I

I
The information in this document is of an illustrative

;:tutu:ef::;:So:#Eg'tj:?i#ehn°duetdc:8:i:::#tehst#:tut::T
Final determination of the suitability of any information
or material for the use contemplated and the manner of
uns:sjtsat:seus£:ear[f:jEfnasizj!i:yb3jft}hj::%enrnaenc¥j:hnet=:%wjth.

Revised October 1 991

::#::i £#'h:iii
First published Maroh 1984
 Considerable economies in earthworks can be achieved by utilising
reinforced soil to reduce the quantity of earth fill and extent of
landtake.

This publication gives guidelines for the design and construction of

embankments over stable foundations with `Tensar' geogrids.
The design methods and examples are specific to the
unique characteristics of the `Tensar' geogrids which are
referenced.
These guidelines are complemented by our free design suggestion
service which will assist designers who wish to carry out feasibility
studies, produc-e preliminary designs and estimate material costs for
embankments reinforced with `Tensar' geogrids.
`Tensar' geogrids are integral grid structures without welded joints,
sheaths or any other type of weak link. The grids have high tensile
strength, well-defined long-term sustained load characteristics and
are inherently resistant to chemical and biological attack.

There is a wide range of `Tensar' geogrids available, each offering a

different tensile strength. Grids should be selected with due regard
to the intended purpose and specified design life of the soil structure
u nder consideration.

Also available on request from the Civil Engineering Division, Netlon

Limited, is the publication "Guidelines for the design and
construction of reinforced soil retaining walls using `Tensar' geogrids"

Page
1. Introduction 2
2. Scope of the Design charts 2
3. Basis for the Design Charts
3.1 General
3.2 Grid reinforoement layout
3.2.1 Length of reinforoement
3.2.2 Vertical spacing of reinforoement
3.3 Embankment soils and pore water
pressures

©
BS 5750 Part 2
Certificate No. 05288
lso 9002 EN29002
4. Use of the Design Charts
4.1
4.2
Chart parameters
Design chart procedure
4.3 Surcharge loading
4.4 Pore water pressures

5. Worked example 1o
6. Construction 12
6.1 General
DI 6.2 Compaction off ill
Te§ted 6.3 Geogrid reinforeement
tryB§I 6.4 Facings
6.5 Drainage
Z-20.1-102

erwac 7. Adviceon repairingslopefailures 16

JE= Appendix
Bibliography
23
24
_`l=l=..`::-.t.-¥-
|El`lsAf] SEE SF]55.
§F]BO AI`lt3 sO|10 Gfossary of symbols See flap to rear cover
GEcOF]ies
 Beinforced soil is a composite engineering material comprising
compacted soil, horizontal layers of reinforcement and usually a form
of facing to prevent erosion of the soil. The Increased use of this
material is primarily due to its versatility, cost-effectiveness and ease
of construction.
A grid structure ls an extremely efflcient relnforcing medium for soils
because of the unique interaction it develops with the soil particles
wlthin the soll mass. When grid relnforcement ls used, it can be
thought of as providing the soll wlth a pseudo-cohesion which
makes it eminently suitable for the construction of vertical walls and
embankments.
The use of `Tensar' geogrld relnforced soil techniques enables
embankments to be constructed with low quality fills and permits the
steepening of the side slopes, resulting in economies in fill and
landtake. The repair and reinstatement of slopes can also benefit
from `Tensar' geogrld relnforced soil techniques, as the failed soil
can be re-used. Thls results ln signiflcant savlngs ln Imported flll
and haulage.

A design procedure for determinlng a suitable layout of grid

reinforcement for embankments with side slopes in the range of 30°
to 80°, constructed on stable foundatlons, is presented ln chart form.
Thls provides a simple method for produclng a preliminary design
which quantifies the amount of `Tensar' geogrid reinforcement
required and suggests a practical layout of grids.
The Deslgn Charts are based on well established llmit equillbrlum
methods of analysis and are consistent with results of limit analyses
publlshed by Chen (1975) for unreinforced vertical walls and the
results for naturally stable slopes published by Bishop and
Morgenstern (1960).
The procedure for using the Design Charts is described in Sectlon 4,
a worked example is contained ln Section 5 and guldance on the
construction of embankments reinforced with `Tensar' geogrids ls
provided in Section 6.

The Design Charts for `Tensar' geogrid reinforced embankments

cater for: -
• Embankments or slopes with horizontal crests and slope angles
in the range of 3oo to 8oo.
• Embankments built on foundations with an adequate bearing
capacity.
• Embankments constructed with a single homogeneous fill
material.
• Embankments subjected to a uniformly distributed surcharge.
• `Tensar' geogrld relnforcement lald horizontally in the soll.
Our Deslgn Department is available to advlse on criteria outside
the scope of these Design Charts such as:-
• Embankments or slopes steeper than 80°. The designer should
refer to the publication ` `Guidelines for the design and
construction of reinforced soil retaitiing walls using `Tensar'
geogrids", available from the Civil Engineering Divislon, Netlon
Llmlted.
• Conditions of external standing water or partial submergence.
• Dynamic loading
• Point or line loadings applied at the top of the slope.
• Fill parameters expressed in total stress terms using the
undrained shear strength cu, with ¢u = 0.

