!

, Geotextilesand Geomembranes14 (1996) 289 300

O 1996 Elsevier Science Limited
Printed in Ireland. All rights reserved
0266-1144/96 $15,00
ELSEVIER PII:S0266-1 144(96)00020-9

Failure Loads on Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil

Structures

Aigen Zhao
Tenax C o r p o r a t i o n , 4800 E. M o n u m e n t Street, Baltimore, M a r y l a n d 21205, U S A

ABSTRACT

A failure criterion for a reinforced soil composite is presented. The slip-line

equations for reinforced soils are described. Failure loads and stress char-
acteristics fields for reinforced slopes, walls and foundations are calculated
using the slip-line method. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Geosynthetic reinforced soil structures have been widely used in the past
decade. The stability of reinforced slopes and walls is often analyzed by
modifying existing limit equilibrium methods for unreinforced struc-
tures, the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement is included through an
additional component resisting failure. An alternative analysis method,
the slip-line method, is presented in this paper. The slip-line method is
more rigorous than the limit equilibrium method, since the former
satisfies the local stress equilibrium (partial differential equations).
However, the focus of this paper is aimed at the improvement in the
understanding of the soil reinforcement theory, and a clear presentation
of the stress characteristic fields for reinforced soil structures. No
attempt is made here to provide a comprehensive design method for
reinforced soil structures.
A general failure criterion for reinforced soil is presented. Some earlier
attempts of describing failure conditions for reinforced soils are found to
be very particular cases of the more general description presented here.

289
290 Aigen Zhao

Failure loads on geosynthetic reinforced slopes, walls, and foundations

are calculated, and the stress characteristics fields are also presented
t h r o u g h illustrative examples. The stress characteristics fields of rein-
forced soil structures calculated from the slip-line m e t h o d can lead to a
better understanding of the plastic failure regions of reinforced soil
structures.

F A I L U R E C R I T E R I A O F R E I N F O R C E D SOILS

The anisotropic failure condition can be represented by

R = F ( p , 4'), (1)

where R is a stress invariant and expressed as

R = + - 2"Cx,, = ~ " 2 +~. (2)

fir, Gy and ~xy are the stresses in the reinforced soil composite, and p, q and
4' are defined as

P . ~x+a~,
. ~. x - ~ y . tan(24') rx~', (3)
2 2 q
here 4' is the angle of inclination of the major principal stress direction to
the x-axis. Equation (1) reduces to the isotropic failure condition if it is
independent of 4'.
Failure criteria of reinforced soils can be described by piece-wise func-
tions [see Michalowski and Z h a o (1995a, b)] as follows:
7[
for 124'-2~1 ~< ~ -

R P sin q~ c
kt - kt + ~ cos q~, (4)

where ~ is the inclination angle of the reinforcement with respect to the x-

axis, c and q5 are the cohesion and the internal friction angle of the soil.
Equation (4) is another form of the M o h r - C o u l o m b failure condition
normalized by the reinforcement strength k t. k t is defined as
T
k t = --, (5)
s

where T is the tensile strength of reinforcement, and s is the spacing.

 Geosynthetic reinforced soil structures 291

For

7T
-
2
- ~b < 12qJ - 2~ I ~< ~ - ~b + arctan
rc 0.5
((p/kt)tan~ + ¢/kt)
R _ p / k t sin q~ + c/kt cos ~b (6)
kt sin(2~, - 2~ + ~b)

and for ~ - ~b + arctan ((p/kt)ta--nq~+ c/kt ) < 12ff 2~J ~< ~z

R
- 0.5cos(2~ - 2~)
kt
(7)
+ ~+0.5 sin~b + ~ cos ~b sin2(2~, - 2~)

Figure 1 represents the failure surface of a reinforced granular soil, and

Fig. 2 is for a reinforced cohesive soil.
It can be shown that some earlier attempts of describing the failure
conditions for reinforced soils are very particular cases of the more general
description derived here. F o r instance, the concept of 'enhanced confining
pressure' proposed by Yang (1972) and 'apparent anisotropic cohesion'
p r o p o s e d by Schlosser and Long (1974). Both describe the strength of
reinforced soil for the particular case when ~ = rt/2, ~ = 0 and c = 0.

or=0 °

+=25 °
c=0

I 1

q
7,
P

Txy

Fig. 1. Failure surface for a reinforced granular soil.

