, the major and minor
principal stresses are considered to be applied on surfaces GP
The stress V 0 on the differential element can be calculated by
and GQ, respectively, of the triangular differential element GPQ,
Z p=2x which is shown in Fig. 7(b). In Fig. 7(b), the triangular element
0
V0 ¼ dV ð10Þ GPQ is shown in an equilibrium state, which allows this triangular
hw
element to be ignored when analysing the vertical stress for the
0
where dV is the differential force on the shaded element at point F, entire differential element. In Fig. 7(c), the minor principal stress
which is perpendicular to EP (referring to Fig. 6(a)). This perpendic- r3 is loaded on the line GQ, r3v, which is the vertical component
ular differential force is expressed as of r3 and is expressed as
 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165 157

cos b Note that as mentioned previously, the analyses of the active

r3v ¼ r3 sin n ð16Þ
cosðn þ bÞ earth pressure rh are based on Paik and Salgado’s outstanding
work [23], so that Eqs. (3)–(5) are similar to their research.
where n is the angle between the normal line OQ and the vertical.
However, the incline of the soil mass is considered in this paper,
Based on the geometry between the slip surface and the major prin-
which leads to different boundary conditions and different expres-
cipal plane, n is calculated by
  sions of the earth pressure rh. Moreover, if b = 0, Eq. (23) simplifies
p u 1 p sin b to be the same as the equation proposed by Paik and Salgado [23].
n¼ þ  h1 ¼  b  cos1 ð17Þ
4 2 2 2 sin u This reveals that the equation in Paik and Salgado’s research [23] is
the special case of this proposed model.
In addition, on the left edge of the differential element, the shear
stress is
3.3. The squeezing effects between two neighbouring piles
s ¼ rh tan u ¼ r v K an tan u ð18Þ
Ignoring the stress loaded on the segment MG and considering the Ito and Matsui [14] have proposed a plastic deformation model
clear interval between the two neighbouring piles, the summation to evaluate the squeezing effects between two neighbouring piles.
of all vertical forces acting on the main part of the differential ele- In this paper, a similar concept is used; all of the assumptions for
ment (Fig. 7(c)) gives the soils implied by Ito and Matsui [14] are also adopted. The
soil–pile pressure per unit length of the stabilizing piles in sandy
dr
 v  SD2 þ r
 v K an tan u  D2 dz  r
 v K an tan b  D2 dz slopes is expressed as
cos b
þ r3 sin n dz  D2 ¼ cS  hD2 ð19Þ cHK an cos b
cosðn þ bÞ p¼ sin h
1  ðK an tan u  K an tan b þ mÞ cos h1
Using r3 = r1/N, Eqs. (13) and (14), the minor principal stress is " #
 z ðK an tan uK an tan bþmÞcos h1 
sin h
z
 1  1
K an H H
r3 ¼ 2
r v ð20Þ (   1=2 )
N cos2 hw þ sin hw N tan uþN1   p u 
D1 D1  D2
 D1  exp N tan u tan þ  D2
Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (19) and considering that D2 D2 8 4
S = (H  z)cosh1/sinh, h = cosbdz, Eq. (19) is solved as ð24Þ
cH cos b
r v ¼ sin h
The details of the derivation of Eq. (24) are given in the appen-
1  ðK an tan u  K an tan b þ mÞ cos h1 dix. In addition, the details of the formulae used to calculate the
" #
 z ðK an tan uK an tan bþmÞcos h1 
sin h
z total lateral force on a pile and the point application of the force
 1  1 ð21Þ are also included in the appendix.
H H

where m is a function of b, given by 4. Numerical evaluation

K an sin n cos b
m¼ 2
ð22Þ A numerical model of the stabilized slope with piles was con-
ðN cos2 hw þ sin hw Þ cosðn þ bÞ
structed in the numerical finite difference program FLAC3D.
where hw = p/4 + u/2. Multiplying Eq. (21) by Kan, the lateral soil Additionally, SRM was used to analyse the soil–pile pressure on
stress on the line AB (Fig. 6(a)) is estimated by the piles when the slope failed. In the numerical model, the piles
were formatted by the intrinsic structure element. The slope model
K an cH cos b
rh ¼ sin h is shown in Fig. 8 with a vertical to horizontal gradient of 1:3.
1  ðK an tan u  K an tan b þ mÞ cos
"
h1
# Three piles with a length of 9 m were installed in a row in the mid-
 z ðK an tan u K an tan bþmÞ sin
cos h
h  z dle of the slope. The interval between two neighbouring piles was
1
 1  1 ð23Þ D1 = 3 m and D2 = 2.6 m. The width of the model was 9 m. At the
H H
bottom boundary of the model mesh, zero displacement was
imposed. Stress boundary conditions were imposed at both the

Fig. 8. Slope model used in FLAC3D.

