Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

Design Dilemma: Use peak or residual

strength of soil
Dov Leshchinsky*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
Received 16 January 2000; received in revised form 10 April 2000; accepted 23 April 2000

Abstract

Most design methods for geosynthetic reinforced soil structures are based on limit equilib-
rium analysis. The required strength and length of the reinforcement is calculated based on the
shear strength of the soils through which potential slip surfaces are likely to pass. Many design
guidelines require a free-draining compacted back"ll. Such soil exhibits strain softening behav-
ior and thus there is a question of whether peak or residual shear strength should be used in the
limit equilibrium analysis. The end result of this selection may have signi"cant economic
consequences especially when the foundation soil is competent. This paper recognizes the
potential for the development of progressive failure. To produce safe and economical structures,
a hybrid approach is proposed for design analysis. The location of the critical slip surfaces is
determined based on peak strength as observed in laboratory soil element testing as well as
centrifugal models of reinforced slopes. Accounting for the possibility that soil strength along
these surfaces will degrade to its residual plastic value, the limit equilibrium analysis is repeated
to determine the required long-term reinforcement strength. A simpli"ed analytical design
methodology is presented. Parametric studies show that the hybrid approach allows for
marginal reduction in strength of reinforcement as compared to the &pure' residual strength
approach. However, the required length using the hybrid approach may decrease signi"cantly
depending on the slope and soil properties. Since the economics of geosynthetics are more
sensitive to its area or length than to its strength in many instances, the presented approach may
have signi"cant design implications.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Limit equilibrium; Peak strength; Residual strength; Progressive failure; Slip surfaces; Slope
stability

* Tel.: #1-302-831-2446; fax: #1-302-731-1001.

E-mail address: dov@ce.udel.edu (D. Leshchinsky).

0266-1144/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 6 - 1 1 4 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 7 - 8
112 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

1. Introduction

Most procedures for the design of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures are based
on limit state analysis; that is, the reinforced structure is assumed to be on the verge of
failure and, subsequently, the strength and layout of the geosynthetic is determined. In
the design process, adequate margins of safety are applied to shear resisting elements.
Case histories of geosynthetic reinforced structures have exhibited better than
expected performance, thus motivating researchers to look at sound means of reduc-
ing conservatism. One possible way of cutting conservatism is the use of peak shear
strength of soil and not its residual strength in design. Considering the select back"ll
and its required compaction prescribed in design manuals such as AASHTO 98 (Elias
and Christopher, 1997) and NCMA (Collin, 1997), the e!ects of selected soil strength
can be signi"cant. For compacted granular soils, the di!erence between
and
 

can be as much as 103. To realize the magnitude of e!ects on required

  
geosynthetic strength as a function of soil strength, refer to Fig. 1, which is reproduced
from Leshchinsky and Boedeker (1989). Leshchinsky and Boedeker (1989) also pro-
vide charts showing the e!ects of the design
on the required reinforcement length.
Realizing the signi"cant e!ects, it is tempting to accept recommendations in current
design procedures (e.g., AASHTO 98, NCMA) at face value and thus employ peak
shear strength. It should be pointed out that AASHTO 98 recommends default value
of
equals to 343 for reinforced walls. However, review of the speci"cations for
 
reinforced soil combined with laboratory experience implies that actual peak shear
strength would be much larger and, in fact, the recommended value of 343 is likely to
be even smaller than the residual strength. The author questions whether many
designs were carried out with realistic peak strength in the order of 45}553 so that the
degree of conservatism could be established when using
.
 
The engineering logic for using residual strength in limit equilibrium-based design
is compelling because progressive failure is likely in geosynthetic reinforced structures
due to the following reasons:
1. Srain levels developing in geosynthetic layers are nonuniform thus allowing
nonuniform deformations within the soil mass.
2. Strains can develop to signi"cant values in ductile geosynthetic thus potentially
allowing for large plastic strains in soil to exceed local values required to mobilize
soil residual strength.
3. Geosynthetics are time-dependent materials and thus if a layer is overstressed
relative to other layers, its creep strain rate will be larger than other layers allowing
for nonuniform mobilization of soil shear strength along potential slip surfaces.
The end result is a potential for progressive failure. That is, while the soil is about to
reach its peak strength along portions of the potential slip surface, it would have
already exceeded the peak along other portions, potentially reaching its residual
strength. The noninstantaneous development of a slip surface is due to the inclusion of
ductile, time-dependent reinforcement.
Huang et al. (1994) measured experimentally the development of progressive failure
in reinforced soil. Zornberg et al. (1998a) reports measured time elapsed between
 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125 113

