Performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Technical Paper by D.R. Shiwakoti, T.B.S.
Pradhan and
D. Leshchinsky
PERFORMANCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC-REINFORCED
SOIL STRUCTURES AT LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM STATE
ABSTRACT: Potential failure mechanisms representing various limit equilibrium
states of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes are employed to study the behavior
of reinforced soil walls/slopes. Parametric analyses were conducted to investigate the
effects of varying the values of pore water pressure, soil strength, geosynthetic strength,
soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficients, vertical spacing of geosynthetic, surcharge
load, facing slope, and backslope. In the analyses, geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/
slopes are assumed to have competent foundations. Seepage forces and other dynamic
forces such as earthquake forces have not been taken into account. Similarly, the stabilizing effects of facing rigidity and strength are neglected. The results are presented in
a nondimensional graphical form. Methods of optimizing the design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures are suggested.
KEYWORDS: Geosynthetic-reinforced wall/slope, Limit equilibrium analysis,
Limit equilibrium state, Parametric analysis, Failure mechanisms.
AUTHORS: D.R. Shiwakoti, Research Fellow, Geotechnical Investigation
Laboratory, Port and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry of Transport, 3-1-1 Nagase,
Yokosuka 239, Japan, Telephone: 81/468-44-5025, Telefax: 81/468-44-4577, E-mail:
dinesh@ipc.phri.go.jp; T.B.S. Pradhan, Deceased, formally Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai,
Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan; and D. Leshchinsky, Professor, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA,
Telephone: 1/302-831-2446, Telefax: 1/302-731-1001, E-mail: dov@ce.udel.edu.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota
55113-4061, USA, Telephone: 1/651-222-2508, Telefax: 1/651-631-9334.
Geosynthetics International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATES: Original manuscript received 5 August 1998, revised version received 24
October 1998 and accepted 31 October 1998. Discussion open until 1 July 1999.
REFERENCE: Shiwakoti, D.R., Pradhan, T.B.S. and Leshchinsky, D., 1998,
Performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures at Limit Equilibrium State,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 555-587.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
555
SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State
INTRODUCTION
In the current paper, a method of limit equilibrium analysis used to study the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes is outlined. The influence of various parameters on the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes are
investigated at limit equilibrium state.
Log spiral and two-part wedge failure mechanisms are used to model various potential failure surfaces. For a homogenous backfill, the log spiral failure mechanism has
the advantage of solving the moment equilibrium equations without resorting to statical
assumptions (Leshchinsky and Boedeker 1989). The computer program ReSlope (1.2)
(Leshchinsky 1992; Leshchinsky et al. 1995; Leshchinsky 1997), which incorporates
log spiral and two-part wedge failure mechanisms, constitutes the basis for the limit
equilibrium analysis in the current study. Recently, Version 1.2 was replaced with Version 3.0 (ADAMA Engineering 1998)
Parametric studies are conducted to investigate the effect of the following parameters at various pore water pressures:
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
soil strength;
geosynthetic strength;
soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficients;
vertical spacing of the geosynthetic;
surcharge load;
facing slope; and
backslope.
In the analyses, the geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes are assumed to have

a competent foundation. In other words, deep-seated failure modes are not considered.
Similarly, seepage forces and other dynamic forces such as earthquake forces are not
taken into account. Stabilizing effects and the strength of facing rigidity (Tatsuoka
1992) are neglected.
FACTOR OF SAFETY IN LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
Several definitions of factor of safety, FS , are presently being used in limit equilibrium design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. There is one definition consistent
with conventional limit equilibrium analyses, in which extensive experience has been
acquired over many years: the ratio of the available soil shear strength and the shear
strength required for equilibrium. In other words:
FS =
tan available
c available
=
c design
tan design
(1)
where: ci and i = effective soil cohesion and effective internal friction angle of the soil,
respectively; subscript available = available shear strength parameter of the soil; and
subscript design = required design shear strength of the soil.
556
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
To take into account the progressive failure of soil structures, the use of design
strength parameters not exceeding their residual values are recommended. Generally,
this can be achieved by adopting a factor of safety of approximately 1.3 for the peak
soil strength. For design soil parameters, ci and i , the required reinforcement strength
and layout should be calculated so that the structure attains the limit equilibrium state
for the most critical realistic case. To select an appropriate ultimate geosynthetic
strength, the required reinforcement strength should then be multiplied by a variety of
relevant reduction factors such as creep, installation damage, aging, and a factor of safety for material uncertainty:
T allow =
T ult
RFid RFcr RFd FS
(2)
where: Tallow = allowable tensile strength of the geosynthetic; Tult = ultimate tensile
strength of the geosynthetic; RFid = reduction factor for geosynthetic installation damage; RFcr = reduction factor for geosynthetic creep; and RFd = reduction factor for geosynthetic durability.
3
POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS AT LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM

STATE
Tie-back and compound failure analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced walls/slopes

were performed assuming a log spiral failure mechanism. The direct sliding failure
mode was modeled using a two-part wedge failure mechanism. These failure mechanisms are briefly outlined in this section. Leshchinsky (1997) describes tie-back and
compound failure mechanisms in detail.
3.1
Log Spiral Failure Mechanism
3.1.1 Background
Various types of failure surfaces have been used to analyse geosynthetic-reinforced
earth structures with the limit equilibrium method. The conventional circular-slip failure mechanism, with a modification to account for the restoring moment provided by
reinforcement layers, is a typical example. An extension of Spencers method (Wright
and Duncan 1991), which yields a slip surface of general shape, is yet another example.
Slip surfaces of general shape can represent actual failure surfaces more precisely; however, the rendered problem is statically indeterminate, thereby introducing new uncertainties into the corresponding solutions.
If the backfill soil is homogenous, it is convenient to use the log spiral failure mechanism because moment equilibrium equations can be satisfied explicitly. Hence, the
problem becomes statically determinate without resorting to statical assumptions
(Leshchinsky and Boedeker 1989).
Referring to Figure 1, the log spiral failure surface is defined as:
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
557
Pole of log spiral, O at (xc , yc )

x = xc + r sin
y = yc --- r cos
r = A exp(--- )
r2 = A exp(--- 2 )
where = tandesign
xCG --- xC
r1 = A exp( 1 )
where = tandesign
Log spiral slip surface
Layer n
---kv W
kh W
tn
()dl = () tandesign dl
()dl
CG
design
W
Layer 3
Resultant of
yn ()dl and ()dl,
passes through
the log spiral
pole, O
t3
Layer 2 t
2
y3
y2
t1
Figure 1.
Definition of a log spiral failure surface (Leshchinsky 1997).
r = A exp( tan design )
(3)
x = x c + r sin
(4)
y = y c r cos
(5)
where: r = log spiral radius; = log spiral angle; design = design value for the internal
friction angle of the soil; x = horizontal distance; y = vertical distance; xc = x-coordinate
of the log spiral pole; yc = y-coordinate of the log spiral pole; and A = log spiral constant.
For an assumed log spiral surface (which is fully defined by three independent parameters, xc , yc , and A), the moment equilibrium equation about the pole, O, can be
written explicitly, without resorting to statical assumptions, as follows (Figure 1):
558
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
= W(1 + k v )(xCG xc ) + k h W( yc yCG ) c d
(x x )dy
c
(y y)dx + u (x x )dx u ( y y )dy t (y y ) = 0