158 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165

Table 1 Matsui’s approach [14] and the results from FLAC3D are included
Material properties adopted in the numerical model. in Fig. 9(a) as well.
Sliding body Shear zone Stable layer Pile A well-instrumented field trial was carried out by Lirer [20] to
c(kN/m ) 3
19 19 20 25 study the influence of the row of piles on the local and overall
E(Pa) 3.8e7 2e7 7.8e7 3e10 mudslide displacement field, as well as to quantify the shear forces
l 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.2 and bending moments within the piles. The experimental findings
c(kPa) 0 0 100 – have been back analysed by numerical simulation [20]. In this
u(°) 32 30 30 –
w(°) 0/2 0 0 0
study, in addition to the numerical model mentioned above, both
the observed data of the field trial and the numerical result
obtained by Lirer [20] were used to validate the proposed
approach. The material properties used in Lirer’s model are shown
uphill and downhill truncation planes. The soil was modelled using
in Table 2. The section of Lirer’s model was similar to Fig. 8, replac-
the Mohr–Coulomb model, and the material properties are shown
ing the dimensions with 300 m in length, 25 m in height, and 8 m
in Table 1.
in width. In addition, the slope angle was 11° in Lirer’s research.
The model was first brought to equilibrium under gravity load-
For more details of the field experiment and Lirer’s numerical
ing. Next, a gradual reduction of the shear strength was imposed
model, see the source reference. The comparison is shown in
along the shear zone. To simulate the existence of an accumulation
Fig. 9(b).
zone, the SRM was not imposed on the downslope final stretch of
Fig. 9(a) shows the comparison between the numerical simula-
the shear zone for a length of 10 m. This method of simulating the
tion results and the prediction of two theoretical methods with a
resistance of the accumulation zone was proposed by Lirer [20].
slope angle of 18.4°. Fig. 9(b) shows the observed data, the numer-
Incorporating the soil properties, pile geometries and the height
ical results and the theoretical methods estimations with a slope
of the sliding soil above the shear zone, the soil–pile pressure act-
angle of 11°. Both figures reveal that the distribution of the soil–
ing on the piles was calculated by Eq. (24), and the results are
pile pressure computed by the proposed model is nonlinear, while
shown in Fig. 9(a). For comparison, a prediction using Ito and
the prediction from Ito and Matsui’s approach appears to be linear;
however, the orders of magnitude of the two theoretical methods’
results are in line with each other. In Fig. 9(b), the observed data
shows that in the upper part of the sliding soil, within approxi-
mately 1 m depth, the soil–pile pressure is negative. Such a distri-
bution of the soil–pile pressure on top of the pile is thought to have
been obtained as a result of influences of the pile deformation and
the non-uniform movements of the sliding soils. However, the pre-
diction of the soil–pile pressure on the top of the pile is positive
because the flow mode [24] is considered in this proposed model,
where the soil displacement is assumed to be larger than the pile
deflection and the soil movement is uniform. Ignoring the negative
force on the top of the piles, the distribution of the soil–pile pres-
sure on the piles predicted by the proposed approach shows the
same trends as the numerical results and the observed data.
Particularly in the lower part of the sliding soil, the numerical
results and the prediction of the proposed method show that the
soil–pile pressure decreases after the first increase, while Ito and
Matsui’s approach shows linear increases of the soil–pile pressure.
Fig. 9 reveals that the shape of the distribution of the soil–pile
pressure estimated by the proposed model is similar to that of
the numerical and observed results, while the values are overesti-
mated. For instance, in Fig. 9(a), the maximum value provided by
the numerical analysis is 3.64 t/m (z = 3.6 m), compared to 6.39
t/m (z = 3.5 m) and 7.6 t/m (z = 4 m) predicted by the proposed
model and Ito and Matsui’s approach, respectively. In addition,
the order of magnitude of the predicted values agrees with that
of the numerical and observed results. As presented in Fig. 9, the
proposed model allows the assessment of the soil–pile pressure
based on soil and pile properties assuming that the soil movement
is larger than the pile deflection. However, the limited accuracy of
the prediction implies that the proposed model needs to be
improved in the future.

