60th Anniversary State-of-the-Art Reviews

46th Terzaghi Lecture: Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil:

From the Experimental to the Familiar
R. D. Holtz, Ph.D., P.E., Dist.M.ASCE 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The paper begins with a historical review of reinforced soil technology, beginning with nature and the ancients, the development
of Terre Arme or Reinforced Earth by Vidal and Lee, and ending with the early uses of geotextiles for soil reinforcement in France, Sweden
(Wager and Broms), and the United States (U.S. Forest Service, Federal Highway Administration, J. R. Bell, T. A. Haliburton, B. R.
Christopher, and others). Then the advantages and basic behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) are described. An overview of
current design procedures, modified with the results of analytical research conducted at the University of Washington, leads to practical
suggestions for dealing with creep, pullout, and backfill drainage. Next the properties of reinforcement geosynthetics are discussed, and
important conclusions of research on soilgeosynthetic interaction at the University of Washington are presented. Although GRS is quite
a mature development, a few technical and several professional issues remain. The technical issues are relatively straightforward but the
professional issues are not: they are costly, potentially tragic, and threaten a wonderful technology and our profession. Some suggestions as to
what the profession can do about these issues are given. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001674. 2017 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Soil reinforcement; Geosynthetics; Geosynthetic reinforced soils; Design; Properties; Technical and professional issues.

Introduction systems then is in terms of basic soil mechanics and geotechnical

It is interesting that during the past 30 years, geosynthetics have
truly revolutionized certain aspects of civil engineering practice.
In waste containment, drainage and erosion control, canal and pond
liners, construction, transportation especially highway engineering,
and of course geotechnical engineering, traditional solutions have
evolved from the experimental to accepted practice today. In his
2008 Terzaghi Lecture, Dr. Jean-Pierre Giroud mentioned that geo-
synthetics are the most important development in civil engineering
practice in the twentieth century (Giroud 2008). They likely are the
first new civil engineering material since Freyssinet developed
prestressed concrete around the turn of the last century.
Two previous Terzaghi lecturers have dealt with geosynthetics.
In addition to Girouds lecture, Professor Robert M. Koerner in
1996 (Koerner 2000) discussed, among other things, the properties
and behavior of geomembranes in waste containment and landfills.
This is an area in which Professor Koerner and his colleagues have
made major contributions to design and engineering practice. In his
2008 Terzaghi Lecture, Dr. Jean-Pierre Giroud (2008) discussed
geotextile and granular filters. His premise was brilliantthat be-
cause of research on geotextile filters, we now have a better under-
standing of Terzaghis graded granular filter criteria. This is the
opposite from our usual approach to applying geosynthetics in
civil engineering. We usually start with a conventional geotechni-
cal design and somehow incorporate geosynthetics into that de-
sign by replacing or supplementing soil layers with geosynthetics.
Our understanding of the behavior of the geosynthetic in the
1
Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail:
holtz@uw.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 24, 2015; approved on
November 10, 2016; published online on May 19, 2017. Discussion period
open until October 19, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
engineering.
That my lecture and this paper deals with geosynthetics is no
surprise because I have spent the better part of my professional
career involved in some way with these materials. But what aspect
to discuss? Although my students and I have done a little research
on landfill covers, those projects were insignificant in comparison
to the contributions of Professor Koerner and his colleagues on
geomembranes and waste containment. We have also done quite a
bit of work on geotextile filters, both at Purdue University as well
as the University of Washington, and I think some of that work is
quite good. But in view of the concepts presented by Dr. Giroud
described previously, another part of geosynthetics seemed to be
more appropriate. Our research on geotextile separators for the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has led
to their successful implementation in new roadway construction.
However, because most readers are not highway engineers, I chose
geosynthetics for soil reinforcing as my subject.
Reinforced Soil: Historical Review
Examples of reinforced soil in nature include birds nests and bea-
ver dams. Adobe bricks are a synthetic example and are analogous
to reinforced concrete. A material with little or no tensile strength is
combined with a material that has some tensile resistance to make a
composite material of significantly improved characteristics and
properties.
Ziggurats or temples in ancient Mesopotamia were constructed
of layers of soil about 1 m thick reinforced by woven mats of reeds
or palm fronds. Some of these structures were nearly 90 m high,
and although they are ruins today, some are still quite impressive
even after more than 3,500 years (Kerisel 1985). The Great Wall
of China, especially the Western Wall, constructed of layers of
rammed earth, stones, and wood, looks similar to a modern
geosynthetic reinforced steep slope.

ASCE 03117001-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Wagers method for calculating the stability of an embankment

reinforced with short sheet piles and tie rods (reprinted from Wager
and Holtz 1976, courtesy of ENVO Publishing Co., Inc., Lehigh,
Pennsylvania)
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the SGI pullout apparatus, 19721973;
dimensions in millimeters (reprinted from Holtz 1973, 1977, courtesy
Experience in Sweden, 19701975 of the Swedish Geotechnical Institute and the Association Amicale des
My own experiences with soil reinforcing and geosynthetics started Ingnieurs Anciens lves de lE.N.P.C)
while I was working at the Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI),
then in Stockholm, in the early 1970s. My mentors were Mr. Oleg
Wager and Dr. Bengt Broms. Wager was the inventor and idea
man, while Broms, the director of the SGI, was an enthusiastic col-
laborator. In the mid-1960s, Wager developed a system of reinforc-
ing embankments constructed on very soft foundations using either
short sheet piles or steel channel sections under the crest of the
embankment and connected by steel tie rods. For details see Wager
(1968) and Wager and Holtz (1976). Fig. 1 shows Wagers rather
simple calculation method using the Swedish circle stability
analysis. If a geosynthetic is used as the reinforcement, its tensile
strength replaces the anchor pull force in the stability equation.
The first field use of a geosynthetic for improving the stability of
an embankment was in 1971 at a construction site in southwestern
Sweden near the village of Nol. The details of this installation are
given by Holtz and Massarsch (1976, 1993), and Harney and Holtz
(2006) describe the results of tensile tests on specimens of the
multifilament woven polyester geotextile retrieved from the site
some 30 years after the original installation. Fig. 3. (Color) SGI pullout apparatus (image by R. D. Holtz)
The success of this first field experiment led to some laboratory
research at the SGI in 19721973, sponsored by AB Fodervvnader
of Bors, Sweden, the manufacturer of the polyester textile. Be-
cause pullout seemed to be an appropriate model for the resistance by sliding along the surface of the geotextile. Another practical
developed by the reinforcement at the base of an embankment, we finding was that pullout failure is virtually impossible with any rea-
developed, as far as I know, the worlds first pullout test apparatus sonable depth of burial of the geosynthetic reinforcement. The geo-
in an attempt to measure this resistance. Fig. 2 is a schematic textile will rupture in tension before it pulls out of the backfill.
diagram of the apparatus, and Fig. 3 shows the box with its lid re- ASTM D6706 (ASTM 2013) for geosynthetic pullout testing
moved, the airbag for applying the normal pressure, the load cell, states that the results can provide information related to the in-soil
and the geotextile clamp arrangement. stressstrain response under confined loading conditions, however
Some results of our first pullout tests are shown in Fig. 4. no details are given as to how that might actually be done. Although
The movements of small magnets attached to the geotextile every pullout test devices are fairly common, especially in academic lab-
150 mm [Fig. 4(a)] indicated that the geotextile was very exten- oratories, no interpretation procedure, in my opinion, has yet been
sible. After about 10 min of pulling, the geotextile nearest the published that correctly provides the in-soil stressstrain response
clamp was moving at the same rate as the clamp, while the other of a geosynthetic. To determine that correct in-soil stressstrain
end of the specimen had barely begun to move. After the data were response in fact requires a knowledge of the confined tension
interpreted as described by Holtz (1973, 1977), the peak shear modulus for the geosynthetic, which is presumably the objective
stress occurred at relatively small deformations, only a few milli- of the pullout test itself!
meters, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The interpreted interface friction be- Other research on geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) was per-
tween the sand and the geosynthetic was approximately equal to the formed in Sweden at the SGI and later at the Royal Institute of
triaxial friction angle for two sands with very different internal fric- Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden, in 19741975. We were
tion angles, one of which is shown in Fig. 4(c). This is because the aware of Vidals concept of Terre Arme (Reinforced Earth), so our
grains of sand embedded themselves in the weave and texture of the idea was to build models of vertically faced structures reinforced
geotextile; thus the interface shear was grain-to-grain, rather than with the woven multifilament polyester geotextile used previously.

ASCE 03117001-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Results of pullout tests on a woven multifilament polyester geotextile; the text and Holtz (1973, 1977) give an explanation of these figures
(reprinted from Holtz 1973, 1977, courtesy of the Swedish Geotechnical Institute and the Association Amicale des Ingnieurs Anciens lves
de lE.N.P.C)

Of course it was very strong, and we soon learned that it was vir-
tually impossible for model walls to collapse, even under large sur-
charge loadings. The walls would greatly deform, but they did not
collapse, and this was true even with very short reinforcing layers
(L=H 0.4 and 0.3). Walls 1.2 m high could support a surcharge
equivalent to about 5 m of fill without collapse. We also performed
a few Taylor-Schneebeli pin-model wall tests similar to those
shown by Schlosser and Vidal (1969), although at that time we
were unaware of the French tests. The results of all these tests
are described by Holtz and Broms (1977, 1978).
Terre Arme and Reinforced Earth
Some years ago, French architect Henri Vidal invented a system he
called Terre Arme (Reinforced Earth) for construction of retaining
walls. Reinforced Earth has three primary components (Fig. 5):
select granular backfill, galvanized steel strips for reinforcement,
and precast concrete facing panel elements (Vidal 1966; Schlosser
and Vidal 1969). Worldwide patents were granted in 1966, and by
the early 1970s the technology was well established in France and
several other countries.
The first Reinforced Earth project in the United States was
for the repair of a large landslide in Southern California in 1972
on Highway SR39 in the Angeles National Forest north of Los
Angeles. The site, a schematic of the repair, and the nearly com-
pleted wall are shown in Fig. 6. The slide and its remediation are
described by Chang (1974), Chang et al. (1974), and Walkinshaw
(1975).
At about the same time, Professor Kenneth Lee at the University
of California, Los Angeles, began research on Reinforced Earth