n
cd
j=1
(6)
where: cd = cdesign = soil cohesion design value; MO = moment about the log spiral pole
O; W = self-weight of the soil mass; kv = vertical component of the seismic coefficient;
xCG = x-coordinate of the center of gravity of the soil mass within the log spiral; kh = horizontal component of the seismic coefficient; yCG = y-coordinate of the center of gravity
of the soil mass within the log spiral; u = pore water pressure; tj = tensile reactive force
in a geosynthetic reinforcement layer; n = total number of reinforcement layers; and
yj = vertical distance from the slope base to reinforcement Layer j.
Because the resultant of the normal stress and shear stress passes through the log spiral pole, O, the moment about O is independent of the normal stress and its associated
shear stresses over the log spiral surface.
Rather than using an algorithm search defined by the three log spiral parameters A,
xc , and yc , the program ReSlope uses the point at which the log spiral emerges and the
two tangents (at the start and exit points), which is a more efficient procedure. Geometrically, this is equivalent to the log spiral parameters A, xc , and yc . However, small
changes in the tangent values can represent a very large change in the log spiral pole
(i.e. an extremely large change in xc and yc ). Consequently, wide ranges of possible slip
surfaces are covered with small changes of the optimization parameters, i.e. the tangents. The use of tangents, especially at the point of entry, makes it easier to limit the
search to reasonable slip surfaces. Optimization in slope stability analyses often produces a rotational mechanism in which overhanging cliffs are produced. That is, the
slip surface just below the crest (i.e. point of entry) often turns inward to form a circular
arc, or, in other words, the center of the circle is below the crest. A common procedure
in slope stability analyses is to introduce a tensile crack as the surface curvature
changes. Another solution, which is used in ReSlope, is to set the limit on the slip surfaces so that the tangent at the crest will not exceed 90_. Such a restricted search excludes overhanging cliffs and, thus, renders a minimum factor of safety that
corresponds to a slip surface limited by engineering judgment rather than pure mathematics (i.e. a minimum factor of safety on the boundary of the search domain). It should
be stated that the equivalent search approach for circular slip surfaces is to restrict the
height of the center of the critical circle to a height greater than or equal to the height
of the crest.
3.1.2 Tie-Back Analysis
For a given geometry, pore water pressure, and soil properties, a tie-back analysis
provides the tensile resistance of each reinforcement layer required to safely secure a
reinforced soil mass against internal collapse caused by the driving forces of the soil
mass. The objective of the current analysis is to find the reactive force required to balance the active lateral earth pressure at the slope face.
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
559
Referring to Figure 2a, the destabilizing soil mass leaning against facial unit a of
the reinforced slope is restrained by the reinforcement reaction ta , which is calculated
by searching for the log spiral surface that produces the maximum reaction. This value
of ta is considered to be a known force such that the values of the required reinforcement
forces for succeeding layers can be determined. To calculate the force acting against unit
b, tb (the reactive force ta is known), a search for the maximum tb value is performed
by varying the log spiral surfaces passing through the bottom of unit b. This log spiral
search process is repeated until the reactive forces for all of the reinforcement layers are
calculated. The outermost log spiral surface is considered to be the boundary between
the stable and unstable soil mass, i.e. active zone. As shown in Figure 2b, the geosynthetic must then be embedded in the stable zone to develop a sufficient pullout resistance.
(a)
a
Unstable (active) zone
ta
Stable zone
tb
c
tc
Competent foundation
td
(b)
Log spiral
producing t1(max)
tn
Tie-back (sliding) mass
(active zone)
t1
t2
t3
t4
tn --- 1
Stable zone
Geosynthetic layers are

anchored into stable zone
a sufficient distance to develop
required tensile reaction, tj
Figure 2. Method of calculating reactive force using a tie-back analysis: (a) principle of
reactive force calculation; (b) anchorage of reinforcement in the stable zone.
560
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
3.1.3 Compound Analysis

If examined using a conventional slope stability approach, the reinforcement layout
resulting from a tie-back analysis may not be safe because potential slip surfaces may
extend outside the reinforced zone (Jewell 1990; Schmertmann 1991). Thus, a compound analysis is required to ensure safety against such a failure.
The reinforcement force specified by a tie-back analysis for each layer, in reality,
equals or exceeds the calculated reinforcement strength value, i.e. tj(allowable) > tj (Figure
3). As a result, only the bottom m layers are required to meet the global stability requirements. The upper m + 1 layers need only contribute as much as the required calculated
tensile force values. Therefore, the tensile reactive force for Layer m (where m is the
number of reinforcement layers required to ensure compound stability) is calculated
such that the following criterion is satisfied:
m
j(allowable)
j=1
(7)
j=1
where n m.
Embedding the layers immediately to the right of the outermost log spiral surface
obtained in the tie-back analysis assures that tj(allowable) values for Layers 1 to m and tj
values for Layers m + 1 to n can develop through pullout resistance, such that a system
having a factor of safety in excess of FSdesign is ensured. Truncating the upper Layers m
+ 1 to n (Points A, B, and C in Figure 3) will decrease the factor of safety, which will
be equal to or slightly greater than FSdesign .
FS
FSdesign
tn
tn ---1
tm+1
tm(allowable)
t3(allowable)
t2(allowable)
t1(allowable)
Figure 3.
B
C
D
E
F
G
Compound log
spirals that yield the
same minimum FS
Outer log spiral obtained from
tie-back analysis with
modified tj distribution for
compound stability analysis
The length DEFGH required to
assure FS FSdesign against
compound failure (excluding
anchorage length against pullout)
Scheme used to check stability against compound failure (Leshchinsky 1997).
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
561
Each layer from 1 to m is embedded beyond the slip surface to fully develop the
tj(allowable ) value. Layer m is then truncated and the moment equilibrium equation is examined to check whether FS decreases to FSdesign . If it has, Layer m is also truncated; if
FS is less than FSdesign , this layer is lengthened and the process of checking the moment
equilibrium is repeated again. This process is repeated to determine the required length
of Layer m -- 1, while considering no contribution from all of the layers above Layer m
-- 1. Point E is, thus, located. To yield the surface containing points DEFGH in Figure
3 that is necessary to prevent a compound failure, while assuring a minimum value of
FS or greater, the process is repeated for all reinforcement layers.
Compound failure surfaces emerging above the wall/slope toe are examined and the
reinforcement length required to produce factors of safety exceeding FSdesign against
such a failure surface is ensured. If required, the reinforcement layers previously truncated are lengthened to produce a factor of safety equal to FS .
Finally, the anchorage length required to produce a resistance against pullout is calculated as follows:
l e, j =
tj
2Ci v, j (tan design + c design )
(8)
where design , c design , C i , and v, j are the design values of the effective internal friction angle of the backfill soil, effective backfill soil cohesion, soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficient, and the average effective overburden pressure acting on geosynthetic
Layer j, respectively.
3.2
Two-Part Wedge Failure Mechanism
For rigorous slope stability analyses with a general slip surface shape, the potential
direct sliding mode of failure is automatically checked. However, when a log spiral failure surface is used (i.e. rotational failure), the possibility of a direct sliding failure must
be examined separately.
The direct sliding mode of failure is examined using the two-part wedge method.
The required base length, Lds , is calculated to assure sufficient resistance against the
interwedge force, P (Figure 4). The force equilibrium is satisfied by assuming a value
of the interwedge force inclination, .
Referring to Figure 4, for an assumed value of Lds , the maximum value of the interwedge force, P, is found by varying the angle of inclination of the direct sliding surface
with the horizontal, cr , and solving the two force equilibrium equations for the active
Wedge A. The interwedge force is the resultant of the lateral earth pressure exerted by
the backfill soil on the reinforced soil. Next, the vertical force equilibrium equation for
Wedge B (which includes the vertical component of the active wedge lateral thrust,
P sin ) is solved. After obtaining the reaction force, NB , the sliding resistance force,
TB , along the base length, Lds , is calculated as follows:
T B = Cds (N B tan design + c design Lds )
(9)
where Cds is the soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficient, as determined from direct