292 Aigen Zhao
P

tl=O °
= 25°
c_ 0.25
kt-

q
r,
iP

kt

Fig. 2. Failuresurface for a reinforcedcohesivesoil.

Yang (1972) suggested that the effect of reinforcement be equivalent to the

increase of confining pressure by
T
/~ff3 = --" (8)
S

Schlosser and Long (1974), on the other hand, argued that the increase
in the strength of the reinforced soil can be described by including an
'apparent anisotropic cohesion' c*:

= ~ tan + , (9)

into the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. These approaches both ignored

the anisotropic nature of soil reinforcement.
Substituting ~ = n/2, e = 0 and c = 0 into eqn (7), and using eqn (3),
one obtains

2
~]=~3tan2(4+~)+kttan (~+~). (10)

Note that kt = T/s here and eqn (10) expresses both the 'enhanced
confining pressure' concept

~]= (~3+T) tan2(4+~) (11)

and the 'apparent cohesion' concept

 Geosynthetic reinforced soil structures 293

~ = ~3tan2(4+~)+2c*tan2(4+~), (12)

where c* is expressed in eqn (9).

SLIP-LINE EQUATIONS FOR REINFORCED SOILS

Most reinforced soil structures are considered as two-dimensional (plain

strain) problems for simplicity. Under plane strain conditions, the aniso-
tropic failure criterion eqn (1), along with the set of differential equili-
brium equations
0-~ x O'~xy O'~yz O-~y
~- - - -- 0 -~ -- -y, (13)
Ox Oy Ox Oy
leads to a set of two hyperbolic-type partial differential equations which
can be solved using the method of characteristics. Following Booker and
Davis (1972), the equations of the characteristics can be expressed as

dxdY= tan(~b - m - v) dy
dx = tan(~k - m + v) (14)

and the stress relations along the characteristics are

sin[2(m - v)] ~Op + 2F Ox

+ y cos(2m) cos(2v) Osl sm(2v)~ =0

(15)

sin[2(m + v)] ~
o,
+ 2F
[
+ 7 cos(2m) cos(2v) ~
ox + sin(2v) ~oy] = 0
where m and v are expressed by
1 OF
tan(2m) -
2F 0O
(16)
OF
cos(2v) = cos(2m) - -
ol,
and 7 is the unit weight of the soil. These equations are considerably
different from those of Sokolovskii (1965) for isotropic materials. Notice
that eqn (16) requires that
OF
cos(2m) ~pp ~< 1 (17)
294 A igen Zhao

otherwise, the original differential equations are not of the hyperbolic

type, and eqns (14) and (15) do not apply.

F A I L U R E LOADS ON R E I N F O R C E D SLOPES

The stress characteristic fields shown in Fig. 3 are for reinforced slopes
with slope inclination angle of 50, 60, 70 and 80 °, respectively.
In order to calculate the stress characteristic fields and the failure loads
on reinforced slopes, the boundary conditions first need to be determined.
Boundary AO as shown in Fig. 3(a) is assumed to be traction-free here.
The boundary condition along AO must be given in terms of p and ~ as
defined in eqn (3). In the absence of traction on AO, ~ = fl (fl--slope
inclination angle).
For granular soils, parameter p at AO is calculated from the failure
condition for composite adjacent to AO, assuming yielding of the rein-
forced soil composite with a fully mobilized tensile strength in the rein-
forcement. The failure condition is given by eqn (7). Substituting ~ = fi,
= 0, c = 0 into eqn (7), one obtains

0 sin2
Since ~3 = 0 along AO, then p = R, and, by replacing R with p in eqn
(18), the following quadratic equation is obtained:

4cos~b ~ +4(cos2fl-sin 2q~)~+cos 24=0. (19)

Solving this equation for p/kt yields the following result:

