sustainability
Article
Study on Mechanical Characteristics of Living Stumps and
Reinforcement Mechanisms of Slopes
Xueliang Jiang 1,2,† , Wenjie Liu 2, *, Hui Yang 1,2,† , Haodong Wang 2, * and Zhenyu Li 2
Citation: Jiang, X.; Liu, W.; Yang, H.;
Wang, H.; Li, Z. Study on Mechanical
Characteristics of Living Stumps and
Reinforcement Mechanisms of Slopes.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su16104294
Academic Editor: Gianluca Mazzucco
Received: 17 April 2024
Revised: 15 May 2024
Accepted: 16 May 2024
Published: 20 May 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104294
1 School of Civil and Engineering Management, Guangzhou Maritime University, Guangzhou 501725, China;
iamjxl_csuft@163.com (X.J.); yanghui-dd@163.com (H.Y.)
2 School of Civil Engineering, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410018, China;
hdlizhenyu@163.com
* Correspondence: lwjcsuft@163.com (W.L.); whaodong1001@163.com (H.W.)
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: As a novel technology for slope protection, living stumps have demonstrated the ability
to significantly enhance slope stability. This study aims to investigate the mechanical properties of
living-stump root systems and their reinforcement mechanisms on slopes through three-dimensional
modeling tests. Using ABS materials, a 3D model of a living elm stump was created via 3D printing;
this was followed by slope model testing. The reinforcement mechanisms of living stumps were
examined through a combination of model testing and numerical simulation. The results reveal
that the presence of living stumps in the lower and middle sections of a slope causes the maximum-
shear-stress zone of the soil to shift deeper. The stress distribution around the living stump is
notably improved owing to the lateral root system. Living stumps positioned in the lower part of
the slope intersect the potential sliding surface, gradually transferring soil shear stress to the root
system through root–soil interactions. Furthermore, the tap roots and lateral roots of living stumps
form a robust spatial network that can collectively withstand soil shear stress, thereby enhancing
slope stability.
Keywords: living stump; slope model test; three-dimensional root; mechanical characteristics; slope
reinforcement mechanism
1. Introduction
Plant root systems have the ability to reinforce slopes through both shallow-root rein-
forcement and deep-root anchoring [1–4], which effectively improves the stability of the
slope [5]. Currently, ecological engineering techniques mainly utilize herbaceous plants,
shrubs, or a combination of herbaceous plants and engineering protection to effectively
reduce the incidence of shallow landslides [6–11]. However, these methods are not ef-
fective at stabilizing deep landslides. Living-stump slope stabilization is an innovative
method for slope reinforcement that uses living tree stumps with strong regenerative
capabilities [12–14]. In this approach, stumps are planted or inserted into the soil on a
slope, allowing them to develop robust root systems over time, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The stumps act as natural anchors, binding the soil together and helping to prevent ero-
sion and landslides. Currently, the mechanism behind slope reinforcement by living
stumps remains unclear, and there is limited research on the mechanical characteristics of
living-stump slopes.
Current research on how plant root systems reinforce slopes mainly approaches
the issue in two ways: (1) treating the root system like a bar similar to soil nails and
incorporating it into the soil for analysis, or (2) viewing the rooted soil as a root–soil
complex and substituting the rooted soil layer with an equivalent reinforcement layer
for analysis.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 2 of 20

Figure
Figure 1.
1. The
The slope
slope reinforced with the
reinforced with the living
living stumps.
stumps.

However,
However, in inresearch
researchon onthetheimpact
impact of plant
of plantrootrootsystems
systemson slope
on slopestability, the com-
stability, the
mon
common approach
approachof treating rootsroots
of treating as rod-like unitsunits
as rod-like or simplifying
or simplifying the root–soil complex
the root–soil complexas a
homogeneous
as a homogeneous material neglects
material the three-dimensional
neglects the three-dimensional spatial arrangement
spatial arrangement of plant root
of plant
systems. This excessive simplification results in substantial limitations when it comes to
root systems. This excessive simplification results in substantial limitations when it comes
understanding
to understanding these
these systems’
systems’ true
trueinfluence.
influence.The Theimpact
impactofofthree-dimensional
three-dimensional plant plant root
systems
systems on on slope
slope stability
stability is is predominantly
predominantly investigated
investigated through
through numerical
numerical simulations.
simulations.
Lionel
Lionel Dupuy
Dupuy [15] [15] utilized
utilized finite
finite element
element software
software to to construct
construct aa three-dimensional
three-dimensional virtual virtual
root structure and analyzed the mechanical response of the root/soil system under bend-
root structure and analyzed the mechanical response of the root/soil system under bending
ing forces.
forces. Li [16]
Li [16] investigated
investigated the root–soil
the root–soil composite
composite usingusing
a 3Damodel
3D model that considered
that considered soils
soils with varying cohesion. They explored how the spatial arrangement of root structures
with varying cohesion. They explored how the spatial arrangement of root structures affects
affects slope stability.
slope stability. DanjonDanjon[17] used [17]3Dused 3Ddigitization
in situ in situ digitization
to gather toprecise
gather root
precise root struc-
structure data
from mature oak trees and analyzed their stability. The findings
ture data from mature oak trees and analyzed their stability. The findings showed that showed that a uniform tree
a
arrangement had a minimal impact on soil stabilization,
uniform tree arrangement had a minimal impact on soil stabilization, while a staggeredwhile a staggered arrangement
of trees improved
arrangement of trees slope stability.
improved Fanstability.
slope and Lai [18]Fan developed
and Lai [18]adeveloped
simplified a3D root model,
simplified 3D
root model, consisting of one taproot and four lateral roots, to assess the impact oflayout
consisting of one taproot and four lateral roots, to assess the impact of vegetation vege-
on slope
tation stability.
layout on slope Chia-Cheng Fan [19] established
stability. Chia-Cheng a simplified
Fan [19] established three-dimensional
a simplified three-dimen- root
system model that comprehensively accounted for the three-dimensional
sional root system model that comprehensively accounted for the three-dimensional geo- geometric shape
of the root structure and the characteristics of root elements. The model was employed to
metric shape of the root structure and the characteristics of root elements. The model was
conduct a three-dimensional analysis of the stability of vegetated slopes. Yang [20] utilized
employed to conduct a three-dimensional analysis of the stability of vegetated slopes.
embedded beam elements to model tree roots and investigated how tree roots are anchored
Yang [20] utilized embedded beam elements to model tree roots and investigated how tree
under conditions of wind stress. Zhu [12] and Jiang [13], from the same research team,
roots are anchored under conditions of wind stress. Zhu [12] and Jiang [13], from the same
developed a simplified 3D model of living-stump root systems that worked in conjunction
research team, developed a simplified 3D model of living-stump root systems that worked
with bamboo anchors to bolster slope stability. Their analysis revealed that living stumps
in conjunction with bamboo anchors to bolster slope stability. Their analysis revealed that
with established root networks were effective at mitigating the risk of deep landslides.
living stumps with established root networks were effective at mitigating the risk of deep
Most studies on the reinforcement of slopes using plant root systems primarily rely on
landslides.
numerical methods to analyze 2D or 3D scenarios, with only a few researchers utilizing
Most studies on the reinforcement of slopes using plant root systems primarily rely
model experiments. Consequently, the understanding of the mechanical properties of
on numerical methods to analyze 2D or 3D scenarios, with only a few researchers utilizing
living stumps remains limited. To address this gap, the current study employed 3D
model experiments.
printing technology Consequently, the understanding
to create a three-dimensional of the
model ofmechanical
a living-stump properties of liv-
root system
ing stumps remains limited. To address this gap, the current
for performing slope model experiments. In Section 2, the materials and experimental study employed 3D printing
technology
methods aretointroduced.
create a three-dimensional
Section 3 presentsmodel of a of
the results living-stump
the model tests. root In
system
Sectionfor4,per-
the
forming slope model experiments. In Section 2, the materials
accuracy of the numerical model is validated, and the results are compared with those and experimental methods
are introduced.
of other research, Section 3 presentsthat
demonstrating the the
results of the model
reinforcement tests. In
method ofSection 4, the accuracy
living stumps is more
of the numerical
advantageous for model is validated, and the results are compared with those of other
slope stability.
research,
The usedemonstrating
of living stumps that thefor reinforcement
slope stabilization method alignsof living
with the stumps is more
principles advan-
of sustain-
tageous for slope stability.
able development by minimizing the environmental impact of engineering solutions and
The usethe
promoting of use
living of stumps
natural,for slope stabilization
renewable resources.aligns Livingwith the principles
stumps offer an of sustain-
ecological
able development by minimizing the environmental impact
approach to slope reinforcement that leverages the natural growth processes of plants of engineering solutions andto
promoting
enhance soil the use of natural,
stability. renewable
Incorporating livingresources.
stumps into Living stumps
slope offer an strategies
stabilization ecologicalsup- ap-
proach
ports to slope reinforcement
biodiversity that leverages
by creating habitats for various the plant
natural and growth
animalprocesses
species. Thisof plants
method to
enhance
also aids soil stability.
in carbon Incorporating
sequestration, living stumps
as growing plant into
rootsslope
capturestabilization
carbon dioxidestrategies
fromsup- the
ports biodiversity
atmosphere and storesby creating
it in the habitats
soil. By forprioritizing
various plant and animal
natural species. This
and sustainable method
methods of
also aids in carbon sequestration, as growing plant roots capture
slope reinforcement, such as using living stumps, future engineering projects can reduce carbon dioxide from the
 Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 3 of 20

