Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

DOI 10.1007/s13369-012-0209-2

R E S E A R C H A RT I C L E - C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

Arun Prasad · Sina Kazemian · Behzad Kalantari ·


Bujang B. K. Huat · Sasan Mafian

Stability of Tropical Residual Soil Slope Reinforced by Live


Pole: Experimental and Numerical Investigations

Received: 18 April 2010 / Accepted: 7 October 2010 / Published online: 22 February 2012
© King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 2012

Abstract The occurrence of numerous shallow slope failures in Malaysia has resulted in the slope stabilization
using live poles as a cheaper and eco-friendly measure. Woody vegetations or live poles were used to reinforce
the slope of residual tropical soil at three sites to improve stability of slopes as they provide an immediate shear
strength enhancement and modify the saturated soil water regime (mechanical and hydrological effects). The
branches of 11 trees/shrubs were tested for root and stem growth in containers under shade-house conditions
and three species (Dillenia indica, Dillenia suffruticosa and Hibiscus tiliaceus) were shortlisted based on root
growth, diameter and length of root, and survival rate for further evaluating their mechanical strength. Based
on the results of the mechanical tests (bending, shear and tensile strength), two species (D. suffruticosa and
H. tiliaceus) were finally selected for planting on the slopes. Laboratory tests were also carried out on these
root and soil matrix for the determination of its shear strength parameters. The live poles from these two
selected trees were planted on three slopes to be monitored for 12 months to observe their growth for the
purpose of providing low-cost and environmentally suitable alternative to the conventional methods of slope
stabilization. Finally, the stability analysis of the slopes was carried out using finite element software PLAXIS.
It was observed that Dillenia suffruticosa and Hibiscus tiliaceus can be used to stabilize slopes against failure.
The results obtained from PLAXIS showed that the factor of safety of the slopes increased significantly by
the reinforcing effects of the live poles.
Keywords Live pole · Investigated species · Slope stability · Shallow failure · Tropical soil ·
Numerical analysis

A. Prasad (B)
Department of Civil Engineering, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi, India
E-mail: arunprasad64@yahoo.com

S. Kazemian · B. B. K. Huat · S. Mafian


Department of Civil Engineering, University Putra Malaysia,
Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

B. Kalantari
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Hormozgan,
Bandar Abbas, Iran

123
602 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

List of Symbols
Am Area of model wall
Ap Area of live pole
b Equivalent wall width in model
d Diameter of live pole
D Center to center distance between two consecutive poles
E Im Flexure stiffness of model wall
E Ip Flexure stiffness of live pole
p A parameter
r A parameter
SF Factor of safety
Wm Weight of model wall
Wp Weight of live pole
Wsoil Unit weight of soil
γm Unit weight of model wall
γp Unit weight of live pole
λ Modification factor

1 Introduction

Shallow landslides are commonly seen on steep residual slopes during or after an intense rainfall. Decisive
factors controlling shallow landslides are morphology of the slopes, geology, mechanical and hydrological
properties of the soils at shallow depth, and the amount of rainfall [1]. Additionally, Normaniza et al. [2] indi-
cated that the vegetation and the selection of plant species are important in stabilizing slopes and protecting
it against soil erosion in terms of the capacity of root reinforcement and water absorption. The reinforcement
of soil by the bioengineering method (live cut brush, woody stems, roots) is a highly promising solution in
reducing the risk of superficial landslide and erosion on natural and man-made slopes [3–13] by creating a
stable, composite earth mass. The functional value of the vegetation in this regard has now been well estab-
lished. Live cuttings and stems are purposely embedded and arranged in the ground where they serve as soil
reinforcement, horizontal drains and barriers to earth movement, and hydraulic pumps or wicks. The basic
idea is to harness the natural properties of vegetation to stabilize the soil. Literature review revealed the use

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 603

of live pole as an engineering method for slope stabilization which was adapted in the high seasonal rainfall
area of natural forest in New Zealand to counter slope creep and more rapid down-slope mass movement [14].
Poplar (Populus) species have been proposed for the temperate regions of the western United States and some
experimental work for assessing the potential for slope reinforcement by planting Casuarinas glauca trees was
conducted in south west of Sydney, Australia [15]. The woody stems initially act as short piles in reinforcing
the slope. In the medium to long term, the roots start to grow all along the woody stems, thus further reinforc-
ing the soil in addition to increasing the woody mass and soil suction due to water uptake [6]. The technique
of using Willow (Salix) shrub and small tree species has been found to be effective in the temperate zones
such as in central Europe (Switzerland and Austria), UK, and USA [6,16,17]. Practically, three more com-
mon species of Willow, i.e., Salix alba, Salix dasyclados, and Salix spaethi are used exclusively as live poles
in UK.
Roots can provide additional shear strength in soils and can be evaluated by simple force equilibrium
models developed [18–20]. These can provide useful insights into the mechanism of soil–root interactions.
Analytical models for soil–root interactions have also been developed [21–23]. These models were employed
to analyze in situ shear test results [24,25]. Many researchers have carried out laboratory shear tests and in
situ shear tests on root-reinforced soil blocks to study the effect of roots on the root–soil matrix [24–29].
As soil is the source of water, minerals, and the medium for anchorage of roots, it absolutely dictates the
success of the plant growth [9]. The most effective soil parameters on root development are soil composition
and texture, structure, profile, and moisture availability. In fact, water and mineral storage capacity is a function
of soil composition and texture [30,31]. Moreover, the reinforcement of the soil slopes using the bioengineer-
ing technique appears to offer significant benefits in term of ecology, aesthetics, sustainability, and finance.
However, it still requires the validation for use on highway slopes, riverbanks and other cases of earth slope
[32–34]. The previous researchers examining the soil reinforcing effects of vegetation have also found fairly
significant geographical similarities which indicate that the results for a certain region are pertinent to those
with different environmental characteristics. Very limited reports are available on the application of the live
pole technique in a tropical environment [9,12,34–36]. Also, very few numerical analyses have been carried
out to analyze the effect of live poles on the slope stabilization [37–40].
Hence this study was carried out to investigate the suitable species that can be used as live poles in improv-
ing the stability of slopes. This paper discusses the results of the screening trials of the potential tropical plant
species for their ability to propagate from the large live cuttings. The influence of soil type on the growth/sur-
vival rate of the species was also carried out before planting the live poles on the selected slopes for the field
trials and monitoring its performance on stabilizing the slopes. An attempt was also made to evaluate the shear
strength parameters of the root–soil matrix. Finally, the numerical analysis of the trial sites stabilized with live
poles was carried out to determine the factor of safety using PLAXIS, a finite element software.

