See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319425626

Ultimate lateral load of slope-stabilising piles

Article  in  Géotechnique Letters · September 2017

DOI: 10.1680/jgele.17.00038

CITATIONS READS

10 950

3 authors:

Raffaele Di Laora Rosa Maria Stefania Maiorano

Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" Parthenope University of Naples
50 PUBLICATIONS   512 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   238 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stefano Aversa
Parthenope University of Naples
71 PUBLICATIONS   762 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Preservation, restoration, rehabilitation of historical structures View project

Rocking of rock blocks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raffaele Di Laora on 20 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Di Laora, R. et al. (2017) Géotechnique Letters 7, 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgele.17.00038

Ultimate lateral load of slope-stabilising piles

R. DI LAORA*, R. M. S. MAIORANO{ and S. AVERSA{

The paper deals with the design and analysis of slope-stabilising piles and adopts limit equilibrium
concepts to derive pile contribution to stability. Analytical expressions for pile ultimate load are derived
in terms of the force and the moment to be used in routine slope-stability analyses to take into account
pile contribution. Free and head-restrained isolated piles, with infinite and finite section capacity,
in drained and undrained conditions are considered.
KEYWORDS: limit equilibrium methods; piles & piling; slopes

ICE Publishing: all rights reserved

NOTATION λ dimensionless pile embedment (= l2/l1)

A, B, C failure mechanisms for infinite pile sectional strength λlim limit dimensionless pile embedment for
B1, BY, B2 failure mechanisms involving plastic hinging free-head piles
d pile diameter λlim,r limit dimensionless pile embedment for
kd1, kd2 bearing capacity factors in drained conditions for fixed-head piles
sliding and firm soil λ* dimensionless pile embedment separating
kp1, kp2 passive earth pressure coefficients for sliding and mechanisms B1 and BY in undrained conditions
firm soil χ u, χ d strength ratios between sliding and firm soil in
ku1, ku2 bearing capacity factors in undrained conditions for undrained and drained conditions
sliding and firm soil
L pile length
l1 length of the portion of the pile embedded in the INTRODUCTION
sliding soil The use of piles for stabilising unstable slopes or for increasing
l2 length of the portion of the pile embedded in the the safety conditions of a precarious slope is a popular
firm soil technique reported as successful in a number of works since
My pile sectional yielding moment
the 1970s (Ito & Matsui, 1975; Fukuoka, 1977; Sommer,
md dimensionless pile yielding moment in drained
conditions 1977). Despite the reliability, effectiveness and success of such
md,lim limit dimensionless pile yielding moment for a technique, the design of slope-stabilising piles still presents a
free-head piles in drained conditions number of obscure points, and a unique, widely accepted
md,lim,r limit dimensionless pile yielding moment for procedure for routine design has not been developed. A
fixed-head piles in drained conditions common approach is that proposed by Viggiani (1981) which
mu dimensionless pile yielding moment in involves three steps: (a) evaluation of the shear force required
undrained conditions to increase the stability of the precarious slope up to a desired
mu,lim limit dimensionless pile yielding moment for amount; (b) evaluation of the shear force contribution that
free-head piles in undrained conditions piles can offer to transfer forces from the unstable to the stable
mu,lim,r limit dimensionless pile yielding moment for
fixed-head piles in undrained conditions
ground; (c) from comparison of calculations in (a) and (b),
m*u dimensionless pile yielding moment separating establish the type, number and the location of piles. In the
mechanisms B1 and BY in undrained conditions framework of Modern Geotechnical Codes, this method is
su1 undrained shear strength of the sliding soil suitable for the ultimate limit state conditions, whereas the
su2 undrained shear strength of the firm soil serviceability conditions, intended to evaluate the admissi-
Ti, Mi stabilising force and moment with respect to slip bility of displacements, must be necessarily tackled by more
surface for mechanism i complex numerical analyses involving pile–soil interaction.
td dimensionless stabilising force in drained conditions Step (a) may be achieved by conventional slope-stability
tdi dimensionless stabilising force in drained conditions analyses on the basis of a limit equilibrium approach and
for mechanism i
thus computing the required additional resisting force needed
tu dimensionless stabilising force in
undrained conditions to increase the safety factor up to the target value. Many
tui dimensionless stabilising force in undrained contributions dealt with the evaluation of the stabilising
conditions for mechanism i contribution offered by isolated or rows of piles (step b).
tu* dimensionless stabilising force separating Analytical solutions were offered by Ito & Matsui (1975), De
mechanisms B1 and BY in undrained conditions Beer & Carpentier (1977) and Viggiani (1981). The latter
α slope inclination provided solutions for a single free-head pile embedded in
γ soil unit weight fine-grained soil in undrained conditions (total stress analysis)
in the framework of the limit equilibrium method. With a
similar approach, Muraro et al. (2014) have obtained the
solution for the case of a rigid (not yielding) single free-head
pile in drained conditions. Ito & Matsui (1975) studied the pile
Manuscript received 26 April 2017; first decision 13 June 2017;
accepted 29 June 2017.
reaction forces when the soil is forced to squeeze between two
*Department of Engineering, University of Napoli Parthenope, infinitely long piles, providing two expressions obtained by
Napoli, Italy (Orcid:0000-0002-9993-5353). using either the theory of plastic deformation or the theory of
{Department of Engineering, University of Napoli Parthenope, plastic flow. De Beer & Carpentier (1977) offered improved
Napoli, Italy. equations, by overcoming some limitations due to the