reliance on non-renewable resources and decrease the carbon footprint associated with
traditional construction techniques. Moreover, these approaches contribute to long-term
ecosystem health and resilience, ensuring that slopes remain stable and safe for both human
and ecological communities. Future research in this field should continue to explore and
refine the use of living stumps and other natural materials for slope stabilization. Such
studies will play a crucial role in advancing sustainable development goals, supporting the
health of ecosystems, and promoting environmentally responsible engineering practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Model Test Similarity Ratio
Due to the limitations of the test equipment and site conditions, the slope model
test can only be carried out by reducing the prototype of the test object into a test model
according to certain proportions. The size, elastic modulus, and density of living stumps
are selected as the basic dimensions according to Meymand’s law. The geometric similarity
ratio Cl is 15, the elastic modulus similarity ratio Cρ is 1, and the density similarity ratio CE
is 1. The other similarity constants are calculated using the similarity theory [21,22] and the
dimensional analysis method, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Model similarity constant.

Physical Quantities Similarity Ratio Expression Similarity Ratio

Length/m Cl 15
Density/(kg·m−3 ) Cρ 1
Modulus of elasticity/MPa CE 1
Stress/kPa Cσ = CE 1
Poisson’s ratio Cυ 1
Displacement/mm Cu = Cl 15
Angle of internal friction/◦ Cφ = 1 1
Gravity γ/(kN·m−3 ) Cγ = Cρ 1
Cohesion c/(kN·m−2 ) Cc = CE 1
Load/w Cw = Cσ 1

2.2. Model Test Design

The model box used for the test has a length of 3 m, a width of 1.5 m, and a height of 2 m
and the loading device is an electro-hydraulic servohydraulic jack with a maximum load of
500 kN and a precision of 0.01 kN. The test devices are shown in Figure 2. The test soil is
homogeneous clay. This was sampled in situ at the same location to ensure the consistency
of its properties. The basic parameters of the soil were obtained in the laboratory, while the
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
parameters of the living tree stumps were mainly obtained from the literature [23,24]. 4 ofThe
20
main parameters of the soil and the living tree stumps are presented in Table 2.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.2.Test
Testdevice:
device:(a)
(a)the
themodel
modelbox;
box;(b)
(b)loading
loadingdevice.
device.

Table 2. Main parameters of soil and root system.

Modulus of Angle of Internal

Materials Unit Weight/(kN·m3) Poisson’s Ratio/ν Cohesion c/kPa
Elasticity/MPa Friction/°
soil 40 18.37 0.32 12 18.5
 Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 (a) (b) 4 of 20
Figure 2. Test device: (a) the model box; (b) loading device.

Table2.2.Main
Table Mainparameters
parametersofofsoil
soiland
androot
rootsystem.
system.

Modulus of of
Modulus Angle
Angleof
of Internal
Internal
Materials
Materials Unit Weight/(kN·m 3)
Unit Weight/(kN ·m3 )Poisson’s Ratio/ν
Poisson’s Ratio/ν Cohesion
Cohesionc/kPa
c/kPa
Elasticity/MPa
Elasticity/MPa Friction/°
Friction/◦
soil
soil 40 40 18.37 18.37 0.320.32 1212 18.5
18.5
root
root 650 650 11.37 11.37 0.3 0.3 - - --

Nine living stumps were arranged in the slope model test, with three stumps in each
Nine living stumps were arranged in the slope model test, with three stumps in each
row at the foot, middle, and top of the slope, for a total of three rows. The distance between
row at the foot, middle, and top of the slope, for a total of three rows. The distance between
the living stumps was 30 cm, and the distance between each row of living stumps was also
the living stumps was 30 cm, and the distance between each row of living stumps was also
30cm.
30 cm. According
According to to the
the recommendations
recommendationsof ofthe
theNational
NationalNatural
NaturalScience
ScienceFoundation
Foundation of
China (3192), the slope model was selected. Figure 3 shows the slope
of China (3192), the slope model was selected. Figure 3 shows the slope model and the model and the ar-
rangement ofofliving
arrangement livingstumps.
stumps.TheTheroot numbers
root numbers of the living
of the stumps
living at the
stumps atfoot
the of theofslope
foot the
are shown in Figure 4, in which the lateral root A of the first layer is the lateral
slope are shown in Figure 4, in which the lateral root A of the first layer is the lateral root root grow-
ing vertically
growing in the
vertically slope
in the direction,
slope and
direction, andthe
thelateral
lateralroot
rootBBisisthe
the root growing vertically
root growing vertically
along with the lateral root A. Lateral root C is the root that grows symmetrically
along with the lateral root A. Lateral root C is the root that grows symmetrically with lateral with
lateral root A and also vertically outside
root A and also vertically outside the slope. the slope.

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

(a) (b)
Figure3.3.Schematic
Figure Schematicdiagram
diagramofofslope
slopemodel:
model:(a)
(a)the
theslope
slopemodel;
model;(b)
(b)plan
planview
viewofofthe
therooted
rootedslope.
slope.

Figure 4. Number of root systems of the slope toe.

Figure 4. Number of root systems of the slope toe.
Five displacement meters are arranged on the slope surface to measure the horizontal
Five displacement
displacement meters
of the slopeare arranged
surface. on the slope
Resistance surface
strain to measure
gauges were used the to
horizontal
measure the
displacement of the
strain of each slope
root surface.
system of theResistance strain
living stumps. Thegauges were used
specifications to strain
of the measure the and
gauges
straindisplacement
of each root system
gaugesof the
are living stumps.
presented The
in Table 3, specifications of the strainsystem
and the data acquisition gaugesused
and was
displacement
the Imc andgauges are presented
Donghua in Tableinstrument,
data acquisition 3, and the data acquisition
as shown system
in Figure 5. used was
the Imc and Donghua data acquisition instrument, as shown in Figure 5.

Table 3. Sensor specifications.

The Sensor Type Main Parameters

Sensitive coefficient 2.0 ± 1%
Resistive strain gauge BFH120-2AA-D150
Precision grade: A
Displacement meter 0–100 mm digital dial indicator Precision: 0.01 mm
 Figure 4. Number of root systems of the slope toe.

Five displacement meters are arranged on the slope surface to measure the horizontal
displacement of the slope surface. Resistance strain gauges were used to measure the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 strain of each root system of the living stumps. The specifications of the strain gauges and
5 of 20
displacement gauges are presented in Table 3, and the data acquisition system used was
the Imc and Donghua data acquisition instrument, as shown in Figure 5.
Table 3. Sensor specifications.
Table 3. Sensor specifications.
The Sensor Type Main Parameters
The Sensor Type Main Parameters
Sensitive coefficient 2.0 ± 1%
Resistive strain gauge BFH120-2AA-D150 Sensitive coefficient 2.0 ± 1%
Resistive strain gauge BFH120-2AA-D150 Precision grade: A
Precision grade: A
Displacement meter 0–100 mm digital dial indicator Precision: 0.01 mm
Displacement meter 0–100 mm digital dial indicator Precision: 0.01 mm

