Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

DOI 10.1007/s11069-015-2118-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Comparison of slope stabilization methods by three-

dimensional finite element analysis

Omer F. Usluogullari1 Ahmet Temugan1 Esra S. Duman1

Received: 8 May 2015 / Accepted: 6 December 2015 / Published online: 16 December 2015
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Man-made factors take an important place in the formation of landslides

besides the natural events. Road constructions, establishing new residential areas and
interfering natural drainage systems are some of the common reasons that cause landslides.
A slope on an intercity road construction site in the western Black Sea region, Turkey, is
selected for this study due to the presence of small-scale soil movements, rock falls,
tension cracks and occurrence of landslides in the neighborhood. The study area is
investigated at three different profiles based on the topography. Slope stability analyses are
carried out on these profiles by three-dimensional finite element analyses. As the results of
analysis critic levels of the factor of safety and the high soil movements are estimated for
one of the profiles. There are a couple of methods developed to prevent potential land-
slides, ceasing soil movements and securing the construction zones. Stabilizing slopes with
piles are widely being used to enhance slope stability of landslide-prone areas. In this
study, the behavior of stabilizing piles with and without lateral support is investigated. The
bending moments and shear forces of piles and the maximum soil displacements are
estimated to evaluate the performance of pile-stabilized slopes. Slope angle reduction is
being performed as a remediation option, and an optimal solution is proposed after
comparing the result of the analyses.

Keywords Landslide  Slope stability analysis  Finite element analysis  Slope

stabilization methods  Stabilizing piles

& Omer F. Usluogullari

ofusluogullari@turgutozal.edu.tr
Ahmet Temugan
atemugan@turgutozal.edu.tr
Esra S. Duman
esduman@turgutozal.edu.tr
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Turgut Ozal University, Ankara, Turkey

123
1028 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

1 Introduction

Landslides and slope stability problems which activate or accelerate the movement of a soil
mass are significant geotechnical issues in Turkey and considered to be serious natural
hazards. These hazards mainly caused by strength variations at the transition zones of soil
layers (soft soil located on rock layer), heavy traffic loads, seasonal high-intensity pre-
cipitations, erosion at the toe of slopes, rapid snow melts and some other natural events
(Pachauri and Pant 1992; Gokceoglu and Aksoy 1996; Ercanoglu 2005). Regions such as
northern Turkey are particularly at risk for landslides due to rainy climates and steep slopes
containing weathered rock zones. The Province of Bartin is known as one of the landslide-
prone regions in Turkey due to its geologic and geomorphologic properties (Ercanoglu
2005). Hence, assessment of the slope stability problems and identification of the proper
stabilization methods are important issues for the investigated area. This study focuses on
the soil movement observed along on an intercity highway next to one of the steep slopes
in Bartin and determining an optimal slope stabilization method.
Slope stabilization methods have vital roles to prevent landslides and to cease the soil
movement. In order to evaluate slope stabilities, many researchers have developed various
methods using limit equilibrium analysis (Fellenius 1936; Janbu 1954; Bishop 1955;
Morgenstern and Price 1965; Spencer 1967; Sarma 1973) and strength reduction methods
(SRM) (Zienkiewicz et al. 1975; Cai et al. 1998; Chugh 2003; Sainak 2004). Meanwhile,
three-dimensional analyses began to be used for performing sensitive slope stability
analysis with the improvement at the calculation capacity of computers (Wei et al. 2009).
Gao et al. (2012) performed three-dimensional slope stability analyses to evaluate various
collapse mechanisms depending on the ratio between the width of slope and the height of
slope. Nian et al. (2012) studied the effects of slope geometry on the factor of safety using
SRM with three-dimensional finite element methods (3D FEM) and concluded that SRM
with the 3D FEM gives reasonable and feasible results.
A number of slope stabilization instruments are introduced to prevent potential hazards such
as benching, piles, retaining walls, anchors, soil nailing and drainage systems (Abramson et al.
2002). Using piles to stabilize slopes is being preferred in many cases (De Beer and Wallays
1970; Ito and Matsui 1975; Reese et al. 1993; Poulos 1995; Hong and Han 1996; Carder and
Barker 2005; Kourkoulis et al. 2010; Song et al. 2012) due to easy installation compared to the
other retaining wall structures which require more spaces (Hassiotis et al. 1997). The slope
stabilizing piles have been used to prevent lateral soil movement, improve soil stability and
support the roadway. Numerous design methods have been developed to analyze the behavior of
piles and evaluate the soilpile interaction. One of the common type of analyses is the empirical
methods based on displacements (De Beer and Wallays 1970; Ito and Matsui 1975; Hassiotis
et al. 1997), and another type is numerical approach using finite element methods (Bransby and
Springman 1996; Poulos and Chen 1997; Kourkoulis et al. 2010). Depending on the geotech-
nical and geological conditions of slopes, tie-back anchors (Briaud and Lim 1999), retaining
walls and geomembranes are used for providing lateral support to piles (Abramson et al. 2002).
The scope of this paper is to evaluate the stability of a slope and determine an optimal
slope stabilization method for a potential landslide area on an intercity road. In this scope,
slope stability analyses are performed by FEM with strength reduction method and factor
of safety (FS) are determined. Following the determined FS, deformation levels are esti-
mated to identify which slope has the high landslide risk. Finally, four methods are
developed and evaluated to improve the slope stability; pile-stabilized slopes, supporting
piles with tie-back anchors, supporting piles with retaining walls and benching to

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1029

rehabilitate slope angle. In order to determine an optimal method, maximum displacements

of the soil, maximum bending moments and shear force values of the structural elements
are calculated. Hence, in this study a comprehensive comparison of four common slope
stabilization methods is introduced to give an insight about selecting the proper stabi-
lization method and understanding the behavior of support systems.