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
2 Di Laora, Maiorano and Aversa
strong hypotheses involved in the derivation of the previous (2007) and Kourkoulis et al. (2011) have highlighted how a
methods. A number of contributions dealt with pile–soil spacing of four pile diameters represents a general trend in
interaction, by means of Winkler approach (e.g. Baguelin engineering practice as it optimises the benefit/cost ratio.
et al., 1977; Fukuoka, 1977; Guo, 2006) or continuum models A relevant limitation of the traditional approach is that
(e.g. Poulos, 1973, 1995, 1999; Hull, 1993). Finally, in some the calculation of the piles’ contribution to stability refers to
studies numerical analyses by way of the finite-difference or the critical slip surface (i.e. the one possessing the least safety
finite-element method are performed (Ito et al., 1979; Oakland factors) for the unreinforced slope. However, the presence of
& Chameau, 1984; Poulos & Chen, 1997; Kourkoulis et al., the piles changes the stability conditions and the critical slip
2011, 2012). Regarding step (c), different works dealt with the surface may even not intersect piles for very close transversal
optimal position of piles along the slope (Lee et al., 1995; spacing among the reinforcement elements. Assuming that
Hassiotis et al., 1997; Cai & Ugai, 2000; Ausilio et al., 2001; the safety factor of the reinforced slope is the improved safety
Pan et al., 2012). Regarding pile spacing, Smethurst & Powrie factor of the slip surface which was the critical one in the
absence of reinforcement is a very coarse approximation that
may lead to a severely unconservative design.
Slice i To overcome this limitation, one could take into account
Potential slip Ei
Wi X
the pile contribution directly in the stability analysis, for every
surface Xi i+1
Pile slip surface under consideration (Fig. 1), by means of a force
Ei+1 and a moment representing the ultimate pile–soil contact
αi
M
pressures. Such an approach is feasible only if ready-to-use
Ti analytical expressions are available for ultimate pile load. The
Ni T scope of this work is therefore to propose a comprehensive
set of analytical solutions for single piles, both free and
fixed against rotation at the top, for drained and undrained
conditions, as reported in the following. Group/arching effects
are thereby not covered in this work.

Fig. 1. Problem under consideration: assessment of pile contri- ULTIMATE PILE LOAD IN UNDRAINED CONDITIONS
bution in the realm of limit equilibrium stability analyses of Viggiani (1981) has derived analytical expressions for the ulti-
reinforced slopes mate load of a free-head single rigid-plastic pile of diameter d