shear tests.
562
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
kh Q dA
FSds = TB / (P cos)
Wedge A: unreinforced soil
Wedge B: reinforced soil
Pmax
---kv WB
kh WB
WB
---kv WA
kh WA
Pmax
WA
C = cdesign LA
(cdesign of
backfill soil)
LA
NA
TA = NA tand
(design and cdesign of reinforced soil)
cr
Competent foundation
NB TB = NB tandesign + cdesign Lds ) Cds
Lds
Figure 4.
Two-part wedge failure mechanism for direct sliding (Leshchinsky 1997).
The actual factor of safety against direct sliding of the reinforced mass, FSds , is then
determined as follows:
FS ds =
TB
P cos
(10)
The FSds value corresponds to the assumed value of Lds used in Equation 9. The Lds
value is then changed and the force equilibrium equations are solved until the computed
factor of safety against direct sliding, FSds , equals the prescribed factor of safety, FS,
that yields the required Lds value.
4
PARAMETRIC ANALYSES
4.1
Introduction
To study the influence of various parameters on the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes at limit state, parametric studies were conducted using the
limit equilibrium analysis described in Section 3. The values of various parameters
were chosen based on the following procedures.
The wall/slope height, H, was assumed to be 5 m. Unless otherwise stated specifically: inclination of the reinforced face, i = 60_; bulk unit weight of the soil, = 17 kN/m3;
effective internal friction angle of the soil, = 30_; effective soil cohesion, c = 0; soilgeosynthetic interaction coefficients, Ci = Cds = 0.8; and ultimate tensile strength of the
geosynthetic, Tult = 20 kN/m. The value of was assumed to equal the value of . Analyses were performed at the limit equilibrium state of the reinforced soil mass, i.e. for
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
563
a general factor of safety, FS = 1. Similarly, FS = 1 has been assumed for all other reduction factors described by Equation 2. All of the results were presented in a nondimensional form so that the observations could be generalized.
The effect of pore water pressure was investigated by using: (i) static pore water
pressure, u, when the piezometric surface was used for the hydrostatic pore water distribution; and (ii) pore water pressure coefficient, ru , when the pore water pressure distribution was not hydrostatic.
The pore water pressure coefficient, ru , is defined as:
ru = u
h
(11)
where: h = depth of a point in a soil mass measured from the soil surface; and = bulk
unit weight of the soil. The values of ru range from 0.0 to 0.7 in commonly encountered
geotechnical problems.
4.2
Influence of the Pore Water Pressure
The parameters used in the analysis are described in Section 4.1. The vertical spacing
of the geosynthetic was varied from 0.25 to 1.0 m for the optimized solution (variable
spacing arrangement of 0.25 to 1.0 m). Thus, for a 5 m wall height, the number of reinforcement layers varied from 5 to 20 to yield the optimized solution. The whole system
was designed to bring the reinforced mass to a limit equilibrium state (i.e. to FS = 1).
Figure 5 shows a typical geosynthetic-reinforced wall with various potential failure
surfaces obtained for varying pore water pressure conditions. The pore water pressure
values of ru = 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, and the static pore water pressure with the water table
at the top of the reinforced wall are shown in Figure 5. Also included in Figure 5 are:
(i) number of reinforcement layers necessary to reach the limit equilibrium state; (ii)
geosynthetic-reinforcement length required for each layer to resist tie-back/compound
failure; (iii) reactive tensile force required for each layer to resist tie-back failure; and
(iv) critical type of failure for each reinforcement layer. For reinforcement layers labeled with the letter c, it is implied that a compound failure influences the type of
failure for that layer. For layers without a label, tie-back failure is critical for bringing
the system to a limit equilibrium state.
It can be seen in Figure 5 that the higher the pore water pressure, the larger the resulting unstable zone, i.e. the deeper the potential failure surfaces. Particularly, the direct
sliding surface deepens significantly with an increase in pore water pressure. Figure 5
indicates that the direct sliding mode of failure becomes dominant when the pore water
pressure is very large. Furthermore, a greater reactive force is required to stabilize the
unstable zone as a result of an increase in the pore water pressure. Thus, for an increase
in the pore water pressure, longer and stronger and/or closely spaced geosynthetic arrangements are essential.
It may also be noted that for ru = 0.5, the length of geosynthetic required to resist
direct sliding, Lds , is more than three times greater than the length of geosynthetic required for ru = 0. Furthermore, for the same wall with the water table at the top of the
wall (Figure 5d), the required Lds value is four times greater. Thus, a greater number of
reinforcement layers is required to support the wall at higher pore water pressures. It
564
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
(a)
i
T(tie)req = 1.1 kN/m
3.4
Compound failure surface

Tie-back failure surface
Direct sliding surface
5.8
Geosynthetic reinforcement
8.2
10.7
(b)
6.0
10.4

14.9
19.3
(c)