Fig. 1. Required total geosynthetic tensile force as function of slope angle, i, and internal angle of friction,

(reproduced from Leshchinsky and Boedeker, 1989) (note: K"nondimensional representation of total
force of reinforcement; t "tensile force of layer j;
"unit weight of reinforced soil; H"height of
H
reinforced slope; reinforcement inclination indicates whether its force is horizontal or tangential at the slip
surface).

visible initiation of movement along the slip surface and collapse of geotextile
reinforced slopes tested in a centrifuge thus implying a process of progressive failure.
Experimental works reported by Al-Hussaini and Perry (1978) and Tatsuoka et al.
(1988) describe large deformations and bulging of geosynthetic reinforced walls as the
surcharge load increased. Such bulging implies large strains and a process of progress-
ive failure.
The possibility of progressive failure raises a question whether employing peak
shear strength in limit equilibrium analysis is justi"ed. Since there is no clear experi-
mental answer, it would be prudent to adopt a pessimistic design approach requiring
that a certain measure of stability must be ensured even if residual shear strength is
fully reached along any potential slip surface. That is, even if residual strength
develops along an &active soil wedge', a prescribed margin of safety must still be
attained. This aspect is important since the stability of reinforced structures hinges
on the strength of the geosynthetics (i.e., without reinforcement the structure will
114 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

collapse). Conversely, designing for stability at peak strength along potential slip
surfaces represents a possible unstable state of plastic equilibrium. This is because of
potential progressive failure process that may allow for the shear strength to drop
along portions of the surface thus mobilizing the strength of the ductile geosynthetic
beyond its allowable or design value.

2. Hybrid approach

Use of residual strength has clear cost implications in the design of reinforced soil
structures. The required strength and length of reinforcement both increase. Para-
doxically, one may wonder what are the consequences of gaining strength due to
back"ll compaction if residual strength is used in design. That is, the residual strength
of loose and compacted granular soil is nearly the same, thus implying the gain in
strength of compacted soil manifested by its peak strength (at small strains) has no
bene"t in limit equilibrium design. To account for progressive failure and the bene"t
of peak strength in a rational way while still using simple limit equilibrium analysis,
Leshchinsky (1999b, 2000) suggested a framework for hybrid design approach. It is
reiterated in this paper for the sake of clarity of presentation. The presentation
includes, however, formulation and parametric studies, illustrating the e!ects of the
hybrid approach on the design outcome.
At the elemental level, it is an experimental fact that only one slip &surface' develops
during the shear of unreinforced granular soil specimen subjected to triaxial or plane
strain conditions. For example, see Fig. 2, reproduced from Yoshida and Tatsuoka
(1997). At small strain, a shear surface inclined at, approximately, (453#
/2) to 
  
(to horizontal plane) develops. As the strain increases, shear band (i.e., &thick' surface)
forms and the residual state of stress is reached. This band corresponds to large
deformations and can be represented by an &average surface' inclined at
(453#
/2). The observation relevant to this paper is that there are no two
 
di!erent slip surfaces where one is attributed to
and the other to
. Fig. 3,
    
however, shows schematically the failure process and the theoretical slip surface
expected at the elemental level using Mohr circle combined with Coulomb failure
envelop. Clearly, the second distinctive failure along  depicted in Fig. 3 do not
  
materialize as is predicted simply by Mohr}Coulomb failure criterion combined with

. It should be noted that it is not intended here to introduce the notion or

  
theory of shear band in analysis. Rather, it is to show that a singular slip surface
(where the surface signi"es a narrow shear zone) develops within an elemental model
and it corresponds to
. Hence, the trace of slip surfaces is controlled by
and
   
this angle can be employed in limit equilibrium analysis to determine the critical
surfaces provided consistent analysis is conducted.
Observing slip surfaces in centrifugal models tested by Zornberg et al. (1998a), one
can see clearly shear bands developed in geosynthetic reinforced soil. Zornberg et al.
(1998b) report that back-calculations using limit equilibrium shows that the traces of
observed slip surfaces correspond to
. These observations in reinforced soil
 
complment observations at the elemental level of unreinforced soil.
 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125 115

Fig. 2. Shear band in plane strain compression test on unreinforced Ticino dense sand (Yoshida and
Tatsuoka, 1997). Photo courtesy of Prof. Tatsuoka, University of Tokyo, Japan.