Soil Shear Bending Soil Shear Bending

reaction force moment reaction force moment
ku1 su1 d

l1 l1
f1
Mode Mode MB1
A B1
l2 f2
l2
g2

ku2 su2 d TA MA ku2 su2 d TB1 M'2My

ku1 su1 d ku1 su1 d

g1
l1 l1
f1
f1 MB MBY
Mode f2 Mode f2
B l2 BY l2
g2

ku2 su2 d TB M2 M1 ku2 su2 d TBY My My

ku1 su1 d

g1
l1 l1
f1 MB2
f2
Mode Mode
C l2 B2 l2

ku1 su1 d Tc Mc ku2 su2 d TB2 My M''1

Fig. 2. Failure mechanisms and associated distribution of soil reaction, shear force and bending moment in undrained conditions and
total stress analysis (modified from Viggiani, 1981)

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
 Ultimate lateral load of slope-stabilising piles 3
and length L, crossing an unstable horizontal layer of thickness mechanisms, an intermediate mode B is found, where the soil
l1 subjected to uniform horizontal displacement, and pene- strength is fully mobilised everywhere. When bending
trating the underlying stable soil for a length l2, both modelled moments reach the yielding moment in a certain pile section,
as rigid-plastic purely cohesive materials. Thereby, such a plastic hinging occurs and modes B1, BYand B2 are possible.
formulation is suitable for treating undrained conditions It is convenient to define the dimensionless quantities
through a total stress analysis in fine-grained soils where the
ku1 su1
upper and lower layers have undrained shear strengths equal to χu ¼ ð1aÞ
su1 and su2, respectively. Viggiani (1981) followed a limit ku2 su2
equilibrium approach, similar to that proposed by Broms
(1964a) for piles loaded by transverse loads applied at their l2
upper end, and identified six possible failure mechanisms, λ¼ ð1bÞ
l1
corresponding to a stiff pile having infinite (mechanisms A, B,
C) and finite (mechanisms B1, BY, B2) yielding moment My of My
the cross-section (Fig. 2). More specifically, mode A occurs mu ¼ ð1cÞ
when the embedment in the stable layer is small, so that the ku1 su1 dl12
sliding soil carries the pile and the latter fully mobilises soil
strength in the stable layer. Limited contribution to stability is T
obtained by the insertion of piles. Mode C, also referred as tu ¼ ð1dÞ
ku1 su1 dl1
‘flow mode’, occurs for a large embedment and the unstable
soil fails around the pile. Maximum contribution is expected where ku1 and ku2 are the bearing capacity factors (taken as 4
from the pile to stabilise the slope. In between the above and 8, respectively, by Viggiani, 1981); T is the shear force

Table 1. Shear force and bending moment offered by the pile for the six mechanisms (modified from Viggiani, 1981)
Mode A TA λ
tuA ¼ ¼ (2a)
ku1 su1 dl1 χ u
MA λ TA λ
¼ ¼  tuA (2b)
ku1 su1 dl12 2 ku1 su1 dl1 2
Mode B* sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
TB ð1 þ λÞ2 ðχ þ λ2 Þ ð1 þ λÞ
tuB ¼ ¼ þ u  (3a)
ku1 su1 dl1 ð1 þ χ u Þ 2 χ u ð1 þ χ u Þ ð1 þ χ u Þ
M1 ð1  tuB Þ2
2
¼ (3b)
ku1 su1 dl1 4
M2 ðλ  χ u tuB Þ2
¼ (3c)
ku1 su1 dl12 4χ u  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  ffi
MB ðλ  χ u Þ λ þ χ u ð3 þ χ u þ 3λÞ  2 χ u χ 2u þ λ2 þ 2χ u 1 þ λ þ λ2
¼ (3d)
ku1 su1 dl12 4χ u ð1 þ χ u Þ2
TC
Mode C tuC ¼ ¼ 1 (4a)
ku1 su1 dl1
MC 1
¼ (4b)
ku1 su1 dl12 2 "sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
TB1 λ 2χ u þ 2 χu þ 2
Mode B1† tuB1 ¼ ¼ þ 4 2 mu  1 (5a)
ku1 su1 dl1 χu þ 2 χu λ
M′2 1
¼ ðλ  χ u tuB1 Þ2 (5b)
ku1 su1 dl12 4χ u
pffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
MB1 ð2 þ 3χ u Þλ2  2χ 2u ð2 þ χ u Þmu  2 2 λ χ u ð1 þ χ u Þλ2 þ 2χ u mu ð2 þ χ u Þ
¼ (5c)
ku1 su1 dl12 2χ u ð2 þ χ u Þ2
Mode BY rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
TBY mu
tuBY ¼ ¼2 (6a)
ku1 su1 dl1 ð1 þ χ u Þ
MBY 1  χu
¼ mu (6b)
ku1 su1 dl12 1 þ χu
Mode B2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
TB2 1 þ ð2χ u þ 1Þð1 þ 4mu Þ  1
tuB2 ¼ ¼ (7a)
ku1 su1 dl1 2χ u þ 1
M′′1 1
¼ ð1  tuB2 Þ2 (7b)
ku1 su1 dl12 4
pffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
MB2 2mu  χ u ð3 þ 2χ u  4mu Þ þ 2 2 χ u 1 þ χ u þ 2mu þ 4χ u mu
¼ (7c)
ku1 su1 dl12 2ð1 þ 2χ u Þ2