9.5
16.4
17.3
14.0

15.8
8.7
(d)
10.7
18.6
19.6
16.0
18.1

10.0
Figure 5. Effect of pore water pressure on the performance of geosynthetic-r einforced

walls/slopes: (a) ru = 0; (b) ru = 0.25; (c) ru = 0.50; (d) water table at top of wall.
Notes: = 17 kN/m3; i = = 30_; Ci = Cds = 0.8; Tult = 20 kN/m; H = height of wall/slope = 5 m, i = 60_;
geosynthetic spacing = 0.25 to 1 m; FS = 1.0; c denotes compound failure mechanism, where Treq = Tult .
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
565
can also be seen that the number of reinforcement layers subjected to compound failure
increases with an increase in the pore water pressure.
It is interesting to note that even at the limit equilibrium state, only a small fraction
of the ultimate geosynthetic strength is mobilized in most of the layers. With an increase
in the pore water pressure, the mobilized reactive force also increases. This is considered in detail in Section 4.4.
The amount of mobilized tensile force varies significantly, not only with pore water
pressure, but also with depth. Generally, a greater tensile strength is mobilized toward
the bottom layers. Thus, if a geosynthetic with the same strength is specified for all of
the layers, a large proportion of the geosynthetic strength is not used; however, the allowable strength of some layers is required for compound stability.
4.3
Influence of Backfill Soil Strength
Backfill soil strength (i.e. soil in the reinforced and unreinforced zones) is one of the
most important parameters governing the behavior of reinforced soil structures at the
limit equilibrium state. If the slope of a soil structure is equal to or less than the internal
friction angle of the soil, the soil mass will remain stable without the use of reinforcement. Increasing the slope or adding other destabilizing agents such as pore water pressure, surcharge load, and earthquake load, necessitates the use of reinforcement in such
structures.
To investigate the influence of the backfill soil strength on the performance of a reinforced soil wall, analyses were carried out at various effective soil internal friction
angles, , ranging from 10 to 45_. The effect of soil strength on the mobilization of
various components of reinforcement reactive forces and geosynthetic lengths were
analyzed. A comparison of the two different variable geosynthetic spacing arrangements of 0.25 to 1 m (Figure 6a) and 0.25 to 4 m (Figure 6b) was performed.
In Figure 6, Lreq is the summation of the geosynthetic length required for each layer
to satisfy all three failure criteria (tie-back, compound, and two-part wedge sliding).
L(t/c) is the summation of the geosynthetic length required for each layer to satisfy tieback and compound failure analyses, including the anchorage length. Lanchor is the
summation of the minimum geosynthetic reinforcement anchorage length required for
each layer. Lpullout is the maximum value of the minimum reinforcement length required,
determined from pullout and tie-back failure analyses, for a pullout factor of safety of
1. Lds is the geosynthetic length required for the bottom layer to bring the reinforced soil
system to the limit equilibrium state against direct sliding. tj is the summation of the
reactive forces mobilized in each layer for tie-back limit equilibrium. treq is the
summation of the critical reactive tensile forces mobilized in each layer for governing
the failure mode (between tie-back and compound). The reactive forces were divided
by half the product of the bulk unit weight of the soil, , and the square of the wall height
(i.e. H2/2) to obtain dimensionless values.
It may be noted that all of the length parameters were normalized using the wall
height. Normalizing the length parameters by the multiplication of wall height and the
required number of reinforcement layers may also provide a meaningful comparison.
However, in the current paper, this has not been done for two primary reasons. First, on
many occasions, the number of reinforcement layers is not fixed at a certain arbitrary
number but is allowed to vary for an optimized solution. Second, it is not the main ob-
566
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Lreq / H
i (_)
i (_)
i (_)
i (_)
ru = 0.00
ru = 0.25
ru = 0.50
Water table at the surface
i (_)
Lanchor / H
Influence of the backfill soil strength, i: (a) geosynthetic vertical spacing ranges from 0.25 to 4.00 m.
Lds / H
treq / (0.5 H2)
tj / (0.5 H2)
Figure 6.
i (_)
i (_)
L(t/c) / H
Lpullout / H
(a)
H=5m
i = 60_
Tult = 20 kN/m
FS = 1
i =
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds = 0.8
567
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
treq / (0.5 H2)
t j / (0.5 H2)
Figure 6 continued.
i (_)
i (_)
L(t/c) / H
Lanchor / H
i (_)
i (_)
ru = 0.00
ru = 0.25
ru = 0.50
Water table at the surface
i (_)
(b) geosynthetic vertical spacing ranges from 0.25 to 1.00 m.
i (_)
i (_)
Lreq / H
Lds / H
568
Lpullout / H
(b)
H=5m
i = 60_
Tult = 20 kN/m
FS = 1
i =
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds = 0.8
jective of the current study to compare the weighted average of the geosynthetic length
with its critical length.
When the backfill soil strength is low, the total reinforcement length, as well as each
required component length, increases at an approximately exponential rate (Figure 6).
This can be explained by the fact that with a decrease in , the failure surface deepens
rapidly. On the other hand, with an increase in not only the failure surface becomes
shallower but the number of layers required to maintain the limit equilibrium state of
the reinforced soil mass decreases. Thus, fewer layers of geosynthetic reinforcement
are required for soils with large values. In other words, the vertical spacing between
geosynthetic layers can be increased for greater backfill soil strength, , values. These
results indicate that with an increase in pore water pressure, longer reinforcement layers
at closer spacings are required due to the deepened failure surface and the increased
reactive force.
As illustrated in Figure 6, Lds increases significantly with a decrease in . Lds increases several fold if ru is increased from 0 to 0.5. This occurs because with a decrease
in and an increase in ru , the direct shear slip surface deepens. However, the vertical
spacing range of the reinforcement does not have any influence on Lds . Although the
value of Lpullout increases with an increase in ru and a decrease in , it is not as sensitive
as Lds for the given change in ru and .
The relative importance of each type of failure mechanism on the total geosynthetic
length requirement, Lreq , is also shown in Figure 6. As expected, the greatest contribution to the total geosynthetic length requirement comes from L(t/c) . The contribution
from anchorage requirements, Lanchor , is also significant. Although the total anchorage
length, Lanchor , increases significantly with a decrease in , the percent contribution
of Lanchor to Lreq decreases with a decrease in . Moreover, with an increase in ru , the
percent contribution of Lanchor to Lreq decreases, suggesting that the influence of other
factors becomes more dominant with an increase in ru . It is also evident that the contribution of the required base length Lds to Lreq is much more significant when
compared to that of Lpullout , especially at lower values and greater ru values.
Figure 6 also compares the effect of and the pore water pressure on the summation
of the reactive force in each reinforcement layer, tj , as obtained from tie-back analyses, and the total force mobilized from tie-back and compound analyses, treq . Reactive
forces are greater for soils with low values and greater pore water pressures. It is evident that treq is invariably greater than tj , implying that compound failure is critical
for many layers. For ru = 0, tj at = 10_ is more than 14 times greater when compared
to the case with = 45_. Similarly, for = 30_, tj increases by approximately 3 times
when ru increases from 0 to 0.50.
The influence of pore water pressure on the required length and mobilized reactive
force is significant. At = 30_ and for a variable spacing range of 0.25 to 4 m, for example, Lreq increases by approximately 2.8 times when ru increases from 0 to 0.25 (Figure
6a). Lreq increases by approximately 7.5 times when ru increases from 0 to 0.5. Similarly, both treq and tj increase by approximately 3 times when ru increases from 0 to 0.5.
The analysis results for a more realistic spacing range of 0.25 to 1 m are shown in
Figure 6a. Although the pattern is similar to that of Figure 6a, consistently greater geosynthetic lengths are required if closer vertical spacings are specified. However, the resulting increase in Lreq is not very large. Compared to the spacing range of 0.25 to 4
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
569
m, tj also increased for the 0.25 to 1 m spacing range. Note, however, that the reinforcement spacing range has little affect on the reactive tensile force, tj .
The effect of geosynthetic vertical spacing variation with changes in the pore water
pressure coefficient can also be examined by comparing Figure 6a and Figure 6b. Because the number of reinforcement layers increases with increases in ru , the effect of
spacing range on the total length requirement becomes less. For example, when =
30_ and ru = 0.0, Lreq is approximately 2.7 times greater for a 0.25 to 1 m spacing range
when compared to the value of Lreq for a 0.25 to 4 m spacing range. However, at ru =
0.5 the ratio reduces to approximately 1.3 and, for fully saturated soil, the ratio further
decreases to approximately 1.1.
If granular fill materials are used and proper drainage arrangements are made, pore
water pressure will not develop in the reinforced soil system. For a given soil, the additional length and required reactive reinforcement strength increases several fold with
an increase in ru . If a low permeability soil is used as a backfill material, Lreq increases
tremendously. To overcome this situation, the use of a geosynthetic with a high drainage
capability, such as geosynthetic horizontal drain (GHD), is recommended. A suitable
GHD may comprise a composite geosynthetic sheet consisting of an undulated core
wrapped in a filter cover, i.e. geotextile. It is characterized by a large water drainage
capacity, in addition to adequate tensile strength. The geotextile functions as a filter for
soil particles, while allowing the free flow of water into the GHD core. The core serves
as a lateral drainage path for the infiltrate. A typical GHD has a total thickness of 10
mm, width of 600 mm, water transmissivity of 0.1 m/s, and is supplied in 100 m long
rolls. Many researchers have investigated the possibility of using GHDs in constructing
reinforced walls with a cohesive backfill soil (Kamon et al. 1994; Kamon et al. 1995;
Shiwakoti 1997).
4.4
Influence of Geosynthetic Strength
There are various types of geosynthetics on the market with a wide range of ultimate
reinforcement strengths. It is important to select a geosynthetic with an appropriate ultimate strength value, Tult . The selected geosynthetic should be strong enough to provide
the required strength for the stability of the slope or wall. However, if an excessively
strong geosynthetic is used, a large proportion of the strength may not be used.
Relationships between the ultimate tensile strength of a geosynthetic, Tult , and Lreq
are illustrated in Figure 7a. The values of L(t/c) are also shown. Plots were made for
various values at ru = 0.00, 0.25, and 0.50. For the analyses, the vertical spacings between geosynthetic layers was varied from 0.25 to 4 m.
The plots in Figure 7 suggest that if the chosen value of Tult is too small, L(t/c) and,
hence, Lreq become too large. This occurs because smaller values of Tult require a closer
vertical spacing. Consequently, the required number of reinforcement layers increases.
On the other hand, beyond a certain limit, an increase in Tult does not contribute to a
further decrease in geosynthetic length. This occurs because the minimum geosynthetic
length required depends on the upper limit of the geosynthetic vertical spacing so as to
avoid a given potential failure surface. As a result, the use of excessively strong reinforcement becomes significantly uneconomical. This effect becomes even more magnified for soils with low values. Although not shown here, similar trends were also
observed for fixed vertical geosynthetic spacings.
570
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Lreq / H
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Figure 7.
L(t/c) / H
Tult / 0.5H 2
ru = 0.50
Tult / 0.5H 2
ru = 0.50
i = 15_
i = 25_
i = 35_
i = 45_
H=5m
i = 60_
FS = 1
i =
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds = 0.8
Spacing = 0.25 to 4 m
Tult / 0.5H 2
ru = 0.00, i = 35_
ru = 0.25, i = 35_
ru = 0.50, i = 35_
Influence of the geosynthetic ultimate strength, Tult : (a) affect on the wall/slope performance.
Tult / 0.5H 2
ru = 0.25
ru = 0.00
Tult / 0.5H 2
Tult / 0.5H 2
Tult / 0.5H 2
Lreq / H
L(t/c) / H
ru = 0.25
Lreq / H
L(t/c) / H
ru = 0.00
t j / (0.5 H2)
(a)
571
Reinforcement layers
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
layer
0.8
0.6
0.8
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
(b) affect on the efficiency of the geosynthetic.
0.6
tj i / Tult
0.4
ru = 0.00
Tult = 60 kN/m
tj i / Tult
0.4
1.0
Compound
failure
ru = 0.00
Tult = 30 kN/m
Tie-back failure
0.6
tj i / Tult
0.4
ru = 0.00
Tult = 15 kN/m Bottom
Top layer
0.6
0.6
tj i / Tult
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
ru = 0.25
Tult = 60 kN/m
tj i / Tult
0.4
0.8
ru = 0.25
Tult = 30 kN/m
0.6
tj i / Tult
0.4
ru = 0.25
Tult = 15 kN/m
572
Figure 7 continued.
(b)
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
tj i / Tult
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
ru = 0.50
Tult = 60 kN/m
tj i / Tult
0.4
ru = 0.50
Tult = 30 kN/m
tj i / Tult
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
ru = 0.50
Tult = 15 kN/m
The effect of ru on the total required geosynthetic length can also be seen in Figure
7. With an increase in the pore water pressure, the potential slip surface deepens, thus,
requiring greater geosynthetic lengths. This observation is true regardless of the specified vertical geosynthetic spacing. It may also be noted that the smaller the ru value, the
lower the optimum Tult value.
Apart from the required reinforcement length, it is essential to understand the effect
of Tult on the reactive forces developed in the geosynthetic reinforcement. Figure 7
shows the relationship between Tult and the tensile reactive force, tj . Comparisons are
made for ru = 0.00, 0.25, and 0.50 and = 35_. It may be recalled that tj is the summation of tensile reactive forces mobilized in each layer, as obtained from the tie-back
analysis. As can be seen, the correlation between tj and Tult is not strong. With an increase in Tult , the value of tj continues to decrease by small amounts to a certain limit,
before reaching a constant value. However, for a closer geosynthetic spacing, the correlation further diminishes. In other words, when Tult is greater than a certain value, tj
is approximately constant with respect to Tult . This suggests that instead of using a few
strong geosynthetic layers, use many layers of a geosynthetic with a relatively low Tult
value, which would provide a more cost-effective design alternative.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of this design alternative, a comparison of the reactive force developed in each geosynthetic layer versus its ultimate tensile strength is
shown in Figure 7b. To simplify the comparison, 10 fixed layers of a geosynthetic were
used at a 500 mm vertical spacing in each case. The remaining input parameters are the
same as in Figure 7a. In Figure 7b, tij is the reactive tensile force required by a tie-back
or compound failure analysis, whichever is greater. For a meaningful comparison, the
reactive force tij was normalized by the corresponding ultimate tensile strength of the
geosynthetic, Tult . The ratio tij / Tult = 1 implies that a compound failure is critical. If
tij / Tult > 1, it is implied that the value of Tult is not strong enough to maintain the limit
equilibrium state of the reinforced wall. To avoid such a situation, a greater value of
Tult or a closer arrangement of reinforcement is necessary. Bottom layer(s) are subjected
to compound failure as explained earlier. Reactive forces plotted in the remaining upper
layers (Figure 7b) indicate the results of a tie-back analysis. Although not shown here,
Lds is also not affected by the choice of Tult .
Figure 7b suggests that for a given Tult value, the mobilized reactive force is not uniform but varies with depth. The reinforcement in the upper layers mobilize a lower proportion of Tult when compared to the reinforcement in the lower layers. With an increase
in Tult , the mobilized fraction of the ultimate strength becomes even smaller. Thus, after
attaining a certain limiting value, the reinforcement efficiency, tij / Tult , reduces with
an increase in Tult . When ru increases, the reinforcement efficiency increases for a given
value of Tult .
The selection of an appropriate geosynthetic Tult value is very important for technical
and economic reasons. The most efficient method of selection would be to select different strength geosynthetics for the different layers; however, in practice, reinforced
walls are typically designed with one type of geosynthetic. Therefore, an optimized
solution can be attained by using a greater number of reinforcement layers with a reasonable ultimate strength instead of using a few layers of reinforcement with a large
ultimate strength.
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
573
4.5
Influence of Soil-Geosynthetic Interaction Coefficients
The soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficient, Ci , and the soil-geosynthetic coefficient of direct sliding, Cds , are defined by Equations 8 and 9, respectively. In the current
study, the value of Ci is assumed to equal Cds . The influence of the soil-geosynthetic
interaction coefficients on the required geosynthetic length and mobilized reactive
forces are presented in Figure 8 for vertical geosynthetic spacing ranges of 0.25 to 4 m
and 0.25 to 1 m at ru of 0.00, 0.25, and 0.50. The following observations can be made.
1. The rate of change of various geosynthetic length values with Ci and Cds is approximately exponential. Beyond a certain interaction coefficient value of, say, 0.6, the
geosynthetic length requirements reduce dramatically.
2. The direct sliding length, Lds , is more sensitive to the interaction coefficient than
L(t/c) because to calculate L(t/c) only the anchored geosynthetic length is influenced
by the interaction coefficient (Equation 8). In contrast, in calculating Lds , the whole
geosynthetic length is affected by the interaction coefficient (Equation 9).
3. With a decrease in Cds , Lds significantly increases (Lds , however, does not depend on
the vertical spacing of the geosynthetic).
4. tj and treq are not affected by changes in Ci (or Cds ).
5. For the vertical spacing range of 0.25 to 4 m and Ci = 0.6, the total required geosynthetic length to resist tie-back/compound failure at ru = 0.25 is approximately 2.9
times the length required at ru = 0. At ru = 0.50, the ratio is approximately 7.9 times
greater. For a closer spacing range (0.25 to 1 m), this ratio is significantly less, although Lreq is greater. This increase in Lreq for a closer spacing range is caused by
the requirement of additional reinforcement layers, which is controlled by the minimum number of required reinforcement layers.
Geosynthetic surface roughness can be a more critical parameter than the reinforcement strength when considering the stability of the base layer. Thus, to avoid base layer
failure due to direct sliding and to reduce the required reinforcement base length, a geosynthetic with a rough and/or interlocking surface is essential, especially for the base
layer.
4.6
Influence of Geosynthetic Vertical Spacing
The effect of variable geosynthetic vertical spacing (0.25 to 4 m and 0.25 to 1 m)

