A Finite Difference Study on the Use of Inclined

Micropiles for Soil Slope Stabilization under Seismic

Loading
Sahar Ismail & Riad Al Wardany
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rafik Hariri University,
Mechref, Lebanon
Fadi Hage Chehade
Numerical Center, Doctoral School of Science and Technology, IUT-Saida, Lebanese University, Beirut,
Lebanon

ABSTRACT
Micropiles have been used for soil slope stabilization and the method has proven to be fast and economic thanks to its
simplicity. Design methods of such stabilizing systems are not fully developed and they mainly depend on the judgment
and experience of the geotechnical engineer. This paper presents a finite difference study of the behavior of a 2D silty-
sandy slope stabilized with inclined micropiles under static and dynamic conditions. The slope factor of safety, the
horizontal displacement and the velocity amplification of soil particles along the inclined surface of the slope were
evaluated for the different studied cases. The results show that the factor of safety and the horizontal displacement of
soil particles depend on the micropile inclination angle, its embedment length and position within the slope as well as the
number of the used micropiles. Increasing the number of micropiles was found to have a positive impact on the reduction
of the permanent particle displacement along the inclined slope. It was concluded that the optimum stabilizing system
consists of micropiles placed at the middle of the stabilized slope with an insertion angle equal to 45° with respect to the
slope.

RÉSUMÉ
La méthode d’utilisation des micropieux pour la stabilisation des talus de sols a démontré une efficacité importante vue
sa rapidité et son cout économique. Les méthodes de conception des talus avec les systèmes de micropieux ne sont
pas entièrement développées et elles dépendent principalement de la subjectivité et de l’expérience de l’ingénieur
géotechnique. Cet article présente une étude paramétrique de différences finis menée sur des talus limoneux-sableux
soumis à des chargements de type statique et sismique. Les résultats démontrent que le facteur de sécurité du talus
ainsi que le déplacement horizontal des particules de sols dépendent du degré d’inclinaison du micropieu dans le talus,
la longueur du micropieu, sa position dans le corps du talus et le nombre des pieux utilisés. Des valeurs élevées de
facteur de sécurité du talus, associées avec des valeurs minimales du déplacement des particules de sol ont été
obtenues avec les micropieux possédant des longueurs importantes. L’augmentation du nombre des micropieux utilisés
a démontré un effet positif sur la réduction du déplacement permanent des particules de sol tout au long du talus.
L’étude démontre qu’une solution optimale des micropieux consiste de les placer au milieu du talus avec un angle
d’insertion de 45° par rapport à sa surface inclinée.