P 1
[(sin 2 ~b - cos 2fl) + v/(COS2/? + cos 2~b)(cos 2fl - 1)].
k-t 2 co-s2 q~
(20)
The solution to p on AO can be obtained from eqn (20) when
fl ~> re/2 - ~b. Condition fl < g/2 - q~ is indicative of less than full mobili-
zation of strength in the reinforcement.
Having determined the stress boundary condition at AO, the Cauchy
boundary value problem was solved first in region AOB [see Fig. 3(a)],
followed by the characteristic problem in area BOC with a singular point
at O, and then the problem with mixed boundary conditions in COD
(traction assumed vertical at OD).
 Geosynthetic reinforced soil structures 295

(a) Co)
° ol J o

Fig. 3. Stress characteristic fields for reinforced slopes (yH/kt = 2.5, q~ = 35 °, c = 0).

Once p along O D was found, the traction on O D was calculated;

substituting ~ = re/2, e = 0, and c = 0 into eqn (7) leads to

kt
- - z
0.5 + + 0-5 sin 4) (21)

and the traction Pv along O D b o u n d a r y is: Pv -- ~ = R + p. As a result, a

simple expression for p~ is arrived at,

~= ~+0.5 (l+sin4~). (22)

The normalized average failure loads p / k t o n reinforced slopes are

presented in Figs 4~i as functions of soil internal friction angle, slope
inclination angle and a dimensionless factor 7H/kt.
The stress characteristics fields and failing loads of reinforced cohesive
soil slopes can also be calculated. Figure 7(a) and (b) shows the stress
characteristic fields for two cohesive slopes, one is a reinforced slope with
296 A igen Zhao

1~13=60"-.-e--[3=70" ,L 13=80°-..e.-13=90~
_P S
~s
4

3
Z ~ Z ..
2

0
r//
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Fig. 4. Failure load on slopes as function o f 7H/kt (q~ = 30 °, c = 0),

[--.11~1~=60" • 13=70 ° A 13 = 8 0 " + [3 = 901

~8
k, L
.
. . . . • "~" -- -r -- .,- -- ,
6 em.'e--~)~-e~=;~_.e. ~ ~ ---o----~-.-e~_

4 ~-~'~"~" ~ - " ~ ' - ~-"~"- ~-'~.-- ~ , = l p ~

0 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 3

Fig. 5. Failure load on slopes as function of 7H/kt (~ = 35 °, c = 0).

]--!1--[~=600 * [3=70" J. [3-80°-"e-'[~=9(;I

k, lO : . J I 1 I

4 ~
6'
-i--- - - i :
] : ~ -: ] -: i" ' T
2 q :

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 fl'/

k,
Fig. 6. Failure load on slopes as function o f 7H/kt (~b = 40 °, c = 0).
 Geosynthetic reinforcedsoil structures 297

_(a) ~ 0,)

Fig. 7. Stress characteristic fields for (a) a reinforced cohesive soil slope; (b) an unrein-
forced cohesive soil slope (~b = 25°, 7H/c = 3.8).

kt/c -- 5, and the other one is an unreinforced slope. The resulting average
failure load is found to be ~/c = 28.0 for a reinforced slope and
~/c--4-67 for an unreinforced slope. The plastic failure zones of rein-
forced and unreinforced slopes are also significantly different.

FAILURE LOADS ON REINFORCED RETAINING WALLS

The calculations of failure loads and stress characteristics fields for rein-
forced walls with a vertical face are the same as for reinforced slopes,
except that no characteristic problem exists in wall problems. F o r rein-
forced walls, eqn (20) can be simplified as

p_ 1 [(sin2 ~b + 1) + V/2(1 _ cos 2~b)]" (23)

kt 2 cos 2 q~

W u (1992) reported two geosynthetic reinforced walls that were tested

to failure. The two walls were 3 m high, one with granular fill, and the
other one with cohesive fill. N o n w o v e n geotextiles (12 layers) were used as
reinforcement. A uniform surcharge load was applied in equal increments
on the top surface by means of air bags.
F o r the granular soil wall, the unit weight of soil was 16-8 k N / m 3, the
internal friction angle used was determined from triaxial test as 39 °, and
the tensile strength of the geotextile reinforcement was 6 k N / m . The tested
failure load was 200kPa. The predicted failure load by the slip-line
m e t h o d is 123 kPa. The stress characteristics field is shown in Fig. 8(a).
298 Aigen Zhao

= 123 kPa

Fig. 8. Stress characteristic fields for reinforced retaining walls (a) granular soil; (b)
cohesive soil.