2 Materials and Methodology

2.1 Growth Investigations for Possible Live Pole Species

Eleven tropical indigenous species, which stood as potential live poles, were identified for the screening trials
for their ability to propagate from large live cuttings obtained from the branches of trees based on the selec-
tion criterion suggested by Barker [41]. The selected species are golden shower (Cassia fistula), simpoh air
(Dillenia suffructicosa), chulta (Dillenia indica), purple coraltree (Erythrina fusca), weeping fig (Ficus benj-
amina), quick stick (Gliricidia sepium), sea hibiscus (H. tiliaceus), white popinac (Leucaena leucocephala),
panopia (Macaranga), beak (Pajanella longifolia), and angsana (Pterocarpus indicus). They were planted in
three different soils, brought from the plantation sites and were observed for about 8 weeks in a controlled
environment in a shade-house.
The screening trials of the potential tropical plant species for their ability to propagate from the large
live cuttings were studied. Various species were analyzed for root and stem growth in containers under con-
trolled shade-house conditions and the choice narrowed down to three species (Fig. 1), namely, sea hibiscus
(H. tiliaceus), chulta (D. indica), and simpoh air (D. suffruticosa) based on their root length and mass.
These species were then planted again in selected natural soils under controlled shade-house conditions
for evaluating the influence of soil type on their growth/survival rate. These three plants were also evaluated
for their mechanical strength (bending, shear and tensile) and the final choice narrowed down to two plants,
H. tiliaceus (Ht) and D. suffruticosa (Ds), which were used as the live poles for the field trials. They were
installed using a two-man auger in a close center array on selected trial slopes in the University Putra Malaysia

123
604 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

Fig. 1 Selected species during first stage. (a) Hibiscus tiliaceus (Ht), (b) Dillenia indica (Di), (c) Dillenia suffruticosa (Ds)

(UPM) campus and monitored for about 12 months for studying the behavior of the plants and their influence
on the stability of the slopes. Meanwhile, the selected plants were planted in box made of Perspex and filled
with the same soil as the trial slopes and tested in a large direct shear box at the end of 12 months for deter-
mining the shear strength parameters of root–soil system and the mechanical properties of the roots such as
bending, tensile, shear, and compressive strength.
The mechanical properties of these plant species were determined in the laboratory, and they were then
replanted in selected natural soils to evaluate their ability to withstand field trials and behavior on slope in
natural conditions as elaborated below.
To obtain the root samples for the tensile test, the selected species were first planted in cylindrical containers
filled with soil from two trial sites: Jalan (road) MARDI and Jalan Alumni and kept in the shade-house for
8 months; after that they were exhumed and the roots specimens were cut from the upper and lower parts of
the root zone. The first series of tests was carried out to evaluate the mechanical properties of the stems by
performing shear and bending tests on the fresh woody stems from four age categories; 1, 3, 6, and 12 months
as per BS 373 (1957) testing method. The second series of tests investigated the tensile strength of the roots
as per ASTM D1037-99. Before performing the tensile strength test, both root ends were glued with an epoxy
resin adhesive over 40 mm. Prior to the execution of shearing, a moisturemeter was inserted in the soil specimen
to measure the soil moisture content and to ensure that the soil moisture contents for all the samples are nearly
same. The selected live pole plant species were planted in five different types of soils commonly found in
Malaysia. These sites have a reasonable slope angle of nearly 30◦ and are wide enough for the planting, and
are easy to access.

2.2 First Trial Site (Jalan MARDI)

This slope had a general angle of inclination of about 29◦ , with several shallow failures (0.95–1.0 m deep) at
several locations during July 2007 (Fig. 2).
Most of the failures were rotational failures, but a translational failure was also observed. The slope con-
sisted of loose sandy soil (relative density 34%) with a natural moisture content of about 28.6% and made up
of shale origin (weathering grade VI). Live poles of Ht and Ds were used in this slope during 3rd week of April
2008. Two trial strips, about 50 m apart, were installed with a grid of live poles at 0.5 m by 0.75 m staggered
centers across and down the slope and 1.5 m deep with alternative rows of Ht and Ds as shown in Fig. 3. The
first trial site was a re-graded section of an already failed slope having a relative density of 32% (loose). The
original relative density of the slope was 32%.