2 Geological and geotechnical properties of the investigated area

The Bartin Province is located in the western Black Sea region, Turkey (Fig. 1), at 41 530
latitude and 32 450 longitudes. The investigated area is located on the route of Kozcagiz
Kumluca road (7 ? 800  9 ? 400 km). The road has an importance for the region due to
being the connection of Bartin to the coast of Black sea. The investigated area is located at
the 15 km southwest of Bartin city center as shown in Fig. 1. The province of Bartin is a
highly mountainous region with an area of 2143 km2 and the elevation of plain from sea
level is 25 m as shown in Fig. 2.
A comprehensive field exploration program is carried out to obtain the soil geotechnical
parameters by performing field and laboratory studies. The soil properties are characterized
by the in situ standard penetration and pressuremeter tests and series of laboratory tests
including unconfined compression tests, triaxial tests and other soil characterization tests
using the soil samples collected from seven geotechnical boreholes drilled at the investi-
gated area (Fig. 3).
As a result of field and laboratory studies, Ulus formation is identified as the pre-
dominant formation underlying the highway construction part of KumlucaKozcagiz.
These findings belonging to the formations are consistent with the previous studies per-
formed in the same region (Ercanoglu 2005; Hippolyte et al. 2010). The formation mainly
consists of sandstone, claystone and siltstone. Partially limestone, quartzite and some
volcanic and magmatic rocks are located in the study area. It is found that the investigated
field rock masses belonging to Ulus formation are mainly formed by particles of quartz,
feldspar and plagioclase and rarely include metamorphic phonolite and serpentinite. In this
formation, cement is formed by CaCO3 and the ratio of this substance is between 10 and
50 %. The cement of feldspathic graywacke and quartzy sandstone is made of SiO2 at the
percentage of 520. The overall color of Ulus formation is green, khaki, yellowish green
and at some places close to gray where coal exists. The formation described in this study is
similar to the Franciscan complex which is referred to as Melange (Goodman 1993;
Lindquist and Goodman 1994) due to the presence of stiff rock layers in the weaker soil
matrix. This formation consists of large intact rocks surrounded by a clayey sand matrix.
As presented by Medley and Goodman (1994), sixty countries have Melange masses in
the mountainous terrains, and Turkey is one of those countries. In the investigated field,
abundantly bulky rock masses are surrounded by a matrix of finer clayey sand texture as
shown in Fig. 4 which weakens the rock formation and causes possible landslides. The
depth of this laminated formation varies through the investigated area. In order to better
understand the variation of the soil profile, each of core sample boxes is investigated
separately and transient pattern of soil layers is illustrated by the samples taken from one of
the boreholes (Fig. 5af. As shown in Fig. 5a and b between the depths of 4.517 m, intact
rock cores are obtained during drilling, after this level rock particles surrounded with a
weaker matrix composed of sandy clay particles are encountered till 39-m depth (Fig. 5d)
and after this level intact rock dominates the formation. This formation has been
encountered in all core boxes overall the investigated area.

123
1030 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Fig. 1 Location of the investigated area in Turkey

3 Current situation of investigated area

The intercity road located in the investigated area is planned to be widened. Before the
widening, work starts some recently downthrown rock pieces, presence of a river bed
(Fig. 6a) and previously occurred a landslide near to the construction site area (Fig. 6b) led
to make a soil investigation. During the soil investigation, access roads were opened on the
slope to get soil samples and boreholes were drilled on these paths. Seasonal rainfalls with

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1031

Investigated
field

Plain areas and low angle slopes

Medium angle slopes
Plato and hills
High angle slopes
Steep slopes

Fig. 2 Geology of Bartin illustrating the important topographical formations

Fig. 3 Satellite image of the investigated area and the borehole locations

123
1032 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Fig. 4 A typical view of the Ulus formation from the study area demonstrating the rock formation and
clayey sand texture at the same level

Fig. 5 Soil samples taken from the investigated area for field and laboratory tests a Borehole 1 Box 1,
b Borehole 1 Box 2, c Borehole 1 Box 3, d Borehole 1 Box 4, e Borehole 1 Box 5, f Borehole 1 Box 6

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1033

Fig. 6 Illustrations from investigated site depicting important activities. a An illustration of road widening
construction area, b a historic landslide occurred near to investigated area, c an illustration of access road for
getting samples, d a tension crack occurred on slope after a small-scale soil movement

an increase in the fragmented formation of soil and construction works to open access
roads (Fig. 6c) with disturbing the stability of slopes triggered a small-scale soil move-
ment (Fig. 6d) and revealed a potential landslide. The ground water level is not observed
at the soil investigation, and in the analysis current condition is modeled as dry soil.
Using the results of field and laboratory tests, the cross sections of soil profile are
idealized within two layers, the weak layer consists of rock body surrounded by the clayey
sand matrix, and intact rock consists of sandstone. This idealization is performed to keep
the integrity of finite element meshes and not to generate discontinuities in the finite
element model. The idealized model is established with considering that the most
important factors (elevation levels, relevant slope angels and geotechnical properties)
affecting the slope stability are almost same on the width of the slope and for the rest of the
cross sections critical elevation levels and slope angel variations are taken into consider-
ation. Hence, the influence of the actual site geometry is reduced as much as possible. The
shear strength parameters of clayey sand are assigned to weak layer (Lindquist and
Goodman 1994), and the geotechnical properties shown in Table 1 are used as input
parameters in finite element analysis.
In this study, the performance of four slope stabilization methods is evaluated using
three-dimensional finite element method to cease the soil movement, prevent potential
landslides and secure the intercity road before and after construction works. The slope
stability analysis of the investigated area performed on the idealized cross sections of the
three soil profiles according to topography and geotechnical properties obtained from seven
boreholes BH1BH5BH4-Profile 1, BH2BH7BH4-Profile 2 and BH3BH6BH4-
Profile 3 as shown in Fig. 7a, b and c, respectively.