Fig. 3. Failure at residual and peak strengths in isotropic soil element: Contrary to experimental observa-
tions, theoretical interpretation of Mohr}Coulomb failure criterion implies one slip surface is inclined at
 and the second inclined at  (Note: letters p and r signify peak and residual strength, respectively).
 

Based on observations of slip surfaces and aiming at producing safe and economical
designs, the following hybrid analysis procedure is postulated:
1. Locate all critical slip surfaces using limit equilibrium analysis employing
.
 
Required layout of geosynthetic (length and spacing) should be determined accordingly.
116 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

2. Repeat the calculations this time using the equations of limiting equilibrium

along traces of critical surfaces determined in (1) to compute the required
  
geosynthetic strength.
This hybrid approach (or dual calculation) recognizes that slip surfaces will initiate
and have a trace controlled by the peak strength of soil. However, it also recognizes
the likely potential for progressive failure. At this state, the ductile reinforcement
should be su$ciently strong to keep the system stable. It is entirely possible that
back"ll in steep slopes and walls will deform during as well as after construction thus
mobilizing soil strains beyond its peak strength. Consequently, the reinforcement
strength becomes critical to stability where residual strength develops unless designed
accordingly.
The hybrid approach results in signi"cantly shorter reinforcement as compared to
using
. However, the required strength will be larger than that computed using
  
solely
. The next section shows an approximate formulation procedure leading to
 
instructive parametric studies.

3. Approximate formulation

The hybrid approach suggests using

to determine the location of each critical
 
slip surface. Along these surfaces the required geosynthetic reaction to maintain
a state of limit equilibrium using
is calculated. This process can be done using
  
any limit equilibrium procedure, preferably a rigorous one. However, to be consistent
with the numerous results on reinforced steep slopes and walls produced previously
by Leshchinsky and thus expand the scope of the results of this paper, an approximate
procedure is introduced. The formulation follows the presentation presented "rst by
Leshchinsky (1999b).
Log spiral rotational slip surfaces are considered (e.g. Leshchinsky et al., 1995). As
shown in Fig. 4, this surface satis"es moment equilibrium explicitly, without resorting
to statical assumptions (see expression for moment equilibrium). In fact, force equilib-
rium is also satis"ed for log spirals, however, this equilibrium is implicit. To realize it,
refer to Fig. 5 and notice that:
1. Only one reinforcement layer is used in this "gure for the sake of clarity (expansion
to n layer is straightforward).
2. A simple granular slope without water or seismic loads is depicted for simplicity.
3. Both the weight of the sliding mass, W, and the required reinforcement force, t,
corresponding to
, are known in magnitude and in direction from solving the
 
moment equilibrium equation (note that reinforcement force is assumed to be
horizontal at the slip surface; see discussion in Leshchinsky, 1999b).
The characteristic property of the log spiral slip surface in cohesionless soil
is such that the resultant force of the distribution of  and  along it, R, must
coincide in direction with OO while closing the force polygon to satisfy force
equilibrium. This is shown in Fig. 5. Hence, force equilibrium is satis"ed by virtue of
 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125 117

Fig. 4. Log spiral slip surface and its statical implications (special notation used in "gure: "polar
coordinate; A"constant of log spiral;
"tan
; CG"center of gravity of sliding mass; ()d/ and ()dl
are normal and shear stress over length dl of the log spiral slip surface).

the existence of an unspeci"ed but determinate resultant R, which closes the force
polygon.
The approximate procedure to account for the drop of strength to
along the
  
log spiral trace is implied in Fig. 5. All elemental resultant forces due to  and  along
the log spiral at the residual state, dR , must be inclined at
to the normal of the
   
respective tangent to the elemental arc. Consequently, dR does not pass through the

log spiral pole, O. However, the characteristic property of the log spiral in Fig.
5 requires that at each elemental arc length the elemental resultant at peak strength,
dR , is inclined at
to the normal of the tangent and passes through the pole.
  