ASCE 03117001-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Components of Terre Arme (Reinforced Earth): select backfill,
galvanized steel strips for reinforcement, and precast concrete facing
panels (courtesy of the Reinforced Earth Company)
sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Figs. 79 show
some of the small-scale model tests using metallic strip reinforce-
ment that Lee and his students performed. Fig. 7 is a top view of
one of the tests that has failed, but the failure was restrained; a scarp
is visible a few centimeters back of the wall face. Fig. 8 is a side
view of that same model test; the wall has moved about 50 mm
from the black line, which was the location of the wall face before
failure. Failure planes are clearly indicated by the bands of colored
sand, and those failure planes are inclined at very close to the
Rankine theoretical failure plane angle for the sand. In the next
photograph, Fig. 9, the model has been allowed to collapse because
it was not restrained. Does this happen in the field? Yes, as shown
in Fig. 10, a failure that occurred on Interstate Highway 24, east of
Nashville, Tennessee. A description and analysis of the failure are
reported by Lee et al. (1994).
The potential for corrosion of steel reinforcement was a
common concern in the early days of Reinforced Earth. Often at the
end of presentations about Reinforced Earth, speakers were asked,
Well, what about corrosion? And the answer always was: The
steel reinforcing strips are galvanized to take care of any potential
for corrosion. Still, predicting corrosion of even galvanized steel in
soils is often problematic, and we thought that plastics were virtu-
ally indestructible. Thus we considered anything made of synthetic
polymeric fibers was also likely to be virtually indestructible and
not subject to corrosion. At least that was what we thought in the
1970s.
Geotextile Reinforced Walls, 19711977
It is interesting that in the home of Terre Arme, French engineers
were also building fairly large-scale model walls reinforced with
geosynthetics. Fig. 11 shows two experimental walls reinforced
with a heavyweight (300 g=m2 ) nonwoven needle-punched poly-
ester geotextile that were constructed in 19711972 (Puig and
Blivet 1973; Puig et al. 1977). Besides the small dam spillway con-
structed in 1976 (Kern 1977), these two experimental walls were
the only GRS walls constructed in France in the 1970s, apparently
due to the dominance of Terre Arme.
Also in the early 1970s, U.S. Forest Service engineers in the
Pacific Northwest, working with Professor J. R. Bell of Oregon
State University, built several walls reinforced with lightweight
nonwoven geotextiles for logging and fire protection roads in the
ASCE 03117001-4
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
national forests. Fig. 12 shows one of the first walls constructed in
the Siskiyou National Forest in southern Oregon, and this and other
early experiences are described by Bell et al. (1975) and Bell and
Steward (1977).
U.S. Forest Service engineers were one of the first groups in the
United States to recognize the benefits of using geotextiles for other
applications such as roadway drainage and stabilization, and their
report on their experiences was reprinted verbatim by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) as a FHWA report (Steward et al.
1977). About the same time, the FHWA sponsored a research
project at Oregon State University under the direction of Professor
Bell and his colleague Professor Gary Hicks, a pavements expert.
The objective was to review existing test methods and develop new
tests as well as specifications for various uses of geotextiles for
highways; I was one of a small group of peer reviewers for this
project. The first phase of the project was summarized by Bell and
Hicks (1980) in an official FHWA report. Due to a disagreement
between Professor Bell and the FHWA contract monitor, the final
project report was never officially published; only a draft report
exists (Bell and Hicks 1982).
In the late 1970s, geosynthetics design and construction prac-
tice was not well developed, and specifications for geotextile ap-
plications were not generic or based on sound engineering research
or experience. The FHWA realized that to improve practice, state
highway engineers would need formal training in geotextile
engineering. The first FHWA geosynthetics courses were devel-
oped and taught by Professor T. Allen Haliburton of Oklahoma
State University, who unfortunately passed away after only a few
courses were taught. A second contract was awarded to Dr. Barry
Christopher and me, and we updated Haliburtons draft course ma-
terials (Haliburton et al. 1981) into the Geotextile Engineering
Manual (Christopher and Holtz 1985). We began teaching 3-day
training courses based on the manual and our own experience in
practice, laboratory testing, and research. Since then, nearly 200
courses have been taught in most states (and several foreign coun-
tries), and it is fair to say that this educational effort by FHWA
has significantly improved geosynthetics design and construction
practice and specifications for highway construction in the United
States. Our Geotextile Engineering Manual was condensed into the
FHWA Geotextile Design and Construction Guidelines in 1989
(Christopher and Holtz 1989). The Guidelines were substantially
revised and updated in 1996 (Holtz et al. 1996) and published as
a textbook the following year (Holtz et al. 1997). Its latest version is
Holtz et al. (2008).
Finally, I would like to mention some early research and devel-
opment work on geosynthetic reinforcement conducted at Purdue
University, 19731988, work sponsored by the National Science
Foundation, Indiana Department of Highways, U.S. Air Force,
Netlon, and Gulf Canada, among others. Much of this research was
reported in ASCE conferences, the Second International Conference
on Geotextiles, other geosynthetics conferences, journals, and major
reports to sponsors. Specific subjects include pullout of GRS walls
(Salomone et al. 1979, 1980), reinforced embankments (Boutrup
and Holtz 1982, 1983; Humphrey and Holtz 1986a, b, 1987, 1989;
Humphrey et al. 1986), laboratory creep tests (Holtz et al. 1982),
and GRS for roads and airfields (Bourdeau et al. 1982; Holtz and
Harr 1983). There were also two state-of-the-art reports on geosyn-
thetic reinforcement (Holtz 1978, 1982).
Advantages and Basic Behavior of GRS
There are a number of advantages of reinforcing soils, both with
steel and geosynthetics. First is cost, as shown in Fig. 13. When
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. California Highway SR39 landslide repair (reprinted from Walkinshaw 1975, courtesy of FHWA): (a) the slide; (b) cross section of the
remediation showing the Reinforced Earth wall at the top of the slope; (c) the wall near completion

the height of the structure exceeds some 1012 m, there is virtually
no competition with conventional retaining walls. Other advantages
include flexibility of reinforced soil structures. They are very toler-
ant of large settlements, and this means cheaper foundations on poor
soils. Construction is simple and rapid, and it is easy to change the
alignment and height of the structures. Because they are so flexible,
they can readily absorb seismic energy and therefore are safer than
conventional structures in earthquake country. Attractive facing sys-
tems are possible, including green facing systems incorporating
plantings with vines and shrubs. Such facing systems are of course
important because of sustainability and environmental concerns.
Steeper slopes are possible with reinforcing than are possible
without reinforcing. For example, compacted cohesive soils can
be constructed safely steeper than 2:1. Granular soil slopes can be
steeper than the angle of repose. Finally, there is increased safety
with reinforced slopes. As Cheng and Christopher (1991) have
shown, for the same calculated factor of safety, there is a lower
probability of failure, i.e., greater reliability, for a reinforced steeper
slope than an unreinforced flatter slope. One wonders why do we
still design and construct unreinforced soil slopes?
The next few figures illustrate an important fact about GRS struc-
tures. First, Fig. 14 illustrates that the stress exerted by the soils at
the face of the structure is very small, in fact it is zero! Now the
thickness of the spacing of the reinforcing layers is the same as the
size of the particles, so in a way it is a bit artificial. But that is not
the case in Figs. 15(a and b). These photographs illustrate that the
facing system is only there to restrain the soil particles at the face
between each reinforcing layer.
Mr. Robert Barrett of Colorado has shown in Fig. 16 that it is
possible to build a very impressive GRS structure with only bed-
sheets (from Walmart). The slope angle of the face of the wall is
clearly much greater than angle of repose of the sandy backfill

ASCE 03117001-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. (Color) Top view of Lees model Reinforced Earth wall Fig. 9. (Color) Model wall allowed to collapse (image courtesy of
(image courtesy of Professor Kenneth Lee) Professor Kenneth Lee)

Fig. 10. (Color) Collapse of a Reinforced Earth structure on I-24 in

Tennessee

Fig. 8. (Color) Side view of the failure in Fig. 7 (image courtesy of

Professor Kenneth Lee)

material near the bottom. The soils in the backfill have some silt
and capillary moisture to provide apparent cohesion sufficient to
support the backfill within the vertical spacing of the reinforcing
layers.
In conclusion, stress at the face of a GRS wall or steep slope is
very small and local, and therefore the facing is only necessary to
support the soils between reinforcement layers. A heavy structural
facing element is unnecessary, unless the reinforcing spacing is
large. On the other hand, Professor Fumio Tatsuoka (personal com-
munication, 2010) has pointed out that the heavy structural type
facing systems common in Japan for their GRS structures have
Fig. 11. Walls reinforced with a geotextile (reprinted from Puig
performed well in earthquakes. I am not sure a lighter and more
and Blivet 1973, courtesy of Bulletin des Liaison des Laboratoires
flexible facing would not perform just as well, but it is difficult
RoutiersPonts et Chausses)
to argue with strong empirical evidence.