Table 2
Material properties adopted in Lirer’s model.

Sliding body Shear zone Stable layer Pile

3
c(kN/m ) 19 19 19 –
E(Pa) 2e7 1e7 5e7 2e11
l 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.25
c(kPa) 0 0 1000 14e4
u(°) 28 25 30 –
Fig. 9. Comparison between the numerical results and predictions: (a) slope angle w(°) 0 0 0 0
of 18.4°; (b) slope angle of 11°.
 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165 159

Fig. 11. Comparison of the prediction and the experimental values based on the
research of Chen et al. [6].

are shown in Fig. 11. The soil–pile pressure per unit length of the
Fig. 10. The stress contours (rxx) around the piles.
pile is calculated based on Eq. (26), which implies that the depth
of the real failure surface around the piles is approximately
A simulation with the piles formatted by a number of zones is 0.3 m. The comparison of the predicted and the experimental val-
carried out. The piles with a diameter of 0.6 m and a ues is shown in Fig. 11.
centre-to-centre interval of 2 m were installed in the slope. The In Fig. 11, the prediction using the proposed approach shows a
stress contour around the stabilizing piles is plotted in Fig. 10. similar trend of soil–pile pressure distribution as the experimental
The passive soil wedge behind each pile and the arching zone data. The maximum soil–pile pressure obtained by the experiment
between neighbouring wedges are apparent. The shape of the soil is 0.094 t/m at a depth of 0.2 m. Meanwhile, the calculated maxi-
arching zone in the stress contours from the plane view appears to mum soil–pile pressure is at the same depth and is 0.043 t/m.
be sector. However, as mentioned previously, the soil arching zone Fig. 11 shows that the maximum value from the experiment is
in the plane is assumed to be a rectangle for the purpose of simpli- approximately two times larger than that of the prediction. The
fying the analysis of the active stress. sand in the test was subjected to a triangular profile of horizontal
movement with depth, while the proposed model is based on a
mode of the uniform soil movement. However, compared to Ito
5. Published experimental studies and Matsui’s approach, the proposed model provides a relatively
similar distribution shape of the soil–pile pressure as the experi-
Chen et al. [6] have reported on the model tests of pile groups mental data, although some value discrepancy does exist.
subjected to lateral soil movement. The experimental setup is Guo and Ghee [11] conducted the experiment on group effects
briefly described below and more details can be found in Polous of piles due to lateral soil movement. The apparatus consisted of
[24]. The main part of the apparatus consisted of a testing vessel a shear box and a loading system that allow different soil move-
made from a steel sheet and having internal dimensions of ment profiles and vertical loading to be applied simultaneously.
450 mm wide by 565 mm long and 700 mm high. Two vertical The experimental setup is briefly introduced here.
steel plates, consisting of two parts hinged at mid-height, were The shear box has internal dimensions of 1 m by 1 m and is
placed across the width inside the box. With a loading system 0.8 m in height. The upper moveable part of the box consisted of
attached to the steel vessel, the upper part of each steel plate could the desired number of 25 mm thick square laminar aluminium
be rotated simultaneously around its hinge and consequently frames to achieve a thickness of Lm (<400 mm). They were moved
cause the upper part of the sand to move [6]. The model piles were together by a rectangular loading block to generate uniform lateral
made from aluminium tubes and were 1 m in length and 25 mm in soil movement. The lower fixed section of the box was a timber box
diameter with a 1.2 mm wall thickness. On the instrumented piles, 400 mm in height with a number of laminar aluminium frames to
ten full bridge circuit strain gauges were placed at 100 mm inter- achieve a stable sand layer of thickness Ls (P400 mm). For details
vals inside each pile for measuring the bending moments in the of the apparatus and tests, see the source reference.
pile. Based on the measured bending moments M(z), the shear The sand used in the test was an oven-dried medium-grained
forces T(z) and the soil–pile pressure per unit thickness p(z) can quartz, Queensland sand. The model piles used in the tests were
be computed by successive derivations as follows: made of aluminium tube, 1200 mm in length and 32 mm in outer
dMðzÞ diameter with a 1.5 mm wall thickness [11]. Two piles were
TðzÞ ¼ ð25Þ installed into the fixed timber box. The centre-to-centre ‘‘joining’’
dz
line of the piles was perpendicular to the direction of the soil
2 movement. The properties of the sand and the pile spacing are
d MðzÞ
pðzÞ ¼ ð26Þ shown in Fig. 12.
2
d z Fig. 12 compares the predicted and the experimental values.
The dry sand used in the model test was calcareous sand taken Above the failure surface, the soil–pile pressure per unit length
from Bass Strait, Australia [6]. The piles were installed into the of the pile predicted by the proposed approach shows the same
sand bed in a row. The properties of the sand and the pile spacing distribution as the experimental values. In the upper half of the
160 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165