1 INTRODUCTION be used for soils containing rubble and boulders. On the

Geotechnical engineers face slope stability problems for
which they must design safe and economic solutions.
These solutions can be provided by using conventional
construction methods that rely on displacing earth
materials to reduce the driving forces on the slope, or to
increase the resisting forces that prevent slope failure.
However, these solutions are not always possible. Piles
are usually considered for slope stability problems.
Nevertheless, micropiles can withstand the axial and
lateral loads and can be considered as substitutes for
piles (Chowdhury et al. 2010).
Micropiles are small 80 to 300mm diameter piles with
a typical length between 12 and 25m. They are drilled and
grouted non displacement piles. Micropiles used for slope
stabilization provide low noise and vibration solution and
produce small amount of spoil. They are also excellent for
sites with low headroom and restricted access and may
other hand, micropiles may be susceptible to buckling
under seismic and liquefaction scenarios. They present a
high slenderness ratio with limited experience in their use
for slope stabilization. They require some specialized
equipment and are still not cost effective compared to
other solution techniques. (FHWA 2005)
As mentioned earlier, piles are commonly used to
reduce the soil displacement, thus to prevent or decrease
the slope failure mechanism. Several parameters affect
the stability of a reinforced slope with piles such as the
pile diameter, spacing and location. Researchers do not
agree on the optimal location of the piles on a slope.
However, they agree that piles used in stabilizing slopes
must have a relatively large diameter and be stiff enough
to generate a large stabilizing force. Moreover, piles must
be extended well below the critical failure surface in order
for the failure surface not to be shifted downwards below
the pile tip and to have a safety factor below the aimed
value (FOS>1.4) (Poulos 1995).
 Several studies were conducted to find the optimal
location of the piles within a slope. The results obtained
from researches are different and sometimes
contradictory due to the fact that the forces provided by
the piles were considered in different ways depending on
the soil-pile interaction technique method. Using the limit
equilibrium method, "(Ito et al. 1979)" and "(Hassiotis et
al. (1997)" found that the maximum effect of piles on
slope stability is when the piles are located in the upper
middle part of the slope while "(Poulos 1995)" obtained
that the row of piles should be located in the surrounding
area at the center of the failure wedge in order to avoid
the failure surface in front or behind the pile; whereas
"(Lee et al. 1995)" demonstrated that the most effective
pile positions are at the toe and crest of the slope when
the piles are installed in homogeneous soils. The
numerical methods were also used to study this subject.
"(Cai et al. 2000)" and "(Won et al. 2005)" found that piles
should be located in the middle of the slope and "(Wei et
al. 2009)" obtained that the optimal location of piles is
between the middle of the slope and the middle of the
critical surface of the slope with no pile which is very close
to the middle of slope. However, "(Li et al. 2011)"
concluded that piles should be located in the upper middle
part of the slope to obtain the maximum factor of safety.
Finally, "(Ausilio et al. 2001)" using the kinematic
approach of limit analysis and "(Nian et al. 2008)" using
the limit analysis found that the optimal location of piles is
near the toe of the slope.
The effect of pile length was considered by "(Yang et
al. 2011)" who showed that the factor of safety increases
with the increase in pile length but tends to be a constant
beyond the critical pile length value. This critical length
increases with the decrease in pile spacing. Also, smaller
piles spacing increase the integrity of reinforced slopes.
Soil properties affect the pile length where the critical pile
length for clayey soil tends to be smaller than the critical
length of sandy soils for free head pile and non rotated
head pile but it is longer for restrained head piles.
Recently, micropiles have been used at an increasing
rate for slope stabilization in earthquake zones. However,
the dynamic performance of micropile system is still
limited and further studies should be performed to provide
engineers with guidelines about using, installing and
designing micropiles for slope stabilization. "(Howe 2010)"
showed that to obtain the maximum factor of safety, the
optimal location of battered micropiles is near the middle
of the circular failure surface, or more precisely from 50 to
70% from the slope toe. However, "(Esmaeilli et al. 2013)"
found that the most appropriate location for a group of
micropiles is at the toe of the embankment and they
recommended the angle between the micropile and the
vertical axis not to exceed 45°. They also studied the
effect of the safety factor on the slope geometry. They
showed that the safety factor increases when micropiles'
spacing decreases, slightly increases with the increase in
the number of battered micropiles and decreases when
the length and the diameter of the micropiles decrease.
"(Sun et al. 2013)" explained that the optimal location to
insert a single vertical micropile is near the midpoint of the
slope. They also gave some rules to follow to obtain the
length of the micropile above and below the critical slip
surface, the shear capacity of the battered micropiles and
in calculating the micropile spacing required in a row.
Therefore, all studies about micropiles and slope
stability consider vertical or battered micropiles. Thus, a
2D finite difference parametric study using FLAC was
performed to study the effect of inclined micropiles on
slope stabilization and considered the effects of
micropiles inclination angle, length, position along the
inclined slope and number. The results are presented in
terms of the slope factor of safety FOS, horizontal
displacement of soil particles at the slope surface (xdisp)
and amplification in the velocity of the soil particles.
2 FINITE DIFFERENCE MODEL
2.1 Software
This study was performed using the numerical
modeling software Flac 2D (version 2.1) “Advanced Two
Dimensional Continuum Modeling for Geotechnical
Analysis of Rock, Soil and Structural Support”. The
numerical software uses finite difference models that
represent complex behavior not suited to finite element
models such as non linear material behavior and unstable
systems, large displacement and strains, etc. Finite
difference methods solve differential equilibrium equations
such as strain-displacement while finite element methods
are based on numerical approximation of the equations of
the continuity of displacements and stresses between
mass elements and connectivity of mass elements.
Materials in Flac are represented by elements or zones
which form a grid that is adjusted by the user to fit the
shape. 
2.2 The Model
A 2D finite difference model was built to simulate the
effects of the different factors related to inserting inclined
micropiles on slope stabilization: micropiles inclination
angle, length, position along the inclined slope and
number under dynamic loading. The model developed
with free field boundary conditions, shown in Figure 1, has
a base length equal to "3xA” with A equal to 6H (H is the
height of the sloped soil) and a total height of "2xH" with
"H" equal to 20m. The sloped soil was inclined at angle
“α°” equal to 30°. A mesh size of 2m x 2m was used that
optimized the computational time without affecting the
accuracy of the results. A mesh sensitivity analysis,
provided in details in "(Ismail 2014)", was performed and
showed a 1% difference between 1m-1m and 3m-3m
mesh size in FOS value compared to 2m-2m mesh size.
Since there was only a couple of hours difference
between the 3m-3m and 2m-2m mesh size simulation
cases while around 12 hour difference between the 1m-
1m and 2m-2m mesh size simulation cases, the 2m-2m
mesh size case was adopted in the analysis.   
Table 1 lists the characteristics of the tested soil used
in this study. Loose soil was used in the slope while
dense soil (sandstone) was used below at the base. Table
2 lists the characteristics of the mechanical properties of
the tested micropiles. The values of the micropiles'
inclination angles θ, lengths, positions along the inclined
slope z/H and number were changed between the
different tested models and are presented in Table 3. The
seismic wave used to model the dynamic behavior in the
tested models was taken from Kocaeli 1999 earthquake
and is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. Kocaeli 1999
earthquake had a frequency f=0.9Hz and a magnitude
Ms=7.4 based on Richter scale.