ASCE 03117001-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. One of the first geotextile reinforced walls built by the U.S.
Forest Service in the Siskiyou National Forest, Oregon (image courtesy
of Bell et al. 1975)
Fig. 13. Cost of various retaining system versus structure height
(reprinted from Holtz et al. 1997, courtesy of FHWA)
Fig. 14. (Color) Model of a GRS structure (image courtesy of B. R.
Christopher)
ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Fig. 15. (Color) Two large-scale GRS structures [image (a) courtesy of
R. R. Berg; image (b) courtesy of T. M. Allen]
Another reinforcing system with very small stress at the face is
Texsol, developed in France in the 1970s, which uses kilometers
of a very fine polyester filament for reinforcing sand (Hoare 1979;
Laflaive 1982). In Fig. 17, a clean sand reinforced with Texsol fil-
aments is able to stand on a slope significantly greater than the an-
gle of repose. Research on Texsol at the University of Washington
includes theses and papers by Wargo-Levine (1991), Stauffer
(1992), and Stauffer and Holtz (1995).
Design
First let us summarize the steps normally followed for the design of
both GRS walls and slopes (Holtz et al. 1997, 2008).
For GRS walls
1. Establish project scope, geometry, loading conditions
(e.g., permanent, transient, seismic), facing system, perfor-
mance requirements, and construction constraints, if any;
2. Determine foundation soil properties;
3. Determine backfill (reinforced and retained) soil properties;
4. Establish required safety factors or load and resistance factors,
as appropriate;
5. Determine preliminary wall dimensions [height(s), embed-
ment, reinforcement length];
6. Evaluate external stability (sliding, bearing capacity, overturn-
ing, overall or global slope stability, and seismic stability if
appropriate);
03117001-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. (Color) GRS structure in Colorado built by Mr. Robert Barrett
[image courtesy of Mr. Barrett (standing on the left)]
Fig. 17. (Color) Laboratory specimen of Fontainebleau sand rein-
forced with Texsol filaments (image by R. D. Holtz)
7. Estimate settlement of the reinforced wall;
8. Evaluate internal stability and determine reinforcement
requirements:
Develop both internal and external earth pressure diagram
(consider backfill properties, dead and live load surcharges,
seismic);
Select vertical reinforcement spacing;
Calculate horizontal stress and maximum tension at each
reinforcement level;
ASCE 03117001-8
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Determine allowable geosynthetic strength (T ult reduced
for installation damage, creep, and durability, if appropri-
ate); and
Evaluate pullout resistance (based on the soil-geosynthetic
interface friction).
9. Design facing system and elements:
Check connection requirements at facing.
10. Review external stability conditions, especially potential com-
pound failure conditions;
11. Estimate lateral face movements (at working stresses or servi-
ceability limit state) for establishing initial face batter;
12. Design systems for subsurface and backfill drainage as well as
surface water control; and
13. Prepare plans, specifications, quality assurance and quality
control requirements.
For GRS slopes
1. Establish project scope geometry, loading, facing system, and
performance requirements;
2. Determine the geologic-geotechnical conditions and soil proper-
ties of the natural soils in the slope;
3. Determine the properties of the reinforced fill soils;
4. Establish design parameters for the geosynthetic reinforcement:
Allowable geosynthetic strength (T ult reduced for creep,
installation damage, and durability, if appropriate); and
Pullout resistance (based on the soil-geosynthetic interface
friction).
5. Check unreinforced slope stability;
6. Design reinforcement to provide for a stable slope (strength,
spacing, length);
7. Check external stability and settlement:
Sliding along reinforcement;
Overall (global) slope stability;
Local bearing failure at toe;
Seismic stability; and
Foundation settlement.
8. Evaluate requirements for control of subsurface and surface
water; and
9. Prepare plans, specifications, quality assurance and quality
control requirements, and other contract documents.
For geotechnical engineers familiar with the design of ordinary
structural retaining walls and the evaluation of slope stability, these
design steps should be quite familiar. Geosynthetics appear only
in a few of those steps and they do not overly complicate the de-
sign of GRS structures. The design of both GRS walls and GRS
slopes is well documented by, e.g., Christopher et al. (1990a, b),
Allen and Holtz (1991), Christopher and Leshchinsky (1991), Berg
(1993), Elias et al. (2001), Holtz et al. (2008), and Berg et al.
(2009). Design issues are also treated in some popular design codes
(e.g., AASHTO 2002, 2014; BSI 2010; Geotechnical Engineering
Office 2002). Thus the focus of this section is on design issues
that are either overemphasized or overlooked in usual GRS design
and construction practice. This section also includes the results of
research in Sweden, described previously, and at the University of
Washington when those results relate to certain design issues.
Internal Stability Design: Historical Background
In the early days of Terre Arme, not much design detail was given
(e.g., Vidal 1966; Schlosser and Vidal 1969). Internal stability de-
sign was based on classical earth pressure theory, both Coulomb
and Rankine, and a linear failure surface was assumed. Possible
failure modes in Table 1 were only hinted at in these early publi-
cations. Emphasis was on the interaction between the soil and
reinforcement and the facing or skin. They also described in some
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 1. Failure Modes and Properties Required for Reinforced Earth
and GRS
Reinforced Earth Geosynthetics Properties required
Ties break Tensile rupture Tensile strength
Ties pullout Geosynthetic pullout Soilreinforcement
interface friction
detail their research with laboratory model tests and instrumented
full-scale structures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In spite of Vidals (1966) assertion that Terre Arme was a
unique material and that Terre Arme walls were not the same as
classical structural retaining walls, Franois Schlosser as well as
Professors Ken Lee and Dick Bell were very familiar with classical
earth pressure theory, and they used that theory in their design pro-
cedures. From their experiences with the model tests and, in Bells
case, the U.S. Forest Service walls described in Geotextile Rein-
forced Walls, 19711977, they knew that reinforced walls moved
during construction, and thus they probably developed full active
earth pressure conditions. Recall, too, Lees model tests shown in
Fig. 8, in which the failure plane was inclined at an angle very close
to the theoretical Rankine active wedge, also assumed by Schlosser
and Vidal (1969).
The most common approach to GRS wall design, the U.S.
Forest Service or tieback wedge method, was developed directly
from classical earth pressure theory and used similar failure modes
and material properties as Reinforced Earth (Table 1). In geotextile
reinforced walls, the geotextile could rupture (fail in tension) or it
could fail by pullout from the backfill.
The tieback wedge concept comes from (1) the Rankine failure
wedge inclined at 45 0 =2 with the horizontal from the back of
the wall, together with (2) the wedge supported by layers of rein-
forcing that are sufficiently strong to resist the active earth pressure
acting over a tributary area of wall face. In other words, the poten-
tial failure wedge is tied back by the reinforcement, whether by
steel strips or geosynthetics. As we shall see, this approach is very
conservative according to measurements on full-scale GRS struc-
tures, but it is simple and very safe.
The design of GRS slopes was developed from classical
slope stability procedures. Some sort of failure surface is assumed
(e.g., sliding wedge or circular) based on an analysis of the unrein-
forced slope. Then the reinforcement is designed to extend into the
backfill a decent distance (determined by pullout resistance) behind
that assumed failure surface. It also must be sufficiently strong to
resist the tieback forces imposed by the sliding mass. This as-
sumption results in a pullout paradox, explained subsequently,
especially for flatter slopes.
Question: What is the difference between a GRS slope and a
very steep GRS slope? When does a very steep slope become a
wall? Is it some arbitrary slope angle such as 70, as suggested by
FHWA? Does the soil really know the difference? Professor Robert
Koerner (personal communication, 2007) mentioned that our de-
sign approaches to GRS walls and slopes depend on traditional
geotechnical designs for slopes and conventional retaining walls,
and on the way we teach these subjects in our graduate courses,
and has nothing to do with reality!
So, what do the geosynthetics experts say about this? Holtz et al.
(1997) have one chapter on GRS slopes and another on GRS walls,
which is the traditional approach to the design of these structures.
Even Koerner (2012) does the same thing in effect; he has separate
sections on GRS slopes and GRS walls in his chapters on design
with geotextiles and geogrids. So what is really going on?
ASCE 03117001-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Fig. 18. Horizontal stress distributions assumed for design: (a) Rankine
tieback wedge (adapted from Steward et al. 1977); (b) distribution
proposed by Broms (adapted from Broms 1977, 1978, ASCE);
(c) bilinear assumed by Reinforced Earth; (d) coherent gravity (adapted
from Simac et al. 1990)
Internal Stability Design: Walls
Several different earth pressure distributions for reinforced wall de-
sign have been proposed; four of the more common ones are shown
in Fig. 18. The classical Rankine earth pressure distribution as-
sumed for the tieback wedgeU.S. Forest Service approach de-
scribed previously in Figs. 18(a and b) shows the distribution
proposed by Broms, which was based on the Terzaghi-Peck rectan-
gular stress distribution for braced cut excavation support. An early
distribution assumed by Reinforced Earth, shown in Fig. 18(c), was
based on measurements of a few instrumented full-scale structures.
Note that the earth pressure below about 2.35 m is better repre-
sented by K o than by K a. The AASHTO coherent gravity method
for steel strips and bar mats is shown in Fig. 18(d), in which the
earth pressure starts at the top with K o and becoming K a at 6 m
deep.
Basically, all methods assume a lateral stress distribution with a
segment or section of the wall face supported by a reinforcement
layer with sufficient tensile strength to carry the horizontal stress
acting on that segment (typically the reinforcement spacing). The
vertical stress v at the level of that reinforcement layer is equal to
the overburden stress h, and the horizontal stress acting on that
tributary area depends on the assumed horizontal earth pressure co-
efficient K h ; i.e., h v K h . Designers can use one of the distri-
butions in Fig. 18, or in case of the AASHTO simplified method
developed by Elias and Christopher (1997), the ratio of K r =K a is
used to develop the earth pressure diagrams for various types of
reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 19. The diagram was based on re-
search reported by Christopher et al. (1990a, b) and Christopher
(1993). Elias et al. (2001) and Berg et al. (2009) give additional
details on this common design procedure. Appendix F in Berg et al.
(2009) is an excellent summary of the common reinforced design
methods.
The major problem with all the earth pressure approaches for
GRS walls is that the measured horizontal earth pressure in instru-
mented reinforced walls often results in a calculated stress ratio
significantly less than K a , which is of course impossible as shown
in Fig. 20. According to Rankine theory, the active earth pressure
is the minimum earth pressure, or the earth pressure at failure. Thus,
the horizontal earth pressure h0 can never be less than ha0 because
the Mohr circle at failure cannot be above the Mohr failure
envelope.
So why is the measured K h often so much less than K a ? There
are several possible reasons, and all are likely to contribute to this
discrepancy:
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 19. Variation in stress ratio with depth for various reinforcement
types (reprinted from Elias et al. 2001; Berg et al. 2009, courtesy
of FHWA)
Fig. 20. (Color) Mohrs circles for conditions at rest, active, and the
impossible
1. Soil properties: The Mohr failure envelope is curved, so 0 is
much higher, especially at low confining pressures (small values
of the vertical overburden stress h). The 0 measured in com-
mon triaxial tests is much less than in plane strain, which is the
stress condition operative in the field. Finally, 0 is high at field
densities that are usually 90% or greater.
2. Rankine theory is violated by presence of reinforcement (Boyle
1995a). The backfill is homogeneous and isotropic.
3. Apparent cohesion in the backfill soils could easily have influ-
enced the field measurements. As anyone who has performed
ASCE 03117001-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
(a)
(b)
Fig. 21. Two cases of a sand slope: (a) slope angle less than the angle
of repose; (b) slope angle slightly greater than the angle of repose
stability analyses knows, a little c goes a long way! but is it
always there?
4. Field measurements are often problematic in my humble experi-
ence. It seems that there are always problems, anomalies, out-
liers, electronic glitches, or data points that do not make any
sense, and other factors that make interpretation of field mea-
surements suspect.
Design of GRS Slopes
As mentioned previously, design of GRS slopes is a combination of
classical slope stability analyses plus tieback forces that extend
behind the assumed failure surface. But before we discuss how
GRS stability analyses are actually performed, let us consider how
granular soil slopes actually fail. Consider a typical loose sand with
a friction angle of 35 standing at a 2H:1V slope. As shown in
Fig. 21(a), with a slope angle of 26 (well below 35), no reinforce-
ment is needed for stability; the slope is very safe. Now if the slope
angle is increased to 38 [Fig. 21(b)], how much reinforcement is
required for stability? Well, not very much, because it is just stable
at 35, its angle of repose. At 38, the small wedge in Fig. 21(b) will
slide, no one will be killed or injured, and it is basically a main-
tenance problem.
As the slope angle increases, more and stronger reinforcement
will be required for stability, but the common assumption of a
circular failure surface extending back into the slope is not how
granular slopes actually fail. And this leads to the design paradox
for tie-back forces mentioned in Internal Stability Design: Histori-
cal Background, especially for flatter slopes. A circular failure sur-
face will extend well back of the slope and deeper than the toe, and
to tieback this critical surface, the reinforcement will have to be
longer and longer as the slope becomes flatter and flatter. And
yet, as we have just shown, the reinforcement requirements for
a flatter slope are not as great as would be indicated by an ordinary
stability analysis.
This problem is of course a bit more complex with cohesive
soil slopes. Here the critical failure surface is curved, going through
the toe for slopes steeper than 53 (Taylor 1948) but then for flatter
slopes, going as deep as it can go. For example, in Fig. 22, the
critical surface is prevented from going very deep because of
an inclined layer of different and stiffer material. For both sands
and clays, Fig. 22 shows that the critical failure surface for the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Fig. 22. Reinforced slope inclined about 40 with the unreinforced
critical failure surface shown as a dashed curve; with the reinforcing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in place, the critical failure surface (solid curve) is driven back into the
slope, thus increasing its factor of safety
unreinforced slope is driven back into the slope, thus increasing
its factor of safety. This fact was shown in some unpublished ex-
periments on small models at the Royal Institute of Technology in
Stockholm in 1975, which indicated that if failure occurred in a
reinforced slope, the critical failure surface was always in the back
portion of the reinforced zone. With the use of digital computer pro-
grams, the strength properties and lengths of the reinforcement
could be accounted for directly, as shown by, e.g., Berg et al. (1989)
and Verduin and Holtz (1989). Even under dynamic conditions,
McElroy (1997), Perez (1999), and Perez and Holtz (2004) found
it almost impossible to get the failure surface to pass through the
lower reinforcement layer in a geotextile reinforced steep (63)
slope. I am sure others have shown this phenomenon both exper-
imentally and analytically.
Several design procedures for GRS slopes have been developed
over the years. Assumed failure surfaces have ranged from bilinear
wedges (Murray 1982; Schneider and Holtz 1986) sliding wedges
(Schmertmann et al. 1987), circular arcs (Jewell et al. 1984; Jewell
1990; Verduin and Holtz 1989), and log spirals (Leshchinsky and
Boedeker 1989). And there probably are several others.
Computer Programs for GRS Design
For stability analyses and other design features, several computer
programs are available for the design of both GRS slopes and
walls, or conventional programs often have subroutines for this pur-
pose. Programs have been developed either commercially or by
government agencies, and some of them are listed as follows:
PCSTABL4;
STABGM;
XSTABL;
UTEXAS3 and UTEXAS4;
GSLOPE;
New Janbu;
Tenslo1;
Strata Slope;
RSS; and
ReSSA.
Some programs are more user-friendly than others, and several
have impressive graphical packages that assist the user with data
interpretation. As far as I know all are probably OK, but as with
any computer program, a few cases should always be checked with
simple hand calculations or at least with a completely different pro-
gram, as suggested by Wright (2013). Potential users of these
programs should also read Chapter 8 in Duncan and Wright (2005).
Other useful references are Pockoski and Duncan (2000) and
Duncan (2013).
ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
University of Washington Analytical Research on
GRS Walls
In this section, some of the important findings from two analytical
research projects conducted at the University of Washington (UW)
are described due to their relevance to GRS wall analyses and de-
sign. Because we knew that current design methods were ultracon-
servative, the objective of the first project, sponsored by WSDOT
and conducted by Ph.D. student Wei-Feng Lee, was to develop a
working stress analysis for GRS walls. Lee (2000) used the pro-
gram FLAC for his analyses, and he calibrated his constitutive mod-
els with field and laboratory data from the Rainier Avenue wall
(Holtz et al. 1991; Allen et al. 1992a, b; Boyle 1995a). Then he
used the soil modulus and the correct dilation angle, all determined
experimentally in plane strain and at a small but realistic confining
pressures on the sand used in large-scale (3.6 m high) instrumented
model tests conducted at the Royal Military College (RMC) in
Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The test facility, testing program, in-
strumentation, and test results are described in Burgess (1999).
Lee was able to make true Class A predictions of wall face deflec-
tions and reinforcement strains for three RMC test walls, and he ob-
tained excellent agreement as shown in Fig. 23. In conclusion, both
external and internal performance can be accurately reproduced if,
and only if, the correct material properties are used and the boundary
conditions are correctly simulated. For additional information on
Lees work, see his Ph.D. dissertation (Lee 2000) as well as Lee et al.
(1999), Lee and Holtz (1998), and Holtz and Lee (1998a, b, 2001).
The second analytical project was conducted by Ph.D. student
Fadzilah Saidin (2007). She performed numerical simulation, also
using FLAC, of an instrumented 6-m-high GRS wall constructed on
a soft foundation and with poor-quality backfill by the Louisiana
Transportation Research Center (LTRC) in Baton Rouge. She also
considered the effect of foundation settlement, rainfall infiltration,
and compaction during construction. Details about the wall con-
struction, instrumentation, and results are in Farrag and Morvant
(2003). Some of Saidins settlement predictions are shown in
Figs. 24(a and b). Additional references on Saidins work include
Saidin et al. (2001), Saidin and Holtz (2003), Robinson et al.
(2003), and Saidin and Holtz (2014; 2016).
Saidins (2007) important recommendations for GRS design-
ers are
1. Traditional design methods are quite OK for GRS walls on soft
foundations;
2. A reinforced base layer under the structure results in more
uniform settlements;
3. Traditional settlement analysis are OK for GRS structures on
soft foundations;
4. Rate of construction is important; and
5. Adequate provisions for backfill drainage are critical.
A few comments on these recommendations are pertinent.
Recommendation 1 is important because GRS designs assume un-
yielding foundations; thus it is important to know that it is OK to use
our traditional GRS design methods even if the foundation is soft.
Recommendation 2 is probably no surprise. Recommendation 3 is
related to Recommendation 1, in that we can perform with reason-
able accuracy our traditional geotechnical settlement analyses on
GRS structures constructed on soft foundations. Prior to Saidins
research, we really did not know for sure whether these designs
are couplednow we know they are not. Recommendation 4 is im-
portant for accurate finite-element modeling of GRS structures.
Finally, Saidins infiltration analyses indicate that adequate drainage
of the backfill is absolutely critical for successful GRS performance.
Is Saidins (2007) final recommendation anything new? No, not
really. It should be conventional geotechnical practice as indicated,
03117001-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 4
Predicted-
3.5 50kPa
3 Measured-