Fig. 12. Comparison of the prediction and the experimental values based on the
Fig. 13. Distribution of the soil–pile pressure along the piles with respect to
research of Guo and Ghee [11].
different slope angles.

moveable soil, the predicted soil–pile pressure increases linearly horizontal soil model (b = 0°) as a simplified way to estimate the
until the increment slows down at the depth of 0.2–0.3 m. The response of stabilizing piles in slopes (b – 0°).
maximum soil–pile pressure obtained by the experiment is Fig. 14 shows the soil–pile pressure at different pile depths with
approximately 0.103 t/m at a depth of 0.26 m, while the predicted respect to different internal friction angles. The calculated soil–pile
maximum value is 0.147 t/m at 0.28 m. Fig. 12 indicates that the
order of magnitudes of the soil–pile pressure from the prediction
and the experiment are in line with each other.

6. Parametric study

A parametric analysis is implemented based on the proposed

analytical model to investigate the influence of the slope angle
and the internal friction angle on the distribution of the soil–pile
pressure per unit length of the piles. Because the proposed model
aims to predict the distribution of the soil–pile pressure on stabi-
lizing piles embedded in a semi-infinite slope, which differs from
the models designed for horizontal soil grounds, the angle of the
semi-infinite slope is considered to be one of the governing factors.
In addition, because the internal friction angle of soils is a primary
mechanical property, its effect on the soil–pile pressure distribu-
tion of the piles also needs to be analysed.
In the following discussion, the soil–pile pressure distribution,
the soil–pile pressure on different pile depths, the total lateral
force and the point application of the force with respect to different
slope angles and different internal friction angles are analysed.
Additionally, for comparison, the corresponding values from Ito
and Matsui’s approach are also calculated.

6.1. The influence of slope angle b

Fig. 13 shows the distribution of the soil–pile pressure along the

stabilizing piles when the sliding soil layer is 4 m thick. The soil
properties and geometric parameters are also shown in Fig. 13.
The soil–pile pressure on the pile has a nonlinear distribution at
every slope angle b. Additionally, with a slope angle b varying from
0° to 30°, the order of magnitude of the soil–pile pressure does not
change. The maximum soil–pile pressure and the height of the cen-
troid of the soil–pile pressure increases while the slope angle b
increases from 0° to 25°. However, when b varies from 25° to
30°, the maximum soil–pile pressure decreases. Furthermore,
Fig. 13 implies that if the magnitude of the soil–pile pressure on
a pile is the only factor considered, ignoring the change of the point Fig. 14. Soil–pile pressure at different depths of the pile with respect to different
application of the force with slope angle, it is reasonable to use a internal friction angles: (a) b = 10°; (b) b = 0°.
 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165 161

pressure denoted by the solid line remains the same while the
slope angle varies from 10° to 0°. Moreover, the soil–pile pressures
at different depths are almost parallel to each other, which is con-
sistent with the linear distribution of the soil–pile pressure on a
pile above the failure surface based on Ito and Matsui’s approach.
Conversely, the dotted lines intersect with each other, which
reveals the nonlinear distribution of the soil–pile pressure along
the pile. For instance, in Fig. 14(b), when the depth z is equal to
1.5 m and 2.5 m, the soil–pile pressures are nearly parallel to each
other, which indicates that on the top of the pile, the soil–pile pres-
sure increases linearly. However, when z is 3.95 m (close to the
failure surface), the soil–pile pressure is less than that at
z = 2.5 m and 3.5 m, which indicates a sharp decrease near the fail-
ure surface.
In Fig. 13, the area enclosed by the nonlinear distribution of the
soil–pile pressure and the vertical coordinate axis represents the
total force acting on the pile, which can be obtained by Eq.
(A.20). The prediction of the total force as the slope changes is
Fig. 16. Change in the height of the resultant lateral force.
shown in Fig. 15. According to the proposed model, the total force
decreases after the first increase when the slope angle varies from
0° to 30°. As the slope angle increases, the total force increases
because of the increase of the component of the gravity along
the direction of sliding. However, when the slope angle is approx-
imately equal to the internal friction angle, the total force
decreases because of the decrease in slope stability.
The height of the resultant lateral force versus the slope angle is
displayed in Fig. 16. The height of the resultant lateral force pre-
dicted by Ito and Matsui’s approach remains constant at 0.33H,
even if the slope angle varies from 0° to 30°. However, the height
of the resultant lateral force is a function of the slope angle and
the internal friction angle based on the proposed model (Eq.
(A.22)). For instance, when u = 45°, the height of the resultant lat-
eral force varies from 0.423H to 0.351H when the slope angle
changes from 0° to 30°. The height of the resultant lateral force
appears to be affected by the soil arching that occurs between
two neighbouring piles.