Figure 3. Kocaeli 1999 Earthquake: Spectrum

Figure 1. The model geometry

Table 1. Characteristics of the Tested Soils

Properties Loose soil Dense Soil

Elastic Modulus (MPa) 900 25 Figure 4: Micropile Inclination Angles
Poisson's ratio 0.25 0.3
Shear Modulus (MPa) 400 9.6
Bulk Modulus (MPa) 666 21 Table 3. The Different Tested Cases
Dilation angle 3 9
Micropiles
Apparent soil cohesion (kPa) 5 200
Case Inclination Length Position (z/L) number
Friction angle 30 35 number angle (Figure 4) (m)
1 30 18 1/2 1 
Table 2. Characteristics of the Tested Micropiles 2 45 18 1/2 1 
3 60 18 1/2 1 
4 90 18 1/2 1 
Properties
5 120 18 1/2 1 
Diameter (mm) 84 6 135 18 1/2 1
Elastic Modulus (GPa) 200 7 45 6 1/2 1
Density (kg/m2) 2200 8 45 12 1/2 1
9 45 18 1/2 1
10 45 18 0 1
11 45 18 1/4 1
12 45 18 3/8 1
13 45 18 1/2 1
14 45 18 5/8 1
15 45 18 3/4 1
16 45 18 1 1
17 45 18 3/4 & 1 2
18 45 18 3/8 & 1 2
19 45 18 1/4 & 3/4 2
20 45 18 1/2, 3/4 &1 3
21 45 18 1/4, 1/2 & 3/4 3
22 45 18 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 &1 4
23 45 18 3/8, 1/2 & 5/8 3
1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8
Figure 2. Kocaeli 1999 Earthquake: Velocity 24 45 18 5
& 3/4
25 45 18 1/4, 3/8, 1/2 & 5/8 4
26 45 18 3/8, 1/2, 5/8 & 3/4 4
0, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2,
27 45 18 7
5/8, 3/4 & 1
3 RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Effect of Micropile's Inclination Angle