Height of Wall (m)

50kPa
2.5 Predicted-
2 70kPa
Measured-
1.5 70kPa
1 Predicted-
115kPa
0.5 Measured-
0 115kPa
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) Face Deflection (mm)
8.0
Strain (%)

6.0 Layer4- Model RMC3

4.0
2.0 Measured
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Distance from wall face (mm)
8.0
Strain (%)

6.0 Layer3- Model RMC3

4.0
2.0 Measured
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Distance from wall face (mm)
8.0
Strain (%)

6.0 Layer2- Model RMC3

4.0
2.0 Measured
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
(b) Distance from wall face (mm)

Fig. 23. (Color) Selected results from Lee (2000) (reprinted from Lee 2000, with permission): (a) face deflections of Wall 1; (b) strains in the
reinforcement in Wall 3 with a 50-kPa surcharge

for example, by the flow nets in Fig. 25 from Terzaghi (1943) and
Taylor (1948). And we know what is good GRS drainage practice;
one example is Fig. 26 from Sandri (2005), which addresses both
surface and subsurface drainage. Of course, designs such as this are
expensive, but so is failure. We, the profession, have no excuses for
not using good drainage practice, because we do know better.
Other Approaches to GRS Analysis and Design
Two other approaches to GRS analysis and design should be
mentioned; they are the composite material approach and the
K-stiffness method. Both offer significant potential improvement
to current design practice.
The composite material approach is based on the concept of
homogenization, which can greatly simplify numerical analyses of
GRS and other reinforced soil structures. Accurately modeling
the constitutive behavior of these materials is quite complex be-
cause of significant differences in geometry and engineering prop-
erties of the soil and reinforcement as well as their high degree
of anisotropy. Early work on this was done at the University of
California, Davis, (Chang 1974; Romstad et al. 1976; Shen et al.
1976), and more recently by Lee et al. (2007) at UW.
The K-stiffness method was developed from some of Lees
(2000) analytical results, experimental research conducted at the
RMC by Professor Richard Bathurst and his students, and on addi-
tional work by T. M. Allen of WSDOT, the primary research spon-
sor. It is a purely empirical method based on many case histories of
walls reinforced with both steel and geosynthetics. One of its great
advantages over current design practice is that it is independent of
reinforcing materialit does not matter if the reinforcement is met-
allic or geosynthetics. The K-stiffness method enables a more ac-
curate estimate of reinforcement loads, and a step-by-step design
procedure is available with a limit states design approach that is
consistent with current design codes (i.e., LRFD). For details, see
Allen et al. (2003, 2004); some recent refinements are described by
Allen and Bathurst (2015).
GRS Design Recommendations
There is nothing wrong with traditional limiting equilibrium de-
sign methods as long as it is recognized these methods are ultra
conservative. If you want to use them, then you should
1. Use the correct soil properties for overburden stress h and soil
friction angle 0 , preferably determined in plane strain and at
the correct confining pressure. This is not as easy as it sounds.
First, there are not many plane strain devices available, and it is
difficult to conduct triaxial and plane strain tests at low confin-
ing pressures. If you want to do advanced numerical modeling,

ASCE 03117001-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 JOB TITLE : LOUISIANA WALL SECTION 1 with consolidation (*10^1)
FLAC (Version 5.00)

LEGEND
0.600
24-Aug-06 8:41
step 4120521
Flow Time 1.0200E+07
-4.698E+00 <x< 1.749E+01
-1.216E+01 <y< 1.004E+01
Gravel 0.200
Y-displacement contours
base layer
-2.00E-01
-1.75E-01
-1.50E-01
-1.25E-01
-1.00E-01 -0.200
-7.50E-02
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-5.00E-02
-2.50E-02
0.00E+00
-0.600
Contour interval= 2.50E-02
Boundary plot

0 5E 0
Cable plot
-1.000

University of Washington
Seattle
-0.200 0.200 0.600 1.000 1.400
(*10^1)

(a)

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-0.05
Set t lement ( m)

3.2 m (calculated)
-0.10
3.2 m (measured)
5.5 m (calculated)
-0.15
5.5 m (measured)

-0.20

-0.25
Distance from the facing (m )

(b)

Fig. 24. (Color) Settlement predictions by Saidin (2007) (reprinted from Saidin 2007, with permission): (a) FLAC settlement distribution;
(b) settlement prediction compared with field measurements

e.g., with FLAC, and you want the correct answer, you must use
the correct dilatancy angle. Again, this is not easy to determine
in plane strain and at the correct confining pressure.
2. For the internal stability of steep GRS slopes, I think they can
be designed as a very steep slope. As the slope angle increases,
more or stronger reinforcing is required. Use some of the com-
puter programs mentioned in Computer Programs for GRS
Design and pay attention to their caveats. Although I have not
tried this, it is possible that conventional soil nailing or tieback
design procedures could be used with appropriate adjustments
for geometry and reinforcement properties.
3. For spacing of the reinforcement, the designer has two choices:
use (1) many thin layers of lower strength geosynthetics; or
(2) fewer thicker layers of higher strength geosynthetics re-
quired for stability. The advantages and disadvantages of each
choice are shown in Table 2. I recommend the first choice
many thin layers of weaker reinforcing. It is less expensive, and
improved compaction and better face control are obtained. Note,
too, that thinner lifts provide improved quality assurance for the
compaction process.
4. Pullout of the geosynthetic reinforcement is not a problem
based on our research in Sweden described in Experience in
Sweden, 19701975. If there is any reasonable amount of
backfill on it, the geosynthetic will rupture before it pulls out
of the backfill. Sometimes, however, there is a problem with
large unexpected surcharges applied to the face of GRS walls.

