Design of Drilled Shafts to Enhance Slope Stability

Daniel Pradel1, Jason Garner2 and Annie On Lei Kwok3

1
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles,
CA 90095; dpradel@ucla.edu
2
Shannon & Wilson Inc., 3990 Collins Way, Suite 100, Lake Oswego, OR 97035;
jkg@shanwil.com
3
Praad Geotechnical Inc., 5465 S. Centinela Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90066;
annie@praad.com

ABSTRACT
This paper describes a numerical approach for the design of drilled shafts to
reinforce slopes. The approach uses the program FLAC and the strength reduction
method to predict the Factor of Safety of the improved slope. The method
successfully predicted the maximum demands (shear force and bending moments)
necessary for the structural design of stabilizing piles. The method also successfully
predicted the critical mode of failure and slope stability Factors of Safety for piles
with a plastic bending moment.
INTRODUCTION
In urban environments, drilled shafts are often used by geotechnical engineers
to improve slope stability and stabilize existing landslides (e.g., Smethurst and Powrie,
2007). Permanent drilled shafts used in landslide stabilization must resist the large
lateral loads imposed by the landslide. Typical shafts are closely spaced and have
large diameters (1 to 3 meters). Because of the large bending moments to which they
are subjected, these drilled shafts are generally reinforced with large steel I-beams
instead of reinforcement cages and the design often incorporates several rows of
tiebacks that extend below the landslide basal plane. Depending on the geographical
area these stabilizing drilled shafts are often known as stabilizing piles, shear pins,
caissons, or soldier piles.
DESIGN METHODS
The design methods used by geotechnical engineers for the design of
stabilizing piles vary widely. To prevent movement of the stabilized slope and upper
building pads, plastic flow of the soil between the shear pins must be prevented. Thus
in practice geotechnical designs typically involve closely spaced drilled shafts with
typical center-to-center spacing on the order of 2 to 3 shaft diameters. In frictional
materials, a spacing of 3 shaft diameters is generally considered adequate to ensure
full passive load transfer (Broms, 1964), prevent plastic flow (Smethurst and Powrie,
2007), and transfer the maximum lateral loads to the stabilizing piles by arching. In
rare situations where a large spacing is specified, lateral deformations associated with
soil flow between the piles should be anticipated and load transfer by arching must be

920

EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

921

verified (Ito et al., 1975 & 1981).

The lateral deflections depend on the depth of embedment of the stabilizing
piles, the stiffness of the soils, diameter of the drilled shaft as well as the stability of
the slope. In Southern California, in addition to Factor of Safety calculations, lateral
capacity and deflection analyses of the stabilizing piles are often performed by
geotechnical engineers using Broms' charts (e.g. Broms, 1964) and/or specialized
computer programs for computing pile deflections (e.g., LPILE by Ensoft, 2004).
Although landslide stabilization using drilled shafts is a geotechnical repair
method that has been used successfully to improve many slopes, there is no standard
method used for the design of stabilizing piles. Numerous methods have been
proposed for designing stabilizing piles. The proposed methods can be grouped into
four general groups as described below:
Limit Equilibrium Methods: Methods for the design of stabilizing piles using
limit equilibrium methods are well documented in the geotechnical literature,
e.g. Hassiotis et al. (1997). Design methods based on limit equilibrium
generally obtain an equivalent force, which the drilled shafts must be capable
of resisting. In their analyses, geotechnical engineers often replace the drilled
shaft by an equivalent horizontal force, known as the unbalanced force (Fu in
Figure 1), which is calculated using traditional slope stability methods.
Depending on the selected slope stability method, the unbalanced force is
obtained by the slope stability program through force and/or moment
equilibrium. The review of numerous designs by the first author indicates that
the slope stability methods that are most often used are: Bishop, Spencer and
the simplified Janbu methods. Bishop's method, which requires moment
equilibrium, is particularly well suited for this approach.
Earth Pressure Theory-Based Methods: Designers sometimes use earth
pressure theories, such as Coulomb and Rankine, to calculate lateral pressures
on drilled shafts. This method is generally used to estimate the lateral load on
stabilizing piles located near a top of slope, where a building pad needs
protection and the slope below is allowed to move. Some designers use
horizontal equilibrium, to balance active and passive loads. In these cases,
the passive loads are typically reduced by a Factor of Safety. This method is
problematic as it does not consider slope stability failure mechanisms and
does not satisfy moment equilibrium. Thus it is unsurprising that in the first
authors experience, this method is seldom encountered.
Pile Deflection Theory-Based Methods: Reese (1992) proposed a method
based on pile deflection theory, i.e. the p-y method. Reeses method is
relatively complex and involves numerous steps. The required steps include:
(a) conventional slope stability analyses of the subject slope, (b) selection of
shaft diameter/stiffness and determination of the ultimate bending moment, (c)
determination of the ultimate resistance of the soil against the pile, and (d)
using the p-y curve method to analyze the pile. The procedure is iterative and
must be repeated until the bending moment found using the p-y curve method
and the ultimate bending moment are approximately the same for a given slip
surface. Additional iterations are then needed as changes of the pile stiffness
result in a new critical slip surface. The procedure is repeated until the critical
921