*In the original work there is an error in the expression equivalent to equation (3c): the parameter χ (herein denoted as χu) multiplying the
dimensionless shear force tuB is omitted. The same correction has been reported by Chmoulian (2004)
†In the original work, there is a typographical error in the expression equivalent to equation (5a): parameter λ instead of χ is reported in the
denominator in the first term under the square root. The same correction has been reported by Chmoulian (2004)

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
4 Di Laora, Maiorano and Aversa
and My is the yielding moment. Dimensionless values of the BY-B2: Equation (10)

tu = T/ku1 su1 d l1
reaction force and moment, with respect to the slip surface, (λlim,1) C mu ≥ mu,lim
offered by the pile for the six mechanisms may be obtained
from equilibrium equations and are reported in Table 1.
As an element of novelty over previous studies, the value of B B2
B1-BY: Equation (8)
moment has been reported.
For a given soil and pile configuration, the minimum mu m*u < mu < mu,lim
(λ*,t*u)
shear force at the level of the interface between the two layers
among these mechanisms represents the contribution offered mu < m*u
by the pile to stabilise the upper soil layer in Fig. 1. A B1 BY
It is evident that such a method is directly applicable
when a clear slip surface may be identified as the separation
between two layers with sharply differing strengths.
However, the analytical solutions provided by the author λ = l2/l1
may be used in routine stability analyses for curved slip
surfaces (where the particular condition of no strength Fig. 3. Schematic representation of dimensionless shear force
contrast between unstable and firm soil occurs) along with for a free-head pile in undrained conditions and associated
bending moments at the level of the slip surface derived failure mechanisms
in this work, reported in Table 1. Note that this moment
is negative and of small magnitude for mode A while it is
positive for mode C. In the latter case, the resultant force is The maximum shear force is obtained for mechanism C
located above the interface and thereby represents an and for a particular condition occurring in mechanism
unfavourable contribution. B2 – that is, when the plastic hinge is located at the sliding
With the aim of further exploring the analytical results plane ( f2 = 0 and g1 = 0 in Fig. 2) with a value of
and their physical meaning, a schematic representation of dimensionless section capacity
all the different mechanisms in the plane tu:λ is offered in χu þ 1
Fig. 3. For any value of mu, the trend of dimensionless shear mu;lim ¼ ð13Þ
2
force tu by varying λ has three distinct zones. First, for small
embedment ratios, a linear trend is observed (mechanism A), which thereby indicates the value of the yielding moment
followed by a parabolic trend (mechanism B1 or B, above which no benefit is obtained in terms of pile
depending on mu). For larger λ the value of tu is constant performance. For different values of strength ratios and
(mechanisms BY, B2 or C). Mechanisms B1 and BY are bending sectional capacity, the normalised pile shear force
separated by a straight line having the equation at the interface is represented in Fig. 4.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! With the aim of providing a more comprehensive set of
λ 1 χu þ 1 ready-to-use expressions for pile contribution to slope
tu ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ λ 1 stability, the following sections report an extension of
χ u 1 þ χ u þ 1=χ u χu ð8Þ
Viggiani’s (1981) solutions for head-restrained piles, in
for λ , λ undrained and drained conditions.
the value of λ* being
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
 χu þ 1  1
λ ¼ ð9Þ Piles with head restrained against rotation
χu In engineering practice, it is not rare the use of two or more
For larger λ, the limit value t*u separates mechanisms BY and parallel rows of slope-stabilising piles connected at the top
B2 and assumes the value by stiff structural elements. In these conditions, modelling
! sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! piles’ heads as fixed against rotation may be a more suitable
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi choice.
  χu þ 1  1 χu þ 1
tu ¼ tu ðλ Þ ¼ þ1 By inspecting Fig. 2, it is straightforward to notice that
χu χu ð10Þ among the six mechanisms detected for free-head piles, B
for λ . λ and B2 imply rotation at pile top and thus only mechanisms
A and C (for infinitely resistant piles) and mechanisms B1
Failure according to mechanism BY or B2 depends on and BY (involving section yielding) are admissible for the
whether the dimensionless yielding moment mu is lower or kinematics of the problem under investigation. It can be
larger than a critical value m*,
u whose analytical expression is proven, yet is not done here in the interest of space, that any
  mechanisms other than the ones considered previously are
 1 þ χ u χ u þ 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi not admissible.
mu ¼  1 þ χu ð11Þ
2χ 2u 2 A schematic representation of the different mechanisms in
the plane tu–λ is offered in Fig. 5. The beneficial effect of the
There is a threshold value of λ beyond which the head restraint is evident for large values of sectional
dimensionless shear force on the sliding plane is con- capacity: a pile that would fail with mechanism B under
stant and equal to the maximum value tu = 1. This is free-head conditions, due to the head fixity fails with
particularly interesting from a design viewpoint, because it mechanism A or C, whereas piles associated to mechanism
indicates the minimum value of embedment length in the B2 turn to BY, increasing their ultimate load. On the
firm soil, for a fixed thickness of the unstable layer, to contrary, for low values of sectional yielding capacity, no
achieve the maximum shear force for a given section benefit is observed in terms of magnitude of the stabilising
capacity. This limit value, λlim, is obtained by intersecting force as even for free-head piles a plastic hinge below the pile
mechanisms B and C as head would control pile failure.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Mechanisms B1 and BY are separated again from the line
λlim ¼ χ u þ 2χ 2u þ 2χ u ð12Þ
described by equation (8), up to a limit value of λ equal to