6.2. The influence of the internal friction angle u

Fig. 17. Effect of the internal friction angle on the soil–pile pressure acting on a pile.
The soil–pile pressure acting on a pile with respect to different
internal friction angles is shown in Fig. 15, and the soil properties (2.8 m) to 0.9H (3.6 m). The maximum soil–pile pressure for
and geometric parameters are shown in Fig. 17. The distribution u = 40° is nearly twice as large as that for u = 25°. Additionally,
shapes of the soil–pile pressure are similar to each other when the soil–pile pressure on the pile increases when the internal fric-
the internal friction angle varies from 25° to 40°. Additionally, tion angle increases. Compared to Fig. 13, Fig. 17 shows that the
the maximum soil–pile pressure appears in the range of 0.7H internal friction angle has a greater effect on the magnitude of
the soil–pile pressure on the pile than the slope angle does.
Fig. 18 displays the effect of the internal friction angle on the
total force on the pile. The trends of the total force on the pile from
both Ito and Matsui’s approach and the proposed model are simi-
lar: when the internal friction angle increases, the total force
increases. Additionally, when u = 24°, the dotted line reveals that
the closer that the slope angle approximates the internal friction
angle, the smaller the total force estimates. Furthermore, when u
is much larger than b, such as when u = 44°, the total force appears
to approach to the same value among the three different slope
angles.
Fig. 19 shows the effect of the internal friction angle on the
height of the resultant lateral force. The height of the resultant lat-
eral force remains constant (0.33H) according to Ito and Matsui’s
approach. However, based on the proposed model, for instance
when b = 10°, the height of the resultant lateral force varies from
0.375H to 0.395H as the internal friction angle increases from
24° to 44°. This difference occurs because in Ito and Matsui’s
approach, Rankine theory is used to estimate the lateral active
Fig. 15. Effect of the slope angle on the total force on a pile. stress, which leads to the constant height of the resultant lateral
162 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165

force. Conversely, when the effects of soil arching are considered,

the proposed model displays a height that changes with respect
to different internal friction angles.
Fig. 20 displays the soil–pile pressure at different pile depths
with respect to different slope angles. The internal friction angle
u is 45°. Fig. 20 shows the same trends of the distribution of the
soil–pile pressure as Fig. 14. Moreover, along the upper half of
the pile, the soil–pile pressures calculated by Ito and Matsui’s
approach are always less than that calculated using the proposed
method. Along the lower half of the pile, changeover of the soil–
pile pressure occurs.

7. Discussion

This work attempts to develop a simple method to analyse the

soil–pile pressure per unit length of the pile. The model is based on
the theory of plastic deformation and is modified by considering
both the inclination of the sliding ground and the soil arching
Fig. 18. Effect of the internal friction angle on the total force on a pile. effects along the depth of the sliding soil between two neighbour-
ing piles. Comparisons have been made previously between the
predicted results and the data from literature, as well as the results
from Ito and Matsui [14]. The proposed model performs better
than that of Ito and Matsui when predicting the soil–pile pressure
per unit length of the pile in the slope. However, the prediction
using the proposed method shows limited accuracy. Fig. 9,
Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 still show some differences between the predic-
tions and the numerical and experimental results. The assumption
of neglecting the deformation of the piles during the movement of
the soil is thought to result in the limited prediction. Furthermore,
because the ‘‘squeezing effects’’ between two neighbouring piles
are adopted from the theory of plastic deformation, the limitation
of this theory is inherited as well [24,17]. The comparison men-
tioned above indicates that the proposed model is able to describe
the distribution of the soil–pile pressure varying with the slope
angle and that the trends of the soil–pile pressure are consistent
with the literature data, but some differences in the values exist.
To improve the prediction results, the model needs further modifi-
cation in the future.