Hence, at each point along the surface in Fig. 5, the angle between dR and dR is
P N

"
!
. It is assumed that the resultant of all elemental dR , R , is also
      
inclined at 
to the resultant of dR , R . This assumption is similar to that used in the
 
friction circle (Taylor, 1937). Taylor has veri"ed the &accuracy' of this approximation
for the friction circle. Since the log spiral approximation is completely analogous to
the friction circle and since the range of feasible 
is rather limited (typically not
more than 103 and very likely about 53), it is reasonable to assume that practically the
approximate approach may result in an error of only a few percent. Graphical
118 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

Fig. 5. Static equilibrium of approximate approach considering the e!ects of residual strength along the log
spiral surface in granular soil (note: the vectors R and R represent the resultant force due to normal and
 
shear stress distribution along the slip surface at peak and residual strength, respectively).

examination of feasible variation of dR shows that its direction is limited by a narrow


range of angles and that 
signi"es an intermediate value for any reasonable
resultant in this range.
The approximation of resultant force inclination allows for the construction of the
force polygon shown in Fig. 5. Consequently, using this force polygon (and thus
imposing explicitly force equilibrium), the results obtained for
can be modi"ed
 
in a simpli"ed way so as to adapt to the hybrid approach:

tan( #
)
MF "  (1)
 tan

where  is the angle (the polar coordinate) de"ning the direction of the resultant force

R (Fig. 5) and 
is the di!erence between the peak and residual internal angle of
N
friction of the back"ll soil. MF is the magni"cation factor of the geosynthetic strength
P
due to consideration of residual strength along the log spiral while using the peak
strength in all computations. That is

t "MF ;t (2)
  
where t and t are the required geosynthetic strength corresponding to residual and
 
peak strength along the critical log spiral surface determined by peak strength.
Leshchinsky and Boedeker (1989) demonstrated that as the slope angle approaches
903, the log spiral degenerates to a planar surface (i.e., log spiral with a pole at in"nity).
This plane is inclined at (453#
/2) when the reinforcement force is horizontal.
Following the rationale of the approximate approach (and observing Fig. 5), one may
realize that as the curved log spiral surface approaches a plane, the 
approximation
becomes accurate. That is, for a planar surface the di!erence between R and

R inclinations equals exactly to 
"
!
. Furthermore, the angle
     
 equals to (453!
/2). As a result, for granular vertical slope (wall), the approach
  
 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125 119

is no longer approximate but exact and the magni"cation factor MF becomes:


tan(453#
/2!
)
MF (903)"      . (3)
 tan(453!
/2)
 

4. Parametric study and design implications

Leshchinsky (1999b, 2000) introduced the hybrid approach concept. However,

neither detailed formulation scheme nor signi"cant numerical results were presented.
This section provides insight by means of graphical presentation of numerical results.
As is evident from (1), the angle  is the key to quantifying the e!ects of the hybrid

approach on the required geosynthetic strength. This angle was computed for simple
steep slopes and for realistic values of peak friction angle
by modifying program
 
ReSlope (Leshchinsky, 1999a). Fig. 6 shows angle  versus the slope angle for three

values of
, namely 353, 403 and 453. Values of  can be obtained from this chart
  
and substituted in (1) to obtain MF . Subsequently, knowledge of t (from limit
 
equilibrium analysis using
) can yield through (2) the residual value, t , needed for
  
design.
An alternative approach to conducting slope stability analysis, makes use of the fact
that log spirals degenerate to planes inclined at (453#
/2) to the horizontal, when
 
the slope is at 903 (and reinforcement force is assumed to act horizontally). Such log
spirals produce reinforcement force identical to the value rendered by Rankine's
analysis. Since Rankine's analysis is suitable for hand-calculations (e.g., see details by
Elias and Christopher, 1997), one can easily estimate the required reinforcement force
at each layer, t (i"903), for a 903 equivalent slope; i.e., slope having same height and

Fig. 6. Variation of  as function of slope angle and peak shear strength of soil (note:  is a polar
 
coordinate de"ning the orientation of the resultant force due to the normal and shear stresses distribution
over the log spiral, Fig. 5).
120 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

Fig. 7. Required geosynthetic strength at slope angle i, t(i), relative to its required value for vertical slope,
t(i"903), as function of slope angle and peak strength of soil.

Fig. 8. Strength magni"cation factor, MF , as function of slope angle and peak strength of soil (assumed

di!erence between peak and residual strength is 53).

same soil properties as the one inclined at i. Using Fig. 7, the required value
corresponding to the actual slope angle, t(i), and to
can then be calculated.
 
The value of t(i) for each corresponding layer then is equal to t . Use of Fig. 6 and (2)

now enables one to estimate the required t of each layer without conducting slope

stability analysis and its associated tedious optimization routines searching for critical
results.
Fig. 8 shows the magni"cation factor, MF , as a function of slope angle and


for selected 
"
!
of 53. Note that as the slope approaches
      
 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125 121

Fig. 9. Results based on direct use of residual strength versus results based on the hybrid approach (

 
and
equal 453 and 403, respectively).
  