was presented in Section 4.2. Parametric analyses were also performed for fixed vertical spacings of 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 m, resulting in 20, 10, and 5 layers of geosynthetic
reinforcement, respectively. Pore water pressure coefficient values, ru , of 0.00 and 0.25
were considered in the analyses.
Figure 9 clearly demonstrates that the total geosynthetic length required is greater
for a closer reinforcement spacing because, when the number of reinforcement layers
increases, the summation of the length required increases rapidly. However, the values
of tj and treq do not vary remarkably with geosynthetic vertical spacing, especially
when the soil strength is reasonably large. It is thus apparent from the current analysis
that a closer geosynthetic spacing requires longer reinforcement layers, and the proportion of the mobilized tensile strength reduces with an increase in the number of layers.
574
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Lreq / H
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Figure 8.
L(t/c) / H
Ci (= Cds )
Ci (= Cds )
t req / (0.5 H2)
Lanchor / H
Lds / H
t j / (0.5 H2)
ru = 0.50
ru = 0.00
ru = 0.25
ru = 0.50
ru = 0.25
ru = 0.00
Ci (= Cds )
Influence of soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficient values.
Ci (= Cds )
Ci (= Cds )
H=5m
i = 60_
FS = 1
Tult = 20 kN/m
i = = 30_
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds
Ci (= Cds )
575
Lreq / H
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Figure 9.
L(t/c) / H
576
i (_)
i (_)
ru = 0.25, 20, 10, 5 layers
ru = 0.00, 20, 10, 5 layers
i (_)
treq / (0.5 H2)
Influence of the geosynthetic vertical spacing.
i (_)
i (_)
Lanchor / H
Lds / H
i (_)
H=5m
i = 60_
Tult = 40 kN/m
FS = 1
i =
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds = 0.8
ru = 0.25
20 layers
10 layers
5 layers
ru = 0.00
20 layers
10 layers
5 layers
t j / (0.5 H2)
The current analysis, however, does not take into account several practical aspects
of reinforced wall construction, such as workability and ease of construction. To facilitate workability during construction and to accommodate several other factors not currently accounted for, a large vertical spacing is not practical. In the case of clay-like
backfills, pore water drainage becomes the subject of primary concern apart from the
reinforcement strength, which will require smaller vertical geosynthetic spacing for efficient drainage of pore water.
4.7
Influence of Surcharge Load Intensity
To investigate the influence of the surcharge load intensity, Q, for the limit equilibrium stability analysis, the vertical spacing of the geosynthetic was fixed at 0.5 m by using 10 equally spaced layers. A value of Tult = 40 kN/m was used, and the entire system
was designed so that the reinforced mass would be in a state of limit equilibrium for
each increment of Q. The results for = 25, 30, and 35_ are shown in Figure 10. Figure
10 shows the effect of surcharge load intensity, Q, on the geosynthetic length required
and the mobilized reactive force. A dimensionless value of Q was used by dividing it
by the product of the bulk unit weight of the soil, , and the wall height, H.
It can be seen that Lreq increases with an increase in Q primarily due to the increase
in Lds and Lpullout (and hence L(t/c) ); however, Lreq does not change significantly with
changes in Q. Thus, an increase in total length is necessary to balance the destabilizing
force.
The results indicate that with an increase in surcharge load intensity, the destabilizing force increases at an approximately proportional rate, particularly when the value
is small. It can be seen that tj is directly proportional to Q. Furthermore, the number
of bottom layers subjected to compound failure increases with an increase in Q. As expected, the total required geosynthetic length and mobilized reactive force increase significantly with a decrease in .
4.8
Influence of Wall/Slope Inclination
The slope of the face of the wall/slope is one of the governing variables when designing reinforced earth structures. For this series of parametric analyses, the geosynthetic
vertical spacing was fixed at 0.5 m to obtain 10 equally spaced layers, Tult = 40 kN/m,
and ru = 0.00, 0.25, or 0.50. The system was designed to bring the entire reinforced mass
to a limit equilibrium state for each face inclination.
Figure 11 presents the effect of the wall face angle, i, on the required geosynthetic
length and mobilized strength. It can be seen that the total length required to prevent
tie-back/compound failure, Lreq , does not increase with an increase in the wall face
angle. However, if the number of geosynthetic layers are varied to obtain an optimized
design, Lreq will increase with an increase in i. This increase in geosynthetic length
corresponds to the increase in anchorage length and the requirement of closer geosynthetic spacing at greater wall face angles. For both types of geosynthetic spacing arrangements (fixed and variable number of layers), Lds decreases by a small amount with
an increase in the slope. As a result, for a variable geosynthetic arrangement, there is
an overall increase in the required length with an increase in the slope of the wall face.
However, in the case of a fixed geosynthetic arrangement, there is no increase in rein-
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
577
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Lreq / H
Figure 10.
Q / H
Q / H
treq / (0.5 H2)
Lanchor / H
Lds / H
Q / H
Influence of the surcharge load intensity, Q (geosynthetic spacing = 0.5 m, 10 layers).
Q / H
Q / H
t j / (0.5 H2)
Lpullout / H
578
L(t/c) / H
Q / H
Q / H
i = 30_
i = 35_
i = 25_
H=5m
i = 60_
Tult = 40 kN/m
FS = 1
i =
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds
Lreq / H
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Figure 11.
L(t/c) / H
i (_)
i (_)
treq / (0.5 H2)