8. Conclusion
Fig. 19. Effect of the internal friction angle on the height of the resultant lateral
force.
In this paper, the interaction between stabilizing piles and gran-
ular soil is analysed in a semi-infinite inclined sandy slope. A new
theoretical model is proposed to evaluate the soil–pile pressure on
stabilizing piles in a sandy slope based on the assumption that the
soil displacement exceeds the pile deflection. In the proposed
model, the soil arching zone is analysed using stress geometry.
The soil arching effects are then considered to estimate the lateral
active stress between two piles. Furthermore, the squeezing effects
[14] between two neighbouring piles due to the deformation of the
surrounding soils are adopted. To evaluate the proposed model,
numerical simulations are implemented by FLAC3D. Comparing
the predicted results from the proposed model, Ito and Matsui’s
approach and the simulations results reveals that Ito and
Matsui’s approach provides a linear solution for estimating the
soil–pile pressure, while a nonlinear solution is obtained from
the proposed model, which shows better agreement with the sim-
ulation results. In addition, the limited accuracy of the proposed
model is also evaluated through comparison to the experimental
data from the published literature.
A parametric analysis is also carried out on the slope angle and
the internal friction angle. Both the slope angle and internal fric-
tion angle affect the distribution of the soil–pile pressure per unit
Fig. 20. Soil–pile pressure at different pile depths with respect to different slope length of the pile; the shape of the distribution of the soil–pile
angles. pressure is mainly affected by the slope angle, whereas the internal
 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165 163

friction angle has a greater effect on the magnitude of the soil–pile (e) Parallel to A0 D0 , a line AD is drawn with the point D located
pressure on the pile than the slope angle. Additionally, the height on the r axis. Taking AD as the radius and point E as the cen-
of the resultant lateral force varies with the slope angle and the tre, a circle is drawn. This produces the circle D, which is tan-
internal friction angle in the proposed model, whereas it remains gential to the line OP at point B.
constant in Ito and Matsui’s approach. (f) The angle between AD and BD is equal to 2h.

Acknowledgment According to the geometric relationships in Fig. A2, it is obvious

that
The authors extend their gratitude to editor-in-chief Scott. W.
CD ¼ OD sin b ðA:1Þ
Sloan and two nominated reviewers for their insightful comments.
AD ¼ BD ¼ OD sin u ðA:2Þ
Appendix A. Analysis of the geometric relationship in the soil
arching zone CD OD sin b sin b
cos \ADC ¼ ¼ ¼ ðA:3Þ
AD OD sin u sin u
When the soil stress on the line AB (Fig. 5) is active, the differ-
ential element (Fig. A1) and the corresponding Mohr’s circle sin b
(Fig. A2) are used to determine the geometric relationship between \ADC ¼ arccos ðA:4Þ
sin u
the stresses. The process of solving the angle h is as follows.
 
1 sin b
(a) In a rectangular coordinate system, because the internal fric- h¼ u  b þ arccos ðA:5Þ
2 sin u
tion angle u was investigated in advance, the strength
envelope is determined as the line OP shown in Fig. A2.  
1 sin b
(b) The two lines OL and OL0 are drawn above and below the r h1 ¼ u þ b þ arccos ðA:6Þ
2 sin u
axis; the angle between each line and the r axis is b.
(c) On the line OL, we set OA = rz = czcosb. Point A in Fig. A2
represents the stress acting on the surface (Fig. A1(b)), Appendix B. The squeezing effects between two neighbouring
including the normal stress and the shear stress. piles (Derivation of Eq. (24))
(d) In the negative direction of the r axis, an arbitrary point D0 is
set. A circle can then be drawn with centre D0 and with tan- The squeezing effects have been proven by Ito and Matsui [14]
gency point B0 on the line OP0 . The circle D0 and the line OE and are summarized as follows.
intersect at point A0 . First, all of the assumptions that they made are adopted in this
paper. In the zone EBB0 E0 (Fig. 4), the equilibrium of the forces in
the x direction on a differential element is considered (as shown
in Fig. A3):
h p u i
2dx ra tan þ þ ra tan u þ c  Ddrx  rx dD ¼ 0 ðA:7Þ
4 2
The normal stress ra on the surface EBB0 E0 (Fig. 4) is assumed to
be equal to the principal stress rx. The Mohr–Coulomb’s yield cri-
terion is expressed as:

ra ¼ rx N þ 2cN1=2 ðA:8Þ
2
in which N = tan (p/4 + u/2). The geometrical condition gives:

Fig. A1. The stress state: (a) the stress state of a differential element in a semi-finite
slope; (b) the generic element.