903, MF is practically independent of

; MF then is about 1.2 to 1.3. This implies
   
that for typical reinforced walls all calculations can be done using
and then,
 
using (2), the required reinforcement design strength can be determined by simply
multiplying tp by, for example, a factor of 1.3. In fact, MF is insensitive to
up to
  
slopes of about 603. Therefore, for practical purposes, magni"cation factors can be
established for slopes between 903 and 603 regardless of
(e.g., for 603 slope use of
 
1.5). Fig. 8 indicates that for mildly steep slopes MF is heavily dependent on
.
  
Using design strength strictly based on
may result in signi"cantly under-
 
estimated reinforcement strength in case residual strength indeed develops along the
slip surface. This underestimation increases exponentially as
increases. How-
 
ever, for mildly steep slopes combined with large
the resulted absolute value of
 
required reinforcement strength is small thus typically making the term &signi"cant'
e!ects more of an academic issue. It should be stated that design experience where
large values of
are employed (say, 453 and larger) is lacking, especially in mild
 
slopes. On the other hand, the design practice of using large reduction factors on
geosynthetic ultimate strength (e.g. creep) makes the direct evaluation of MF di$cult

to separate and identify.
Figs. 9}11 show the e!ect of using the hybrid approach versus residual strength in
slope stability calculations. The parameter R relates t to t where t and t are each
    
calculated using
and
, respectively. The parameter MF is calculated
     
based on the hybrid approach. It is apparent that the hybrid approach gives only
a little reduction in required strength as compared to the approach using directly the
residual strength for slopes steeper than 603. As a matter of fact, for
smaller than
 
403 the e!ects of the hybrid approach are small for all slope angles. This phenomenon
is due to &#at minimum' exhibited by limit equilibrium analysis when granular soil and
simple slopes are used. That is, although the critical slip surfaces are markedly
122 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

Fig. 10. Results based on direct use of residual strength versus results based on the hybrid approach (

 
and
equal 403 and 353, respectively).
  

Fig. 11. Results based on direct use of residual strength versus results based on the hybrid approach (

 
and
equal to 35 and 303, respectively).
  

di!erent for
and
, the resulting t is nearly the same when
is used
        
in the limiting equilibrium equations along either critical surface. The result is not
sensitive to the location of the critical slip surface as long as the same
is used
  
along the two surfaces, especially when the residual strength is less than 403.
Figs. 9}11 imply that the bene"t of using the hybrid approach is marginal in
reducing the required strength of the reinforcement when compared with straightfor-
ward use of the residual strength. However, reinforcement strength is only one
element in geosynthetic reinforced earth structures. The second element, which has
 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125 123

Fig. 12. Minimum geosynthetic length needed to resist rotational failure as function of soil peak or residual
strength (
may correspond to peak or residual value) and slope angle (note: results are restricted to
competent foundation).

much more signi"cant economical implications, is the length required for a stable
system. Length of reinforcement is determined by potential slip surfaces having a trace
through and beyond the reinforcement, all satisfying a minimum prescribed factor of
safety (e.g. Leshchinsky et al., 1995). To examine the e!ects on length, program
ReSlope (Leshchinsky, 1999a) was run on a 5 m high cohesionless slope, with unit
weight of 20 kN/m, reinforcement spaced at d"0.30 m, having a design strength of
10 kN/m, interaction coe$cient of C "0.8 (C is used in pullout calculations) and

pullout resistance factor of safety of 1.5. This data is reported so that one can
reproduce the exact results presented in this paper. However, the results can be
normalized to yield approximately the same numbers and trends for equivalent
problems. It is assumed that the foundation is competent (i.e., failure cannot occur
through the foundation). Also, only rotational failure, emerging through the face of
the slope and extending into the retained soil was considered.
Fig. 12 shows the results of ¸ /H (maximum required length divided by the height

of the slope) as function of slope angle and of design friction angle
. Following the
hybrid approach, if the parameter
in the "gure is taken as
, one can assess what
 
would be the length L had
been used. For example, for vertical slope
   
comprised of
of 453 and
of 403, the approach using
only would
       
result in 15% longer reinforcement. For a 603 slope and same soil strengths, the
reinforcement would be about 30% longer. For a 453 slope the length will increase by
more than 60%. To place numbers in proper perspective, however, it should be
pointed out that for typical reinforced slopes, rotational failure determines the
reinforcement length up to slopes of approximately 603; for shallower slopes, direct
sliding typically dictates the length and this length depends on the selected design
value of
.
124 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125