ASCE 03117001-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 25. Flow nets illustrating recommended provisions for drainage
of conventional earth retaining structures [(a and b) reprinted from
Terzaghi 1943; (c) reprinted from Taylor 1948]
A good suggestion by John Paulson of Atlanta (personal com-
munication, 2007) is to extend the top two or three layers of
reinforcement back of the face well beyond what is required
by usual pullout design methods. As shown in Fig. 27, this is
cheap insurance against the unexpected.
5. Finally, and do not forget: Drainage! Drainage! Drainage! Note
that this is a design and construction issue.
Also, please try the K-stiffness method, monitor the structure,
and let us know how it works.
Material Properties
Material properties required for GRS include the backfill soils, the
properties of the geosynthetic reinforcement, and the facing system,
if any. The backfill soils for GRS walls and very steep slopes should
be clean and free-draining. Reinforced Earth Company and FHWA
ASCE 03117001-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
specifications are recommendedthe plasticity index (PI) should
be less than 6 and the percent passing the No. 200 sieve should
be less than 15, much less if possible. Note that for GRS slopes,
these specifications can be safely relaxed somewhat. For example,
FHWA and Berg et al. (2009) recommend that the PI can be less
than 20 and the percent passing the No. 200 sieve can be increased
up to 50.
Designers should not forget about the foundation and slope
stability either because they are often a source of GRS wall-slope
problems. Geotechnical conditions associated with the foundation
and back slope are conventional geotechnical practice.
Table 3 lists the geosynthetic properties required for a complete
reinforcement design. All of the properties in the second of the
table have standard ASTM test procedures listed in the third col-
umn; this situation is an enormous benefit to GRS designers. One
can now specify the properties required for a given design using
standard tests, and this makes selection of the geosynthetics proper-
ties generic and not product-specific.
UW Experimental Research on GRS Walls, 19911996
Our experimental research at UW developed because of the excel-
lent performance of the Rainier Avenue wall in Seattle (Fig. 28).
This structure was used to support a temporary preload as part of
the reconstruction by WSDOT of Interstate Highway 90 during the
late 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, it was the highest GRS
wall in the world at 12.6 m high and it supported a 5.3-m surcharge
load. It was well instrumented and performed exceptionally well
both during and after construction. Because it was only temporary,
the design factor of safety was 1.2. Even so, the face deforma-
tions were modest, only about 10 mm, and postconstruction creep
was about one-half that amount after 9.5 months. The measured
strains on the reinforcement layers were very small, typically
about 0.5%; the maximum observed by only one gauge was slightly
more than 1%. Details of the performance of the Rainier Avenue
wall have been reported by Christopher et al. (1990a, b), Holtz
and Christopher (1990), Holtz et al. (1991), and Allen et al.
(1992a, b).
The primary objective of our research, sponsored by WSDOT,
was to try and understand better why the Rainier Avenue wall
had performed so well beyond expectations. Because the observed
strains were so small, large-strain soilgeosynthetic interaction tests,
e.g., pullout tests (Experience in Sweden, 19701975), were not
an appropriate way to determine the soilgeosynthetic interaction
moduli. And this property would be required for any realistic
numerical modeling, such as was described in University of
Washington Analytical Research on GRS Walls, to be performed.
Because no in-soil test apparatus was available, we developed our
own test equipment. Ph.D. student Stanley R. Boyle designed the
apparatus shown in Fig. 29. He called it the unit cell device
(UCD), which loads a specimen of sand in plane strain and allows
for direct measurement of both the loads and strains developed in the
geotextile, especially at small strains. Fig. 29(a) is a schematic cross
section of the UCD, and Fig. 29(b) is a photograph of the device.
Fig. 30 is a summary plot of some UCD as well as conventional
direct shear and triaxial compression test results. Soil R is Rainier
Avenue wall sand, while Soil O is standard Ottawa sand. This fig-
ure shows that the plane strain friction angle is much greater than
from conventional tests, especially at small confining pressures.
Fig. 31 shows some in-soil stressstrain results from UCD tests
conducted at a confining pressure of 10 kPa on specimens of the
Rainier Avenue sand. One test was conducted on the sand alone,
and six were on specimens reinforced with different geotextiles
two nonwovens and the four wovens used to reinforce the wall.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 26. Good drainage design (reprinted from Sandri 2005, with permission)

Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Spacing of Reinforcing Layers

Choices Advantages Disadvantages
Many thin layers of low-strength Better compaction and compaction control Time required to place the geosynthetic layers
geosynthetics Easier to control face line and slope angle
Fewer layers of high-strength Less construction timealthough compaction of backfill Excessive face deformations (can be reduced by face
geosynthetics in thin lifts still required support system)
Often requires intermediate short layers of geosynthetics
near the face to support thicker lifts

gave us confidence that at least the in-soil stressstrain behavior

Fig. 27. (Color) John Paulsons recommendation against unexpected
loads near the face of a GRS structure
Because no other in-soil stressstrain results were available to com-
pare with these data, Boyle (1995a, b) also conducted a UCD test
with a sheet of stainless steel as reinforcement. Its yield stress was
0.23% and its modulus was very close to 200 GPa. These values
was in the right order and approximately correct.
Finally, other very interesting UCD results are shown in Fig. 32
and this has important implications for design. Boyle (1995a, b)
conducted a relaxation test on a specimen of the Rainier Avenue
sand reinforced with a 2-layer stitch bonded polypropylene slit-film
geotextile. After loading to about 4% strain, the load was held
constant while he continued to measure the tension in the geotex-
tile. As shown in Fig. 32, strain continued, as would be expected,
but most interestingly the tension reduced (i.e., relaxation) and then
all movement ceased. The specimen and reinforcement were at equi-
librium under the applied stresses and no additional strains occurred
as long as no additional load was applied. The same thing must
happen in the field at working stresses that are well below the fail-
ure stresses. This suggests that creep of the geotextiles in full-scale
structures is not a problem because of stress relaxation.
References on Boyles work with the UCD are Boyle and Holtz
(1994a, b), Boyle (1995a, b), Gallagher (1995), Boyle et al. (1996),
and Boyle and Holtz (1996, 1998).

ASCE 03117001-15 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

 Table 3. Geosynthetic Properties Required for Reinforcement Applications
Criteria and Parameter Property ASTM standard
Design requirements
Mechanical
Tensile strength and modulus Wide width strength and modulus D4595 (ASTM 2011) and D6637 (ASTM 2015a)
Seam strength Wide width strength D4884 (ASTM 2014d)
Tension creep Tension creep D5262 (ASTM 2016d) and D6992 (ASTM 2016c)
Soilgeosynthetic friction Soilgeosynthetic friction angle D5321 (ASTM 2014b) and D6706 (ASTM 2013)
Hydraulic
Piping resistance Apparent opening size D5471 (ASTM 2016b)
Permeability Permeability and permittivity D4491 (ASTM 2017)
Constructability requirements
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tensile strength Grab strength D4632 (ASTM 2015b)

Puncture resistance Puncture resistance D6241 (ASTM 2014c)
Tear resistance Trapezoidal tear strength D4533 (ASTM 2015c)
Durability
Ultraviolet stability (if exposed) Ultraviolet resistance D4355 (ASTM 2014a)
Chemical and biological (if required) Chemical and biological resistance D6389 (ASTM 2016a)

Fig. 28. (Color) Rainier Avenue wall, Seattle (image by R. D. Holtz)

Important Conclusions for GRS Wall Designers:

Creep and Backfill
From the research on material properties just described, a few con-
clusions of importance to GRS wall designers can be stated:
For soilgeosynthetic interaction behavior, the induced reinfor-
cement tension must be measured directly; otherwise the inter-
action parameters are just a guess. The UCD is the only test that
does this in plane strain.
Geosynthetics are a much more efficient reinforcement material
than steel because the strengths of both the sand and the geo-
synthetic are used more or less equally. With steel-reinforced
soil, the steel does most of the work, and the sand just goes
along for the ride. Not so with geosynthetic reinforcement.
Creep of GRS structures is not really a problem at working stres- Fig. 29. (Color) Unit cell device (images courtesy of W. F. Lee):
ses. When loading stops, GRS deforms as the geosynthetic re- (a) cross section; (b) photograph
laxes. The GRS system is at equilibrium and no longer moves.
Similar results have also been shown by field measurements of
real GRS walls, e.g., the Rainier Avenue wall, described pre- conducted in soil and under confining stress, and then how long
viously, and a steep slope reinforced with geogrids constructed does one want to wait for test results? Finally, there is the problem
in Norway (Fannin and Herman 1990; Fannin 2001). See also of test interpretation. To speed things up, one can always use time-
Fannin (1988, 1994). temperature superposition (TTS) and develop isochronous load
If you still think creep is a problem, you are welcome to conduct versus strain curves, or use the stepped isothermal method (SIM)
your own creep tests, but to be realistic, they probably should be (ASTM D6992) developed by the late Dr. Scott Thornton of the