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Imc
Imc (Imc
(Imc Test,
Test,Germany)
Germany)and
andDonghua
Donghuadata
dataacquisition
acquisitioninstrument
instrument(Donghua
(Donghuatest,
test,China).
China).
2.3. Selection and Modeling of Living Stump
2.3. Selection and Modeling
The tap roots of Living
of the living Stump
stump should be sufficiently deep to penetrate the slope’s
slidingThe tap roots
surface andofreach
the living stumpsoil
the deeper should be sufficiently
layers, deep to penetrate
providing enhanced the slope’s
anti-shearing pro-
tection. The horizontal lateral roots should be extensive and long in order to offer protec-
sliding surface and reach the deeper soil layers, providing enhanced anti-shearing strong
tion. The horizontal
horizontal anchoring. lateral
A root roots
systemshould
that is be extensive and
deep-rooted, long in order
well-developed, andtofeatures
offer strong
long
horizontal lateral
horizontal anchoring.
roots A canroot system
better that the
stabilize is deep-rooted,
slope [25]. Towell-developed,
optimize the slope andreinforce-
features
long horizontal
ment lateral
effect of the roots cansupport
living-stump better stabilize
structure, theanslope
elm[25].
tree To optimize
with a robust theroot
slope rein-
system
forcement
was selectedeffect of the
for the living-stump
study. Elm treessupport
have a structure, an elmtype
VH root system tree with
[24], acharacterized
robust root sys-by
tem was selected
abundant horizontalfor roots
the study. Elmtaproots
and long trees have a VH
that rootdeeply
extend system type
into the[24],
soil.characterized
by abundant horizontal
For the purpose roots and
of analysis andlong taprootsthe
discussion, that extend deeply
following into the
assumptions soil.
are made: (1) It
For the that
is presumed purpose of analysis
the root system ofand discussion,
living elm treethe following
stumps assumptions
will develop are made:
as anticipated (1)
after
It is presumed
being planted in that
thethe root
soil, system
with of living
a vertical, deep elmtaproot
tree stumps will develop
and robust as anticipated
lateral roots. (2) The
aftersystem
root being planted in the soil,
model excludes with
roots witha vertical, deep taproot
smaller diameters, suchandas robust
fibrouslateral
roots androots. (2)
heart
The root
roots, system
as these model
have excludes
a limited roots with
anchoring smaller
effect on thediameters, such
soil [26]. (3) Allasroots
fibrous
are roots
assumedand
heart
to roots, as forces
experience these have a limited anchoring
and deformation within effect on therange,
the elastic soil [26]. (3) All roots
neglecting are as-
any plastic
deformation and assuming that the root system’s elastic modulus remains stable. (4) All
root sections are assumed to be circular, and root section size is assumed to be positively
correlated with root length. Based on these assumptions and elm growth law [27], a
simplified model of an elm living stump was created. The tap root was 3 m long, with the
first layer lateral root and the second layer lateral root divided at 0.25 m and 1.5 m from
the top of the tap root respectively. The angle between each lateral root was 90◦ and the
angle between the lateral root and the horizontal direction was approximately 20◦ . Table 4
displays the root size parameters and Figure 6a illustrates the living-stump model created
by 3D Max.

Table 4. Root size parameters (model test).

Lateral Root Length Lateral Root Diameter

Tap root Tap root The first layer The second layer The first layer The second layer
length/cm diameter/cm lateral root/cm lateral root/cm lateral root/cm lateral root/cm
20 1.33–0.67 0.93 0.67 1–0.33 0.53–0.33
 models made with these materials are subject to greater limitations. Liang [23] found that
the elastic modulus of acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene (ABS) material is 650 Mpa, and the
tensile strength is approximately 17 Mpa, which is similar to the real elm root system and
is suitable for simulating various common sizes of roots. Therefore, ABS material is chosen
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294
for printing, and 3D printing technology can be used to print models of any shape, 6 ofas
20
shown in Figure 6b.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure6.6. The
Theliving-stump
living-stumpmodel:
model:(a)
(a)living-stump
living-stumpmodel
model(made
(madeby
by3D
3DMax);
Max);(b)
(b) living-stump
living-stump
model
model(made
(madeby by3D
3Dprinting).
printing).

In order to determine
Mickovski the strain
[28] conducted variation
research on the laws of living stumps,
reinforcement strain
of soil using measurements
plant root analogs
were
with conducted on the roots
simple geometric at the
shapes, butfoot, middle, and
the materials toptoofsimulate
used the slope. Seven
the root strain
systemmeas-
were
uring points (Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, Z5, Z6, and Z7) were selected at 1.5, 4, 6.5, 9, 11.5, 14 and 16.5
rubber or wood (or both). These were employed, respectively, as low-stiffness and high-
cm from the
stiffness top of the
materials. tapmaterials
These root, respectively, in orderthe
help to simulate to measure therigid
flexible and tensile and compres-
characteristics of
sive strains
the root and bending
system, strains
but their of the tapisroots.
performance Additionally,
not ideal. five strain
Furthermore, sincemeasuring points
these analogs are
(A1, A2, A3,straight
essentially A4, A5)rods,
were the
selected at 2, 4,pattern
branching 6, 8, at is
10simplified;
cm from the branch
thus, point to measure
the geometric models
made with these materials are subject to greater limitations. Liang [23] found that the
elastic modulus of acrylonitrile–butadiene–styrene (ABS) material is 650 Mpa, and the
tensile strength is approximately 17 Mpa, which is similar to the real elm root system and
is suitable for simulating various common sizes of roots. Therefore, ABS material is chosen
for printing, and 3D printing technology can be used to print models of any shape, as
shown in Figure 6b.
In order to determine the strain variation laws of living stumps, strain measurements
were conducted on the roots at the foot, middle, and top of the slope. Seven strain measur-
ing points (Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, Z5, Z6, and Z7) were selected at 1.5, 4, 6.5, 9, 11.5, 14 and 16.5 cm
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
from the top of the tap root, respectively, in order to measure the tensile and compressive
strains and bending strains of the tap roots. Additionally, five strain measuring points (A1,
A2, A3, A4, A5) were selected at 2, 4, 6, 8, at 10 cm from the branch point to measure the
the tensile
tensile and compressive
and compressive strainsstrains
of the of the lateral
lateral roots. roots.
FigureFigure 7 illustrates
7 illustrates the arrangement
the arrangement of
of the
the strainstrain gauges
gauges onliving
on the the living
stump.stump.

Figure7.7.Living-stump
Figure Living-stump strain
strain gauge
gauge arrangement.
arrangement.

Vertical loading was conducted using a 500 kN class jack, with each load being 5 kN.
After a 30 s pause, data were recorded and the next load was applied. The loading was
stopped when the slope experienced significant sliding. Table 5 displays the test loading
regime.

Table 5. Test loading regime.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 7 of 20

Vertical loading was conducted using a 500 kN class jack, with each load being 5 kN. Af-
ter a 30 s pause, data were recorded and the next load was applied. The loading was stopped
when the slope experienced significant sliding. Table 5 displays the test loading regime.

Table 5. Test loading regime.

Load/kN
Loading Times
Bare Slope Living-Stump Slope
1 5 5
2 10 10
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
32 160 160
33 165 165

3. Results
3.1. Roots Stress Characteristics
Due to the fragility of the strain gauge, some data were not collected. It was assumed
that the living stumps were in an elastic state during the experiment (the plastic deformation
was not considered). The axial stress of the root was calculated using the formula: σ = E · ε,
where σ is the axial tensile and compressive stress of the root system, E is the elastic
modulus of the root system, and the other variable is the collected tensile and compressive
strain. Due to limitations in the strain gauge channels, strain data were only collected for
the living stump in the middle of the slope.
It can be seen from Figure 8a that the tap root of the living stump at the top of the
slope was mainly subjected to compressive stress, and the compressive stress increased
as the load increased. The compressive stress of measuring points 3, 4, 5 and 7 reached
its peak at 120 kN, and then gradually decreased, which may be because the soil at the
top of the slope had been damaged. Additionally, the increased load did not act on the
root system. All the measuring points on the tap root of the living stump in the middle of
the slope were subjected to tensile stress, and the tensile stress of measuring points 1 and
2 increased as the load increased. Except for measurement point 6, the other measuring
points of the tap root of the living stump at the slope foot were mostly under tensile stress.
Measuring points 3, 5 and 7 were all subjected to low tensile stress at 0–110 kN, and then
the tensile stress increased rapidly with the increase in load. This may be because the soil
at the slope had already started to slide, and the tap root system was exerting its tensile
strength to prevent the soil from sliding further.
Under static load conditions, it was evident that the tap root of the living stump at
the top of the slope was under compressive stress, while the tap roots of the living stump
in the middle and foot of the slope were under tensile stress. Therefore, the tap roots in
the middle and foot of the slope mainly exerted tensile strength to increase the stability
of the slope, while the tap root at the top of the slope did not contribute to the stability of
the slope.
The bending moment of the tap root is calculated according to the formula M = E · ε · W,
3
where M is the bending moment of the root system, W = πd 32 is the section modulus, and d
is the diameter of the root system at the measuring point. When the front portion of the
taproot (facing the slope) experiences tension, the bending moment becomes positive. It
can be seen from Figure 9 that the points 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the tap roots at the foot of the
slope were subjected to an increasing positive bending moment, while the root front was
subjected to tension. The measuring point 2 under the first-layer lateral root experienced
the fastest and largest bending moment. The positive bending moment of points 4 and
5 of the tap root in the middle of the slope gradually increased, but the value was small.
The bending moment of measuring point 7 was almost 0, while the bending moment of
point 6 was subjected to a gradually increasing negative bending moment. From Figure 9c,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 8 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