123
1034 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Table 1 Geotechnical properties of the soil layers

c (kN/m3 ) Elastic modulus Cohesion Friction Poissons

(MN/m2 ) (kN/m2 ) angle (/o ) ratio (t)

No. 1 weak layer 19 9 2 25 0.3

No. 2 intact rock 21 349 6000 40 0.4

Fig. 7 The soil profiles according to the topography and geotechnical properties of the investigated area,
a Profile 1, b Profile 2 and c Profile 3

3.1 Slope stability analysis with 3D FEM

Three-dimensional finite element analysis is used to analyze the stability of slopes and
estimate soil movements. Finite element method analyses are performed with commer-
cially available PLAXIS 3D software in a similar basis with Simplified Bishop Method
(Bishop 1955) employing to the slope stability analysis (Zienkiewicz et al. 1975; Matsui
and San 1992; Griffiths and Lane 1999; Wei et al. 2009). Factor of safety (FS) is obtained
by reducing the strength parameters, cohesion and friction angle, until the lowest shear
strength can resist to the shear stress formed by slip of the soil. This method is performed
in safety mode (Plaxis 3D 2013) employing a multiplier to reduce friction angle and
cohesion to determine related soil strength.
tan/input cinput
Total Msf 1
tan/reduced creduced

Total Msf is the strength reduction factor which is initially 1 and increase or decrease 0.1
depending on the initial strength values. Parameters with subscript input indicate the
strength properties given in the initial phase and subscript reduced refer to values varies
by the ratio of input parameters to the strength reduction factor. Using reduced parameters,
the variation at multiplier continues till a failure mechanism is developed and FS is
estimated as follows (Plaxis 3D 2013).
strengthgivenasinput
FS Total Msf 2
strength at failure

Ten-node tetrahedral elements are used to model the soil. Various element sizes ranging
from very fine to coarse are used during calculations. Medium-size elements are selected
due to the efficiency of calculation time in regard to the variation at results. The soil

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1035

Fig. 8 The Finite element model and mesh of a Profile 1, b Profile 2 and c Profile 3

behavior is modeled with the MohrCoulomb failure criterion approximated to be a linear

elastic-perfectly plastic (Usluogullari and Vipulanandan 2011). After evaluating the core
sample boxes (Fig. 5) and the test results, it has been decided that the layers show similar
patterns with the Melange formation. Hence, finite element analyses are performed using
the shear strength parameters of the weakest soil layer (Lindquist and Goodman 1994). The
constitutive model used to simulate the soil behavior required five basic input parameters
as shown in Table 1: unit weight (c), the elastic modulus (E), cohesion (c), friction angle
(/) and Poissons ratio (t) which are determined by field and laboratory test results.
Although, on the actual sites, piles were installed in a larger area, in the numerical analysis,
instead of modeling the whole area, only a representative region (Briaud and Lim 1999)
with a width of 15 D (diameter of pile) was preferred (Kourkoulis et al. 2010). Typical
three-dimensional finite element models and meshes used in the analysis of soil slopes with
borehole locations for Profiles 1, 2 and 3 are shown in Fig. 8a, b and c, respectively.
In this case, besides the factor of safety and the maximum displacements, soil move-
ment next to road construction is a critical issue to be considered. Hence using the finite
element models shown in Fig. 8, the maximum soil displacements, FS and slip circles are
estimated at 5 and 10 m away from road construction. Fig. 9a, b and c illustrates the results
of three-dimensional finite element analysis for Sects. 1, 2 and 3, relatively.

123
1036 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Fig. 9 Soil displacements, sliding surfaces and FS of a Profile 1, b Profile 2 and c Profile 3

As seen in Table 2, in case of ignoring the presence of the rock in the weak layer
(Lindquist and Goodman 1994), Profile 3 has the lowest FS and highest soil movements.
According to these results, slope stabilization methods are evaluated for Profile 3 to
increase the FS (Ausilio et al. 2001) and prevent a potential landslide.