ru = 0.50
ru = 0.25
ru = 0.00
H=5m
i = 60_
Tult = 40 kN/m
FS = 1
i = = 30_
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds
i (_)
t j / (0.5 H2)
i (_)
Influence of the wall face slope, i (geosynthetic spacing = 0.5 m, 10 layers): (a) affect on the reinforced wall/slope performance.
i (_)
i (_)
Lanchor / H
Lds / H
(a)
579
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bottom
layer
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
(b) affect on the reactive force mobilization.
tj i / Tult
0.4
0.8
ru = 0.00
i = 90_
tj i / Tult
0.4
0.8
ru = 0.00
i = 60_
tj i / Tult
0.4
ru = 0.00
i = 45_
Top layer
ru = 0.25
0.6
0.6
0.6
tj i / Tult
0.4
i = 90_
0.8
0.8
0.8
ru = 0.25
tj i / Tult
0.4
ru = 0.25
i = 60_
tj i / Tult
0.4
i = 45_
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0 0.2
0.0
580
Figure 11 continued.
(b)
0.6
0.6
0.6
tj i / Tult
0.4
0.8
0.8
ru = 0.50
i = 90_
tj i / Tult
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.8 1.0
ru = 0.50
i = 60_
tj i / Tult
0.4
ru = 0.50
i = 45_
forcement length. In fact, the required reinforcement length decreases, particularly at