Fig. A2. The geometric relationship in the soil arching zone illustrated by Mohr’s
circle. Fig. A3. Differential element (EBB0 E0 ) between two neighbouring piles [14].
164 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165

dðD=2Þ  ðN1=2 tan uþN1Þ   p u

dx ¼ ðA:9Þ D1 D  D2
tanðp=4 þ u=2Þ pBB0 ¼ D1 rh  exp 1 N tan u tan þ
D2 D2 8 4
Substituting Eqs. (A.8) and (A.9) into Eq. (A.7) and then integrating ðA:17Þ
gives
Finally, subtracting the active lateral force acting on the plane
ðC 1 DÞ ðN 1=2 tan uþN1Þ
 cð2 tan u þ 2N 1=2
þN 1=2
Þ AA0 from PBB’, the soil–pile pressure per unit length of a pile in
rx ¼ ðA:10Þ the x direction is obtained:
N1=2 tan u þ N  1
where C1 is an integration constant.
cHK an cos b
p¼ sin h
Then, in the zone AEE0 A0 (Fig. 4), the equilibrium of the forces on 1  ðK an tan u  K an tan b þ mÞ cos h1
" #
a small soil element in the x direction is also considered, as shown  z  ðK an tan u K an tan bþmÞ sin h
cos h1
 z
in Fig. A4.  1  1
H H
D2 drx ¼ 2ðra tan u þ cÞdx (   1=2  )
ðA:11Þ
D1
N tan uþN1
D1  D2 p u
 D1  exp N tan u tan þ  D2
Substituting Eq. (A.8) into Eq. (A.11) and integrating gives D2 D2 8 4
 
C 2 exp 2N tan u
x  cð2N1=2 tan u þ 1Þ ðA:18Þ
D2
rx ¼ ðA:12Þ
N tan u Eq. (A.18) is the solution for the soil–pile pressure per unit length of
a pile.
where C2 is an integration constant.
For sandy soil, the active earth pressure acts on the plane AA0
(Fig. 4) and is obtained by Eq. (23), namely: Appendix C. Total lateral force and the point application of the
  force
cHK an z K an tan u tan b  z
½rx x¼0 ¼ rh ¼ ð1  Þ  1
1  K an tan u tan b H H
The total lateral force pt on a pile can be obtained by integrating
ðA:13Þ Eq. (24) with respect to z:
Eq. (A.13) is considered to be the boundary condition of Eq. (A.12); Z H
then, pt ¼ pdz ðA:19Þ
0
C 2 ¼ rh N tan u ðA:14Þ
Substitution of Eq. (24) into the above equation yields
Substituting Eq. (A.14) into Eq. (A.12) yields
 p u cH2 K an cos b
D1  D2 pt ¼ h i
½rx x¼D1 D2 tan pþu ¼ ðrh N tan uÞ exp  N tan u tan þ sin h
2 ðK an tan u  K an tan b þ mÞ cos þ1
2 ð8 4 Þ D2 8 4 h1
(   1=2  )
ðA:15Þ D1
N tan uþN1
D1  D2  p u 
 D1  exp N tan u tan þ  D2
The constant C1 in Eq. (A.10) is obtained by considering Eq. (A.15) to D2 D2 8 4
be the boundary condition. Then, ðA:20Þ

ðN 1=2 tan uþN1Þ ðN1=2 tan u þ N  1Þ The height of the point application of the force is obtained by
ðC 1 D2 Þ ¼
N tan u dividing the moment of the soil–pile pressure about the failure sur-
   p u  
D1  D2 face by the total lateral force on a pile. The moment M of the soil–
 rh N tan u  exp N tan u tan þ
D2 8 4 pile pressure about the failure surface is obtained as follow:
ðA:16Þ Z H
M¼ pðH  zÞdz ðA:21Þ
Eqs. (A.10) and (A.16) are used to obtain the solution of the lat- 0
eral force PBB’ acting on the plane BB0 (Fig. 4) per unit thickness of
layer in the x direction, which is shown as follows: Dividing Eq. (A.21) by Eq. (A.20) yields the height of the point appli-
cation of the force, hp:
RH
0
pðH  zÞdz
hp ¼
pt
sin h
2½ðK an tan u  K an tan b þ mÞ cos h1
þ 1
¼ sin h
ðA:22Þ
3½ðK an tan u  K an tan b þ mÞ cos h1
þ 2