2.3 Second Trial Site (Jalan Alumni)

This slope, with less moisture content than the first slope, had an angle of inclination of about 28◦ . The soil
was medium dense (relative density 44%), with a natural moisture content of about 33.62% and made up of
sandstone origin (weathering grade V). An area of about 9.0 m by 10.5 m along and down the slope was planted

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 605

Fig. 2 First trial site (Jalan MARDI, failure in 2007)

with Ht and Ds live poles during 4th week of May 2008 with a grid of live poles at 1.0 m by 0.75 m staggered
centers across and down the slope (Fig. 4). The stem cuttings were planted in rows to a depth of 1.0 m below
the ground surface as only one failure (0.5 m deep) was recorded in the past.

2.4 Monitoring and Exhumation of Live Poles from Trial Sites

For the next 12 months after plantation, the trial sites were examined for growth/survival rate of live poles in
the following frequency: daily for the first 2 weeks, twice a week for the next 1 month, and weekly thereafter.
It was observed that the survival rate of the live poles during the first 6 months, in the 1st trial site at Jalan
MARDI site, was low at 56 and 45% at north and south strips, respectively, and it remained the same at the
end of 12 months. However, for Jalan Alumni it was 83% during the first 6 months and a satisfactory 79% at
the end of 12 months.
The reinforcing effect of the vegetation roots was studied by the change in the shear strength parameters eval-
uated by a specially fabricated large direct shear test apparatus of size 300×300×200 mm (11.81×11.81×7.87
in) as shown in Fig. 5. The strength parameters obtained from direct shear test are shown in Table 1 for Jalan
Alumni soil and in Table 2 for Jalan MARDI soil.
Each fresh cutting (live pole) of Ht and Ds with initial lengths of 750 to 900 mm (29.53–35.43 in.), and
diameters between 25 and 35 mm (0.98–1.38 in.), almost straight, smoothly tapered with no bends or branch
was planted in a Perspex container as shown in Fig. 6. These live poles were allowed to grow for 12 months under
a shade-house and watered every morning. The relative humidity varied from 70 to 90% and the temperature
varied from 28 to 35◦ C (82.4 to 95◦ F).
As the large direct shear test equipment was specially designed for testing only soil and roots, the removal
of the live pole was required before testing. For this, the leaves of the plants were removed and the connections
of the container boxes were then taken out. After separating the upper portion of the Perspex box, the live
pole was cored out using a hollow steel pipe and was removed carefully to ensure that all the roots remained
intact in the soil specimen. The hole formed in the soil after the removal of the live pole was filled back
using the same type of soil in five layers and each layer was compacted carefully by giving 25 blows of the
standard proctor hammer. The density of each layer after compaction was equal to the density as the rest of the
root-reinforced soil. The specimen of the root-reinforced soil of the size for testing in the large shear test box
was prepared from this root-reinforced soil sample by carefully using a fine saw to cut and trim the sample.
Once the specimen of the desired size was prepared, it was placed in the direct shear test box and the test was
performed as per ASTM D3080-04.

3 Numerical Analysis

The stability analysis of the three trial sites was investigated by finite element analysis using PLAXIS, a
commercially available software. A plain strain analysis was carried out using Mohr–Coulomb’s criterion
for the root-reinforced soil [42]. The elastic-plastic Mohr–Coulomb model involves five input parameters:

123
606 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

Fig. 3 Live pole installation layout plan (Jalan MARDI)

Young’s modulus (E), Poisson’s ratio (ν) for soil elasticity, friction angle (ϕ), and cohesion (c) for soil plas-
ticity and angle of dilatancy (ψ). This model represents a first-order approximation of soil behavior. The input
parameters to model the root-reinforced soil were obtained from the large direct shear test, and the parameters
of the wall (live pole) were obtained from the tests performed on the live poles. These input parameters are
presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. As recommended by Brinkgreve and Vermeer [43], the angle of dilatancy was
taken as null.

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 607

Fig. 4 Live pole installation layout plan (Jalan Alumni)

The live pole was modeled as plain-strain wall (described later on) and this was modeled with 5-node
beam elements. The beam elements are based on Mindlin’s beam theory that allows beam deflections due to
shearing as well as bending. These elements can become plastic if a prescribed maximum bending moment
is reached. The material properties required for beam elements are axial stiffness, EA, and a flexural rigidity,
EI. The values of EA and EI relate to stiffness per unit width in the out-of-plane direction. Hence the axial
stiffness, EA was given in force per unit width, and the flexural rigidity, EI, was given in force length squared
per unit width. In addition to the above stiffness parameters, a Poisson’s ratio was also used.
The root-reinforced soil was modeled with 15-node triangular elements, which provides a fourth-order
interpolation for displacements and the numerical integration involves 12 Gauss points (stress points). Inter-
face elements have been used at the interface between the wall (live pole) and soil to model the soil-live pole
interaction. With 15-node soil elements, the corresponding interface elements were defined by five pairs of
nodes. The basic property of an interface element is the associated material data set for soil and interface.
A typical model consisted of 1,285 elements and 10,764 nodes.
PLAXIS allows a fully automatic generation of finite element meshes, which is based on a robust tri-
angulation procedure resulting in unstructured meshes. The mesh was refined around the live poles as large
stress concentration was expected in this region. Along the slope, both radial deformation and settlement were
allowed, and along the bottom of the tank, both radial deformation and settlement were restricted.
An undrained behavior was assumed for all the materials for considering the generation and dissipation of
excess pore water pressures. The safety analysis was carried out using Phi-c reduction option in PLAXIS in