it is clear that the bending moment of point 7 of the tap root at the foot of the slope was
almostincreased
stress 0, similarrapidly
to thatwith
of point 7 of the tap
the increase rootThis
in load. in the topbe
may and middle
because theofsoil
theatslope. The
the slope
bending moments of measuring points 2, 3, and 4 increased with the increase in load, and
had already started to slide, and the tap root system was exerting its tensile strength to
all of them were subjected to negative bending moments, which were tensile behind the
prevent the soil from sliding further.
root, with the negative bending moment value of measuring point 2 being the largest.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 8.8. Axial
Axialstress
stressofoftap
taproots:
roots:(a)(a)
living stump
living at at
stump slope top;
slope (b)(b)
top; living stump
living at slope
stump middle;
at slope (c)
middle;
living stump at slope toe.
(c) living stump at slope toe.

Under
Figure static loadthe
9d shows conditions,
deformationit was evident
diagram ofthat the tapstump
the living root ofat the
the living
top of stump at
the slope
the top of the
excavated slope
after the was
test. under compressive
It is evident that thestress, while
tap root theliving
of the tap roots of the
stump living
at the topstump
of the
in the was
slope middle and subjected
mainly foot of thetoslope were under
a negative bendingtensile stress.
moment, Therefore,
causing the to
the root tapberoots in
pulled
the middle
behind. and foot of
Meanwhile, thethe
tapslope
root mainly exerted
of the living tensile
stump strength
at the middletoandincrease
foot ofthethestability
slope wasof
the slope,
mainly while the
subjected to tap root at bending
a positive the top ofmoment,
the sloperesulting
did not incontribute to the pulled
the root being stability inof the
front.
slope.
The 2nd measuring point of the living stump, which was located under the first layer of
The
lateral bending
root, was the moment
main partof the root
of the tap bending,
root is while
calculated
the end according
of the taptoroot the
was formula
almost
not bending. Additionally, the tap root of the living stump at the foot ofπ the d 3 slope was
M = E ⋅ ε ⋅ W , where M is the bending
bendingmoment
moment,ofindicating
the root system,
that theW tap= root is the sec-
subjected to the largest positive 32 at the slope
foot modulus,
tion had a certain d is the diameter
andanti-sliding effect on ofthe
theslope soil, similar
root system at theto that of anpoint.
measuring anti-slide
When pile.
the
front portion of the taproot (facing the slope) experiences tension, the bending moment
becomes positive. It can be seen from Figure 9 that the points 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the tap roots
at the foot of the slope were subjected to an increasing positive bending moment, while
the root front was subjected to tension. The measuring point 2 under the first-layer lateral
root experienced the fastest and largest bending moment. The positive bending moment
of points 4 and 5 of the tap root in the middle of the slope gradually increased, but the
 layer of lateral root, was the main part of the root bending, while the end of the tap root
was almost not bending. Additionally, the tap root of the living stump at the foot of the
slope was subjected to the largest positive bending moment, indicating that the tap root
at the slope foot had a certain anti-sliding effect on the slope soil, similar to that of an anti-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294
slide pile. 9 of 20

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure9.9.Moment
Momentofoftap roots:
tap (a)(a)
roots: living stump
living at slope
stump top;top;
at slope (b) (b)
living stump
living at slope
stump middle;
at slope (c)
middle;
living stump at slope toe; (d) deformation of living stump at slope top after test.
(c) living stump at slope toe; (d) deformation of living stump at slope top after test.

3.2. Lateral Roots Stress Characteristics

Figure 10 shows the axial tensile stress of the lateral root system of the living stump
at the top and middle of the slope. The measuring points 2, 3, and 4 of the lateral root
A of the living stump at the top of the slope were all under compressive stress, with the
compressive stress at measuring point 2 being comparatively small and the change in stress
being slow and gradual. The compressive stress of measuring points 3 and 4 increased
rapidly after the load reached 30 kN, with the stress increasing further with the increase
in load. The lateral root B at the top of the slope experienced a tensile stress at point 1
that increased initially before decreasing, while the compressive stress at points 2, 3, 4,
and 5 increased gradually as the load increased. The lateral root A at the middle of the
slope experienced compressive stress at points 1 and 3. This changed to tension as the load
increased, while point 4 experienced a gradually increasing compressive stress. The tensile
stress at point 5 was small and increased slowly. For the lateral root B at the middle of the
slope, all four measuring points experienced a gradually increasing compressive stress,
with the maximum compressive stress of points 4 and 5 being reached at the last load.
 load increased, while point 4 experienced a gradually increasing compressive stress. The
tensile stress at point 5 was small and increased slowly. For the lateral root B at the middle
of the slope, all four measuring points experienced a gradually increasing compressive
stress, with the maximum compressive stress of points 4 and 5 being reached at the last
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294
load. 10 of 20

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 10.10. Axial
Axial stress of lateral
stress of lateral roots:
roots: (a)
(a) lateral
lateral root
rootAAof
ofliving
livingstump
stumpatatslope
slopetop;
top;(b)
(b)lateral
lateralroot
rootB
Bofofliving
livingstump
stumpatatslope
slopetop;
top;(c)
(c)lateral
lateralroot
rootAAofof living
living stump
stump atat slope
slope middle;
middle; (d)
(d) lateral root BB of
lateral root of
living stump at slope middle.
living stump at slope middle.

The
The axial
axial stress
stress of
of lateral
lateral root
root system
system of
of living
living stump
stump at
at the
the slope
slope foot’s
foot’s is
is shown
shown in
in
Figure 11. For the lateral root A, point 1 experienced compression before this transitioned
Figure 11. For the lateral root A, point 1 experienced compression before this transitioned
to tension, with a large tensile stress value. Points 3 and 4 experienced gradually increasing
tensile stress. The measuring points of 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the lateral root of the living stump B
at the slope foot were all subjected to tensile stress, with the tensile stress at points 4 and 5
gradually increasing with the increase in the load and reaching its maximum value. For
the lateral root C, measuring point 1 experienced an initially increasing compressive stress,
before alternating between tension and compression, which suggests that the strain gauge
may have been damaged. Measuring points 2 and 3 were subjected to compressive stress,
which gradually increased and then decreased. The compressive stress at measuring point
4 gradually increased from 0 to 80 kN before becoming stable. The compressive stress at
measuring point 5 increased with the increase in load before reaching its maximum value.
Based on the analysis of Figures 8, 10 and 11, it can be concluded that under static load
conditions, the lateral root systems growing in the middle and lower parts of the slope,
as well as the B lateral roots growing laterally at the foot of the slope, mainly exert their
tensile strength to increase the stability of the slope, while the lateral roots at the top of
the slope hardly contribute to tensile strength. Figure 12 shows the living-stump slope soil
after excavation. It is evident that the soil is looser in the absence of roots but denser where
there are roots. This can be attributed to the presence of living stumps, which act as an
 stump B at the slope foot were all subjected to tensile stress, with the tensile stress at points
4 and 5 gradually increasing with the increase in the load and reaching its maximum
value. For the lateral root C, measuring point 1 experienced an initially increasing com-
pressive stress, before alternating between tension and compression, which suggests that
the strain gauge may have been damaged. Measuring points 2 and 3 were subjected to
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 11 of 20
compressive stress, which gradually increased and then decreased. The compressive
stress at measuring point 4 gradually increased from 0 to 80 kN before becoming stable.
The compressive stress at measuring point 5 increased with the increase in load before
anti-slide pile, preventing soil slide and anchoring the soil particles. Thus, increasing soil
reaching its maximum value.
stress is increased in the presence of living stumps.