greater ru values, for a fixed geosynthetic arrangement. In both types of reinforcement
arrangement, there is a significant increase in the mobilized reinforcement force.
In reinforced earth design practice, either uniform layers or uniformly varying layers
of reinforcement are used. Thus, in practice, the total reinforcement length is a function
of the base reinforcement length and the top reinforcement length. In the current study,
Lds was assumed to be the length of the base geosynthetic layer. To determine the length
of geosynthetic required for the top layer, the greater of Lds and L(t/c)max was used. If the
number of intermediate geosynthetic layers was initially fixed and the lengths of the
intermediate layers were interpolated using Lds and L(t/c) , the resulting total geosynthetic
length will not change significantly with variations of the wall face slope.
The most significant effect of varying the face slope is the change in the mobilized
tensile reactive force (Figure 11a). As illustrated in Figure 11a, when the slope is increased there is a large increase in the mobilized tie-back force and the total required tensile
force. Also, the number of geosynthetic layers subjected to the compound failure increases with increases in the slope of the wall face.
Figure 11b illustrates this effect more clearly, where tij gives the critical value of the
mobilized reactive force (between the tie-back and compound failure). The ratio tij / Tult
= 1 indicates that the compound failure mode is critical for that layer. Figure 11b reveals
that with an increase in the slope, a greater proportion of the geosynthetic strength is
mobilized for each layer, subjecting the earth structure to a more critical limit state condition. This result is consistent with the results from a numerical analysis (Shiwakoti
1997). The results also show that for increasing ru values a large proportion of Tult is mobilized at a given slope of the wall face.
4.9
Influence of Backslope Angle
Frequently, reinforced walls must be designed with a particular backslope angle. To

investigate the influence of the backslope angle on the reinforced wall stability at a limit
equilibrium state, an investigation was performed using a backslope angle of = 18.4_
(1V:3H) (Figure 1). The results are compared to the results obtained for a wall with a
horizontal backslope. In the analysis, Tult = 20 kN/m and the placement of the geosynthetic layers varied between 0.25 to 1 m.
Figure 12 shows the influence of the backslope angle on the stability of the reinforced wall. As can be seen, the inclusion of a backslope causes a significant increase
in the overall required reinforcement length, as well as an increase in the mobilized
reactive force in the geosynthetic reinforcement. This effect is magnified for small
values, i.e. when the value of is similar to the value of . For smaller backslope
angles, tie-back, compound, and direct sliding failure surfaces are considerably deeper.
As a result, the size of the soil mass requiring stabilization increases considerably. It
should be noted that although Lanchor is approximately the same value for both cases,
Lpullout and Lds increase considerably, particularly for low values. With an increase in
, both the required length as well as the mobilized reactive force rapidly decrease. At
approximately = 40_, the backslope angle has an insignificant affect on the stability
equilibrium of the reinforced soil wall. For soils with pore water pressures, these results
are magnified, thus, requiring even greater reinforcement lengths and mobilizing a
greater proportion of the geosynthetic reinforcement strength.
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
581
Lreq / H
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
Figure 12.
L(t/c) / H
i (_)
= 18.4_
= 0_
H=5m
i = 60_
Tult = 20 kN/m
FS = 1
i =
= 17 kN/m3
Ci = Cds
treq / (0.5 H2)
Lanchor / H
Lds / H
Influence of the backslope angle, (geosynthetic spacing = 0.25 to 1 m) .
i (_)
i (_)
t j / (0.5 H2)
Lpullout / H
582
i (_)
i (_)
i (_)
i (_)
CONCLUSIONS
Limit equilibrium analyses with log spiral and two-part wedge failure mechanisms
have been employed to study the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes
at a limit equilibrium state. The geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes are assumed
to have competent foundations. Seepage forces and other dynamic forces such as earthquake forces have not been taken into account, and the stabilizing effect of facing rigidity and strength were neglected. Parametric studies have been conducted to investigate
the effects of varying pore water pressure, soil strength, geosynthetic strength, soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficients, vertical spacing of the geosynthetic, surcharge load,
facing slope, and backslope values. The limit equilibrium analyses of the reinforced soil
walls/slopes lead to the following conclusions.
For higher pore water pressures, the resulting unstable zone is larger owing to deeper
potential failure surfaces. In particular, the direct sliding surface deepens significantly
with an increase in the pore water pressure. Furthermore, greater reactive forces are
necessary to stabilize the unstable zone when there is an increase in pore water pressure.
For a given soil, the additional reinforcement length and the required reactive reinforcement strength increases by several fold, if the soil is saturated.
The extent of the mobilized reactive force greatly varies with depth. Thus, if a geosynthetic with the same strength is specified for all layers, a large proportion of geosynthetic
strength in the upper layers may go unmobilized. Therefore, the selection of a geosynthetic with an appropriate ultimate strength is essential from a technical and economic
point of view. Instead of using a few strong reinforcement layers, a more cost-effective
design alternative is to use a greater number of medium strength geosynthetic layers.
For interaction coefficient values greater than approximately 0.6, there is little significant influence on the required geosynthetic length. For interaction coefficient values, Ci or Cds , less than 0.6, however, the additional length requirement increases
significantly. To avoid failure of the base geosynthetic layer due to direct sliding and
to reduce the required base length, a geosynthetic with a rough or interlocking surface
is desirable. Alternatively, soil layers with greater friction angles (e.g. gravel) can be
placed at the base.
With an increase in the surcharge load intensity, the destabilizing force increases and
the required total reinforcement length increases significantly. Also, the increase in the
wall face slope causes mobilization of greater tensile forces. Furthermore, the number
of reinforcement layers subjected to compound failure increases with an increase in the
wall face slope.
The inclusion of a backslope causes a significant increase in the overall required reinforcement length, as well as a significant increase in the mobilized reinforcement
reactive force, particularly when the value of is small.
REFERENCES
ADAMA Engineering, 1998, ReSlope (3.0), www.ReSlope.com.
Jewell, R.A., 1990, Strength and Deformations in Reinforced Soil Design, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Balkema, Vol. 3, The Hague, Netherlands, May 1990, pp. 913-946.
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
583
Kamon, M., Akai, T., Fukuda, M. and Yaida, O., 1994, Reinforced Embankment using
Geosynthetic Horizontal Drains, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference
on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Vol. 2, Singapore, September
1994, pp. 791-794.
Kamon, M., Akai, T., Fukuda, M., Nanbu, Y., Fukuhara, M., Toki, T. and Kuroki, T.,
1995, Failure Test of High Water Content Soft Clay Embankments Reinforced by
Geosynthetic Horizontal Drain Materials-Part 1, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Japanese Symposium on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Conference,
Vol. 3, pp. 2451-2454. (in Japanese)
Leshchinsky, D., 1992, Issues in Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil, Earth Reinforcement
Practice, Ochiai, H., Hayashi, S., and Otani, J., Editors, Balkema, 1993, Vol. 2, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Kyushu
University, Fukuoka, Japan, November 1992, pp. 871-897.
Leshchinsky, D. and Boedeker, R.H., 1989, Geosynthetic Reinforced Earth Structures, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 10, pp. 1459-1478.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. and Hanks, G., 1995, Unified Design Approach to Geosynthetic Reinforced Slopes and Segmental Walls, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2,
No. 5, pp. 845-881.
Leshchinsky, D., 1997, Software to Facilitate Design of Geosynthetic-Reinforced
Steep Slopes, Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 40-46.
Schmertmann, G.R., 1991, Discussion of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Structures ,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 10, pp. 1643-1644.
Shiwakoti, D.R., 1997, Behavior of Saturated Clay Reinforced with Geosynthetic
Horizontal Drain, Ph.D. Thesis, Yokohama National University, Yokohama, Japan,
200 p.
Tatsuoka, F., 1992, Roles of Facing Rigidity in Soil Reinforcing, Earth Reinforcement Practice, Ochiai, H., Hayashi, S. and Otani, J., Editors, Balkema 1993, Vol. 2,
Proceeding of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, November 1992, pp. 831-870.
Wright, S.G. and Duncan, J.M., 1991, Limit Equilibrium Stability Analysis for Reinforced Slopes, Transportation Research Record 1330, pp. 40-46.
NOTATIONS
Basic SI units are indicated in parentheses.
A
C
Cds
Ci
cdesign , cd
c
584
=
=
=
=
=
=
log spiral constant (dimensionless)