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
 Ultimate lateral load of slope-stabilising piles 5
mu = mu,lim = 2mu,lim,r

1·0 mu ≥ mu,lim = 0·625 mu = mu,lim,r (λlim,r,1) C mu ≥ mu,lim,r

tu = T/ku1 su1 d l1
(χu,1)
0·4

0·2 mu
0·5 B1 BY
mu = m*u = 0·070
A
0·04 mu < mu,lim,r
0·02
mu = 0·01
tu = T/ku1 su1 d l1

0
(a)
λ = l2/l1
mu ≥ mu,lim = 0·75
1·0 Fig. 5. Schematic representation of dimensionless shear force
0·6 for a fixed-head pile in undrained conditions and associated
failure mechanisms
0·4

0·2
0·5 mu = m*u = 0·076
0·04 mu,lim = 2 mu,lim,r
0·02 1·0 mu ≥ mu,lim,r = 0·3125
mu = 0·01
25
0 0·31 0·2
tu = T/ku1 su1 d l1

0 1 2
0·2
λ = l2/l1 0·1
0·5
(b) 0·1
0·04
Fig. 4. Dimensionless shear force for free-head piles in mu = 0·01
undrained conditions for different values of dimensionless
yielding moment and strength ratio of sliding and firm soil: 0
(a) χu = 0·25; (b) χu = 0·5 (a)

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ! mu,lim = 2 mu,lim,r

1 χu þ 1 mu ≥ mu,lim,r = 0·375
λlim;r ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ χu þ1 ð14Þ 1·0
ðχ u þ 1=χ u Þ  1 χu
0·375
tu = T/ku1 su1 d l1