(a) (b)

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

(c)
as an anti-slide
Figure
Figure 11.
11.Axial pile,
stresspreventing
Axialstress of
oflateral soil
lateralroots
roots ofslide
of livingand
living anchoring
stump
stumpat
atthe thetoe:
theslope
slope soil(a)
toe: particles.
(a)lateral Thus,
lateralroot
rootA; increasing
A;(b)
(b)lateral
lateral
root
soil B;
B;(c)
(c)lateral
rootstress root
rootC.
is increased
lateral C. in the presence of living stumps.

Based on the analysis of Figures 8, 10, and 11, it can be concluded that under static
load conditions, the lateral root systems growing in the middle and lower parts of the
slope, as well as the B lateral roots growing laterally at the foot of the slope, mainly exert
their tensile strength to increase the stability of the slope, while the lateral roots at the top
of the slope hardly contribute to tensile strength. Figure 12 shows the living-stump slope
soil after excavation. It is evident that the soil is looser in the absence of roots but denser
where there are roots. This can be attributed to the presence of living stumps, which act

Figure
Figure12.
12.Slope
Slope soil
soil after
after excavation.
excavation.

3.3. Slope Surface Displacement

Comparing the displacement of the prototype slope with that of the living stump, it
can be observed from Figure 13 that the displacement variation trend of both slopes is
similar and the displacement of each measuring point of the living stump is significantly
lower than that of the original slope. At the start of the loading process, the load was not
effectively transferred to the foot of the slope, resulting in the displacement of measure-
ment points 1 and 2. This increased drastically and reached a high value, while the dis-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 12 of 20
Figure 12. Slope soil after excavation.

3.3. Slope Surface Displacement

3.3. Slope Surface Displacement
Comparing the displacement of the prototype slope with that of the living stump, it
Comparing
can be observed theFigure
from displacement
13 that of
thethe prototype slope
displacement with that
variation trendofof
the living
both stump,
slopes is it
can be observed from Figure 13 that the displacement variation trend of both slopes is
similar and the displacement of each measuring point of the living stump is significantly
similar and the displacement of each measuring point of the living stump is significantly
lower than that of the original slope. At the start of the loading process, the load was not
lower than that of the original slope. At the start of the loading process, the load was not
effectively transferred to the foot of the slope, resulting in the displacement of measure-
effectively transferred to the foot of the slope, resulting in the displacement of measurement
ment points 1 and 2. This increased drastically and reached a high value, while the dis-
points 1 and 2. This increased drastically and reached a high value, while the displacement
placement of measurement point 3, 4, and 5 increased gradually reached a small value. In
of measurement point 3, 4, and 5 increased gradually reached a small value. In the later
the later stages of loading, the displacement at the slope top gradually stabilized, whereas
stages of loading, the displacement at the slope top gradually stabilized, whereas the
the displacement at the slope foot increased rapidly due to the slope sliding.
displacement at the slope foot increased rapidly due to the slope sliding.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. 13.
Figure Horizontal displacement
Horizontal ofofslope
displacement slopesurface:
surface: (a)
(a) the prototypeslope;
the prototype slope;(b)
(b)the
the living-stump
living-stump slope.
slope.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
4.1. Model Reliability Verification
4.1. Model Reliability
The prototypeVerification
slope was numerically simulated using Midas GTS/NX 2023, which
The prototype
allowed for a moreslope was numerically
comprehensive simulated
analysis using Midas
of the reinforcement GTS/NX 2023,
mechanism which
of living-stump
allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the reinforcement mechanism of living-
slopes. Because of the complexity of using 3D solid elements to grid the root structure,
stump slopes. Because of the complexity of using 3D solid elements to grid the root struc- in
embedded beam elements were used to simulate the root structure of living stumps
ture, embedded
MIDAS GTS/NXbeam[29].
elements
The were used toelement
embedded simulatemethod
the rootassumes
structurethat
of living stumps
all root element
in MIDAS GTS/NX [29]. The embedded element method assumes that all root element of
nodes are within the host soil. The translational kinematic degrees of freedom (d.o.f.)
nodes are within
embedded rootthe hostare
nodes soil. The translational
computed kinematic degrees
based on interpolation valuesoffrom
freedom
nearby (d.o.f.) of
soil nodes,
which are located using a specific algorithm. The region where the root system is situated
consists of two materials: roots and soil. During analysis runs, the mass and stiffness
of embedded roots are incorporated into the model. This method does not account for
stress transmission across the interface and makes assumptions regarding the translational
movement of embedded root elements. This approach offers a streamlined representation
of the root structure while still capturing its impact on soil mechanics [30]. Furthermore, it
allows for a more efficient and accurate simulation of the soil–root interaction compared to
using solid elements to represent the complex geometry of the root system. Root slippage,
arising from significant deformations in the root–soil system, may not occur adequately due
to the constraints of embedded beam elements. To achieve more precise simulations of root–
soil interactions, it is essential to stay informed about the latest developments in this area
and consider integrating the friction laws that govern root–soil interactions [29,31–34]. This
approach allows for a more accurate representation of the complex interactions between
roots and soil, leading to enhanced simulation results. However, it is important to validate
the results of the simulation against model tests to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the
method. The tap root and lateral root of the living-stump model were divided into 20 units,
respectively. Figure 14 shows the living-stump model established by MIDAS GTS/NX and
Table 6 shows the root size parameters.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294
interactions between roots and soil, leading to enhanced simulation results. However, it
is important to validate the results of the simulation against model tests to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of the method. The tap root and lateral root of the living-stump
model were divided into 20 units, respectively. Figure 14 shows the living-stump model
established by MIDAS GTS/NX and Table 6 shows the root size parameters. 13 of 20

Figure 14. Living-stump model (established via the embedded element method using MIDAS GTS/NX).
Figure 14. Living-stump model (established via the embedded element method using MIDAS
GTS/NX).
Table 6. Root size parameters (numerical simulation).

Table 6. Root size parameters

Lateral(numerical simulation).
Root Length Lateral Root Diameter
Tap root Tap root Lateral
The first layer RootThe
Length
second layer Lateral
The first layer RootThe
Diameter
second layer
length/m diameter/m lateral root/m lateral root/m lateral root/m lateral root/m
Tap root Tap root The first layer lat- The second layer The first layer lat- The second layer
3 0.2–0.1 1.4 1.0 0.15–0.05 0.08–0.05
length/m diameter/m eral root/m lateral root/m eral root/m lateral root/m
3 0.2–0.1 1.4 1.0 0.15–0.05 0.08–0.05
Working according to the geometric similarity ratio of 1:15 used in the model test,
theWorking
prototypeaccording to thewas
slope model geometric similarity
established ratio of
via Midas 1:15 usedThe
GTS/NX. in the model test, the
Mohr–Coulomb
constitutive model was used for soil and a mesh was generated
prototype slope model was established via Midas GTS/NX. The Mohr–Coulomb by a hybrid hexahedral
constitu-
mesh generator. The lateral displacements in the four directions and the displacements
tive model was used for soil and a mesh was generated by a hybrid hexahedral mesh
at the bottom of the model are fixed. Nine living stumps are arranged into three rows of
generator. The lateral displacements in the four directions and the displacements at the
3 each, with a horizontal spacing of 4.5 m and a vertical spacing of 4.5 m. Figure 15 shows
bottom of the model are fixed. Nine living stumps are arranged into three rows of 3 each,
the slope model established using Midas GTS/NX. Loads of 40 KN, 60 KN, 800 KN, 100 KN
with
anda120
horizontal
KN werespacing
applied of 4.5 top
to the m and a vertical
of the spacing
slope model, of 4.5 m.As
respectively. Figure 15seen
can be shows
fromthe
slope model established using Midas GTS/NX. Loads of 40 KN, 60 KN, 800
Figure 16, both the model test and the numerical model showed similar trends in terms of KN, 100 KN
and
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW120
root KN and
stress weretheapplied to theoftop
magnitude of the
stress slope with
increased model,
therespectively.
increasing load.As can
The be seen
small 14 from
of
error20
Figure 16, both
between the model
the model test and
test results and the
the numerical modelindicates
numerical model showedthat similar trends in terms
the numerical model of
root stress and
effectively the magnitude
predicted of behavior
the slope’s stress increased with the
under various increasing
loading load. The small error
conditions.
between the model test results and the numerical model indicates that the numerical
model effectively predicted the slope’s behavior under various loading conditions.

Figure 15. Slope model.