ASCE 03117001-16 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 30. Friction angle versus confining pressure determined by the
UCD and conventional soils tests on Rainier Avenue wall sand (R)
and standard Ottawa sand (O) (reprinted from Boyle 1995a, with
permission)
Fig. 31. UCD stressstrain results on the Rainier Avenue sand at a
confining pressure of 10 kPa; sand alone (NONE), two nonwoven geo-
textiles (NW1 and NW2), four woven geotextiles (PP1, PP2, PP3, and
PET1), and stainless steel sheet (SS) (reprinted from Boyle 1995a, with
permission)
Southwest Research Institute. Also, Professors Robert Koerner
and Grace Hsuan of the Geosynthetics Research Institute at Drexel
University are experts on creep of geosynthetics (e.g., Koerner
et al. 2006).
Professor Jonathan Fannin (personal communication, 2007) has
demonstrated that if one uses the very elegant British Standard
8006 (BSI 2010) to extrapolate 10,000-h creep data to 1,000,000 h
(approximately 120 years, a common design life for public works),
the allowable tensile strength determined is very close to the value
obtained if the AASHTO (2002, 2014) default creep reduction
factor is used to reduce the T ult .
Finally, it is strongly recommended that fine-grained backfill
material should be avoided, especially for GRS walls and very
steep slopes. If this is not possible, then the interaction properties
of the soil and geosynthetic should be determined using samples of
the proposed backfill. Also, the drainage designs recommended in
ASCE 03117001-17
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Fig. 32. Results of a UCD test conducted on a specimen of Rainier
Avenue sand at 20 kPa reinforced with one of the Rainier Avenue
reinforcing geotextiles, a 2-layer stitch bonded woven polypropylene
slit-film (reprinted from Boyle 1995a, with permission)
University of Washington Analytical Research on GRS Walls
and Figs. 25 and 26 must be employed.
Things We Still Need to Know and Do: Technical
and Professional Issues
As I have shown above, in the past 3040 years, GRS has devel-
oped from experimental, low-risk, and modest projects into a ma-
ture and rather common technology. However, there are a couple
of technical issues that remain:
1. We need a simple, what might be called a poor persons, plane
strain test device, preferably one that can also provide measure-
ments of volume changes during shear. This test would allow
designers to easily determine the plane strain friction and
dilation angles of their proposed backfill soils.
2. Although seismic design of GRS structures was not mentioned
in this paper, it is still an important issue in earthquake country.
Consequently, we need a seismic design procedure better than
the old-fashioned Mononobe-Okabe pseudostatic analysis, even
though we know GRS walls and slopes are much safer than
conventional ones in earthquakes (e.g., White and Holtz 1996).
Important progress was made by Anderson et al. (2008) using
the generalized limiting equilibrium approach, but important
limitations such as the flexibility of GRS structures and eva-
luation of deformations remain. My colleague at the Univer-
sity of Washington, Professor Steven Kramer, suggests that
performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) is the ap-
propriate approach, and because he wrote the book on geotech-
nical earthquake engineering (Kramer 1996), I believe him.
Besides these two technical issues, there are several professional
issues that pose a serious threat to this wonderful technology. First
there are simply too many failures! Koerner and Soong (1999,
2001) have studied failures of GRS structures, and they concluded
that about 1% of all GRS structures have serious problems or have
failed. Most are due to
Poor-quality backfills;
Poor drainage or saturated backfills;
Construction problems;
Inadequate global or external stability;
Unexpected surcharges;
Lack of proper inspection;
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Poor training for workers;
No control of construction by designer;
Economic pressures; and
Value-engineered or contractor-supplied designs, with no bud-
get for checking alternates by competent professionals.
Other problems especially on large developments include the
disconnect between the GRS wall designer, the geotechnical engi-
neer of record, and the site civil engineer. The lines of responsibility
are often unclear and the contractual relationships fuzzy as to who
is responsible for what. This relationship is further complicated by
wall designs supplied by materials suppliers and distributors who
are not responsible for the soils, drainage, or construction.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Question: Is liability avoided by use of vendor-supplied de-
signs? I have heard this suggested as a reason for leaving GRS wall
designs to vendors. If it is notand I do not think it isthen why
do geotechnical consultants give away good billable design hours
to a vendor?
Remember, fixing problems is always more expensive than
proper inspection and control by the designer, but we are often in-
ept at convincing our clients of this fact. It has been reliably esti-
mated that the cost of fixing a GRS failure is about 10 times greater
than the cost of the original design and construction!
Finally, there are jurisdictions such as the large city where I re-
side that require GRS wall designs to be stamped by a registered
structural engineer. Although well qualified in structural engineer-
ing, they usually know nothing about soil reinforcing and geosyn-
thetics, and may only know what they learned as undergraduates
about soils and drainage issues. Furthermore, they are not respon-
sible for construction inspection.
The result? Too many failures! They are unnecessarily costly
and potentially tragic.
But how to fix this current state of affairs? Is it up to the
Geo-Institute? The Geoprofessional Business Association, a trade
association of consulting geoprofessionals in North America?
The International Geosynthetics Society? The International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering? Or is it up to us
as individuals? Furthermore, many of these issues are not unique to
GRS, but as I mentioned previously, these problems threaten a
wonderful technology and a wonderful profession.
Successful Examples
In order not to end on such a negative tone, in the oral presentations
of this lecture, I show a number of photographs of successful
examples of reinforced soil technology, both with steel and geosyn-
thetic reinforcement. Some of these photographs were taken from
technical and promotional literature of different manufacturers
and producers of reinforced walls and slopes, while others were
from my own collection of photographs. Many I took myself while
others were given me by colleagues or associates. All of them dem-
onstrate the current state of the art and practice of GRS technology,
and are available from the author by e-mail request.
Concluding Remarks
In this paper, I have shown the development of GRS slopes and
walls from experimental, small-scale, low-risk projects that were
not readily accepted, to projects that are almost routine and rela-
tively commonplace. I will make two predicitions.
My first prediction is that GRS will soon be the standard steep
slope and standard wall because of its significant advantages as
shown in Advantages and Basic Behavior of GRS.
ASCE 03117001-18
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
However, two technical and several professional issues remain,
as described in the paper. The technical issues will probably be
taken care of within the next few years. The professional issues, on
the other hand, are serious and complex, and their solution will not
be easy nor straight forward. I made some suggestions as to who
might be able to deal with these issues.
My second prediction is for my academic colleagues: GRS
and other types of reinforced walls will change the way we teach
earth pressure theory and the design of backfilled retaining struc-
tures, and it may even change our approach to teaching slope
stabilization.
Acknowledgments
Finally, I want to acknowledge with sincere thanks my former
professors, colleagues, and bosses (including former Terzaghi
Lecturers Jorg Osterberg, Raymond Krizek, Gerald Leonards, and
Clyde Baker), as well as many former students, all of whom taught
me geotechnical and geosynthetic engineering; my UW colleagues,
Steve Kramer and Pedro Arduino, who are still courageously trying
to teach me modern developments in geotechnical engineering; the
Geo-Institute Board for this honor; my wife, Cricket Morgan, for
her patience and support throughout the years; and the Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering reviewers and
editors, for their thorough reviews and very perceptive comments
that have helped me significantly to improve the paper.
References
AASHTO. (2002). Standard specifications for highway bridges, 17th Ed.,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2014). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, with 2015
and 2016 interims, 7th Ed., Washington, DC.
Allen, T., and Bathurst, R. (2015). Improved simplified method for pre-
diction of loads in reinforced soil walls. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001355, 04015049.
Allen, T. M., Bathurst, R. J., Holtz, R. D., Lee, W. F., and Walters, D.
(2004). A new working stress method for prediction of reinforcement
loads in steel reinforced MSE walls. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:11(1109), 11091120.
Allen, T. M., Bathurst, R. J., Holtz, R. D., Walters, D., and Lee, W. F.
(2003). A new working stress method for prediction of reinforcement
loads in geosynthetic walls. Can. Geotech. J., 40(5), 976994.
Allen, T. M., Christopher, B. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1992a). Performance of
a 12.6 m high geotextile wall in Seattle, Washington. Proc., Int. Symp.,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 81100.
Allen, T. M., Christopher, B. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1992b). Performance
of a 41-foot high geotextile wall. Final Rep. No. WA-RD 257.1,
Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Olympia, WA.
Allen, T. M., and Holtz, R. D. (1991). Design of retaining walls reinforced
with geosynthetics. Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991, ASCE,
Reston, VA, 970987.
Anderson, D. G., Martin, G. R., Lam, I., and Wang, J. N. (2008). Seismic
analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes and em-
bankments. Project NCHRP 12-70, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
ASTM. (2011). Standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles
by the wide-width strip method. ASTM D4595, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2013). Standard test method for measuring geosynthetic pullout
resistance in soil. ASTM D6706, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014a). Standard test method for deterioration of geotextiles by
exposure to light, moisture and heat in a xenon arc type apparatus.
ASTM D4355, West Conshohocken, PA.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 ASTM. (2014b). Standard test method for determining the shear strength
of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic-geosynthetic interfaces by direct
shear. ASTM D5321, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014c). Standard test method for static puncture strength of
geotextiles and geotextile-related products using a 50-mm probe.
ASTM D6241, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014d). Standard test method for strength of sewn or bonded
seams of geotextiles. ASTM D4884, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015a). Standard test method for determining tensile properties
of geogrids by the single or multi-rib tensile method. ASTM D6637,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2015b). Standard test method for grab breaking load and elon-
gation of geotextiles. ASTM D4632, West Conshohocken, PA.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ASTM. (2015c). Standard test method for trapezoid tearing strength of
geotextiles? ASTM D4533, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2016a). Standard practice for tests to evaluate the chemical re-