922

EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

slip surface, the stiffness of the pile, and the resisting forces of the pile, are
compatible. Poulos (1995) proposed a relatively similar method that involves
three steps: (a) evaluating the total shear forces needed to bring the slope to a
target Factor of Safety, (b) evaluating the maximum resistance that each pile
can provide (using, e.g. Viggiani 1981), and (c) selecting the type and number
of piles. The method uses a proprietary program called ERCAP to model the
interaction of the slope and stabilizing piles. Due to the complexity of the
Reese and Poulos methods, designers rarely use them in practice.
Numerical Solutions Methods: Designs based on numerical methods, i.e.,
using the Finite Element Method (FEM) or Finite Difference Method (FDM),
have previously been designed and implemented. Most designs use numerical
modeling to predict the likely bending moments and deflections of the
stabilizing piles and do not predict the Factor of Safety (FOS) of the improved
slope. Thus these designs do not necessarily satisfy the requirements of
customary building codes. As a consequence, reviewing government agencies
will generally request that the geotechnical engineer demonstrates, in addition
to the FEM/FDM model, that the design satisfies the minimum required
calculated Factors of Safety using conventional slope stability methods.
L

30 deg.
H=13.7m

S
Soil:
c = 23.94 kPa
= 10 deg.
= 19.63 kN/m3

Fu
D=3.0m

Bedrock:
c = 23.94 kPa
= 40 deg.
= 19.63 kN/m3

Stabilizing Pile

Figure 1. Slope geometry and material properties.

STRENGTH REDUCTION METHOD
The strength reduction method (e.g. Griffiths, 1999), which is incorporated into
widely used computer programs such as FLAC (Itasca, 2008) and PLAXIS (2008), is
a powerful tool to evaluate the Factor of Safety of a slope. The strength reduction
method involves modeling the soil as an elastic-perfectly plastic material, and
reducing the cohesion, c, and friction angle, , by a strength reduction factor, R, until
the slope fails quasi-naturally:

cd =
tan(d ) =
922

c
R

(1)

tan( )
R

(2)

EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

923

The highest value of the strength reduction factor that satisfies equilibrium
and is kinematically acceptable is the Factor of Safety, FOS, of the slope:
Rmax = FOS

(3)

METHODOLOGY

To evaluate the capabilities of the strength reduction method for the analysis
of a slope stabilized with drilled shafts, we adopted the soil strength, pile stiffness and
slope geometry, similar to a previously published study (Hassiotis et al., 1997). The
characteristics of the slope and stabilizing piles are shown in Figure 1.
We used the program FLAC (Itasca, 2008) to model the soil and piles, and
programmed automated routines in FLAC to slowly lower the shear strength of the
soil in accordance with equations 1 and 2. Since a row of closely spaced stabilizing
piles will act as a wall due to arching, the piles were modeled using structural beam
elements. FLACs pile elements were also used in a limited number of runs without
discernable geotechnical difference. Frictional interfaces connected the beam
elements to the soil nodes on both the upslope and downslope sidesBeam elements
are directly attached to the soil nodes on both the upslope and downslope sides, hence
full friction between pile and soil is assumed to be mobilized. An elastic modulus of
the stabilizing piles E = 200 GPa, a cross-sectional area A = 1 m2/m, and moment of
inertia I = 1 m4/m were specified for elastic piles.

Stabilizing Pile

Soil
Bedrock

Figure 2. Finite difference grid used in FLAC

After bringing the original slope to static equilibrium, the drilled shafts were
installed in the Finite Difference Model (Figure 2). Then very slowly, i.e., in
thousands of steps, the strength of the soil and bedrock were decreased by a reduction
factor, R. The procedure was programmed into FLAC and the reduction factor, R, was
increased until the predicted maximum displacement, max, exceeded 2 meters (e.g.,
Figure 3). The procedure was repeated for different pile locations and two different
values of the angle of dilation were used in our analyses, = 0 and = . In
addition, the piles were modeled as both linear elastic (without a maximum bending
moment), and with a maximum plastic moment, Mp = 2,000 kN.m/m.
923