For the cohesive soil wall, the soil parameters from triaxial CU tests
showed that the cohesion was 82.74kPa, and the internal friction angle
was 12.6 °, the unit weight of soil was 18.9kN/m 3. The tested failure load
was 227 kPa. The prediction is 216 kPa by the slip-line method. The stress
characteristics network is shown in Fig. 8(b).

F A I L U R E LOADS ON R E I N F O R C E D F O U N D A T I O N S

The slip-line method can also be applied to solve the bearing capacity
of a reinforced foundation. Figure 9(a) shows the stress characteristic
field for an example problem. The direction of the major principal
stress with respect to the x-axis along boundary AG is ~ = 0 °. Hence
the reinforcement, which is parallel to AG, is in compression in this
region, and its influence is, therefore, neglected. The stress parameter p
along AG is
qo + c cos ~b
P - 1 - sin~b (24)

where qo is the surcharge along boundary AG. For a smooth base foun-
dation, ~k -- re/2 on boundary GB. The bearing capacity of the reinforced
foundation was found to be ~/~B -- 40.21, where B is the width of the
foundation.
For the same foundation example, but without reinforcement, the
resulting average failure pressure becomes p/~B---19-5, and the stress
 Geosynthetic reinforced soil structures 299

rB = 40.21

(a)

P-~-= 19.5

(b)
Fig. 9. Stress c h a r a c t e r i s t i c fields for (a) a r e i n f o r c e d f o u n d a t i o n ; (b) a n u n r e i n f o r c e d
f o u n d a t i o n (qo/?B = 0.25, kt/),B = 2.5, q~ = 35 °, c = 0).

characteristic field is shown in Fig. 9(b). It is clear that the inclusion of

reinforcement in the foundation enlarges the plastic failure region.
The bearing capacity of reinforced foundations as a function of dimen-
sionless factor kt/?B is shown in Fig. 10.

CONCLUSION

The failure criterion of reinforced soil presented here is anisotropic due to

the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement with preferred direction. The
slip-line method in relation with the derived failure criteria can be used for
calculating the failure loads on geosynthetic reinforced soil structures. The
stress characteristic fields of reinforced slopes, retaining walls and foun-
dations are presented and compared with those without reinforcement.
The inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement enlarges the plastic failure
region in a reinforced soil structure, and significantly increases the load
capacity. The stress characteristic fields are very important for under-
standing the plastic failure regions of reinforced soil structures.
300 A igen Zhao

] a ,=25"**=30"+,=3~
p._~_ 40
35
3O
25 j. r
2O
.,,I j l

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 7/3

Fig. 10. B e a r i n g c a p a c i t y o f r e i n f o r c e d f o u n d a t i o n s (qo/7 B = 0.05, c = 0).

REFERENCES

Booker, J. R. & Davis, E. H. (1972). A general treatment of plastic anisotropy

under conditions of plane strain. Journal of Mechanics & Physics of Solids,
20, 239 50.
Michalowski, R. L. & Zhao, A. (1995a). Continuum versus structural approach
to stability of reinforced soil structures. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 121, 152-62.
Michalowski, R. L. & Zhao, A. (1995b). Limit condition for uni-directionally
reinforced soils. In Proceedings International Symposium on Numerical
Models in Geomechanics, NUMOG V, Balkema, pp. 237~,2.
Sokolovskii, V. V. (1965). Statistics of Granular Media. Pergamon Press, New
York.
Schlosser, F. & Long, N. T. (1974). Recent results in French research on rein-
forced earth. Journal of Construction, ASCE, 100, 223-37.
Wu, J. T. H. (1992). Predicting performance of the Denver walls: General report.
In Proceedings International Symposium on Geosynthetic-reinforced Soil
Retaining Walls, ed. J. T. H. Wu, Balkema, pp. 3 20.
Yang, Z. (1972). Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced sand.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.