671017.pdf

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

30 35 40 45 50

g

Unreinforced

Reinforced

−1. 4

−1. 2

− 1

−0. 8

−0. 6

−0. 4

−0. 2

x

(%)

(%)

(a) Zone A

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

30 40 50

g

− 1

−0. 5

−1. 5

− 2

x

(%)

Unreinforced

Reinforced

(%)

(b) Zone B

0

2

4

6

8

0

30 40 50

g

x

(%)

Unreinforced

Reinforced

− 1

−0. 5

−1. 5

− 2

−2. 5

(%)

(c) Zone C

Figure 14: Strain history of typical elements of different zones by test observation.훾: slope-direction shear strain;휀푥: horizontal compression
strain;g:g-level.

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

z(

cm )

p(kPa)

Figure 15: Earth pressure on the pile by numerical analysis.p: earth pressure.

acceleration (Figure 14(b)). This strain reached a significant
magnitude at 50 g-level when the landslide, just across this
element, occurred. However, the shear strain increased at
asmallerrateandreachedalowerlevelfarfromfailureif
the piles were used. Thus, a basic concept,shear effect,was
introduced to describe that shear strain was decreased due
to the effect of the piles. In other words, a significantshear
effectof piles in zone B arrested the formation of a slip surface.
Accordingly, the horizontal compression strain increased due
to the piles, which was described using another basic concept,
compression effect.Therewasalsosignificantcompression

effectof piles in zone B; however, it can be concluded that the

shear effectwas primary.

The history of the compression strain showed that this

strain in the reinforced slope was significantly larger than

that of the unreinforced one; this demonstrated that there was

significantcompression effectof piles in zone C (Figure 14(c)).

Closer examination showed that thecompression effectwas

more significant than theshear effect, though theshear effect

of the piles was also distinct.

The compression and shear strains both exhibited minor

differences in zone A for the reinforced and unreinforced