924

EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

max: Maximum Slope Displacement (m)

The procedure worked flawlessly and the strength reduction technique easily
predicted the Factor of Safety, FOS, for all the slope configurations. Results from a
FLAC run with a row of elastic stabilizing piles located at S = 10.45 m from the toe
of the slope (S/L = 0.44) are shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5b. Figure 3 shows that as R
approaches Rmax = 1.68, displacements become very large, which means that the slope
is yielding. Figure 4 shows that the relationship between displacements and bending
moments is roughly bilinear, and that as the slope starts to yield the bending moment
remains approximately constant (Mmax = 3750 kN.m/m). Hence, one of the main
advantages of this procedure is that it provides the maximum structural demands in
addition to the Factors of Safety of the slope.
5

S/L=0.44

L=23.73m
4

S=10.45m

0
1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

R: Reduction Factor

Mmax:Maximum Bending Moment (kN.m/m)

Figure 3. Maximum displacement vs. strength reduction factor for an elastic pile.
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000

L=23.73m

S/L=0.44

2500

S=10.45m

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

0.5

1.5

max: Maximum slope displacement (m)

Figure 4. Maximum moment versus maximum displacement for an elastic pile.

Another advantage of the strength reduction technique is that the critical mode
of failure can be easily determined. As the reduction factor, R, approaches the Factor
of Safety of the slope, the predicted displacements become increasingly larger and a
zones with large shear strain increments become apparent. The zone with maximum
shear strain increments is the basal plane of the critical failure surface, and defines the
critical mode of failure of the slope. Three different modes of failure were predicted
924

EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

925

in our analyses depending on the location of the stabilizing piles and the limiting
bending moment, Mp:
Slope failure below the stabilizing piles (Figure 5a).
Slope failure above the stabilizing piles (Figure 5b). It should be noted that
even when the failure involves slippage above the pile, bending moments are
predicted because of the plastic yielding of soil (due to strength reduction).
Development of a plastic hinge in the stabilizing piles and failure of the slope
through the stabilizing shear pins (Figure 5c). This mode of failure only
appeared when a small enough plastic moment was specified.

Figure 5. Bending moment, displacement vectors and shear strains for three
different locations of the stabilizing pile and/or pile plastic moment, Mp.
Plastic Moment

Stabilizing piles used in practice have structural limitations in terms of depth,

steel reinforcement and diameter. Hence, in practical applications, it is desirable to
limit the moment capacity of the stabilizing piles, i.e. to specify a maximum design
value. To analyze the effect of pile capacity on slope stability, our numerical analyses
using elastic piles were repeated using shear pins having a limiting bending moment,
Mp = 2000 kN.m/m.
The effect of limiting the moment capacity of the structural elements is
shown in Figures 6 and 7. As expected, limiting the maximum bending moment
results in a significant decrease in the Factor of Safety of the slope (from a maximum
of 1.88 to a maximum of 1.48). Figure 6 also shows the effect of the pile location on
925

926

EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

the maximum Factor of Safety. For elastic stabilizing piles (without maximum plastic
moment), the maximum Factor of Safety is achieved by placing stabilizing piles at
S/L = 0.51. With a limiting bending moment, Mp = 2000 kN.m/m, the optimum
location of the stabilizing piles changes and moves to S/L = 0.4. This change is
important because it shows that the methodology presented here can be used to
optimize the location of stabilizing piles in slopes. As shown in Figure 6 the Factors
of Safety predicted by the strength reduction method compares well with those
obtained by the conventional equilibrium method using simplified Bishops method.
2
FLAC: Elastic Pile, = 0

1.9

FLAC: Elastic Pile, =

FOS: Factor of Safety

1.8

FLAC: Plastic Pile, = 0

1.7

FLAC: Plastic Pile, =

1.6

Bishop: Elastic Pile, = 0

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

S/L: Horizontal Distance Ratio

Mmax: Maximum Bending Moment (kN.m/m)

Figure 6. Comparison of horizontal distance ratio versus factor of safety for

different pile and soil properties
6000
Elastic Pile, = 0
Elastic Pile, =

5000

Plastic Pile, = 0
Plastic Pile, =

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

S/L: Horizontal Distance Ratio

Figure 7. Comparison of horizontal distance ratio versus maximum

bending moment for different pile and soil properties
Dilation Angle Effect

As R approached Rmax = FOS, the solutions obtained with FLAC are both
statically and kinematically admissible. Nevertheless, since most theoretical plasticity
solutions in geotechnical engineering have been obtained using associated models,
where the dilation angle is = (Schofield and Wroth, 1968), it was considered
worthwhile to study the effect of the dilation angle on the FOS and maximum
bending moments. As can be seen in Figures 6 and 7, the effect of is minor and can
926

EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

927

be neglected for the slope in Figure 1.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper describes a numerical approach for the design of drilled shafts to
enhance the Factor of Safety of a slope using the strength reduction technique. Unlike
conventional slope stability methods which require assumptions such as failure
geometry, load distribution on the pile and distance to the point of fixity, the
numerical modeling scheme requires no aforementioned assumptions and is able to
predict the structural demand (bending moment and shear forces) of the pile directly.
With the incorporation of strength reduction method, the Factor of Safety of an
improved slope can be found easily. In addition, the method can be used to find the
optimum location of stabilizing piles and predict the critical mode of failure. In our
analyses, the angle of dilation did not appear to affect the results. In conclusion, the
numerical approach with the use of strength reduction technique is straightforward,
requires few hypotheses and is easy to implement.
REFERENCES

Broms, B. (1964). The lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils, Journal of

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, Proc. ASCE, 90 (SM3), 123-156
Ensoft (2004). Computer Program LPILE Plus Version 5.0, Austin, Texas.
Griffiths, D.V. and Lane, P.A. (1999). Slope Stability analysis by finite elements,
Geotechnique, 49(3), 387-403.
Hassiotis, S., Chameau, J.L., and Gunaratne, M. (1997). Design method for
stabilization of slopes with piles, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(4), 314-323.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2008). FLAC Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua
and FLAC/Slope, Ver. 6.0, User's Manual, Minneapolis, Minn.
Ito, T. and Matsui, T. (1975). Methods to estimate lateral force acting on stabilizing
piles, Soils and Foundations, 15(4): 43-59.
Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W.P. (1981). Design method for stabilizing piles against
landslide one row of piles, Soils and Foundations, 21(1): 21-37.
Plaxis (2008). Computer Program Plaxis 2D, Version 9.0, Delft, Netherlands.
Poulos, H.G. (1995). Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32: 808-818.
Reese, L.C., Wang, S.T. & Fouse, J.L. (1992). Use of drilled shafts in stabilizing a
slope, Proceedings of Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments,
II 2, 1318-1332.
Schofield A. and Wroth P. (1968). Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited
Smethurst, J.A. & Powrie, W. (2007). Monitoring and analysis of the bending
behavior of discrete piles used to stabilize a railway embankment,
Geotechnique, 57(8), 663-677.
Viggiani, C. (1981). Ultimate lateral load on piles used to stabilize landslides, Proc.
Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 3, 555-560.

927

GEOTECHNICAL

SPECIAL

PUBLICATION

NO.

208

EARTH RETENTION
CONFERENCE 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2010 EARTH RETENTION CONFERENCE

August 14, 2010

Bellevue, Washington

SPONSORED BY

The Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

EDITED BY

Richard J. Finno, Ph.D., P.E.

Youssef M. A. Hashash, Ph.D., P.E.
Pedro Arduino, Ph.D., P.E.

Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Earth Retention Conference (3rd : 2010 : Bellevue, Wash.)
Earth Retention Conference 3 : proceedings of the 2010 Earth Retention Conference,
August 14, 2010, Bellevue, Washington / sponsored by the Geo-Institute of the American
Society of Civil Engineers ; edited by Richard J. Finno, Youssef M. A. Hashash, Pedro
Arduino.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7844-1128-5
1. Earthwork--Congresses. 2. Shoring and underpinning--Congresses. 3. Retaining walls-Congresses. I. Finno, Richard J. II. Hashash, Youssef M. A. III. Arduino, Pedro. IV.
American Society of Civil Engineers. Geo-Institute. V. Title.
TA760.E17 2010
624.1'64--dc22

2010023353

American Society of Civil Engineers

1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia, 20191-4400
www.pubs.asce.org
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement
made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product,
process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty
thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a
standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts,
regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or
warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness,
suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this
publication, and assumes no liability therefore. This information should not be used without
first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific
application. Anyone utilizing this information assumes all liability arising from such use,
including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil EngineersRegistered in U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
Photocopies and reprints.
You can obtain instant permission to photocopy ASCE publications by using ASCEs
online permission service (http://pubs.asce.org/permissions/requests/). Requests for 100
copies or more should be submitted to the Reprints Department, Publications Division,
ASCE, (address above); email: permissions@asce.org. A reprint order form can be found at
http://pubs.asce.org/support/reprints/.
Copyright 2010 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978-0-7844-1128-5
Manufactured in the United States of America.