123
608 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

Fig. 5 Schematic diagram of the large direct shear box

Table 1 Results of large shear box test for Jalan Alumni Soil

No. Sample descriptions Direct shear test Engineering parameters Remarks


σn (kPa) τ (kPa) ϕ (◦ ) c (kPa) γn (kN/m3 ) wn (%)
1 Jalan Alumni 306.59 136 17.0 27.03 Same compaction
depth 300–500 mm 459.88 166 20.1 14.7 16.9 28.60 and test conditions
613.17 248 16.4 29.76
2 Jalan Alumni 306.59 176 17.5 87.2 15.9 27.85 Planted on 1st Feb 2008
+ Ht roots 459.88 249 15.8 26.58
depth 300 mm 613.17 272 15.7 26.23 Tested on 7th March 2009
3 Jalan Alumni 306.59 189 16.7 106.1 15.6 27.80 Planted on 1st Feb 2008
+ Ht roots 459.88 263 16.0 27.02
depth 500 mm 613.17 281 15.6 28.39 Tested on 10th March 2009

Table 2 Results of large shear box test for Jalan MARDI Soil

No. Sample descriptions Direct shear test Engineering parameters Remarks


σn (kPa) τ (kPa) ϕ (◦ ) c (kPa) γn (kN/m3 ) wn (%)
1 Jalan MARDI 306.59 121 17.6 11.2 18.5 32.36 Same compaction
depth 300 to 500 mm 459.88 131 18.3 33.62 and testing
2 Jalan MARDI 306.59 139 16.0 56.5 17.7 28.83 Planted on 2nd Apr 2008
+Ds roots 459.88 199 17.6 26.77
3 Jalan MARDI 306.59 146 17.1 60.2 17.7 30.90 Planted on 2nd Apr 2008
+ Ht roots 459.88 220 17.7 29.26

which the strength parameters cohesion (c) and tanϕ of the soil are successively reduced until failure of the
structure occurs. The strength of the interface is also reduced in the same way. The total multiplier Msf is used
to define the value of the soil strength parameters at a given stage in the analysis:
 Msf = tan ϕinput cinput
=
tan ϕreduced creduced
The strength parameters are reduced successively in each step until all the steps have been performed. The
final step should result in a fully developed failure mechanism, if it does not, the calculation must be repeated

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 609

Fig. 6 Large shear box test specimens (2 months after plantation)

Table 3 Soil and root parameters

No. Soil and live pole parameters Jalan Alumni Jalan MARDI (North) Jalan MARDI (South)
Soil Soil+ Soil+ Soil Soil+ Soil+ Soil Soil+ Soil+
Ds Ht Ds Ht Ds Ht
1 Soil cohesion (c, kPa) 0.1 5.6 7.2 0.38 44.4 47.3 0.3 41.9 44.6
2 Modification factor for c (λc ) 1.0 0.28 0.24 1.0 0.39 0.38 1.0 0.39 0.38
3 Angle of internal friction (ϕ,◦ ) 33.4 26.2 27.4 22.2 20.2 21.6 18.5 16.8 18.0
4 Modification factor for ϕ (λϕ ) 1.0 1.24 1.14 1.0 1.08 1.02 1.0 1.08 1.02
5 Unit weight (γn , kN/m3 ) 18.1 16.9 17.0 18.5 17.8 17.9 17.3 16.6 16.7
6 Elasticity modulus of soil 30.0 34.0 38.0 25.0 29.0 29.0 15.0 17.5 17.5
(E S , MPa)
7 Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.3 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.36
8 Primary elasticity modulus of – 1,600.0 800.0 – 1,600.0 800.0 – 1,600.0 800. 0
live pole (E L1 , MPa)
9 Elasticity modulus of live pole – 1,800.0 1,400.0 – 1,800.0 1,400.0 – 1,800.0 1,400.0
(E L , MPa)
10 Primary diameter of live pole – 50.0 57.5 – 50.0 57.5 – 50.0 57.5
(d1 , mm)
11 Diameter of live pole – 55.0 62.5 – 55.0 62.5 – 55.0 62.5
after 12 months (d2 , mm)
12 Length of live pole (L , m) – 1.0 1.0 – 1.5 1.5 – 1.0 1.5
13 Depth of improved soil (yt ,m) – 0.50 0.50 – 0.75 0.75 – 0.5 0.75
14 Tensile strength of root (Tr , kN/m) – 25.8 15.8 – 42.4 43.4 – – –
15 Tensile strength of root–soil system – 25.8 15.8 – 42.4 43.4 – – –
16 Angle of root with horizontal (◦ ) – 30 30 – 30 30 – – –

with a larger number of additional steps. Once the failure mechanism is reached, the factor of safety (SF) is
given by [44]:

available strength
SF = = value of Msf at failure
strength at failure

For the numerical analysis, the live pole array, which acts as a pile row was modeled as a plain strain wall. In
order to do this, the live pole array was replaced by an equivalent wall as shown in Fig. 7.
This plane strain model represents the live pole and the soil in between them. By assuming the same flexure
stiffness (EI) and weight for both sides of this transformation and negligible values for axial stiffness (EA)
and bearing capacity of the soil, width (b) and the unit weight (γm ) of the equivalent wall could be determined
which was then used to calculate the EA EI,and also the weight of the live pole model as given below:
4
The flexure stiffness of live pole, E Ip = 64 dD , where E is Elastic modulus, Ip moment of inertia, d diameter
of poles, and, D is center to center distance between two consecutive poles.