Figure 15. Slope model.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 14 of 20
Figure15.
Figure 15.Slope
Slopemodel.
model.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 16.
Figure16. Comparison
16.Comparison
Comparisonof of results
ofresults from
resultsfrom model
frommodel tests
modeltests and
testsand numerical
andnumerical simulations:
numericalsimulations: (a)
simulations:(a) stress
stressatat
(a)stress the
atthe fourth
thefourth
fourth
point
point of
pointof tap
oftap root(living
taproot
root (livingstump
(living stumpin
stump inthe
in themiddle
the middleof
middle ofthe
of the
the slope);
slope);
slope); (b)
(b)
(b) stress
stress
stress atthe
at at
the the fourth
fourth
fourth point
point
point oflateral
of
of lateral lateral
root
root
root BB(living
(living
B (living stump
stump
stump inthe
in
in the themiddle
middle middle
of the ofthe
of theslope).
slope).
slope).

4.2.
4.2. The
4.2.The Shear
TheShear Stress
StressofofofLiving-Stump
ShearStress Living-Stump
Living-StumpSlope Slope and
Slopeand Original
andOriginal Slope
OriginalSlope
Slope
When
When rotating
Whenrotating lateral roots,
lateral roots,
rotating lateral roots,the the first-
thefirst-
first- and
andand second-layer
second-layer
second-layer lateral
lateral
lateral roots
rootsroots
are are rotated
are
rotated rotated
around
around
around thetap
the tapthe
root,tap root,iswhich
root,
which which isisthe
the axis therotation.
of axisof
axis ofrotation.
rotation. Theincident
The
The incident incident
angle angle
angle
of the ofthe
of
lateral the lateral
lateral
root rootisis
root
is defined as
defined
defined
the angle asbetween
as theangle
the angle the between
between thelateral
lateral the
root lateral
and the root
root andthe
and
normal thenormal
line normal lineof
line
of the strike of the
the
line strike
ofstrike linefoot,
line
the slope ofthe
of the
as
slope
slope
shown foot,
foot, asshown
in as shown
Figure 17.in inFigure
Figure17. 17.

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20

Figure 17. Schematic diagram of the incident angle of the lateral roots.
Figure17.
Figure 17.Schematic
Schematicdiagram
diagramof
ofthe
theincident
incidentangle
angleof
ofthe
thelateral
lateralroots.
roots.
InInaaslope
slopemodel
modeltest,
test,aavertical
verticalload
loadisisapplied
appliedtotosimulate
simulatethetheweight
weightofofthe
thesoil
soiland
and
any
any additional external loads that may be present in the actual slope. However,ininthe
additional external loads that may be present in the actual slope. However, the
natural
naturalenvironment,
environment, slopes
slopes areare primarily
primarilyaffected
affectedby bythe
theforce
force
of of gravity
gravity acting
acting on on
thethe
soil
soil
andandrockrock
mass.mass. Therefore,
Therefore, the dead
the dead weight weight
field isfield is applied
applied to theand
to the slope slope andanalysis
stress stress
analysis is carried out by establishing the prototype slope model with
is carried out by establishing the prototype slope model with or without living stumps. or without living
stumps.
Figure 18 Figure
shows18 shows the longitudinal
the longitudinal profileprofile
of theof the slope.
slope. Figures
Figures 19 and19 and 20 shows
20 shows the the
soil
soil shear
shear stressstress at longitudinal
at longitudinal section
section of theof unsupported
the unsupported slopeslope andliving-stump
and the the living-stumpslope
slope (the incident
(the incident angleangle
of theoflateral
the lateral
roots roots
is 0◦ ).is 0°).

Figure 18. Schematic diagram of the longitudinal section of the slope.

Figure 18. Schematic diagram of the longitudinal section of the slope.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 15 of 20
Figure 18. Schematic diagram of the longitudinal section of the slope.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure19.
19.Soil
Soilshear
shearstress
stressininlongitudinal
longitudinalprofile
profileofofunsupported
unsupportedslope:
slope:(a)
(a)the
theslope
slopetoe;
toe;(b)
(b)the
the
middle
middleofofthe
theslope;
slope;(c)
(c)the
theslope
slopetop.
top.

It is evident that the maximum shear stress of the soil at the foot, middle, and top of
the unsupported slope is mostly concentrated in the shallow soil layer, where they form a
connected zone. However, due to the existence of living stumps, the maximum shear stress
of soil at the foot, middle, and top of the slope moves to the deeper soil layer. This causes
the shear stress in the root area to become larger, while the shear stress on both sides of the
soil becomes smaller and no connected area is formed. This is because, when the soil on
the slope slides, there is a relative dislocation between the root and soil, causing the root
to deform and generate tensile stress. The interaction between the roots and soil [24,33]
gradually transfers shear stress in the soil to the living stump. The presence of living stumps
at the slope foot has the best effect in terms of causing the shear stress area of the soil to
move towards a deeper soil layer. This is because the living stumps have tap roots at the
slope foot across the potential sliding surface. Due to the tap root’s vertical growth, it has
a certain rigidity and strong tensile resistance. These findings align with the conclusions
in [18]. Through the interaction of the root and soil, the taproot transmits the thrust of
slope sliding to a deeper and more stable soil layer. Slope sliding is prevented due to the
anchorage and passive resistance of the stable stratum to the vertical taproot, resulting in
improved slope stability [35]. Through the excavation of the test slope, it was discovered
that the soil at the position of the living stumps is compact and that the soil particles are
bound more effectively by the roots. Additionally, the soil stress is more concentrated in
this area. In contrast, the soil at the position without living stumps is loose, as shown
in Figure 12. These findings are consistent with the numerical simulation, which further
 Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 16 of 20

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20

suggests that the presence of living stumps has the same effect as anti-slide piles in terms
of preventing soil slopes from sliding.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 20.20.
Figure Soil shear
Soil stress
shear in in
stress longitudinal profile
longitudinal of of
profile living-stump slope:
living-stump (a)(a)
slope: thethe
slope toe;
slope (b)(b)
toe; thethe
middle of of
middle thethe
slope; (c)(c)
slope; thethe
slope
slopetop.
top.

4.3.ItThe
is evident
Influence that the maximum
of Lateral Roots on shear stress
the Slope of the soil at
Reinforcement the foot, middle, and top of
Mechanism
the unsupported slope is mostly concentrated in the shallow soil layer, where they form a
In order to explore the influence of the lateral root systems of living stumps on the
connected zone. However, due to the existence
reinforcement mechanism, the strength reduction FEM method was of living stumps, theused
maximum
to analyzeshearthe
stress of soil
stability of at
thethe foot,with
slope middle,
and and
withouttop of the slope
lateral roots.moves to thestability
The slope deeper without
soil layer. This
a lateral
causes the shear
root system wasstress
1.302,inwhich
the root
wasarea
9.4%tolowerbecomethanlarger,
that withwhile the shear
lateral roots. stress
Figureon 21 both
shows
sides of the soil becomes smaller and no connected area is formed.
the soil shear stress of the transverse section in the middle of the slope with and without This is because, when
the soil onroot
lateral the system.
slope slides, there is a relative
By comparing dislocation
the Figure 21a,b, between
it can bethe rootthat
seen andthe
soil, causing
lateral root
the root to deform and generate tensile stress. The interaction between
system has a minimal impact on the shear stress of soil at the middle and top of the slope, the roots and soil
[24,33]
but has gradually
a significanttransfers shearon
influence stress in thestress
the shear soil toof the
soilliving
at the stump.
slope foot.TheIn presence of
the absence
living stumps at the slope foot has the best effect in terms of causing
of a lateral root system, the shear stress of soil near the slope foot is concentrated in the the shear stress area
ofshallow
the soil soil
to move
layer.towards
However, a deeper
when asoil layer.
lateral This
root is because
system the living
is present, stumps
the shear stresshave tap at
of soil
roots at the slope foot across the potential sliding surface. Due to
the slope foot shifts to the deeper soil layer. This is because the lateral root system has athe tap root’s vertical
growth, it hasimpact
significant a certain on rigidity
the shearand strong
stress tensile resistance.
distribution in the slopeThese
duefindings align with
to its growth thein
pattern
conclusions
all directions, in [18]. Through
including the the
deepinteraction
direction of the root
[36,37]. Thisand soil, the
growth taproot
pattern transmits
creates the
a mesh-like
thrust of slope
structure thatsliding
binds the to asoil
deeper and more
particles more effectively
stable soil [38].
layer.Additionally,
Slope slidingthe is vertical
prevented root
due to thehas
system anchorage and passive
higher stiffness and resistance of the stable
tensile strength. stratum
This grows to the vertical
vertically along the taproot,
depth
resulting in improved slope stability [35]. Through the excavation of the test slope, it was
discovered that the soil at the position of the living stumps is compact and that the soil
 of a lateral root system, the shear stress of soil near the slope foot is concentrated in the
shallow soil layer. However, when a lateral root system is present, the shear stress of soil
at the slope foot shifts to the deeper soil layer. This is because the lateral root system has
a significant impact on the shear stress distribution in the slope due to its growth pattern
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 in all directions, including the deep direction [36,37]. This growth pattern creates a mesh- 17 of 20
like structure that binds the soil particles more effectively [38]. Additionally, the vertical
root system has higher stiffness and tensile strength. This grows vertically along the depth
direction, serving
direction, serving asas the
the skeleton
skeletonof ofthe
theentire
entiremesh
meshstructure.
structure.The
Thecombined
combined effect of the
effect of the
taproot
tap root and
and lateral
lateral root
root system
systemforms
formsaasolid
solidoverall
overallstructure
structurethat can
that withstand
can withstand thethe
soil’s
soil’s
shear stress.
shear stress. This
This reinforcement
reinforcementmechanism
mechanismcauses
causesthetheregion
regionwith
withthethe
maximum
maximum shear
shear
stressto
stress to shift
shift to
to the
the deeper
deeper soil
soil layer,
layer,which
whichultimately
ultimatelyincreases
increasesslope
slopestability.
stability.