5. Conclusion

A rational methodology is presented to account for the possibility that residual

strength of soil will be attained along slip surfaces potentially forming in a geosyn-
thetic (ductile) reinforced soil. The method hypothesizes that slip surface locations
depends only on the peak soil strength. Hence, the reinforcement length is determined
using peak shear strength. However, it is recognized that progressive failure may
occur along potential slip surfaces. Hence, the soil strength may degrade along these
surfaces to its residual value. Using residual strength in the limit equilibrium analysis
(same analysis that has been used before to "nd the reinforcement length with peak
strength) one can calculate the required geosynthetic strength to ensure prescribed
stability even if the soil strength fully degrades to residual strength. Although existing
experimental data supports the hypothesis that serves as the premise of the presented
analysis, more "eld data aimed at speci"cally con"rming the approach is needed.
Generally, parametric studies show that the hybrid approach allows for only
marginal decrease in required strength as compared with consistent use of
.
  
This decrease is in the order of 10}20%. However, decrease in required length (or total
area of reinforcement) is signi"cant, practically varying from 15 to 30%, depending on
the slope angle. Since the economics of geosynthetics is more sensitive to reinforce-
ment length than to its strength, the presented approach may have signi"cant design
implications without the increase in risk due to neglect of progressive failure.
Finally, it should be pointed out that in practice, designers would rarely use  in
excess of, say, 353. To fully utilize the potential of peak versus residual strength of soil,
however, relevant laboratory soil tests are needed so that soil properties are correctly
determined. Moreover, expert judgement on whether the soil exhibits isotropic behav-
ior is needed if peak strength is used. Alternatively, the anisotropic strength properties
accompanied by properly modi"ed analysis need to be implemented. In addition,
construction must be monitored to ensure that the assumed design values are
attainable in "eld conditions. Using the approach presented in this paper one can
assess whether the economics of such tests is warranted when considering the design
outcome.

Acknowledgements

The three anonymous reviewers made many constructive comments. These com-
ments as well as the time and e!ort associated with the review are greatly appreciated
by the author.

References

Al-Hussaini, M., Perry, E.B., 1978. Analysis of rubber membrane strip reinforced earth wall. Proceedings of
the Symposium on Soil Reinforcing and Stabilizing Techniques organized by the New South Wales
Institute of Technology and The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, pp. 59}72.
 D. Leshchinsky / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 111}125 125

Collin, J., 1997. Design manual for segmental retaining walls. 2nd edition. NCMA Publication Number TR
127A, National Concrete Masonry Association.
Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., 1997. Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes, design and
construction guidelines. FHWA Demonstration Project 82, Report No. FHWA-SA-96-071.
Huang, C.-C., Tatsuoka, F., Sato, Y., 1994. Failure mechanisms of reinforced sand slopes loaded with
a footing. Soils and Foundations. Journal of the Japanese Society of Geotechnical Engineering 34 (2),
27}40.
Leshchinsky, D., Boedeker, R.H., 1989. Geosynthetic reinforced soil structures. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering ASCE 115 (10), 1459}1478.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H.I., Hanks, G., 1995. Uni"ed design approach to geosynthetic reinforced slopes and
segmental walls. Geosynthetics International 2 (4), 845}881.
Leshchinsky, D., 1999a. Putting technology to work: MSEW and ReSlope for reinforced soil-structure
design. Geotechnical Fabrics Report 17 (3), 34}38.
Leshchinsky, D., 1999b. Stability of geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes. Keynote paper. In: Yagi,
Yamagami, Jiang (Eds.), Slope Stability Engineering, Vol. 1, IS-Shikoku, Japan, Proceedings. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 49}66.
Leshchinsky, D., 2000. Discussion on &Performance of geosynthetic reinforced slopes at failure', by
Zornberg, Sitar and Mitchell. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 126
(3), 281}283.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Murata, O., 1988. Earth retaining wall with a short geotextile and a rigid
facing. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing. Vol. 2. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Balkema, Rottedam, pp. 1311}1314.
Taylor, D.W., 1937. Stability of earth slopes. Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineering 24 (3),
197}246.
Yoshida, T., Tatsuoka, F., 1997. Deformation property of shear band in sand subjected to plane strain
compression and its relation to particle characteristics. Proceedings of the 14th International Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Hamburg, September. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 237}240.
Zornberg, J.G., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., 1998a. Limit equilibrium as basis for design of geosynthetic
reinforced slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE 124 (8), 684}698.
Zornberg, J.G., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., 1998b. Performance of geosynthetic reinforced slopes at failure.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE 124 (8), 670}683.