sistance of geotextiles to liquids. ASTM D6389, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM. (2016b). Standard specification for O-Xylene 980. ASTM D5471,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2016c). Standard test method for accelerated tensile creep and
creep-rupture of geosynthetic materials based on time-temperature
superposition using the stepped isothermal method. ASTM D6992,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2016d). Standard test method for evaluating the unconfined ten-
sion creep and creep rupture behavior of geosynthetics. ASTM D5262,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2017). Standard test methods for water permeability of geotex-
tiles by permittivity. ASTM D4491, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bell, J. R., and Hicks, R. G. (1980). Evaluation of test methods and use
criteria for geotechnical fabrics in highway applications. Rep. No.
FHWA/RD-80/021, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.
Bell, J. R., and Hicks, R. G. (1982). Evaluation of test methods and use
criteria for geotechnical fabrics in highway applications. Oregon State
Univ., Corvallis, OR.
Bell, J. R., and Steward, J. E. (1977). Construction and observation of
fabric retained soil walls. Proc., Int. Conf. on the Use of Fabrics in
Geotechnics, Paris, 123128.
Bell, J. R., Stilley, A. N., and Vandre, B. (1975). Fabric retained earth
walls. Proc., 13th Annual Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering
Symp., Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 271287.
Berg, R. R. (1993). Guidelines for design, specification, and contracting of
geosynthetic mechanically stabilized earth slopes on firm foundations.
FHWA-SA-93-025, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Berg, R. R., Chouery-Curtis, V. E., and Watson, C. H. (1989). Critical
failure planes in analysis of reinforced slopes. Proc., Geosynthetics
89 Conf., Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN,
269278.
Berg, R. R., Christopher, B. R., and Samtani, N. C. (2009). Design and
construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil
slopesVolumes I and II. National Highway Institute, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Bourdeau, P. L., Harr, M. E., and Holtz, R. D. (1982). Soil-fabric
interactionAn analytical model. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles,
Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, 387391.
Boutrup, E., and Holtz, R. D. (1982). Fabric reinforced embankments con-
structed on weak foundations. Final Rep. JHRP-82-21, Indiana Dept.
of Highways and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Boutrup, E., and Holtz, R. D. (1983). Analysis of embankments on soft
ground reinforced with geotextiles. Proc., 8th European Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, Finland, 469472.
Boyle, S. R. (1995a). Deformation prediction of geosynthetic reinforced
soil retaining walls. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Boyle, S. R. (1995b). Unit cell tests on reinforced cohesionless
soils. Proc., Geosynthetics 95 Conf., Vol. 3, Industrial Fabrics Asso-
ciation International, Roseville, MN, 12211234.
Boyle, S. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1994a). Deformation characteristics of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil. Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles-
Geomembranes, and Related Products, Vol. 1, Southeast Asia Chapter
ASCE 03117001-19
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
of the International Geotextile Society (SEAC-IGS), Singapore,
361364.
Boyle, S. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1994b). Geosynthetic reinforced wall
analysis, phase I. Interim Rep., Washington State Dept. of Transpor-
tation, Olympia, WA.
Boyle, S. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1996). Prediction of reinforced soil retain-
ing wall deformations: A review of two procedures. Proc., Int. Symp.
on Earth Reinforcement (IS Kyushu 96), Vol. 1, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 327332.
Boyle, S. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1998). Measuring geotextile strains with
strain gages. Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, Vol. 2, Industrial
Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN, 517522.
Boyle, S. R., Holtz, R. D., and Gallagher, M. (1996). Influence of strain
rate, specimen length, and confinement on measured geotextile strength
properties. Geosynthetics Int., 3(2), 205225.
Broms, B. B. (1977). Polyester fabric as reinforcement in soil. Proc., Int.
Conf. on the Use of Fabrics in Geotechnics, Vol. I, Paris, 129135.
Broms, B. B. (1978). Design of fabric reinforced retaining structures.
Proc., Symp.on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE, New York, 282303.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2010). Code of practice for
strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills. BS 8006-1:2010, London.
Burgess, G. P. (1999). Two full-scale model geosynthetic-reinforced seg-
mental retaining walls. M.S.C.E. dissertation, Royal Military College
of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Chang, J. C. (1974). Earthwork reinforcement techniques. Final Rep.
CA-DOT-TL-2115-9-74-37, Dept. of Transportation, California
Division of Highways, Sacramento, CA.
Chang, J. C., Forsyth, R. A., and Beaton, J. L. (1974). Performance of a
reinforced earth fill. Research Rep. CA-DOT-TL-2115-9-74-04, Dept.
of Transportation, California Division of Highways, Sacramento, CA.
Cheng, S.-C., and Christopher, B. R. (1991). A probabilistic review of
geotextile reinforced slope design. Proc., Geosynthetics 91, Vol. 1,
Industrial Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN, 455467.
Christopher, B. R., et al. (1990a). Reinforced soil structures. Volume I:
Design and construction guidelines. FHWA-RD-89-043, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Christopher, B. R., et al. (1990b). Reinforced soil structures. Volume II:
Summary of research and systems information. FHWA-RD-89-043,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Christopher, B. R. (1993). Deformation response and wall stiffness in re-
lations to reinforced soil wall design. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue Univ.,
West Lafayette, IN.
Christopher, B. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1985). Geotextile engineering
manual. FHWA-TS-86/203, U.S. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Christopher, B. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1989). Geotextile design and
construction guidelines. FHWA-HI-90-001, U.S. Federal Highway
Administration, National Highway Institute, Washington, DC.
Christopher, B. R., Holtz, R. D., and Allen, T. M. (1990). Instrumentation
for a 12.6 m high geotextile-reinforced wall. Proc., Int. Reinforced Soil
Conf., British Geotechnical Society, London, 7378.
Christopher, B. R., and Leshchinsky, D. (1991). Design of geosyntheti-
cally reinforced slopes. Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991,
Vol. II, ASCE, Reston, VA, 9881005.
Duncan, J. M. (2013). Slope stability then and now. Proc. of Geocongress
2013 on Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments III,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 21912210.
Duncan, J. M., and Wright, S. G. (2005). Reinforced slopes and em-
bankments. Shear strength and slope stability, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ,
137150.
Elias, V., and Christopher, B. R. (1997). Mechanically stabilized earth
walls and reinforced soil slopes, design and construction guidelines.
Rep. FHWA SA-96-071, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC.
Elias, V., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (2001). Mechanically sta-
bilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes, design and construction
guidelines. FHWA-NHI-00-043, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Fannin, R. J. (1988). An instrumented field study of the analysis and
design of geogrid reinforced slopes. Rep. 5275710, Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway.
Fannin, R. J. (1994). Field observations on the load-strain-time behaviour
of geogrid reinforcement. Can. Geotech. J., 31(4), 564569.
Fannin, R. J. (2001). Long-term variations in force and strain in a steep
geogrid-reinforced soil slope. Geosynthetics Int., 8(1), 8196.
Fannin, R. J., and Herman, S. (1990). Performance data for a sloped
reinforced soil wall. Can. Geotech. J., 27(5), 676686.
Farrag, K., and Morvant, M. (2003). Evaluation of interaction properties
of geosynthetics in cohesive soils: LTRC reinforced-soil test wall. Rep.
No. 379, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
FLAC version 3.4 [Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Minneapolis.
Gallagher, M. D. (1995). In-isolation wide-width tests on geotextiles.
M.S. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Geotechnical Engineering Office. (2002). Geoguide 6: Guide to reinforced
fill structure and slope design. Civil Engineering Dept., Government of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong.
Giroud, J. P. (2008). Criteria for geotextile and granular filters. 44th
Terzaghi Lecture, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Haliburton, T. A., Lawmaster, J. D., and McGuffey, V. C. (1981). Use of
engineering fabrics in transportation related applications. FHWA
DTFH61-80-C-00094, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC.
Harney, M. D., and Holtz, R. D. (2006). Mechanical properties of geo-
textile reinforcement from Sweden, 30 years after installation. Proc.,
8th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics (CD-ROM), Yokohama, Japan, 1041
1044.
Hoare, D. J. (1979). Laboratory study of granular soils reinforced with
randomly oriented discrete fibres. Int. Conf. on Soil Reinforcement:
Reinforced Earth and Other Techniques, Vol. 1, Paris, 4752.
Holtz, R. D. (1973). Laboratory studies of reinforced earth using a woven
polyester fabric. Rep. to AB Fodervvnader, Swedish Geotechnical
Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Holtz, R. D. (1977). Laboratory studies of reinforced earth using a woven
polyester fabric. Proc., Int. Conf. on the Use of Fabrics in Geotechnics,
Vol. 3, Paris, 149154.
Holtz, R. D. (1978). Special applications: State of the art and general
report. Proc., Symp. on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE, Reston, VA,
7797.
Holtz, R. D. (1982). Walls and foundations, slopes and embankments.
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vol. 4, Industrial Fabrics Associ-
ation International, St. Paul, MN, 140142.
Holtz, R. D., Allen, T. M., and Christopher, B. R. (1991). Displacement of
a 12.6 m high geotextile-reinforced wall. Proc., 10th European Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. II, Italian
Geotechnical Society, Italy, 725728.
Holtz, R. D., and Broms, B. B. (1977). Walls reinforced by fabrics
Results of model tests. Proc., Int. Conf. on the Use of Fabrics in
Geotechnics, Vol. I, Paris, 113117.
Holtz, R. D., and Broms, B. B. (1978). Small scale model tests of fabric-
reinforced retaining walls. Proc., Symp. on Soil Reinforcing and
Stabilizing Techniques in Engineering Practice, New South Wales
Institute of Technology, Sydney, Australia, 151158.
Holtz, R. D., and Christopher, B. R. (1990). Highest geotextile-reinforced
wall in the world performs well. Geotech. News, 8(2), 2021.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (1996). Geosynthetic
design and construction guidelines. FHWA-HI-95-038, U.S. Federal
Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, Washington,
DC.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (1997). Geosynthetic
engineering, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (2008). Geosynthetic
design and construction guidelines. FHWA-NHI-07-092, U.S. Federal
Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, Washington, DC.
Holtz, R. D., and Harr, M. E. (1983). Analytical and experimental inves-
tigations of soil reinforcing. Rep. No. 32L-TR-82-31, U.S. Air Force
Engineering and Services Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City,
FL.
ASCE 03117001-20
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Holtz, R. D., and Lee, W-F. (2001). Internal stability analysis of geosyn-