(a) (b)
Figure21.
Figure 21. Soil
Soil shear
shear stress
stress in
incross-section
cross-sectionofofslope
slopewith
withororwithout
withoutlateral root
lateral system:
root (a) (a)
system: thethe
slope
slope
without lateral roots; (b) the slope with lateral roots.
without lateral roots; (b) the slope with lateral roots.

Figure 22
Figure 22 shows
shows the the soil
soil shear
shearstress
stressofofthethetransverse
transversesection
section in in
thethe
middle
middle of slope
of slope
when the incident angle of the lateral root is 0 and when the incident angle is 40When
when the incident angle of the lateral root is 0° ◦and when the incident angle is 40°. ◦ . When
theincident
the incident angle
angle ofof lateral
lateral root
rootisis40°,
40◦ ,the
theshear
shearstress
stressarea
areaofof
soil in in
soil thethe
middle
middleand lower
and lower
part of the slope is shallow, and the shear stress area of soil in the lateral
part of the slope is shallow, and the shear stress area of soil in the lateral root A of living root A of living
stump at
stump at the
the slope
slope foot
foot is
is concentrated.
concentrated.When Whenthe thelateral
lateralroot
roothas anan
has incident
incidentangle of 0°,
angle of 0◦ ,
the shear stress area of the soil is deeper in the middle and lower parts
the shear stress area of the soil is deeper in the middle and lower parts of the slope surface.of the slope surface.
In contrast, the shear stress area of the soil around the lateral root A of the living stump at
In contrast, the shear stress area of the soil around the lateral root A of the living stump at
the slope foot is well separated. The reason for this phenomenon is that when the slope
the slope foot is well separated. The reason for this phenomenon is that when the slope
soil slides, the incident angle becomes 0°, and the sliding force of the soil is applied to the
soil slides, the incident angle becomes 0◦ , and the sliding force of the soil is applied to
lateral root A. As a result, the lateral root and the soil are relatively staggered. The root
the lateral root A. As a result, the lateral root and the soil are relatively staggered. The
generates tensile stress due to deformation, causing the shear stress area of the soil to
root generates tensile stress due to deformation, causing the shear stress area of the soil to
gradually transfer to the root, which enhances slope stability. However, when the incident
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
gradually transfer to the root, which enhances slope stability. However, when the18incident of 20
angle is 40°, ◦ only a portion of the sliding force acts on the lateral root A. In this case, the
angle is 40 , only a portion of the sliding force acts on the lateral root A. In this case, the
lateral root A cannot fully exert its tensile strength, and the shear stress area of the soil
lateral root A cannot fully exert its tensile strength, and the shear stress area of the soil
around the
around the root
rootisisnot
notsignificantly
significantly improved.
improved. As aAs result, the slope
a result, stability
the slope is not as
stability en- as
is not
hanced as as
enhanced whenwhenthethe
incident angle
incident is 0°.
angle is 0◦ .

(a) (b)
Figure 22.
Figure 22. Soil
Soil shear
shear stress
stressin
inslope’s
slope’scross-section:
cross-section:(a)(a)
lateral root
lateral incidence
root is 0°;
incidence is 0(b) lateral
◦ ; (b) rootroot
lateral
incidence is 40°.
◦
incidence is 40 .

In Figure
In Figure23,23,ititcan bebe
can observed
observed thatthat
the area of maximum
the area of maximumshear stress
shear when
stressthe inci-the
when
dent angle
incident of the
angle lateral
of the rootroot
lateral is 0°
is is
0◦deeper
is deepercompared
compared to that when
to that when thethe
angle is 40°.
angle is 40As
◦ . As
mentioned earlier,
mentioned earlier, when
whenthe theincident
incidentangle
angleisis0°,0◦the lateral
, the lateraland
andtaptap
root system
root systemforms a a
forms
solid space and overall structure that efficiently resists the soil shear stress.
solid space and overall structure that efficiently resists the soil shear stress. However, when However,
when
the the incident
incident angle isangle is 40°,
40◦ , the the lateral
lateral root androot
tapandroottap root system
system do not
do not form form space
a solid a solidand
space and overall structure, resulting in the maximum shear stress
overall structure, resulting in the maximum shear stress being shallower. Therefore, being shallower. There-the
fore, the stability of the slope is not improved as much as when
stability of the slope is not improved as much as when the incident angle is 0 . the incident angle
◦ is 0°.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294
dent angle of the lateral root is 0° is deeper compared to that when the angle is 40°. As
mentioned earlier, when the incident angle is 0°, the lateral and tap root system forms a
solid space and overall structure that efficiently resists the soil shear stress. However,
when the incident angle is 40°, the lateral root and tap root system do not form a solid
space and overall structure, resulting in the maximum shear stress being shallower. There-
18 of 20
fore, the stability of the slope is not improved as much as when the incident angle is 0°.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 23.
23. Soil
Soilshear
shearstress
stressininlongitudinal
longitudinalsection of of
section slope toe:
slope (a) (a)
toe: lateral rootroot
lateral incidence is 0°;
incidence is (b)
0◦ ;
lateral root incidence is 40°. ◦
(b) lateral root incidence is 40 .

5.
5. Conclusions
Conclusions
(1) Under
(1) Under aa static
static load,
load, the
the displacement
displacement of of the
the living-stump
living-stump slopeslope is is similar
similar to
to that
that of
of
the original slope, whereas the displacement of the former is significantly
the original slope, whereas the displacement of the former is significantly smaller smaller
than
than that
that of
of the
the latter.
latter. The
The tap
tap root,
root, as
as well
well as
as the
the lateral
lateral root
root AA growing
growing in in the
the slope
slope
direction and the lateral root B growing laterally of the living stump
direction and the lateral root B growing laterally of the living stump in the middle in the middle
and
and lower
lower sections
sections of slope,
of the the slope, effectively
effectively exertsexerts its tensile
its tensile strength
strength in order
in order to en-
to enhance
hance the stability
the stability of the of the slope.
slope.
(2) The tap roots of the living stump in the middle and lower parts of the slope are mainly
subject to positive bending moments and the front part of the roots are tensioned,
while the tap root at the top of slope is mainly subject to negative bending moments.
Measuring point 2 (under the first layer lateral root) is the main bending part of the
tap root.
(3) The living stumps tap roots at the slope foot across the potential sliding surface, due
to the tap root vertical growth, and have certain rigidity and strong tensile resistance.
Through the interaction of roots and soil, the shear stress of the soil gradually transfers
to the root system of the living stump, which makes the shear stress area of the slope
soil deeper and improves the stability of the slope.
(4) The lateral root growth pattern creates a mesh-like structure that binds the soil particles
more effectively. The vertical root system has higher stiffness and tensile strength, and
grows vertically along the depth direction, serving as the skeleton of the entire mesh
structure. The combined effect of the tap root and lateral root system forms a solid
overall structure that can withstand the soil shear stress, which ultimately increases
the slope’s stability.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to this study’s conception and design. Investigation,
writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing, W.L.; supervision and valida-
tion, H.Y.; data curation and formal analysis, H.W.; conceptualization and funding acquisition, X.J.;
resources, Z.L. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 19 of 20