For λ > λlim,r the maximum shear force is obtained for any 0·2
value of m > mu,lim,r, the latter being equal to 0·2
0·5 0·1
χ þ1 0·1
mu;lim;r ¼ u ð15Þ 0·04
4
It can be noticed that this value is half of the one mu = 0·01
corresponding to the free-head case. Values of yielding 0
moment larger than mu,lim,r can be helpful in the mechanism 0 1 2
B1, where the shear force increases for values of m up to the λ = l2/l1
corresponding limit values for free-head piles, for which (b)
mechanism B1 occurs in the conditions described by the point
of intersection of A and C. Quantitative results for different Fig. 6. Dimensionless shear force for fixed-head piles in
values of strength ratios and dimensionless yielding moment undrained conditions for different values of dimensionless yield-
are represented in Fig. 6. It is worth noting that for mechanism ing moment and strength ratio of sliding and firm soil: (a) χu = 0·25;
C the head moment is indeterminate and thereby the interface (b) χu = 0·5
moment is unknown. However, in a design problem the
optimum condition is represented by the point where
mechanisms B1, BY and C coincide, where the moment at cohesion and friction angle) and groundwater level at an
head is equal to the yielding moment for mu = mu,lim. arbitrary location, yet this is not done here due to space
limitations.
Figure 7 is a sketch of the failure mechanisms with
associated patterns of soil reaction and internal forces along
ULTIMATE PILE LOAD IN DRAINED CONDITIONS
the pile. From equilibrium considerations, as already shown
In this section, the ultimate pile load is derived for drained
by Muraro et al. (2014) dimensionless shear force and
conditions. Calculations are carried out in the special case of
bending moment at the interface for mechanisms A and C
dry cohesionless soil. Nevertheless, when the groundwater
are obtained as
level is coincident with the free surface, all the results are
Mode A
still valid if the buoyant unit weight is utilised instead of
the dry unit weight. It would be straightforward to extend

TA λ λ
the derivations to the case of generalised drained conditions tdA ¼ ¼ þ1 ð16aÞ
(i.e. the soil possesses positive values of both effective kd1 γdl12 χ d 2

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
6 Di Laora, Maiorano and Aversa

Note that parameters md*, md,lim and md,lim,r have the
MA λ2 1 1 same meaning as mu*, mu,lim and mu,lim,r, yet they are
¼  þ λ ð16bÞ
kd1 γdl13 χd 2 3 indicated with different symbols due to the different nor-
malisations. The ultimate shear force and moment offered
Mode C by the pile is represented in Fig. 8 for different values of
TC 1 strength ratios and dimensionless yielding moment. For
tdC ¼ ¼ ð17aÞ restrained-head piles, the same trends are observed as for
kd1 γdl12 2 the undrained case and the quantitative results are depicted
in Fig. 9.
MC 1 Limit values of embedment ratio and dimensionless
¼ ð17bÞ bending moment can be obtained by interpolating the
kd1 γdl13 6
numerical results. Regression formulae for critical embed-
ment ratio and dimensionless bending for both free-
where γ is the unit weight of the soil, taken for simplicity as and fixed-head piles in drained conditions, depicted in
identical for the two layers, kd1 = 3kp1 (following Broms, Fig. 10, are
1964b) and χd = kp1/kp2.
To take into account the inclination of slope α, Rankine’s λlim ¼ 1192  χ 061
d ð19aÞ
passive earth pressure coefficients kp1 and kp2 must be
evaluated through the classical expressions for infinite slope.
For mechanism B, the expressions for dimensionless shear md;lim ¼ 0108  χ d þ 017 ð19bÞ
force cannot be derived in closed form. Thus, the problem is
tackled numerically, solving for each set of λ and χd values λlim;r ¼ 0977  χ 064
d ð19cÞ
the two equilibrium equations iteratively. The solutions were
obtained by means of Matlab software for both cases of
md;lim;r ¼ 0053  χ d þ 0086 ð19dÞ
infinite and finite values of cross-sectional dimensionless
yielding moment (modes B1, BY and B2), defined as It is noted that, as in the undrained case, the dimensionless
My limit moment for a restrained pile is one-half of that
md ¼ ð18Þ associated to the free-head pile.
kd1 γdl13