thetic reinforced retaining walls. Final Research Rep. No. WA-RD
532.1, Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Olympia, WA.
Holtz, R. D., and Lee, W. F. (1998a). Geosynthetic reinforced wall analy-
sis phase II: Use of in-soil geosynthetic behavior to predict deformation,
Vol. II: Computer codes and files. Rep. No. WA-RD 452.2, Washington
State Dept. of Transportation, Olympia, WA.
Holtz, R. D., and Lee, W.-F. (1998b). Geosynthetic reinforced wall analy-
sis phase II: Use of in-soil geosynthetic behavior to predict deforma-
tions, Vol. I: Research program and results Final Research Rep.
No. WA-RD 452.1, Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Olympia,
WA.
Holtz, R. D., and Massarsch, K. R. (1976). Improvement of the stability of
an embankment by piling and reinforced earth. Proc., 6th European
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1.2,
Vienna, Austria, 473478.
Holtz, R. D., and Massarsch, K. R. (1993). Geotextile and relief piles for
deep foundation improvementEmbankment near Gteborg, Sweden.
Geosynthetics case histories, G. P. Raymond and J. P. Giroud, eds.,
BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 168169.
Holtz, R. D., Tobin, W. R., and Burke, W. W. (1982). Creep characteristics
and stress-strain behavior of a geotextile-reinforced sand. Proc., 2nd
Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vol. III, Industrial Fabrics Association
International, St. Paul, MN, 805809.
Humphrey, D. N., and Holtz, R. D (1989). Effect of a surface crust on
reinforced embankment design. Proc., Geosynthetics 89, Vol. 1, In-
dustrial Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN, 136147.
Humphrey, D. N., and Holtz, R. D. (1986a). Reinforced embankmentsA
review of case histories. Geotext. Geomembr., 4(2), 129144.
Humphrey, D. N., and Holtz, R. D. (1986b). STABL6 with reinforcing
layer optionUsers manual. FHWA/IN/JHRP-86/18, Indiana Dept.
of Highways and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Humphrey, D. N., and Holtz, R. D. (1987). Use of reinforcement for
embankment widening. Proc., Geosynthetics 87, Vol. 1, Industrial
Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN, 278288.
Humphrey, D. N., McCarron, W. D., Holtz, R. D., and Chen, W. F. (1986).
Finite element analysis of plain strain problems with PS-NFAP and the
cap modelUsers manual. FHWA/IN/JHRP-86-17, Indiana Dept. of
Highways and Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Jewell, R. A. (1990). Revised design charts for steep reinforced slopes.
Reinforced embankments: Theory and practice in the British Isles,
Thomas Telford, London.
Jewell, R. A., Paine, N., and Woods, R. I. (1984). Design methods
for steep reinforced embankments. Proc., Symp. on Polymer Grid
Reinforcement, Institution of Civil Engineering, London, 1830.
Kerisel, J. (1985). The history of geotechnical engineering up until 1700.
Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 393.
Kern, F. (1977). Ralisation dun barrage en terre avec parement aval
vertical au moyen de pouches en textile. Proc., Int. Conf. on the
Use of Fabrics in Geotechnics, Vol. I, Paris, 9194.
Koerner, R. M. (2000). Emerging and future developments of selected
geosynthetic applications. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:4(293), 293306.
Koerner, R. M. (2012). Designing with geosynthetics, 6th Ed., Vol. 1,
Xlibris, Bloomington, IN.
Koerner, R. M., Hsuan, Y. G., and Yeo, S. S. (2006). Creep, creep rupture,
and accelerated creep by TTS and SIM. Proc., 22nd Central Pennsyl-
vania Geotechnical Conf., Hershey, PA.
Koerner, R. M., and Soong, T. Y. (2001). Geosynthetic reinforced segmen-
tal retaining walls. Geotext. Geomembr., 19(6), 359386.
Koerner, R. M., and Soong, T.-Y. (1999). Geosynthetic reinforced seg-
mental retaining walls. Proc., 17th PennDOT/ASCE Conf. on Geotech-
nical Engineering, Hershey, PA.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Laflaive, E. (1982). Le renforcement des matriaux granulaires avec des
fils continus. Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vol. III, Industrial
Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, 721726.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Lee, K., Jones, C. J. F. P., Sullivan, W. R., and Trolinger, W. (1994). Fail-
ure and deformation of four reinforced soil walls in eastern Tennessee.
Gotechnique, 44(3), 397426.
Lee, W. F. (2000). Internal stability analysis of geosynthetic reinforced
retaining walls. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Lee, W. F., Harney, M. D., Holtz, R. D., and Arduino, P. (2007). Analysis
of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls using composite material
properties. Proc., Transportation Conf. on Geosynthetics, Industrial
Fabrics Association International, Rosevile, MN, 112122.
Lee, W. F., and Holtz, R. D. (1998). Analysis of geosynthetic reinforced
soil retaining walls using composite material properties. Proc., 13th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf., Vol. 1, Taipei, Taiwan, 349354.
Lee, W. F., Holtz, R. D., and Allen, T. M (1999). Full scale geosynthetic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/19/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reinforced retaining walls: A numerical parametric study. Proc.,
Geosynthetics 99 Conf., Vol. 2, Industrial Fabrics Association
International, Roseville, MN, 935948.
Leshchinsky, D., and Boedeker, R. H. (1989). Geosynthetic reinforced
soil structures. J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)
115:10(1459), 14591478.
McElroy, J. (1997). Seismic stability of geosynthetic-reinforced steep
slopes: A shaking table study. M.S. dissertation, Univ. of Washington,
Seattle.
Murray, R. T. (1982). Fabric reinforcement of embankments and cuttings.
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vol. III, Industrial Fabrics Asso-
ciation International, St. Paul, MN, 707713.
Perez, A. (1999). Seismic response of geosynthetic reinforced steep
slopes. M.S. dissertation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Perez, A., and Holtz, R. D (2004). Seismic response of reinforced steep
soil slopes: Results of a shaking table study. Proc., Geo-Trans 2004
Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA, 16641672.
Pockoski, M., and Duncan, J. M. (2000). Comparison of computer
programs for reinforced slopes. Center for Geotechnical Practice
and Research, Virginia Polytechnic Univ. and State Univ., Blacksburg,
VA.
Puig, J., and Blivet, J. C. (1973). Remblai talus vertical arm avec un
textile synthtique. Bulletin des Liaison des Laboratoires Routiers
Ponts et Chauses, 64, 1318.
Puig, J., Blivet, J. C., and Pasquet, P. (1977). Remblai arm avec un
textile synthtic. Proc., Int. Conf. on the Use of Fabrics in Geotech-
nics, Vol. I, Paris, 8590.
Robinson, M., Saidin, F., and Holtz, R. D. (2003). Low-Cost extensometer
to measure strain in geogrids. Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Field
Measurements in GeoMechanics (FMGM), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse,
Netherlands, 611624.
Romstad, K. M., Herrmann, L. R., and Shen, C. K. (1976). Integrated
study of reinforced earth. I: Theoretical formulation. J. Geotech.
Eng., 102(GT5), 457472.
Saidin, F. (2007). Behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls with poor
quality backfills on yielding foundations. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle.
Saidin, F., and Holtz, R. D. (2003). Behavior of a geosynthetic-reinforced
back-to-back wall. Proc., Two Rivers Conf.56th Canadian Geotech-
nical Conf. and 2003 NAGS Conf., Canadian Geotechnical Society,
Winnipeg, Canada.
Saidin, F., and Holtz, R. D. (2014). GRS walls with poor quality backfill
on compressible foundations. Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics,
German Geosynthetics Society, Berlin.
Saidin, F., and Holtz, R. D. (2016). Effect of infiltration on geosynthetic
reinforced soil walls with poor quality backfills. Proc., 3rd Pan-
American Conf. on Geosynthetics GeoAmericas, International Geosyn-
thetics Society, Minerva of Jupiter, FL.
Saidin, F., Race, R., and Holtz, R. D. (2001). Stress distribution and
deformations modular block faced grs walls subjected to increasing
surcharge. Proc., Geosynthetics Conf., Industrial Fabrics Association
International, Roseville, MN, 509522.
ASCE 03117001-21
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1
Salomone, W. G., Boutrup, E., Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D. (1979).
Soil-reinforcement interactionReinforcement failure by pullout.
Proc., 6th Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Lima, Peru.
Salomone, W. G., Boutrup, E., Holtz, R. D., Kovacs, W. D., and
Sutton, C. D. (1980). Fabric reinforcement design against pullout
failure. The use of geotextiles for soil improvement, ASCE, Reston,
VA.
Sandri, D. (2005). Drainage recommendations for MSE walls con-
structed with marginal fills. Proc., NAGS/GRI-19 Cooperative Conf.
(CD-ROM), Industrial Fabrics Association International, Roseville,
MN.
Schlosser, F., and Vidal, H (1969). La Terre Arme. Bulletin de Liaison
de Laboratoires RoutiersPonts et Chausses, 44.
Schmertmann, G. R., Chouery-Curtis, V. E., Johnson, R. D., and
Bonaparte, R. (1987). Design charts for geogrid-reinforced soil
slopes. Proc., Geosynthetics 87 Conf., Vol 1, Industrial Fabrics
Association International, St. Paul, MN, 108120.
Schneider, H. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1986). Design of slopes reinforced
with geotextiles and geogrids. Geotext. Geomembr., 3(1), 2951.
Shen, C. K., Romstad, K. M., and Herrmann, L. R. (1976). Integrated
study of reinforced earth. II: Behavior and design. J. Geotech.
Eng., 102(GT6), 577590.
Simac, M. R., Christopher, B. R., and Bonczkiewicz, C. (1990). Instru-
mented field performance of a 6-m geogrid soil wall. Proc., 4th Int.
Conf. on GeotextilesGeomembranes, and Related Products, Vol. 1,
A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 5359.
Stauffer, S. D. (1992). The stress-strain behavior of sands reinforced
with randomly distributed staple fibers and continuous filaments.
M.S. dissertation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Stauffer, S. D., and Holtz, R. D. (1995). Stress-strain and strength behavior
of staple fiber and continuous filament reinforced sands. Transp. Res.
Rec., 1474, 8295.
Steward, J., Williamson, R., and Mohney, J. (1977). Guidelines for use of
fabrics in construction and maintenance of low-volume roads. Rep. No.
FHWA-TS-78-205, USDA, Forest Service, Portland, OR.
Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics, Wiley, Hoboken,
NJ.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Verduin, J. R., and Holtz, R. D. (1989). Geosynthetically reinforced
slopes: A new design procedure. Proc., Geosynthetics 89 Conf.,
Vol. 1, Industrial Fabrics Association International, Roseville, MN,
279290.
Vidal, H. (1966). La Terre Arme (Un Matriau Nouveau pour Travaux
Publics). Supplment aux Annales de LInstitut Technique du Batiment
et des Travaux Publics, 30(223224), 887937.
Wager, O. (1968). Stabilitetsfrbttrande Spontkonstruktion fr
Bankfyllningar. Reprints and Preliminary Rep. No. 28, Swedish
Geotechnical Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, 2124.
Wager, O., and Holtz, R. D. (1976). Reinforcing embankments by short
sheet piles and tie rods. Proc., Int. Symp. on New Horizons in Con-
struction Materials, Vol. I, ENVO Publishing Co., Inc., Lehigh, PA,
177186.
Walkinshaw, J. L. (1975). Reinforced earth construction. Final Rep. No.
FHWA-DP-18, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Wargo-Levine, K. (1991). The effect of static and cyclic loading on the
stress-strain behavior of randomly distributed staple fiber and filament
reinforced sand. M.S. dissertation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
White, D. M., and Holtz, R. D. (1996). Performance of geosynthetic-
reinforced slopes and walls during the Northridge, California earth-
quake. Proc., Int. Symp. on Earth Reinforcement (IS Kyushu 96),
Vol. 2, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 965972.
Wright, S. G. (2013). Slope stability computations. H. Bolton Seed
lecture, 2013 Geo-Congress, Geo-Institute, Reston, VA.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.