Funding: This study was supported by the Special Projects in Key Fields of Higher Education in
Guangdong Province (Grant No.: 2023ZDZX4044), the Special Projects in Key Fields of Higher
Education in Guangdong Province (Grant No.: 2023ZDZX4045), the Research Capacity Enhancement
Project of Key Construction Discipline in Guangdong Province (Grant No.: 2022ZDJS092), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971727), and the Forest Science and Technology
Innovation Program of Hunan Province (XLK202105-3).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Waldron, L.J. The shear resistance of root-permeated homogeneous and stratified soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1977, 41, 843–849.
[CrossRef]
2. Wu, T.H.; McKinnell, W.P., III; Swanston, D.N. Strength of tree roots and landslides on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Can. Geotech.
J. 1979, 16, 19–33. [CrossRef]
3. Gray, D.H.; Leiser, A.T. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control; Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.: New York, NY,
USA, 1982.
4. Fan, C.-C.; Chen, Y.-W. The effect of root architecture on the shearing resistance of root-permeated soils. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36,
813–826. [CrossRef]
5. Donn, S.; Wheatley, R.E.; McKenzie, B.M.; Loades, K.W.; Hallett, P.D. Improved soil fertility from compost amendment increases
root growth and reinforcement of surface soil on slopes. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 71, 458–465. [CrossRef]
6. McGuire, L.A.; Rengers, F.K.; Kean, J.W.; Coe, J.A.; Mirus, B.B.; Baum, R.L.; Godt, J.W. Elucidating the role of vegetation in the
initiation of rainfall-induced shallow landslides: Insights from an extreme rainfall event in the Colorado Front Range. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 2016, 43, 9084–9092. [CrossRef]
7. Cohen, D.; Schwarz, M. Tree-root control of shallow landslides. Earth Surf. Dyn. 2017, 5, 451–477. [CrossRef]
8. Bordoni, M.; Cislaghi, A.; Vercesi, A.; Bischetti, G.; Meisina, C. Effects of plant roots on soil shear strength and shallow landslide
proneness in an area of northern Italian Apennines. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2020, 79, 3361–3381. [CrossRef]
9. Donjadee, S.; Tingsanchali, T. Soil and water conservation on steep slopes by mulching using rice straw and vetiver grass
clippings. Agric. Nat. Resour. 2016, 50, 75–79. [CrossRef]
10. Nguyen, T.S.; Likitlersuang, S.; Jotisankasa, A. Influence of the spatial variability of the root cohesion on a slope-scale stability
model: A case study of residual soil slope in Thailand. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2019, 78, 3337–3351. [CrossRef]
11. Löbmann, M.T.; Geitner, C.; Wellstein, C.; Zerbe, S. The influence of herbaceous vegetation on slope stability—A review. Earth-Sci.
Rev. 2020, 209, 103328. [CrossRef]
12. Zhu, Y.; Yang, H.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, X.; Deng, R.; Huang, L.; Yin, P.; Lai, G.J.G.; Engineering, G. Numerical simulation of the combined
slope protection effect of living stump and bamboo anchor. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2021, 40, 635–645. [CrossRef]
13. Jiang, X.; Liu, W.; Yang, H.; Li, Z.; Fan, W.; Wang, F. A 3D Model Applied to Analyze the Mechanical Characteristic of Living
Stump Slope with Different Tap Root Lengths. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1978. [CrossRef]
14. Wu, T.H.; Kokesh, C.M.; Trenner, B.R.; Fox, P.J. Use of live poles for stabilization of a shallow slope failure. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 2014, 140, 05014001. [CrossRef]
15. Dupuy, L.; Fourcaud, T.; Stokes, A. A numerical investigation into the influence of soil type and root architecture on tree anchorage.
Plant Soil 2005, 278, 119–134. [CrossRef]
16. Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ma, C.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Song, S.; Zhu, J. Influence of the spatial layout of plant roots on slope stability.
Ecol. Eng. 2016, 91, 477–486. [CrossRef]
17. Danjon, F.; Reubens, B. Assessing and analyzing 3D architecture of woody root systems, a review of methods and applications in
tree and soil stability, resource acquisition and allocation. Plant Soil 2008, 303, 1–34. [CrossRef]
18. Fan, C.-C.; Lai, Y.-F. Influence of the spatial layout of vegetation on the stability of slopes. Plant Soil 2014, 377, 83–95. [CrossRef]
19. Fan, C.-C.; Huang, C.-H.; Chen, J.-H. Role of Plant Root Morphology in the Stability of Vegetated Slopes. J. GeoEng. 2019, 14,
219–227.
20. Yang, M. Tree Root Anchorage: Modelling and Numerical Analyses of Key Contributing Factors of Wind Firmness of Pinus
Pinaster. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France, 2014.
21. Jiang, X.; Hou, L.; Shang, S.; Xu, L.; Yu, H. Physical Modeling of a Shallow-Buried Metro Tunnel in the Soft Loess Layer Using
Similarity Theory. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 5587116. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, Z.J.; Fan, G.; Cao, L.C.; Chang, J.Y. An isolated similarity design method for shaking table tests on reinforced slopes. J. Mt.
Sci. 2021, 18, 2460–2474. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4294 20 of 20

23. Liang, T.; Knappett, J.; Duckett, N.J.G. Modelling the seismic performance of rooted slopes from individual root–soil interaction
to global slope behaviour. Géotechnique 2015, 65, 995–1009. [CrossRef]
24. Vergani, C.; Giadrossich, F.; Buckley, P.; Conedera, M.; Pividori, M.; Salbitano, F.; Rauch, H.; Lovreglio, R.; Schwarz, M. Root
reinforcement dynamics of European coppice woodlands and their effect on shallow landslides: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2017,
167, 88–102. [CrossRef]
25. Kokutse, N.; Fourcaud, T.; Kokou, K.; Neglo, K.; Lac, P. 3D numerical modelling and analysis of the influence of forest structure
on hill slopes stability. In Proceedings of the Interpraevent, Niigata, Japan, 25–29 September 2006; pp. 561–567.
26. Watson, A.; Marden, M.; Rowan, D. Tree species performance and slope stability. Veg. Slopes 1995, 161–171.
27. Wanfu, W.; Fasi, W.; Ruihong, X.; Dongpeng, H.; Fei, Q. Spatial distribution of root system at earthen ruins revealed by ground
penetrating radar. J. Desert Res. 2015, 35, 1163–1170.
28. Mickovski, S.B.; Hallett, P.D.; Bransby, M.F.; Davies, M.C.; Sonnenberg, R.; Bengough, A.G. Mechanical reinforcement of soil by
willow roots: Impacts of root properties and root failure mechanism. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 1276–1285. [CrossRef]
29. Schwarz, M.; Cohen, D.; Or, D. Spatial characterization of root reinforcement at stand scale: Theory and case study. Geomorphology
2012, 171, 190–200. [CrossRef]
30. Zhu, J.; Leung, A.K. A modified embedded beam element to improve the modelling of root-soil interfacial behaviour. In Proceedings
of the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 April 2023; p. EGU-6078.
31. Pollen, N. Temporal and spatial variability in root reinforcement of streambanks: Accounting for soil shear strength and moisture.
Catena 2007, 69, 197–205. [CrossRef]
32. Schwarz, M.; Giadrossich, F.; Cohen, D. Modeling root reinforcement using a root-failure Weibull survival function. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 4367–4377. [CrossRef]
33. Kolb, E.; Legué, V.; Bogeat-Triboulot, M.-B. Physical root–soil interactions. Phys. Biol. 2017, 14, 065004. [CrossRef]
34. Dunbabin, V.M.; Postma, J.A.; Schnepf, A.; Pagès, L.; Javaux, M.; Wu, L.; Leitner, D.; Chen, Y.L.; Rengel, Z.; Diggle, A.J.; et al.
Modelling root–soil interactions using three–dimensional models of root growth, architecture and function. Plant Soil 2013, 372,
93–124. [CrossRef]
35. Sonnenberg, R.; Bransby, M.F.; Bengough, A.G.; Hallett, P.D.; Davies, M.C.R. Centrifuge modelling of soil slopes containing model
plant roots. Can. Geotech. J. 2012, 49, 1415–1430. [CrossRef]
36. 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 2009, 324, 1–30. [CrossRef]
37. Schmidt, K.; Roering, J.; Stock, J.; Dietrich, W.; Montgomery, D.; Schaub, A.T. The variability of root cohesion as an influence on
shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range. Can. Geotech. J. 2001, 38, 995–1024. [CrossRef]
38. Reubens, B.; Poesen, J.; Danjon, F.; Geudens, G.; Muys, B. The role of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability and soil
erosion control with a focus on root system architecture: A review. Trees 2007, 21, 385–402. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.