4 Slope stabilization methods

4.1 Piles without lateral support

The installation of piles into a stable stratum is a well-known and easily applied method to
improve the stability of slopes and prevent potential landslides (Ausilio et al. 2001; Chen

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1037

Table 2 Maximum displacements and FS of the profiles

Profiles according Max. displacement Displacement Displacement Factor of
to the boreholes on the slope at 5m away at 10m away safety
from the road from the road

Profile 1 0.274 0.092 0.118 1.213

Profile 2 0.124 0.017 0.027 1.535
Profile 3 0.523 0.214 0.331 1.073

and Martin 2002; Lirer 2012; Song et al. 2012; Zhou et al. 2014; Yu et al. 2015). Several
studies have been carried out to evaluate the efficiency of pile location varying from top to
the toe of the slip surface (Ito et al. 1979; Lee et al. 1995; Cai and Ugai 2000). Lee et al.
(1995) indicated that for slopes with two layers of soil where a soft layer is overlying a stiff
layer, piles should be installed between middle and top of the slip surface. In this study
area, rock level in aligning with the center of slip surface is located at approximately 40-m
depth (Fig. 9c) and reaching these levels with piles is not practicable considering both
economic and labor challenges. Hence, piles are not located at the middle of slip surface
and the embedment length is limited in order to keep maximum height around 23 m. In this
study increasing the FS, reducing the maximum displacement of soil, obtaining optimum
forces on piles and securing the intercity road are aimed. In order to achieve these
objectives, two locations on the slope are evaluated for piles. In the first case, piles are
located at 15 m away from the road, and in the other case piles are shifted 5 m back and
located 20 m away from the road; the height of the piles is 23.5 and 27.8 m depending on
the slope geometry, respectively. These distances are selected as optimum points to both
reduce landslide risks and keep the pile lengths around 25 m, considering the maximum
height of the slope, location of the center of slip surface, the distance to the road con-
struction and the location of rock layers.
Embedded piles are used in the three-dimensional analysis to simulate the pile retaining
wall. The installation arrangement of piles is designed as secant piles with 120 cm diameter
and center-to-center distance of 140 cm to achieve a convenient drainage system. The
bending moments may be reduced with the reduction of pile diameters; however, simul-
taneously bending moment capacities significantly decrease. Hence, the diameter of 1.2 m
is selected to perform slope stability analyses. The embedded piles are modeled as special
one-dimensional beam elements having an interface providing the contact between soil and
pile to model skin and foot interactions and considered to be linear elastic. This contact
occurs with three virtual nodes created in the ten-node tetrahedral soil elements as shown
in Fig. 10a. The finite element mesh of embedded piles consists of three-node line ele-
ments having six degrees of freedom, three displacements and three rotational. Hence to
create a volume, an elastic area is assumed around the pile having the given pile diameter.
In order to simulate the actual construction, top of the embedded piles is assumed rigid and
the bottom of piles is socketed in the stable soil layer and behaves as fixed connection
(Fig. 10b). The embedment length (Le ) remained constant for all cases as four times the
diameter of a pile (D), and the total length of the pile (Lp ) varies according to the location
of piles. The finite element model of piles located at 15 m away from the road with is
shown in Fig. 10c. The parameters used in FEM analysis of structural elements are given
in Table 3.

123
1038 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

p
p
x
SN4 y

SN: Soil Node z

p

PN: Pile Node

VN: Virtual Node

y SN10
SN8

x PN1
SN9
VN1
z

PN2
VN2 SN7

SN1 SN3
SN5
VN3
PN3 SN6

SN2
(a)
Diameter (D)

Embedded Pile
(Line Element)

Weak Soil Layer

Lp=23.5 m - 27.8 m

Elastic Region

L E=4.8 m
Rock Layer

(b)

(c)
Fig. 10 The detailed illustration of the embedded pile finite element model a soilpile interaction b pile in
the soil layers c finite element model and mesh

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1039

Table 3 Parameters of the structural elements used for the finite element analysis
Type of Parameter Value
structure

Embedded pile Total length of piles located at 15 m away from the road 18.7 m
Total length of piles located at 20 m away from the road 23 m
Embedment length 4.8 m
Diameter 1.2 m
Spacing 1.4 m
Elastic modulus 30  106 kN=m2
Anchor Unbonded length of the anchors (15 m away from the First row 19 msecond row 14
road) m
Unbonded length of the anchors (20 m away from the First row 24second row 20 m
road)
Bounded Length Half of Unbonded Lengths
Elastic modulus of grouted section (bonded) 28  106 kN=m2
Diameter of grouted section (bonded) 12.5 cm
Nominal area of unbonded section 10:5 cm2
Axial stiffness of unbonded section (EA) 204:7  103 kN
Prestress force 744 kN
Angle of inclination 30
Vertical spacing First row 2 m, second row 3 m
Horizantal spacing 2.8 m
Retaining wall Width 1520 m
Wall height (depending on the width) 13.918.6 m
Elastic modulus 31  106 kN=m2

Study on embedded piles presented by Dao (2011) validates the accuracy of embedded
piles by comparing with volume piles. That study also showed that embedded piles can be
used to analyze the actual behavior of real piles. Two main advantages of embedded pile
on volume piles are as follows: Calculation time is lower due to using only line elements
aligned in the center of pile instead of whole size of the occupied volume (Fig. 10b), and
the second advantage is the bending moments and shear forces are directly obtained,
whereas in the volume piles stress and strains are obtained. Beam element integration
points are used to estimate pile forces (bending moment, shear force, axial forces and skin
friction). Estimated maximum soil displacements in the direction of combination of x-y-z
coordinates and FS for the piles located at 15 and 20 m away from the road are shown in
Fig. 11a and b, respectively. Bending moment and shear force on piles are two key
responses to evaluate the safety of stabilization method. Maximum shear force and max-
imum bending moment of piles located at 15 and 20 m away from the road are shown in
Fig. 12a and b, respectively.

4.2 Pile-stabilized slopes with the support of tie-back anchors

Kourkoulis et al. (2010) indicated that for a pile having 1.2 m diameter and 0.04 rein-
forcement ratio has an ultimate bending moment capacity of 7.5 MN. As shown in Fig. 12a

123
1040 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Fig. 11 Soil displacements, sliding surfaces and FS of the stabilized slope with piles. a Piles located at 15 m
away from the road, b Piles located at 20 m away from the road

and b, the pile maximum bending moments and shear forces around the transition zone
(Akbarov et al. 2015) are significantly high and near or beyond the limits of pile capacities.
Previous studies showed that tie-back walls using the prestressed anchors with piles give an
advantage to reduce the maximum bending moments and shear force of retaining walls
(Briaud and Lim 1999; Briaud et al. 2000; Bilgin 2010). The prestressed tie-back anchors
with 7 0.600 steel tendons are used at 3D finite element analysis with 2.8-m horizontal
space to support piles subjected to lateral loads caused by soil displacement in case of a
landslide (Fig. 13). Anchors are designed with 30 angle below horizontal to keep effec-
tiveness of anchors optimum to support piles laterally (Xanthakos 1991) and the length of
anchors varied depending on the slope geometry and anchor location (Table 3).
As shown in Fig. 13a, the model of anchor is comprised of two parts: The first free part
of anchors without grouting material is modeled as node-to-node anchor and the second
part which embedded into rock layer is modeled as beam elements providing the interface
simulated the grout-soil interaction. The free part of the anchor has the two-node line
element having only axial stiffness, and the top of the anchor coincides with the pile, which
behave as spring connection coupling the displacement of the anchor with the embedded
pile. The bonded bottom of the anchor is socketed into rock, and connection is assumed to

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1041

15 15
11 11
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7 7
3 3
Transition zone
Transition zone
-1 -1

-5 -5
-16000 -11000 -6000 -1000 4000 0 2500 5000 7500 10000
Shear force (kN) Bending Moment (kNm)
(a)
19 19
15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
11 11
7 7
3 Transition zone 3 Transition zone
-1 -1
-5 -5
-16000 -11000 -6000 -1000 4000 0 2500 5000 7500 10000
Shear force (kN) Bending Moment (kNm)
(b)
Fig. 12 Maximum shear force and bending moment of the stabilized slope with piles. a Piles located at 15
m away from the road, b Piles located at 20 m away from the road

be fixed. The vertical spacing of 2 and 3 m has been followed for two rows of anchors. 5-m
depth is selected to keep excavation of the front side of the piles at optimum levels not to
cause a soil movement and not to make excessive amounts of excavation. The PLAXIS 3D
finite element code allows to add prestress force, and for each anchor the 0.4 times tensile
strength of tendons (744 kN) is applied. A typical finite element model of the piles laterally
supported with anchors is shown in Fig. 13b and the parameters used in finite element
analysis are given in Table 3.
The maximum soil displacement and the FS of pile-stabilized slope using piles and tie-
back anchors at 15 and 20 m away from the road with the soil movement at 5 and 10 m
away from the road are shown in Fig. 14a and b, respectively.
The results indicate that the location of piles supported with anchors does not signifi-
cantly affect the factor of safety and maximum displacement values due to limited bonded
lengths. Having 2.8-m horizontal spacing and performing three-dimensional finite element
analysis allow to investigate the bending moment and shear force distribution within piles.
Maximum shear force and maximum bending moment of piles supported with and without
anchors at 15 and 20 m away from the road are shown in Fig. 15a and b, respectively. The
results show that reducing the anchor spacing decrease the shear force and bending
moment on piles. However, with the support of anchors the forces on piles are still around
or over the capacity. Hence, the slight contribution of anchors on reducing forces moti-
vated the analysis to be performed with two rows of anchors. Also in order to simulate
construction process, analyses are performed with the excavating front of the anchors by
multiple stages; however, the results do not vary compared to the model neglecting the
excavation. This indicates that in this case study the critical force is the stresses created by
a possible slope movement, not by the lateral earth pressure (Kourkoulis et al. 2010), and

123
1042 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Unbonded Length (Lu ) = 19 m - 24 m

Embedded Pile
Spring
Connection

Bonded Length (Lb) = 9.5 m - 12 m

Node to Node
Anchors Grouted Section

Lu=14 m - 20 m
Spring Fixed
Connection Connection

Lb= 7 m - 10 m

Grouted Section

Not to Scale
Fixed
Connection

(a)

(b)
Fig. 13 The finite element model and connection details of the pile-stabilized slope supported with the
anchors. a The connection details between anchor and pile and soil. b Finite element model of stabilized
slope

the analyses are performed by using single stages where all the structures are included to
the system in the same phase.

4.3 Pile-stabilized slopes with the support of retaining wall at the toe of slope

As shown in Figs. 9 and 14 although maximum displacements and displacements next to

road construction are decreased by half, the bending moments of piles are not reduced

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1043

Fig. 14 Soil displacements, sliding surfaces and FS of the pile-stabilized slope supported with the anchors.
a Piles and anchors located at 15 m away from the road, b piles and anchors located at 20 m away from the
road

significantly comparing the piles with (Fig. 15) and without support of anchors (Fig. 12).
As indicated by (Kourkoulis et al. 2010), the ultimate pile structural capacity for 1.2
diameters is between 4 and 7.5 MN depending on reinforcement ratio, and the piles
supporting with anchors are still close or out of this range. Hence, another stabilization
method using gravity retaining walls (Abramson et al. 2002) to support the toe of the slope
is investigated to reduce the bending moments and displacements and to increase the FS.
The retaining wall has two important roles: increasing the factor of safety with a
significant reduction at soil movement and dramatically reducing the bending moment
and shear force of piles. In this case retaining wall is not used alone as a stabilization
method. The presence of the weak layer zones compelled to support construction site of
retaining wall with piles to avoid potential soil movements. In order to secure the
construction of retaining wall subjected to any potential soil movement, piles are
designed to be used before construction. It is assumed that the construction speed of
retaining wall is fast enough and related precautions are taken to prevent a possible
slope movement before wall construction. Hence, in this slope stabilization method also
single-stage analyses are carried out to see the performance of the final supporting
system.

123
1044 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

15 15
Pile without support Pile without support
11 Pile with support 11 Pile with support
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7 7
3 3
Transition zone
Transition zone
-1 -1

-5 -5
-14000 -10000 -6000 -2000 2000 6000 -500 2000 4500 7000 9500
Shear force (kN) Bending Moment (kNm)
(a)
15 23
Pile without support Pile without support
11 19
Pile with support Pile with support
Depth (m)

15

Depth (m)
7
11
3 7
Transition zone
3 Transition zone
-1
-1
-5 -5
-14000 -10000 -6000 -2000 2000 6000 -1000 1500 4000 6500 9000
Shear force (kN) Bending Moment (kNm)
(b)
Fig. 15 Maximum shear force and bending moment of piles supported with the anchors. a Piles located at
15 m away from the road, b piles located at 20 m away from the road

Fig. 16 Finite element model of the pile-stabilized slope supported with the retaining wall

Similar to other stabilization methods, retaining walls are evaluated at 15 and 20 m

away from the road construction with the height of 13.9 and 18.6 m. The finite element
model of piles laterally supported with a retaining wall having 15 m width is shown in
Fig. 16, and the parameters used in finite element analysis are given in Table 3. The
maximum soil displacement, FS and soil movements at 5 and 10 m away from the road
related to piles supported with retaining wall having the width of 15 and 20 m are shown in
Fig. 17a and b, respectively. These results indicate that due to high stiffness values,
retaining wall ceased the soil movement near to the road construction.
Maximum shear force and maximum bending moment of piles supported with retaining
walls having the width of 15 and 20 m are shown in Fig. 18a and b, respectively. As shown

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1045

Fig. 17 Soil displacements, sliding surfaces and FS of the pile-stabilized slope supported with the retaining
wall. a Retaining wall with 15 m width, b retaining wall with 20 m width

in Figs. 12 and 18a and b, the bending moment and shear force of pile reduce dramatically.
According to these results in order to reduce construction costs, the pile diameter is
reduced to 80 cm and all results are re-calculated for the wall width of 15 m as shown in
Fig. 18c.

4.4 Rehabilitation of slope angles (benching)

The last stabilization method exercised in this study is the rehabilitation of slope angles
without any structural elements. Slope angles and number of benches are optimized per-
forming several slope stability analyses considering the maximum displacement, the factor
of safety, displacements near to road construction and amount of excavated soil. 3H-2V
slope angles and four benches are applied to slopes using 3D finite element analysis as
shown in Fig. 19a to keep the costperformance ratio at applicable levels compared to
other methods. After the rehabilitation of slope angles, the maximum soil displacements
with the FS are shown in Fig. 19b. In order to obtain four benches with the 3H-2V slope
angle, the estimated amount of excavated soil is approximately 275:000 m3 .

123
1046 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

15 15
11 11
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
7 7
3 3
Transition zone Transition zone
-1 -1

-5 -5
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 0 100 200 300 400 500
Shear force (kN) Bending Moment (kNm)
(a)

19 19
15 15
Depth (m)

11 11

Depth (m)
7 7
3 Transition zone 3 Transition zone
-1 -1
-5 -5
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 0 100 200 300 400 500
Shear force (kN) Bending Moment (kNm)
(b)

15 15
11 11
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

7 7
3 3
Transition zone Transition zone
-1 -1

-5 -5
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Shear force (kN) Bending Moment (kNm)
(c)
Fig. 18 Maximum shear force and bending moment of piles supported with the retaining wall. a Retaining
wall with 15 m width, b retaining wall with 20 m width, c retaining wall with 15 m width and 80 cm
diameter

5 Summary and conclusions

In this study, the stability analysis is performed for a slope adjacent to an intercity road
construction in Bartin, Turkey. Small-scale soil movements, downthrown rock pieces,
tension cracks and adjacent landslides lead to a detailed investigation and possible slope
stabilization methods are evaluated. Four slope stabilization methods: Slope stabilizing
piles, supporting piles laterally with anchors, supporting piles laterally with retaining wall
and slope rehabilitation, are investigated using three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Maximum soil displacement on the slope, the maximum soil movement at 5 and 10 m
away from the road and FS are estimated to evaluate the performance of stabilization
methods (Table 4). Maximum bending moments and shear forces are calculated to secure
the structural stability of the piles (Table 5).

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1047

Fig. 19 Rehabilitation of the slopes as a slope stabilization method. a Finite element model of rehabilitated
slopes, b soil displacements, sliding surfaces and FS of the rehabilitated slopes

Based on the results of the three-dimensional finite element analysis, the following
conclusions are drawn:
1. Presence of the weak zones (clayey sand) in the rock layers, opening service roads to
make soil investigations and increase in the seasonal precipitations resulted in the
strength reduction and cause soil movements in the investigated area.
2. The slope stability analyses are performed in three different profiles based on the
topography with similar geotechnical properties. The factor of safety and maximum
soil displacements being used to select the profile will be stabilized. Slope stabilization
methods are evaluated for Profile 3 having an FS of 1.05 and the maximum
displacement around 0.5 m.
3. Using piles for stabilizing slope reduces maximum soil displacement from 0.5 to 0.2 m
and increases factor of safety slightly from 1.07 to 1.16. According to secure the road,
soil movements at 5 and 10 m away from the road are estimated. At this area, the soil
movements are decreased approximately three times with using piles. Although soil
displacements decrease and the factor of safety increases slightly, higher bending
moments and shear forces make using piles without lateral support impracticable.
Also, it should be noted that in all cases the maximum bending moment and shear

123
1048 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Table 4 Displacement and the FS with and without stabilization methods

Slope stabilization method Max. Displacement Displacement Factor
displacement at 5m away from at 10m away from of
on the slope (m) the road (m) the road (m) safety

Current situation 0.523 0.2148 0.3319 1.073

Pile 15 m away from the road 0.206 0.0734 0.1064 1.156
(no lateral support)
Pile 20 m away from the road 0.231 0.0937 0.1344 1.228
(no lateral support)
Pile 15 m away from the road (lateral 0.184 0.0528 0.0685 1.207
support with the tie-back anchors)
Pile 20 m away from the road (lateral 0.182 0.0682 0.0980 1.168
support with the tie-back anchors)
Pile 15 m away from the road (lateral 0.156 0.0032 0.0037 1.325
support with the retaining wall)
Pile 20 m away from the road (lateral 0.136 0.0063 0.0066 1.491
support with the retaining wall)
Slope angle rehabilitation 0.438 0.0194 0.0265 1.136

Table 5 Maximum bending moments and shear forces of piles for different stabilization methods
Slope stabilization method Absolute max. Absolute max.
shear force (kN) bending moment
(kNm)

Pile 15 m away from the road (no lateral support) 14,316 9321
Pile 20 m away from the road (no lateral support) 14,713 9145
Pile 15 m away from the road (lateral support with 11,059 8866
the tie-back anchors)
Pile 20 m away from the road (lateral support with 10,652 7880
the tie-back anchors)
Pile 15 m away from the road (lateral support with 884 436
the retaining wall)
Pile 20 m away from the road (lateral support with 644 423
the retaining wall)

force on piles are located around the transition zone between the weak layer and rock
layer.
4. Using anchors to support piles reduced overall soil movements slightly more than
without anchors; however, the FS almost remained constant comparing with using
only piles. Maximum displacements decrease from 0.2 to 0.18 m, and the soil
movement at 5 m away from road decreases to 0.06 m from 0.08 m comparing piles
supported with and without anchors, respectively.
5. Due to very high bending moment on piles, retaining walls with 15 and 20 m width are
designed at the toe of the slope. The displacements at the soil 5 and 10 m away from
road and FS are significantly improved compared to other stabilization methods. Piles
with 1.2 m diameters have bending moments around 0.4 MNm and shear force of 0.4

123
Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050 1049

MN with the support of gravity wall. Due to these low bending moments, pile with
smaller diameters, 0.8 m, is analyzed and 0.1 MNm bending moment on the pile is
estimated which is far below the bending moment capacity of a pile.
6. Another remediation method slope rehabilitation resulted in lower soil displacements
near to road construction, yet keeping the maximum displacement and the factor of
safety almost same with the current situation (without any stabilization method).
7. Slope stabilizing piles with and without lateral support are evaluated in two locations:
One is 15 m away from the road and the other is 20 m away; for those methods, results
do not show significant changes, and this makes 20 m inefficient due to increment of
structural element sizes and construction expenses.
8. Considering the conclusions given above, for this case piles supported with retaining
wall at the toe of slope have the optimum performance depending on the factor of
safety, maximum displacements on the slope, soil displacements 5 and 10 m away
from the road and maximum bending moment and shear forces on piles.

References
Abramson LW, Thomas SL, Sunil S, Glenn MB (2002) Slope stability and stabilization methods. John
Wiley & Sons, New York
Akbarov S, llhan N, Temugan A (2015) 3d dynamics of a prestressed stratified half-space under the action of
an oscillating moving load. Appl Math Model 39(1):118
Ausilio E, Conte E, Dente G (2001) Stability analysis of slopes reinforced with piles. Comput Geotech
28(8):591611
Bilgin O (2010) Numerical studies of anchored sheet pile wall behavior constructed in cut and fill condi-
tions. Comput Geotech 37(3):399407
Bishop A (1955) The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of earth slopes. Gotechnique 5(1):717
Bransby M, Springman S (1996) 3-D finite element modelling of pile groups adjacent to surcharge loads.
Comput Geotech 19(4):301324
Briaud J, Lim Y (1999) Tieback walls in sand: numerical simulation and design implications. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 125(2):101110
Briaud JL, Nicholson P, Lee J (2000) Behavior of full-scale vert wall in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
126(9):808818
Cai F, Ugai K (2000) Numerical analysis of the stability of a slope reinforced with piles. Soils Found
40(1):7384
Cai F, Ugai K, Wakai A, Li Q (1998) Effects of horizontal drains on slope stability under rainfall by three-
dimensional finite element analysis. Comput Geotech 23(4):255275
Carder D, Barker K (2005) The performance of a single row of spaced bored piles to stabilise a gault clay
slope on the m 25. Transport Research Laboratory Report 627
Chen C, Martin G (2002) Soil-structure interaction for landslide stabilizing piles. Comput Geotech
29(5):363386
Chugh AK (2003) On the boundary conditions in slope stability analysis. Int J Numer Anal Methods
Geomech 27(11):905926
Dao T (2011) Validation of plaxis embedded piles for lateral loading. PhD thesis, TU Delft, Delft University
of Technology
De Beer E, Wallays M (1970) Stabilization of a slope in schists by means of bored piles reinforced with steel
beams. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international congress rock mechanics, Beograd, vol 3, pp 361369
Ercanoglu M (2005) Landslide susceptibility assessment of se bartin (west black sea region, turkey) by
artificial neural networks. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(6):979992
Fellenius W (1936) Calculation of the stability of earth dams. In: Transactions of the 2nd congress on large
dams, Washington, DC, vol 4, pp 445463
Gao Y, Zhang F, Lei G, Li D (2012) An extended limit analysis of three-dimensional slope stability.
Geotechnique 63(6):518524

123
1050 Nat Hazards (2016) 81:10271050

Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H (1996) Landslide susceptibility mapping of the slopes in the residual soils of the
mengen region (Turkey) by deterministic stability analyses and image processing techniques. Eng Geol
44(1):147161
Goodman RE (1993) Engineering geology: rock in engineering construction. Wiley, New Jersy
Griffiths D, Lane P (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Geotechnique 49(3):387403
Hassiotis S, Chameau J, Gunaratne M (1997) Design method for stabilization of slopes with piles. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 123(4):314323
Hippolyte JC, Muller C, Kaymakci N, Sangu E (2010) Dating of the black sea basin: new nannoplankton
ages from its inverted margin in the central pontides (Turkey). Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ
340(1):113136
Hong W, Han J (1996) The behavior of stabilizing piles installed in slopes. In: Proceedings of the 7th
international symposium on landslides, Trondheim, Norway, vol 3, pp 17091714
Ito T, Matsui T (1975) Methods to estimate lateral force acting on stabilizing piles. Soils Found 15(4):4359
Ito T, Matsui T, Hong W (1979) Design method for the stability analysis of the slope with landing pier. Soils
Found 19(4):4357
Janbu N (1954) Application of composite slip surfaces for stability analysis. In: Proceedings of the European
conference on stability of earth slopes, Stockholm, 1954, vol 3, pp 4349
Kourkoulis R, Gelagoti F, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2010) Slope stabilizing piles and pile-groups:
parametric study and design insights. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(7):663677
Lee C, Hull T, Poulos H (1995) Simplified pile-slope stability analysis. Comput Geotech 17(1):116
Lindquist ES, Goodman RE (1994) Strength and deformation properties of a physical model melange. In:
Proceedings of the 1st North American rock mechanics symposium. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 843850
Lirer S (2012) Landslide stabilizing piles: experimental evidences and numerical interpretation. Eng Geol
149:7077
Matsui T, San K (1992) Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction technique. Soils
Found 32(1):5970
Medley E, Goodman RE (1994) Estimating the block volumetric proportions of melanges and similar block-
in-matrix rocks (bimrocks). Rock mechanics models and measurements challenges from industry
pp 851858
Morgenstern N, Price VE (1965) The analysis of the stability of general slip surfaces. Geotechnique
15(1):7993
Nian TK, Huang RQ, Wan SS, Chen GQ (2012) Three-dimensional strength-reduction finite element
analysis of slopes: geometric effects. Can Geotech J 49(5):574588
Pachauri A, Pant M (1992) Landslide hazard mapping based on geological attributes. Eng Geol
32(1):81100
Plaxis 3D (2013) Reference manual. PLAXIS
Poulos HG (1995) Design of reinforcing piles to increase slope stability. Can Geotech J 32(5):808818
Poulos HG, Chen LT (1997) Pile response due to excavation-induced lateral soil movement. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 123(2):9499
Reese LC, Wang ST, Fouse JL (1993) Use of drilled shafts in stabilizing a slope. In: Stability and per-
formance of slopes and embankments II, ASCE, pp 13181332
Sainak A (2004) Application of three-dimensional finite element method in parametric and geometric
studies of slope stability. In: Advances in geotechnical engineering (Skempton conference). Thomas
Telford, London, vol 2, pp 933942
Sarma S (1973) Stability analysis of embankments and slopes. Geotechnique 23(3):423433
Song YS, Hong WP, Woo KS (2012) Behavior and analysis of stabilizing piles installed in a cut slope during
heavy rainfall. Eng Geol 129:5667
Spencer E (1967) A method of analysis of the stability of embankments assuming parallel inter-slice forces.
Geotechnique 17(1):1126
Usluogullari OF, Vipulanandan C (2011) Stressstrain behavior and California bearing ratio of artificially
cemented sand. J Test Eval 39(4):637645
Wei W, Cheng Y, Li L (2009) Three-dimensional slope failure analysis by the strength reduction and limit
equilibrium methods. Comput Geotech 36(1):7080
Xanthakos PP (1991) Ground anchors and anchored structures. Wiley, New Jersy
Yu Y, Yq Shang, Hy Sun, Ez Wang (2015) Displacement evolution of a creeping landslide stabilized with
piles. Nat Hazards 75(2):19591976
Zhou C, Shao W, van Westen CJ (2014) Comparing two methods to estimate lateral force acting on
stabilizing piles for a landslide in the three Gorges Reservoir, China. Eng Geol 173:4153
Zienkiewicz O, Humpheson C, Lewis R (1975) Associated and non-associated visco-plasticity and plasticity
in soil mechanics. Geotechnique 25(4):671689

123