Soil Shear Bending Soil Shear Bending

reaction force moment reaction force moment
kd1 γ d l1

l1 l1
f1
Mode Mode MB1
A B1 f2
l2 l2
g2

kd2 γ d l TA MA kd2 γ d l TB1 M'2 My

kd1 γ d l1 kd1 γ d l1

g1
l1
f1
f1 MB MBY
Mode f2 Mode
f2
B BY l2
g2

kd2 γ d l TB M2 M1 kd2 γ d (l1+f2) TBY My My

kd1 γ d l1

g1
l1 l1
f1 MB2
f2
Mode Mode
C l2 l2
B2

kd1 γ d l1 TC MC kd2 γ d (l1+f2) TB2 My M''1

Fig. 7. Failure mechanisms and associated distribution of soil reaction, shear force and bending moment in drained conditions

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
 Ultimate lateral load of slope-stabilising piles 7
0·6 0·50

md ≥ md,lim = 0·225
md ≥ md,lim = 0·225
td = T / kd1 γ d l12

0·15

M / kd1 γ d l13
0·4 0·25
0·1
0·05
md = md* = 0·029
0·02 md = 0·01
0·2 0
md = 0·01

0 –0·25
(a) (c)
0·6 0·50

md ≥ md,lim = 0·275
md ≥ md,lim = 0·275
0·2
td = T / kd1 γ d l12

0·4 0·15 0·25

M / kd1 γ d l13
0·1
md = md* = 0·033
0·2 0·02 0
md = 0·01
md = 0·01

0 –0·25
0 1 2 0 1 2
λ = l2 / l1 λ = l2 / l1
(b) (d)

Fig. 8. Dimensionless shear force and moment for free-head piles in drained conditions for different values of dimensionless yielding
moment and strength ratio of sliding and firm soil: (a) χd = 0·5; (b) χd = 1; (c) χd = 0·5; (d) χd = 1

0·6 1·4
md,lim = 2 md,lim,r λlim = 1·192 χd0·61
md ≥ md,lim,r = 0·1125 1·2 Numerical
λlim , λlim,r , md,lim , md,lim,r

data λlim,r = 0·977 (Eq. 19c) χd0·64

0·2 25 0·08 1·0
0·4 1
0·1 Interpolation
0·8 curves
0·04
0·6
0·02 md,lim,r = 0·053 χd + 0·086
0·2
md = 0·01 0·4
md,lim = 0·108 χd + 0·170
td = T / kd1 γ d l12

0·2

0 0
(a) 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
0·6 χd
md,lim = 2 md,lim,r
md ≥ md,lim,r = 0·1375 Fig. 10. Regression formulae for critical embedment ratio and
0·2 75 dimensionless bending for both free- and fixed-head piles in
3
0·4 0·1 0·08 drained conditions