References

[1] 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.
[2] Ashour M, Norris G. Modeling lateral soil–pile response based on soil–pile
interaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2000;126(5):420–8.
[3] Ashour M, Pilling P, Norris G. Lateral behavior of pile groups in layered soils. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 2004;130(6):580–92.
[4] Ashour M, Ardalan H. Analysis of pile stabilized slopes based on soil–pile
interaction. Comput Geotech 2012;39:85–97.
[5] Ausilio E, Conte E, Dente G. Stability analysis of slopes reinforced with piles.
Comput Geotech 2001;28(8):591–611.
[6] Chen LT, Poulos HG, Hull TS. Model tests on pile groups subjected to lateral soil
Fig. A4. Differential element (AEE0 A0 ) between two neighbouring piles [14]. movement. Soils Found 1997;37(1):1–12.
 Y. He et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 69 (2015) 153–165 165

[7] De Beer E. Piles subjected to static lateral loads. In: Proceedings of the 9th [19] Liang R, Zeng SP. Numerical study of soil arching mechanism in drilled shafts
international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, for slopes stabilization. Soils Found 2002;42(2):83–92.
Special Session No. 10, Tokyo; 1977. [20] Lirer S. Landslide stabilizing piles: experimental evidences and numerical
[8] Durrani JK, Ellis EA, Reddish DJ. Modelling lateral pile–soil interaction for a row interpretation. Eng Geol 2012;149–150:70–7.
of piles in a frictional soil. In: 4th International FLAC symposium numerical [21] Martin GR, Chen CY. Response of piles due to lateral slope movement. Comput
modelling geomechanics; 2006. p. 231–8. Struct 2005;83:588–98.
[9] Griffiths DV, Lane PA. Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Geotechnique [22] Norris G. Theoretically based BEF laterally loaded pile analysis. In: Proceedings
1999;49(3):387–403. of third international conference on numerical methods in offshore piling.
[10] Galli A, di Prisco C. Displacement-based design procedure for slope-stabilizing Nantes, France; 1986. P. 361–86.
piles. Can Geotech J 2013;50(1):41–53. [23] Paik KH, Salgado R. Estimation of active earth pressure against rigid retaining
[11] Guo W, Ghee E. Behavior of axially loaded pile groups subjected to lateral soil walls considering arching effects. Geotechnique 2003;53(7):643–53.
movement. Found Anal Des 2006:174–81. [24] Poulos HG. Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability. Can Geotech J
[12] Hassiotis S, Chameau JL, Gunaratne M. Design method for stabilization of 1995;32:808–18.
slopes with piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1997;123(4):314–23. [25] Ugai K, Leshchinsky D. Three-dimensional limit equilibrium and finite element
[13] Kourkoulis R, Gelagoti F, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G. Slope stabilizing piles analysis: a comparison of results. Soils Found 1995;35(4):1–7.
and pile-groups: parametric study and design insights. J Geotech Geoenviron [26] Viggiani, C. Ultimate lateral loads on piles used to stabilized landslides. In:
Eng ASCE 2011;137(7):663–77. Proceedings of 10th international conference on soil mechanics and
[14] Ito T, Matsui T. Methods to estimate lateral force acting on stabilizing piles. foundation engineers. vol. 3 Stockholm; 1981 p. 555–60.
Soils Found 1975;21:21–37. [27] Wang WL, Yen BC. Soil arching in slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
[15] Ito T, Matsui T, Hong WP. Design method for stabilizing piles against landslide 1974:61–79.
one row of piles. Soils Found 1981;21(1):21–37. [28] Wei WB, Cheng YM. Strength reduction analysis for slope reinforced with one
[16] Ito T, Matsui T, Hong WP. Extended design method for multi-row stabilizing row of piles. Comput Geotech 2009;36:1176–85.
piles against landslide. Soils Found 1982;22(1):1–13. [29] Won J, You K, Jeong S, Kim S. Coupled effects in stability analysis of pile-slope
[17] Lee CY, Hull TS, Poulos HG. Simplified pile-slope stability analysis. Comput systems. Comput Geotech 2005;32(4):304–15.
Geotech 1995;17(1):1–16. [30] Zienkiewicz OC, Humpheson C, Lewis RW. Associated and non-associated
[18] Li XP, He SM, Wu Y. Seismic displacement of slopes reinforced with piles. J visco-plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics. Geotechnique
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;136:880–4. 1975;25(4):671–89.