To study the effect of micropile's inclination angle, an

18m-long inclined micropile was inserted at the middle of
the slope (at z/L=0.5) and was inclined at an angle θ
equal to 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 135° as shown in Figure
4. Inserting an inclined micropile at the middle of the slope
improves the FOS from 1.42 for the case of no
reinforcement (no micropile) to a maximum of 1.81 for the
case of θ=45° as presented in Figure 5. The micropile's
inclination angle improves the FOS from 8% for the
θ=120° case to a maximum of 27% for the θ=45° case.
Figure 6 shows the variation of particle horizontal
displacement with respect the micropile inclination angle
at the middle and at the top of the slope for the cases of Figure 5: Variation of Slope Factor of Safety with respect
“no reinforcement” and “with reinforcement” for different to Micropile Inclination Angle
micropile inclination angles. At the middle and top of the
slope, xdisp ( + ) , similarly to the FOS, is improved
with the increase in micropile inclination angle where
xdisp decreases from -0.75 to -0.21m and from -0.46 to -
0.39m for no reinforcement to θ=45° case at middle and
top of the slope respectively. For θ>45°, xdisp at the
middle of the slope increases to -0.89m (greater than no
reinforcement case) when it reaches θ=120° case with the
exception of θ=135° case while xdisp at the top of the
slope increases to -0.54m (greater than no reinforcement
case) when it reached θ=90° case then again decreases
to -0.42m for θ=135° case. Thus, at the middle and top of
the slope, the micropile with θ=45° gave the least
permanent displacement while the micropile with θ=120°
at the middle and θ=90° and θ=120° at the top increased
the permanent displacement compared to the no
reinforcement case. Therefore, the micropile inclined at
angle θ=45° should be adopted when providing a solution
for this slope failure. The obtained result is consistent with Figure 6: Variation of xdisp with respect to Micropile
"(Esmaeilli et al. 2013)" result. Inclination Angle
Figure 7 shows the maximum amplification in the
velocity of the soil particles at the slope without micropile
and at the slopes with micropile for the effect of micropile No reinf θ=30° θ=45° θ=60°
inclination angle. As shown by this figure, the
amplification slightly changes with the inclination of the θ=90° θ=120° θ=135°
micropile at the middle and top of the slope: slight 1
variations in amplification values were obtained at the
middle (between 0.95 and 0.84) and at the top of the 0.8
slope (between 1.14 and 1.16).
0.6
z/L

0.4

0.2

0
0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25
Amplification
Figure 7: Maximum Amplification of Particle Velocity along
the Slope
3.2 Effect of Micropile's Length
Three micropile lengths of 6, 12 and 18m were tested on
a micropile inserted at the middle of the slope with an
inclination angle θ=45°. The results, as illustrated in
Figure 8, show that the slope factor of safety is enhanced
with the increase in micropile length. The slope factor of
safety increases from 1.42 for the no reinforcement case
to 1.81 for the 18m length case noting that the factor of
safety for the 6m length case was not improved
(FOS=1.44) because the micropile length was short and
did not pass the failure surface.
of micropile position is discussed in details in the next
section.
As for the amplification, similar to the horizontal
permanent displacement, its effect was the largest at the
position where the micropile is inserted (Figure 11). All
micropile length cases almost present the same
amplification curve except at the middle of the slope
where the amplification decreases with the micropile
length: from 0.95 to 0.87 for the no reinforcement to
L=18m case. As the micropile length increases and
passes the failure surface, the slope factor of safety
improves and the horizontal permanent displacement and
amplification reduce significantly.

Figure 8: Variation of Slope Factor of Safety with respect

to the Micropile Length
Figure 10: Variation of xdisp with respect to Micropile
Length
Figure 9 shows the failure circles at the slope without
micropile and at the slopes with micropiles having lengths No reinf L=6m L=12m L=18m
equal to 6, 12 and 18m. As shown by these figures, the
centre of the failure circles of the 4 cases studied is the 1
same located at (1.77*102,5*101,2*101) ((x,y,z)) and with
0.8
a radius of 9.9*102m. Also, the xdisp contour values of
the failure circle slightly changes with the length of the 0.6
micropile.
z/L

The increase in micropile length leads to significant 0.4

decrease in horizontal permanent displacement at the
middle of the slope: xdisp decreases from -0.76 to -0.22m 0.2
for no reinforcement to L=18m case respectively. At the
top of the slope, a slight variation in xdisp was obtained: 0
xdisp varies from -0.46 to -0.4m from the no 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25
reinforcement to L=18m case respectively, as shown in Amplification
Figure 10. The micropile effect is the greatest in the zone Figure 11: Maximum Amplification of Particle Velocity
where it is inserted: at the middle of the slope. The effect along the Slope for Different Micropile Lengths

a) b) c) d)

 
Figure 9: Failure circle of the slope with micropile at b) L=6m, c) L=12m and d) L=18m and d) without micropile
3.3 Effect of Micropile's Position

In the previous section, the results showed that the

micropile effect was more efficient at the middle of the
slope. To discuss the effect of micropile's position, an
18m long 45° inclined micropile was inserted at z/L equal
to 0, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4 and 1 where z/L=0 corresponds
to the toe of the slope and z/L=1 corresponds to the top of
the slope as detailed in Figure 12.

Figure 13: Variation of Slope Factor of Safety with respect

to Micropile Position along the Slope

Figure 12: Micropile Positions along the Slope

Figures 13, 14 and 15 show the variation of the FOS,

xdisp and amplification with the micropile's position. The
obtained results prove that the FOS varies within the
micropile position along the inclined slope. The micropile
inserted at the toe of the slope (at z/L=0) and at the top of
the slope (at z/L=1) have no effect on the slope FOS,
xdisp and amplification except the xdisp for z/L=1 case
where it decreases significantly from -0.75 to -0.13m at
the top of the slope due to the insertion of the inclined
micropile at that position. In other words, the z/L=0 and
z/L=1 cases can be considered similar to the no Figure 14: Variation of xdisp with respect to Micropile
reinforcement case. Position
As the micropile position comes closer to the middle of
the slope, the slope factor of safety increases and xdisp
decreases: the FOS increases from 1.42 to 1.81 then no reinforcement  z/L=0
decreases to 1.43 while xdisp at the middle of the slope
z/L=1/4 z/L=3/8
decreases from -0.75 to -0.22m then increase again to -
0.75m whereas xdisp at top of the slope decreases from - z/L=1/2 z/L=5/8
0.45 to -0.39m and continue to decrease to -0.13m for z/L=1
z/L=0 to z/L=1/2 then to z/L=1 respectively. 1
The amplification is only affected in the area where the
micropile is inserted as obtained in the last section. This 0.8
amplification is decreased to around 0.87 especially in the
zone close to the middle of the slope (at z/L=1/4 to 5/8). 0.6
z/L

"(Howe 2010)" stated that the optimal locations to

insert battered micropiles are from 50 to 70% from the 0.4
slope toe while "(Sun et al. 2013)" explained that the
0.2
optimal location to insert a single vertical micropile is
around the middle of the slope. The results obtained in 0
this study for inclined micropiles are in agreement with 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25
"(Sun et al. 2013)" and with "(Howe 2010)" where it is
Amplification
concluded that the optimal location to insert a 45° 18m
long inclined micropile is around the middle of the slope Figure 15: Maximum Amplification of Particle Velocity
and more precisely from 35% to 75% from the slope toe along the Slope for Micropile Position
(+/- 15% from the middle of the slope).

3.4 Effect of Used Number of Micropiles

In practice, micropiles are rarely/if never inserted as

single micropiles; they are often inserted in rows. Thus,
after studying the effects of micropile's inclination angle,
length and position, the effect of the number of used
micropiles is discussed in this section. Several scenarios
were considered that covered the combinations of number
of micropiles and positions. The cases are detailed in the
beginning of the paper in Table 3. Cases 17, 18 and 19
correspond to 2 micropiles; cases 20, 21 and 23
correspond to 3 micropiles; cases 22, 25 and 26
correspond to 4 micropiles while case 24 and case 25
correspond to 5 and 7 micropiles respectively. The
micropiles were inserted along the inclined slope noting
that the study was performed in 2D (the soil width is 1m).
Figure 16: Variation of Slope Factor of Safety with respect
to Micropile Number
Figure 17: Variation of xdisp with respect to the Number
of used Micropiles
The results, presented in Figures 16, 17 and 18, show
that case 24 corresponding to 5 micropiles inserted at
z/L=1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8 and 3/4 and case 25 corresponding
to 7 micropiles inserted same as case 25 but with 2
additional micropiles at z/L=1 and 1 are the same. They
give the same slope FOS, xdisp and amplification.
Moreover, cases 21 and 24, that illustrate the case of
micropiles inserted around the middle of the slope with
case 21 corresponding to 3 micropiles inserted at z/L=1/4,
1/2 and 3/4 and case 24 corresponding to 5 micropiles
inserted similar to case 21 but with additional 2 micropiles
at z/L=3/8 and 5/8, almost give the same results. In other
words, cases 21, 24 and 27 give the same results: the
FOS increases from 1.42 to 2.8, xdisp decreases from -
0.75 to -0.17m at the middle of the slope and from -0.45m
to -0.23m at the top of the slope for the case of no
reinforcement and case 21 respectively except xdisp at
the top for case 27 that decreases to -0.07m due to the
insertion of an additional micropile at the top of the slope.
Thus, placing additional micropiles at the toe and top of
the slope and at z/L=3/8 and 5/8 when inserting
micropiles around the middle of the slope (at z/L=1/4, 1/2
and 5/8) is unnecessary.
no reinforcement  case N°17
case N°18 case N°19
case N°20 case N°21
case N°22 case N°23
case N°24 case N°25
case N°26 case N°27
1
0.8
0.6
z/L
0.4
0.2
0
0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05 1.15 1.25
Amplification
Figure 18: Maximum Amplification of Particle Velocity
along the Slope for the Different Tested Cases
Similarly, case 22 that corresponds to 4 micropiles
inserted at z/L=1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and 1 give the same results
as case 21 ( 3 micropiles at z/L=1/4, 1/2 and 3/4) in terms
of slope FOS, xdisp and amplification except for xdisp at
the top of the slope that decreases in case 22 to -0.08m
like case 27 due to the insertion of an additional micropile
at the top of the slope.
Although cases 21 and 23 both present 3 micropiles
inserted around the middle of the slope, case 21 gave
better results in terms of slope FOS and xdisp but similar
results in terms of amplification. Case 23 corresponds to 3
micropiles inserted at z/L=3/8, 1/2 and 5/8 therefore the
micropiles are inserted closer than in case 21 that
corresponds to 3 micropiles inserted at z/L=1/4, 1/2 and
3/4. Case 23 improves the slope FOS (2.12) but present
local improvement in xdisp in the positions where the
micropiles were inserted while case 24 due to the
dispersion of the micropiles (more distance between the
micropiles) present a global xdisp improvement.
Correspondingly, the same analysis can be adopted for
cases 25 and 26 that present 4 micropiles inserted around
the middle of the slope but at different positions.
As a result, as the micropile number increases, the
results do not necessary improve considerably where a
slope FOS of 2.12 was obtained in case 19 that
corresponds to 2 micropiles inserted at z/L=1/4 and 3/4
compared to a FOS of 2.89 in case 27 that corresponds to
7 micropiles.
Increasing the micropile number in the right position
improves the results. In the case studied in this paper, a
total number of three micropiles placed in the middle
region of the slope, as obtained in the previous section
from 35 to 75% of the total slope length (from the toe of
the slope), improves the results dramatically and prevent
slope failure under seismic loading.
4 CONCLUSIONS
A 2D finite difference parametric study was performed to
study the effects of micropiles' inclination angle, length,
position and number on slope stabilization under seismic
loading. The results presented in this article showed that:
 The slope factor of safety is best enhanced
when inserting inclined micropiles at an angle
θ=45° in the middle of the slope that have
adequate length to penetrate through the slope
failure surface.
 The horizontal permanent displacement as well
as the velocity amplification of soil particles
improves significantly in the position where the
micropile is inserted.
 The horizontal permanent displacement and the
velocity amplification of soil particles decrease
with the angle of inclination of the micropile and
its length.
 Increasing the micropiles number and placing
them in the right position (in the middle of the
slope) improve the results in terms of FOS,
horizontal displacement and velocity
amplification.
 The case study analyzed in this paper (silty-
sandy soil under dynamic loading simulated by
Kocaeli 1999 earthquake wave), demonstrated
that the use of three 18m-long micropiles,
inclined 45° with respect to the natural slope
surface and placed in its middle zone (+/- 15%
from the middle of the slope) improves the
results dramatically and prevents slope failure
under the tested seismic loading.
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the financial support of Rafik
Hariri University and the in-kind support of the Lebanese
University.
6 REFERENCES
Ausilio, E. , Conte, E. and Dente, G. 2001. Stability
Analysis of Slopes Reinforced With Piles, Journal of
Computers and Geotechnics, ELSEVIER, 28(8): 591-
611.
Cai, F. and Ugai, K. 2000. Numerical Analysis of the
Stability of a Slope Reinforced With Piles, Journal of
Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical
Society, 40(1):73–84.
Chowdhury, R., Flentje, P. and Bhattacharya, G. 2010.
Geotechnical Slope Analysis. CRC Press Taylor and
Francis London, UK.
Esmaeili, M., Nik, M. and Khayyer, F. 2013. Experimental
and Numerical Study of Micropiles to Reinforce High
Railway Embankments, International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE, 13(6): 729–744.
FHWA. 2005. Micropile Design and Construction FHWA
NHI-050039, NHI course No. 132078, US Department
of transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Hassiotis, S., Chameau, J.L. and Gunaratne, M. 1997.
Design method for Stabilization of Slopes with Piles,
Journal of Geotechical and Geoenviromental
Engineering, ASCE, 123(4):314–323.
Howe, W. 2010. Micropiles for Slope Stabilization,
Geotrends '2010, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1: 78-90.
Ismail, S. (2014). Slope Stability Analysis under Seismic
Loading. Dissertation, Rafik Hariri University.
Ismail, S., AlWardany, R. and Hage-Chehade, F. 2014.
Stability Analysis of Silty-Sandy Earth Slopes
Subjected to Earthquake Loading, GeoRegina '2014,
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc. 2005. FLAC3D Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions,
User’s Manual. Minneapolis,USA:
Ito, T., Matsui, T. and Hong, W.P. 1979. Design Method
for the Stability Analysis of the Slope with Landing
Pier, Journal of Soils and Foundations, Japanese
Geotechnical Society, 19(4): 43-57.
Lee, C.Y., Hull, T.S. and Poulos, H.G. 1995. Simplified
Pile-Slope Stability Analysis, Journal of Computers
and Geotechics, ELSEVIER, 17:1–16.
Li, X., He, S., Luo, Y. and Wu, Y. 2011. Numerical Studies
of the Position of Piles in Slope Stabilization, Journal
of Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 6(3): 209-215.
Nian, T.K., Chen, G.Q., Luan, M.T., Yang, Q. and Zheng,
D.F. 2008. Limit Analysis of the Stability of Slopes
Reinforced with Piles against Landslide in Non
Homogeneous and Anisotropic Soils, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 45(8): 1092–1103.
Poulos, H.G. 1995. Design of Reinforcing Piles to
Increase Slope Stability, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 32(5): 808-818.
Sun, S.W., Wang, J.W. , Bian, X.L. 2013. Design of
Micropiles to Increase Earth Slopes Stability, Journal
of Central South University, 20(5): 1361-1367.
Wei, W.B., Cheng, Y.M., 2009. Strength Reduction
Analysis for Slope Reinforced with One Row of Piles,
Journal of Computers and Geotechics, ELSEVIER, 36:
1176–1185.
Won, J., You, K., Jeong, S., Kim, S. 2005. Coupled
Effects in Stability Analysis of Pile-Slope Systems,
Journal of Computers and Geotechics, ELSEVIER, 32:
304–315
Yang, S., Ren, X. and Zhang, J. 2012. Study on
Embedded Length of Piles for Slope Reinforced with
One Row of Piles, Journal Of Rock Mechanics And
Geotechnical Engineering, ELSEVIER, 2011(2): 167-
178.