123
610 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

Fig. 7 Modeling live pole row as a plain strain wall

Also, the flexure stiffness of plain strain model is


b3
E Im = ,
12
Where b thickness of the wall, and,
E Ip = E Im (assumed in the modeling)
Hence,

3 π d4
b= 12 × × ,
64 D
Also, the weight of the pole is
W p = A p × γp
where Wp is weight of the pole, Ap area of the pole, and γp unit weight of the pole.
Similarly, the weight of the model wall is
W m = A m × γm
where Wm weight of the model wall, Am area of the model wall, and γm unit weight of the model wall.
Hence, the weight of the soil is:
Wsoil = (Am − Ap ) × γsoil
Further, the weight of the model wall can also be written as:
Wm = Wp + Wsoil
Hence, the unit weight of the model wall will be
 
π d2 γp − γsoil
γm = γsoil +
4 D b
Now, the modification factors (λc ) of the live poles are calculated as
 
1− p
λc = p +
r
where
Area of the large shear box specimen
p=
Related area of each live pole in the field
and,

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 611

Strength parameters of the root–soil matrix


r=
Strength parameters of the soil
For instance, based on the cohesion of Jalan MARDI-North site soil without plant and with live pole (Ds),
which are 8.8 and 44.4 kPa, respectively, the value of r is equal to 5.05. Regarding the dimensions of the large
direct shear test specimen (0.3 × 0.3m) and the related area to each live pole in this site (0.5 × 0.75m), the
value of p is obtained as 0.24, and therefore,
 
1 − 0.24
λc = 0.24 + .05 = 0.39
5.05
It can be assumed that as the roots growing in each live pole are usually symmetrical, the related area of each
live pole should be circular. Since the live poles are tapered, their diameter is higher at the top and it goes
on reducing as we move down. Hence, the related area of the live pole at the top will have a higher value of
modification factor, compared with the modification factor of the live pole at the bottom. Therefore, the above
calculated value is an average modification factor for the live poles.
Parameters of the root-reinforced used in the numerical analysis were obtained from the results of the large
direct shear test and are shown in Table 3 [13,45].

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Plant Species Screening and Growth

The growth of the plant was measured in terms of dry mass (drying in open air for 3 months) and wet mass
(fresh from the site) of the root and are given in Fig. 8.
Based on the screening trial results, three species, namely, H. tiliaceus (Ht), D. indica (Di), and D. suffruti-
cosa (Ds) were selected as the primary species for further evaluation for their survival/death rate, before being
used as probable species for field trial, as they had better root length, root diameter, and good dry/green mass.
Although Pterocarpus indicus (Pi) showed good root length and diameter, it was not short listed for the field
trial as it was difficult to prepare straighter fresh cuttings with a root length of about 2.0 m. The three selected
plant species along with the roots are shown in Fig. 1. From these three species, two [H. tiliaceus (Ht) and
D. suffruticosa (Ds)] were finally selected as they showed higher mechanical strength.

4.2 Characterization of the Mechanical Properties of Selected Live Pole Species

The results of the two series of tests on the stems and roots of the two selected potential live pole species are
summarized in Fig. 9. It is observed that Ds has, on the whole, the highest average mechanical properties as
compared with Ht and Di (20 and 60% higher average bending strength than Ht and Di, respectively, and 27%
higher shear strength than Ht). Further, the shear strength of Ds was observed to be about 10 and 40% higher
than Di and Ht, respectively.
Di has the highest shear strength among the 1-month-old specimens. The results show that D. indica (Di)
has the least bending strength among all (22.952 kPa). It has slightly higher shear strength (5.267 MPa) among
1-month-old specimens, but subsequently, H. tiliaceus (Ht) and D. suffruticosa (Ds) showed higher shear
strength (5.001 and 6.613 MPa, respectively). The tensile strength was also found to be the lowest for Di
roots (4.2 and 6.841 MPa for Alumni soil; and 13.598 and 11.552 MPa for MARDI soil). After considering
the results, it was concluded that as D. indica (Di) could not meet all the conditions, H. tiliaceus (Ht) and
D. suffruticosa (Ds) were considered the most suitable species for planting on the trial slopes.

4.3 Influence of Soil Type on Plant Growth

Based on the ASTM D2487-06, the soil at Jalan Alumni was classified as SW and the shear strength parameters,
cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (ϕ), were found to be 0.1 kPa and 33◦ , respectively. Similarly, the
soil at Jalan MARDI was classified as SP and the cohesion (c) and angle of internal friction (ϕ) were found to
be 0.3 kPa and 19◦ respectively.

123
612 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

Fig. 8 Comparison of species growth

The geological study of the soils revealed that all the three sites belong to RSS grade VI. The soil from
Jalan Alumni is of sandstone origin and the soils from Jalan MARDI (south and north) are of quartzite and
phyllite origin. Further, the X-ray diffraction analysis (Fig. 10) showed that the soils had quartz as the dominant
mineral and kaolinite and cristobalite as the secondary minerals.

4.4 Field Trial on Slopes

The field trials were carried out on two slopes: one meta-stable slope at Jalan MARDI and the other on a stable
slope at Jalan Alumni, both in the University Putra Malaysia campus. Live poles of Ht and Ds were used on
this slope during 3rd week of April 2008. As mentioned earlier, the two trial strips, about 50 m apart, were
installed with a grid of live poles at 0.5 m by 0.75 m staggered centers across and down the slope and 1.5 m
deep with alternative rows of Ht and Ds as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The first trial site was a re-graded section
of an already failed slope at a relative density of 32% (loose). The original relative density of the slope was
also 32%.

4.5 Exhumation and Examination of Live Poles

At the end of the monitoring period, two live poles each of Ht and Ds were exhumed from the trial sites to
study their growth and the mechanical properties (Fig. 11). The geometry and the strength parameters of the

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 613

Fig. 9 Mechanical properties of selected live poles

123
614 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

Fig. 10 XRD of soil (Jalan MARDI)

Fig. 11 Exhumed live poles, a Ht and b Ds

live poles were determined. A visual inspection of Ht live poles (Fig. 5) showed that it grew to a total length
of 1,850 mm (72.83 in.) and approximately 1,625 mm (63.97 in.) of the total length were under the ground,
whereas for Ds poles the corresponding figures were 1,950 mm (76.77 in.) and 1,635 mm (64.37 in.).
The roots of Ht had grown by about 22% of the original length under the ground, but the Ds roots could
grow by 27% of its embedded length (Jalan MARDI). On the other hand (Jalan Alumni), the roots of Ht grew
longer by about 18% and the roots of Ds grew by about 15%. On the other hand, the diameter of the roots of

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 615

Fig. 12 Mechanical properties of the live poles

Ht was observed to range from 0.5 to 5.7 mm (0.02–0.22 in.) and the roots of Ds ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 mm
(0.02–0.1 in.).
The strength of the live pole stems before and after plantation is presented in Fig. 12. It is observed that
the difference between the mechanical properties of Ht poles at about ±1–8% is not substantial, while for the
Ds poles the bending strength increased by 25%.
Further, the average tensile strength of both, the Ds and the Ht roots from the Jalan MARDI soils, is nearly
same. However, the Ds roots are observed to be about 40% higher tensile strength than the Ht roots in the Jalan
Alumni soil. Moreover, it is also observed that the average tensile strength of the upper roots of both plants is
about 35% more than the average strength of their lower roots.
The results after 2 months of plantation were analyzed and showed that Ht and Ds had not only the fastest
growing rates but were also the most adaptable to the different soil types and also the growth of Di did not
match that of the other two species, Ht and Ds.

4.6 Shear Strength of Soil–Root System

The strength parameters of the soil–root system were determined by a specially designed and fabricated large
direct shear box as shown in Fig. 5. The soil–root samples in the Perspex box for the test are shown in Fig. 6.
The results of large direct shear box are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
It is observed that the presence of roots has significantly improved the shear strength of the soil and it also
shows that the effect is apparent on the cohesion. The root of Ht (Table 1) has enhanced the cohesion (c) and

123
616 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

Fig. 13 Section with undeformed mesh (Jalan MARDI-North site and Ds live poles)

Table 4 Factor of safety

Status of site Water level Jalan Alumni (North) Jalan MARDI Jalan MARDI (South)
Non planted section High 1.3499 2.6290 2.5266
Low 1.5351 2.8817 2.7346
Section + Ds High 1.5218 5.9456 6.0794
12 months after planting Low 1.7974 6.5682 6.3500
Sensitivity analysis for High 12.7% 126.2% 140.6%
Section + Ds Low 17.1% 127.9% 132.2%
Section + Ht High 1.6032 6.1147 5.8768
12 months after planting Low 1.8056 6.4955 6.5556
%Variation for High 18.8% 132.6% 132.6%
Section + Ht Low 17.6% 125.4% 139.7%

the increase is 493% for 300 mm (11.81 in.) and 622% for 500 mm (19.68 in.) as compared with the unplanted
soil. Similarly, Table 2 shows the results for Ht and Ds roots at Jalan MARDI after 12 months. It is observed
that the roots of Ht and Ds have enhanced the cohesion (c) by 537.5 and 504.5%, respectively, as compared
with the unplanted soil and that Ht exhibits about 6% higher cohesion than Ds. This also agrees well with the
findings of some researchers that the roots have little influence on the friction angle of root-reinforced soils
with respect to that of root-free soils, and the shear strength increase of root-reinforced soils with respect to
root-free soils is equated to the increase in apparent cohesion [21,28,46]. Further, the friction angle of soil is
not affected by the presence of the roots [21,22].
These results show that the roots significantly contribute to the increase in the shear strength of the soil.
The contribution mainly arises from the cohesion and not the angle of internal friction. The effect varies with
increasing depth and age of plant depending on other specifications of plant roots. It shows that the roots of Ht
and Ds play an important role in strengthening the soil. The roots interact with the soil to produce a composite
soil–root matrix in which the roots act as fibers of relatively high-tensile strength and adhesion embedded
in soil. The shear strength of the soil is therefore enhanced by the root matrix. The root systems lead to an
increase in the soil strength through an increase in the cohesion brought about by their binding action in the
root/soil composite and the adhesion of the soil particles to the roots. These findings agree well with Gray
and Ohashi [46] who reported that the roots have little influence on the friction angle of the root-reinforced
soils with respect to root-free soil, and the increase in the shear strength is basically from an increase in the
cohesion [21,28].

4.7 Numerical Analysis

In this study, three trial sites (Jalan Alumni, Jalan MARDI—North and Jalan MARDI—South) were modeled
and analyzed. A typical section of the slope with an undeformed mesh is shown in Fig. 13. The factor of safety
(FOS), for different cases, is presented in Table 4.

123
Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618 617

As shown in Table 4, the factor of safety increased by 12.7 and 18.8% for Jalan Alumni, 126.2 and 132.6%
for Jalan MARDI-North, and 140.6 and 132.6% for Jalan MARDI-South sites with Ht and Ds, respectively, as
compared with non-planted soil. The increase in factor of safety was 17.1 and 17.6% for Jalan Alumni, 127.9
and 125.4% for Jalan MARDI-North, and 132.2 and 139.7% for Jalan MARDI-South sites with Ht and Ds,
respectively.
This increase in factor of safety may be attributed to the higher stress concentration around the live poles
leading to a higher load-carrying capacity of the live pole–soil matrix. It is observed that the live pole rein-
forcement is more effective in Jalan MARDI trial sites because of higher cohesion of the natural soil.

5 Conclusions

Shallow landslides commonly occur on slopes with a moderate to high gradient during or after an intense
rainfall. The vegetation provides a natural bioengineering method to prevent slope failures. The mechanism
of soil–root interaction at high-soil moisture content plays an important role in assessing reasonably the con-
tribution of roots to the shear strength of soils during or after a rainfall. The growth of these live pole species
on slope soil provides a form of soil nailing or dowelling which offers immediate improved slope stability.
The continued growth would be beneficial for the slope as its stability will increase over time through the
development of a root system, increase in soil suction, and result in reduction in the soil moisture. Therefore,
the live pole not only acts as a pile but also enhances the apparent (virtual) cohesion of the soil. Based on
this study, the roots of the selected live pole species can increase the apparent cohesion of the soil by about
600%.
Based on these findings, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. H. tiliaceus (Ht) and D. suffruticosa (Ds) poles can be effectively used for the stabilization of the shallow
slope failure in sandy soils.
2. The live pole technique is effective even for shallow slope failures for a depth of about 1.5 m.
3. The live cut stems and the branches provide immediate reinforcement; secondary stabilization occurs as
a result of the growing roots along the length of the buried stems.
4. The live poles can be used on the suspect slopes providing low-cost and environmentally suitable alterna-
tives to the conventional methods of the slope stabilization.
5. The factor of safety (SF) of the slopes increase using live poles as evident by the finite element analysis
using PLAXIS.

Acknowledgments The authors express their sincere appreciation to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
(MOSTI) Malaysia, for the Grant Ref. 04-01-04-SF0620 (Slope stabilization using bioengineering (live pole technique) under
the Innovation Grant Scheme that made this research possible. They are also thankful to Prof. P. K. Panda, Professor in Technical
Writing, Faculty of Engineering, Banaras Hindu University, for editing and proofreading the manuscript.

References

1. Matsushi, Y.; Hattanji, T.; Matsukura, Y.: Mechanisms of shallow landslides on soil-mantled hillslopes with permeable and
impermeable bedrocks in the Boso Peninsula, Japan. Geomorphology. 76, 92–108 (2006)
2. Normaniza, O.; Ali, F.H.; Barakbah, S.S.: Engineering properties of Leucaena leucocephala for prevention of slope failure.
Ecol. Eng. 32, 215–221 (2008)
3. Gray, D.H.; Leiser, A.T.; White, C.A.: Combined vegetative-structural slope stabilization. Civil Eng. 50(1), 82–85 (1980)
4. Riestenberg, M.H.; Dunford, S.S.: The role of woody vegetation in stabilizing slopes in the Cincinnati area. Geol. Soc. Am.
Bull. 94, 504–518 (1983)
5. Coppin, N.J.; Richards, I.J.: Use of Vegetation in Civil Engineering. CIRIA, Butterworths, London, UK (1990)
6. Steele, D.P.; Mac Neil, D.J.; Barker, D.H.; McMahon, W.: The use of live willow poles for stabilizing highway slopes.
TRL619, TRL Limited, Crowthorne, England (2004)
7. Huat, B.B.K.; Ali, F.H.; Maail, S.: The effect of natural fiber on the shear strength of soil. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 9–13 (2005)
(Special Issue on Recent Advances in Composite Material Technology)
8. Barrett, K.; Goldsmith, W.; Silva, M.: Integrated bioengineering and geotechnical treatments for streambank restoration and
stabilization along a landfill. J. Soil Water Conserv. 61(3), 144–153 (2006)
9. Huat, B.B.K.; Ali, F.H.; Barker, D.H.; Singh, H.; Husaini, O.: Landslides: Occurrences, Assessment, Analyses and Reme-
diation (Preventive) Solutions. University Putra Malaysia Press, Serdang (2008)
10. Xu, Q.J.; Zhang, L.M.; Wang, W.C.; Zhang, Y.: Biotechnical means of soil stabilization using willow cuttings. J. Soil and
Water Conserv. 64(2), 105–119 (2009)

123
618 Arab J Sci Eng (2012) 37:601–618

11. Petrone, A.; Preti, F.: Suitability of soil bioengineering techniques in Central America: a case study in Nicaragua. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 5, 379–403 (2008)
12. Petrone, A.; Preti, F.: Soil bio-engineering for risk mitigation and environmental restoration in a humid tropical area. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 6, 5139–5176 (2009)
13. Loades, K.W.; Bengough, A.G.; Bransby, M.F.; Hallett, P.D.: Planting density influence on fibrous root reinforcement of
soils. Ecol. Eng (2010) (in press)
14. Stokes, A.; Atger, C.; Bengough, A.G.; Fourcaud, T.; Sidle, R.C.: Desirable plant root traits for protecting natural and
engineered slopes against landslides. Plant Soil. 324, 1–30 (2009)
15. Docker, B.B.; Hubble, T.C.T.: Riverbank collapse on the Nepean river in the Wallacia valley: assessing possible causes by
historical and geomechanical methods. J. Proc. River Soc. New South Wales. 134, 65–78 (2001)
16. Wu, T.H.: Slope Stabilization. In: Morgan, R.P.C.; Rickson, R.J. (eds.) Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control, A Bioen-
gineering Approach. Chapman and Hall, London (1995)
17. Wu, T.H.; Fox, P.J.; Trenner, B.R.; Kokesh, K.B.; Barker, D.H.: Current research on soil bioengineering for slope stabilization.
In: Proceedings of Geo-Congress, New Orleans (2008)
18. Wu, T.H.: Investigation of Landslides on Prince of Wales Island. Geotechnical Engineering Report 5, Civil Engineering
Department, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA (1976)
19. Wu, T.H.; McKinell, W.P.; Swanston, D.N.: Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Can.
Geotech. J. 16(1), 19–33 (1979)
20. Gray, D.H.; Lieser, A.T.: Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York (1982)
21. Waldron, L.J.: The shear resistance of root-permeated homogenous and stratified soil. J. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 41, 843–849
(1977)
22. Waldron, L.J.; Dakessian, S.: Soil reinforcement by roots: calculation of increased soil shear strength from root properties.
Soil Sci. 132(6), 427–435 (1981)
23. Wu, T.H.; Beal, P.E.; Lan, C.: In-situ shear tests of soil root systems. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE. 114(12), 1376–1394 (1988a)
24. Wu, T.H.; McOmber, R.M.; Erb, R.T.; Beal, P.E.: Study of soil–root interactions. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE. 114(12), 1351–1375
(1988b)
25. Wu, T.H.; Watson, A.: In situ shear tests of soil blocks with roots. Can. Geotech. J. 35(4), 579–590 (1998)
26. Endo, T.; Tsuruta, T.: The Effect of Tree Roots Upon the Shearing Strength of Soil. Annual Report No. 18. Hokkaido Branch,
Tokyo Forest Experiment Station, Tokyo, Japan (1969)
27. Tobias, S.: Shear strength of the soil root bond system. In: Vegetation and Slopes, pp. 280–286, Thomas Telford, London
(1995)
28. Operstein, V.; Frydman, S.: The influence of vegetation on soil strength. Ground Improv. 4, 81–89 (2000)
29. Zhang, G., Zhang, J.M.: A large-scale apparatus for monotonic and cyclic soil-structure interface test. Geotech. Test. J.
29(5), 401–408 (2006)
30. Norris, J.E.; Greenwood, J.R.: In-situ shear strength and pull-out testing to demonstrate the enhanced shear strength of root
reinforced soil. In: Bromhead, E.; Dixon, N.; Ibsen, M.L. (eds.) Land Slides, Research, Theory and Practice, pp. 1123–1128.
Thomas Telford Books, London (2000)
31. Normaniza, O.; Barakbah, S.S.: Parameters to predict slope stability-soil water and root profiles. Ecol. Eng. 28, 90–95 (2006)
32. Polster, D.F.: Soil bioengineering techniques for Riparian Restoration. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual British Columbian
Mine Reclamation Symposium. Dawson Creek, BC (2002)
33. Pollen, N.; Simon, A.: Estimating the mechanical effects of riparian vegetation on stream bank stability using a fiber bundle
model. Water Res. Res. 41, W07025 (2005)
34. Huat, B.B.K., Barker, D.H., Ahmed, J.: Slope instability and climate change for Malaysia. In: Proceedings of the Expert
Symposium on Climate Change: Modeling, Impacts and Adaptations. Singapore, August 1 (2007)
35. Gue, S.S.; Tan, Y.C.: Landslides: abuses of the prescriptive method. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Slopes. Public Works Department, Kuala Lumpur, August, pp. 7–8 (2006)
36. Evett, S.R.; Schwartz, R.C.; Tolk, J.A.; Howell, T.A.: Soil profile water content determination: spatiotemporal variability of
electromagnetic and neutron probe sensors in access tubes. Vadose Zone J. 8(4), 926–941 (2009)
37. Nakamura, H.; Nghiem, Q.M.; Iwasa, N.: Reinforcement of tree roots in slope stability: a case study from the Ozawa slope
in Iwate Prefecture, Japan. In: Stokes, A.; Spanos, I.; Norris, J.E.; Cammeraat, L.H. (eds.) Eco-and Ground Bioengineering:
The Use of Vegetation to Improve Slope Stability. Developments in plant and soil sciences, Springer, Dordrecht (2007)
38. Tosi, M.: Root tensile strength relationships and their slope stability implications of three shrub species in the Northern
Apennines (Italy). Geomorphology 87, 268–283 (2007)
39. Dupuy, L.; Fourcaud, T.; Stokes, A.; A numerical investigation into the influence of soil type and root architecture on tree
anchorage. Plant Soil. 278, 119–134 (2005a)
40. Dupuy, L.; Fourcaud, T.; Stokes, A.: A numerical investigation into factors affecting the anchorage of roots in tension. Eur.
J. Soil Sci. 56, 319–327 (2005b)
41. Barker, D.H.: Live pole stabilisation in the tropics. In: Barker, D.H.; Watson, A.; Sombatpanit, S.; Northcutt, B.; Magli-
nao, A.R. (eds.) Ground and Water Bioengineering for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilisation, pp. 301–308. Scientific
Press/International Erosion Control Association/World Association of Soil & Water Conservation, Science Publishers, Inc.,
New Hampshire, USA (2004)
42. Fan, C.-C.; Su, C.-F.: Role of roots in the shear strength of root-reinforced soils with high moisture content. Ecol. Eng. 33,
57–166 (2008)
43. Brinkgreve, R.B.J.; Vermeer, P.A.: PLAXIS Manual Version 7. Balkema, Rotterdam (1998)
44. Brinkgreve, R.B.J.; Broere, W.: PLAXIS Manual. Balkema, Rotterdam (2004)
45. Noonan, D.K.J.; Nixon, J.F.: The determination of Young’s modulus from the direct shear test. Can. Geotech. J. 9(4), 504–507
(1972)
46. Gray, D.H.; Ohashi, H.: Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 112(GT3), 335–353 (1983)

123

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi