001020Depthbelowgroundlevel(m)Depthbelowgroundlevel(m)Depthbelowgroundlevel(m)FEM
BVM0024Shear force (MN)080604020 0De ection (mm)− 16− 14− 12− 10− 8− 6− 4− 2− 16− 14− 12− 10− 8− 6− 4− 2− 16− 14− 12− 10− 8− 6− 4− 4− 2− 20 − 10 − (^2) − 20
Bending moment (MNm)
Figure 6: Comparison of internal force and deflection of front row pile between the boundary value method and FEM.
10
Dept
h
bel
ow
the
ground
level
(m)
Dept
h
bel
ow
the
ground
level
(m)
Dept
h
bel
ow
the
ground
level
(m)
FEM
BVM
(^0246810)
− 37
− 35 − 20
− 32
− 27
− 22
− 17
− 12
− 7
− 2
− 5 − 4 − 2
− 37
− 32
− 27
− 22
− 17
− 12
− 7
− 2
− 37
− 32
− 27
− 22
− 17
− 12
− 80 − 50
− 7
− 2
− 20
Bending moment (MNm) Shear force (MN) De ection (mm)
Figure 7: Comparison of internal force and deflection of back row pile between the boundary value method and FEM.
thebehaviorofportaldouble-rowpilesusedforslope
stabilization.
Acknowledgments
This study was jointly financially supported by grants from
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no.
51008298) and Key Research Program of Chinese Academy
of Sciences (no. KZZD-EW-05). The support is gratefully
acknowledged. The author also thanks the anonymous ref-
erees whose comments helped to improve the work and the
presentation of this paper.References
[1] Y. K. Chow, “Analysis of piles used for slope stabilization,”
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics,vol.20,no.9,pp.635–646,1996.