cohesive force on failure surface of Wedge A (N/m)
direct shear soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficient (dimensionless)
pullout test soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficient (dimensionless)
design value of soil cohesion (N/m2)
effective soil cohesion (N/m2)
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
cavailable
cdesign
FS
FSdesign
FSds
H
h
i
kh
kv
LA
Lanchor
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Lb
Lds
Lpullout
Lreq
L(t/c)
L(t/c)max
le, j
MO
m
NA
NB
n
P
Pmax
Q
RFcr
RFd
RFid
ru
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
available effective soil cohesion (N/m2)

design value of effective soil cohesion (N/m2)
overall factor of safety of reinforced soil mass (dimensionless)
design value of factor of safety for reinforced soil mass (dimensionless)
factor of safety against direct sliding (dimensionless)
height of wall/slope (m)
depth of a point in soil mass measured from soil surface (m)
wall/slope inclination from horizontal (_)
horizontal component of seismic coefficient (dimensionless)
vertical component of seismic coefficient (dimensionless)
length of Wedge A failure surface (Figure 4)
minimum required geosynthetic anchorage length for each layer at limit
equilibrium state (m)
longest value of reinforcement length determined from compound,
tie-back, and direct sliding analyses, specified at the wall/slope bottom (m)
required geosynthetic base layer length to ensure stability against direct
sliding (m)
maximum value of minimum required reinforcement length determined
from pullout and tie-back failure analyses for pullout factor of safety of
unity (m)
geosynthetic length required for each layer to satisfy all failure criteria
(tie-back, compound, and two-part wedge direct sliding) (m)
geosynthetic length required for each layer to satisfy tie-back and
compound failure analyses, including anchorage length (m)
maximum geosynthetic length required for each layer to satisfy
tie-back and compound failure analyses, including anchorage length (m)
anchorage length of geosynthetic to resist pullout failure in Layer j (m)
moment about the pole O (Figure 1) (N-m/m)
number of layers required to ensure compound stability (dimensionless)
reaction force of reinforced soil for Wedge A (Figure 4) (N/m)
base reaction force of reinforced soil for Wedge B (Figure 4) (N/m)
total number of reinforcement layers (dimensionless)
interwedge force (N/m)
maximum interwedge force (Figure 4) (N/m)
surcharge load intensity (N/m2)
reduction factor for geosynthetic creep (dimensionless)
reduction factor for geosynthetic durability (dimensionless)
reduction factor for geosynthetic installation damage (dimensionless)
pore water pressure coefficient (dimensionless)
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
585
r1
r2
TA
Tallow
TB
T(tie)req
=
=
=
=
=
=
Tult
ta
=
=
tb
tc
td
tj
tj (allowable ) =
=
treq
tj
u
W
WA
WB
x
xCG
xc
y
yCG
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
yc
yj
=
=
=
=
=
=
586
A exp( 1 ), log spiral radius at 1 (Figure 1) (m)

A exp( 2 ), log spiral radius at 2 (Figure 1) (m)
sliding resistance force of reinforced soil, Wedge A (Figure 4) (N/m)
allowable tensile strength of geosynthetic (N/m)
base sliding resistance force of reinforced soil, Wedge B (Figure 4) (N/m)
required tensile force of geosynthetic to maintain tie-back stability
(Figure 5) (kN/m)
ultimate tensile strength of geosynthetic (N/m)
tensile reactive force for tie-back stability of facial unit a (Figure 2)
(N/m)
tensile reactive force for tie-back stability of facial unit b (Figure 2)
(N/m)
tensile reactive force for tie-back stability of facial unit c (Figure 2)
(N/m)
tensile reactive force for tie-back stability of facial unit d (Figure 2)
(N/m)
tensile reactive force mobilized in geosynthetic reinforcement Layer j for
tie-back limit equilibrium (N/m)
allowable reinforcement strength in Layer j (N/m)
critical geosynthetic reactive tensile force mobilized in each layer for
governing the failure mode (tie-back or compound failure) (N/m)
greater of tie-back and compound failure reactive tensile force in
geosynthetic reinforcement at limit equilibrium state (N/m)
pore water pressure (N/m2)
self-weight of soil mass (N/m)
self-weight of soil in Wedge A (Figure 4) (N/m)
self-weight of soil in Wedge B (Figure 4) (N/m)
horizontal distance (m)
x-coordinate of center of gravity of soil mass within log spiral (m)
x-coordinate of log spiral pole (Figure 1) (m)
vertical distance (m)
y-coordinate of center of gravity of soil mass within log spiral
(Figure 1) (m)
y-coordinate of log spiral pole (Figure 1) (m)
vertical distance from slope base to reinforcement Layer j (Figure 1) (m)
slope of backfill from horizontal (_)
log spiral angle (Figure 1) (_)
interwedge force inclination (Figure 4) (_)
internal friction angle of soil (_)
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
design
available
design
cr
v, j
()
()
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
design value of internal friction angle of soil (_)

effective internal friction angle of soil (_)
available effective internal friction angle of soil (_)
design value of effective internal friction angle of soil (_)
bulk unit weight of soil (N/m3)
slope of direct sliding surface from horizontal (Figure 4) (_)
average effective overburden pressure acting on geosynthetic Layer j
(N/m2)
= normal stress acting over slip surface (Figure 1) (N/m2)
= shear stress acting along slip surface (Figure 1) (N/m2)
= tan design (Figure 1) (dimensionless)
S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6
587

Performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Technical Paper by D.R. Shiwakoti, T.B.S.

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

In the analyses, the geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls/slopes are assumed to have

FACTOR OF SAFETY IN LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS AT LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM

Tie-back and compound failure analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced walls/slopes

Log Spiral Failure Mechanism

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Pole of log spiral, O at (xc , yc )

Log spiral slip surface

Definition of a log spiral failure surface (Leshchinsky 1997).

r = A exp( tan design )

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

= W(1 + k v )(xCG xc ) + k h W( yc yCG ) c d

(y y)dx + u (x x )dx u ( y y )dy t (y y ) = 0

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Unstable (active) zone

Geosynthetic layers are

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

3.1.3 Compound Analysis

Scheme used to check stability against compound failure (Leshchinsky 1997).

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Two-Part Wedge Failure Mechanism

where Cds is the soil-geosynthetic interaction coefficient, as determined from direct

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Wedge A: unreinforced soil

Wedge B: reinforced soil

(design and cdesign of reinforced soil)

Two-part wedge failure mechanism for direct sliding (Leshchinsky 1997).

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Influence of the Pore Water Pressure

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Compound failure surface

Compound failure surface

Compound failure surface

Direct sliding surface

Compound failure surface

Figure 5. Effect of pore water pressure on the performance of geosynthetic-r einforced

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

Influence of Backfill Soil Strength

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

treq / (0.5 H2)

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

treq / (0.5 H2)

(b) geosynthetic vertical spacing ranges from 0.25 to 1.00 m.

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State

S 1998, VOL. 5, NO. 6

SHIWAKOTI, PRADHAN AND LESHCHINSKY D GRS Structures at Limit Equilibrium State