0·04
CONCLUSIONS
0·2 0·02
In this paper, several formulae have been provided for the
md = 0·01 ultimate load of slope-stabilising piles, to be used in routine
limit equilibrium slope-stability analyses. Pile contribution
0
may be expressed through a force and a moment, derived in
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 this work for free- and fixed-head piles, in drained and
λ = l2 / l1 undrained conditions, for infinite and finite pile section
(b) flexural capacity. Analytical solutions have been derived for
all failure mechanisms in the undrained case (total stress
Fig. 9. Dimensionless shear force for fixed-head piles in analysis). For the drained case, analytical solutions are
drained conditions for different values of dimensionless yielding provided whenever their derivation is possible, while closed-
moment and strength ratio of sliding and firm soil: (a) χd = 0·5; form approximate expressions, which fit well the numerical
(b) χd = 1 data, are reported for the other mechanisms.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
 8 Di Laora, Maiorano and Aversa
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Kourkoulis, R., Gelagoti, F., Anastasopoulos, I. & Gazetas, G.
This research was supported by the National Relevant (2011). Slope stabilizing piles and pile-groups: parametric study
Interest Research Program (PRIN 2010-2011). The authors and design insights. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 137,
express their gratitude to those responsible for the research No. 7, 663–678.
Kourkoulis, R., Gelagoti, F., Anastasopoulos, I. & Gazetas, G.
project, Professor Leonardo Cascini of the University of (2012). Hybrid method for analysis and design of slope
Salerno. stabilizing piles. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 138,
No. 1, 1–14.
Lee, C. Y., Hull, T. S. & Poulos, H. G. (1995). Simplified pile-slope
REFERENCES stability analysis. Comput. Geotech. 17, No. 1, 1–16.
Ausilio, E., Conte, E. & Dente, G. (2001). Stability analysis of Muraro, S., Madaschi, A. & Gajo, A. (2014). On the reliability of
slopes reinforced with piles. Comput. Geotech. 28, No. 8, 3D numerical analyses on passive piles used for slope stabilis-
591–611. ation in frictional soils. Géotechnique 64, No. 6, 486–492,
Baguelin, F., Frank, R. & Said, Y. H. (1977). Theoretical study of http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.T.016.
lateral reaction mechanism of piles. Géotechnique 27, No. 3, Oakland, M. W. & Chameau, J. L. A. (1984). Finite element
405–434, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1977.27.3.405. analysis of drilled piers used for slope stabilization. In Laterally
Broms, B. (1964a). Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. J. Soil loaded deep foundations: analysis and performance (eds J. A.
Mech. Found. Div. 90, No. SM2, 27–64. Langer, E. T. Mosley and C. D. Thompson), ASTM STP 835,
Broms, B. (1964b). Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. pp. 182–193. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 90, No. SM3, 123–156. Pan, D., Smethurst, J. A. & Powrie, W. (2012). Limiting pressure on
Cai, F. & Ugai, K. (2000). Numerical analysis of the stability of a a laterally loaded pile in a frictional soil. Géotech. Lett. 2, No. 2,
slope reinforced with piles. Soils Found. 40, No. 1, 73–84. 55–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geolett.12.00007.
Chmoulian, A. (2004). Briefing: analysis of piled stabilization of Poulos, H. G. (1973). Analysis of piles in soil undergoing
landslides. Proc. Instn Civil Engrs – Geotech. Engng 157, No. 2, lateral movement. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99, No. SM5,
55–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.2004.157.2.55. 391–406.
De Beer, E. E. & Carpentier, R. (1977). Discussion of the paper by Poulos, H. G. (1995). Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope
Ito and Matsui (1975). Soils Found. 16, No. 1, 68–82. stability. Can. Geotech. J. 32, No. 5, 808–818.
Fukuoka, M. (1977). The effects of horizontal loads on piles due to Poulos, H. G. (1999). Design of slope stabilizing piles. In Slope
landslides. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on soil stability engineering (eds J. C. Jiang, N. Yagu and T. Yamagami),
mechanics and foundation engineering, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 27–42. pp. 397–405. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Balkema.
Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Poulos, H. G. & Chen, L. T. (1997). Pile response due to excavation-
Foundation Engineering. finduced lateral soil movement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng
Guo, W. D. (2006). On limiting force profile, slip depth and lateral ASCE 123, No. 2, 94–99.
pile response. Comput. Geotech. 33, No. 1, 47–67. Smethurst, J. A. & Powrie, W. (2007). Monitoring and analysis
Hassiotis, S., Chameau, J. L. & Gunaratne, M. (1997). Design of the bending behaviour of discrete piles used to stabilise a
method for stabilization of slopes with piles. J. Geotech. railway embankment. Géotechnique 57, No. 8, 663–677,
Geoenviron. Engng ASCE 123, No. 4, 314–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2007.57.8.663.
Hull, T. S. (1993). Analysis of the stability of slopes with piles. In Sommer, H. (1977). Creeping slope in a stiff clay. Proceedings of the
Proceeding of 11th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, 9th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
Singapore, pp. 639–643. Pathumthani, Thailand: Southeast engineering, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 113–118. Tokyo, Japan: Japanese
Asian Geotechnical Society. Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Ito, T. & Matsui, T. (1975). Methods to estimate lateral force acting Viggiani, C. (1981). Ultimate lateral load on piles used to stabilize
on stabilizing piles. Soils Found. 15, No. 4, 43–59. landslides. Proceedings of the 10th international conference
Ito, T., Matsui, T. & Hong, W. P. (1979). Design method for the on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Stockholm,
stability analysis of the slope with landing pier. Soils Found. 19, Sweden, vol. 3, pp. 555–560. Rotterdam, the Netherlands:
No. 4, 21–33. Balkema.

HOW CAN YOU CONTRIBUTE?

To discuss this paper, please submit up to 500 words to
the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

View publication stats
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution