671017.pdf

(a) Photograph

6

25

y

z

Slope

Pile

Strain gauge

6

20

13. 3

Another

position

of pile

boundary 11.^2

M easurem ent O

(b) Elevation view

Pile

20

y

x

1. 4

O

1.5: 1

(c) Vertical view

Figure 1: Schematic view of the model of reinforced slope (unit: cm).

1

2

3

45

(a) Unreinforced slope at failure state

2

1. 
   

   6

   
   


2. 
   

   2

   
   


3. 
   

   (^4) 0. (^8) Pile

   
   


4. 
   

   4

   
   


5. 
   

   2

   
   

(b) Pile-reinforced slope

Figure 2: Horizontal displacement contours of slopes at 50 g-level (unit: mm).

shows the horizontal displacement distribution of the
pile-reinforced and unreinforced slopes at 50 g-level; the
borders in the figures were designated as the dotted area
inFigure 1(b), but these do not correspond to the actual
slopeborders.Itcanbeseenthatasignificantlandslide
occurred in the unreinforced slope when the centrifuge
acceleration reached 50 g (Figure 2(a)): there was significant
concentration of deformation so that the slide body
can be easily distinguished from the base body via the
contour lines. On the other hand, the reinforced slope only
exhibited significant deformation due to the increase of

centrifugal acceleration; a landslide was avoided at 50 g-level

(Figure 2(b)). This indicated that the piles significantly

increasedthestabilityleveloftheslope.Moreover,the

deformation of the reinforced slope was significantly smaller

than that of the unreinforced slope, demonstrating that the

piles had a significant effect on the deformation of the slope.

3. Numerical Analysis

3.1. Analysis Model.A three-dimensional finite element

method was used to simulate the pile-reinforced slope under