'2
 In order to use the Charts, the soil shear strength for granular fills
should be expressed in terms of the angle of internal friction
measured under effectlve stress conditions (¢') within the range 15°
to 40°. Cohesive fill materials should be expressed in terms of
effectlve stress I.e. ¢ 'and c'. The pore pressures should be expressed
ln terms of the pore water pressure coefficient ru, within the range of
zero to 0.5.

where ru = i
yz

= Pore water ressure at de

Vertical pressure at depth z

The long-term stability of cohesive fills can be determined from the

Charts using values of c',¢ 'and ru, whlch represent the worst
conditlons durlng the design IIfe of the structure. Similarly, short-term
stability conditions can be assessed using the same parameters
which reflect the soil condltlons durlng or at the end of construction.
For both long and short-term stability conditions the value of c' is
regarded as zero; this is considered to be an accurate
representation of the long-term conditions, but may be conservatlve
for the short-term stability.

3.1 General
When the soil mass is subjected to stress, compressive and tensile
stralns are generated. F{elnforcement is placed within the soil mass
tr%dTs:iR::'tTn%qt:I:?:I:sTeb#a::S#'tnh:nsttr%SSo?|nshce°:fsf:8tTveeni'¥ssof

the reinforcement is prlmarlly a function of its strength, stiffness,

positlon wlthin the soil mass and its ability to Interact with the soil
The force in the reinforcement, required to maintain the equilibrium
for any posslble failure surface in a reinforced soil mass, may be
calculated for the sltuatlon where the reinforcement intersects the
failure surface. The force ln the reinforcement may be resolved
perpendicular and parallel to the inclination of the failure surface.
The component of the force perpendicular to the failure surface acts
wlth the soil frlctlon angle to Increase the frlction resistance. The
Surcharge Ws component parallel to the failure plane resists the shear forces along
the surface.

'''' The resolution of the reinforcement force is IIIustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Resolution of forces in grid reinforcement

The horizontal reinforcement layers in the soil need to provide a
combined total horizontal force (T) to maintain the embankment in
equllibrium. Assuming a Rankine distribution of lateral earth

8:ee?f::,reehtt[R)mb;gun::#h°ef:qcuaant,8:expressedlntermsofaforce

T = 1/2KyH2 ... (3.1)

goe#nnftroanrtsso?.:,:°p3.%ng;Y:(Vpa)I,useos,,?fr,tchtFofn°;Cnegfe°(e¢f!;:enn6(pK6rf8r
water pressu re coefficlent ( ru) .
 a,=?00

iI

S,,I
`>e6,60a

i)i

`¢g00Q,
\

`//OOOQ I

i
`,gooQ`,..a

`4¢60®

Z
/
i!!

`¢eooQ`>e,60

iI

i
`>®00

Chart3.1 o (I

30 40 50 60 70 80

Slope angle 4° I

c'-0 ru=O
Chart 3.3
30 40 50 60 70 80
Slope angle 4°

c'=0 ru= .5

•:a

/
I

`4¢60

`,gooa

`,t60Q/,®0

Chart3.2 o
30 40 50 60 70 cO

Slope angle 4°

c' = 0 ru = 0.25

4
 2.01.81.61.41.21.0 .8060.40.24o3

`` ,6o {!

`- ,?a

©``?n^
(

©'`2€s!

i
CJ--
-2so

¢'=3oo

a_-

(\1111111\1
II
A, = AOO
i i
I

ii

Chart 3. i i

040 5 0607 080

Slope angle /jo Chart 3.6

30 40 50 60 70 80

Slope angle 4°
c'=O ru=0
ii
c'-0 ru-0.5
20181.61.4t210 .80.6040,20

3.2 Grid reinforcement layout

- Li=J-i i

)!'i

i!!i

0.Jooi
So),
I

ia,

i
3.2.1 Length of reinforcement
For simplicity the reinforcement length is truncated by a line parallel
to the slope face. Consequently, a single dimension (L) defines the
lengths of all layers of reinforcement.
The three criteria described in the Appendix were used to define
the minimum allowable reinforcement length (L) for a given
embankment slope (Charts 3.4 to 3.6).

i-.,A\

®'=35o

((
ill

-!! i

iI

I(

ii

EH]
Chart 3.5
30 40 50 60 70 80

Slopeang|e¢o

c'=O ru=0.25
Tensar®
5
 3.2.2 Vertical spacing of reinforeement
The layers Of grid reinforcement should be spaced apart in the slope
so that equilibrium can be maintained equally throughout the
reinforced block. Ideally, the vertical spacing between the ralnforcing
grids should vary inversely with depth measured from the crest of
the slope.
In order to combine this consideration with the need to maintain a
conventional construction sequence, in which the reinforcement

if)T:ds#8Pea#hademhu:t:P!ti:fdtELeeq:pmfaf%tr¥j'gjia#:g°ftiheed=;'ths
for which zones of equally spaced reinforcement at spacings v, 2v,
3v, 4v etc. , would be adequate.
The analysis uses a spacing constant a which is specific to each
design and is derived as follows:-

a = Sate Design strength ... (3.2)

Kyv

The Safe Design Strength of the grid is defined in Section 4.

The theoretical maximum depth (h) below the embankment crest to
which reinforcement spaced at a multiple (n) of v would suffice is
given simply by

h = a/n •.. (3.3)

Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between a and the practical

spacings (nv). The variation of the total horizontal stress acting on
the reinforced soil mass above each level is also shown in Figure 2
together with the idealised tensile resistance of the grids in each
spacing zone. A tabular calculation can be used to derive a

8:as%t;iba:8Pna%:8t,%rnra4rgementforthereinforcement.Thisis
ldealised, practical spacing of grids in
each zone (multiples ot v) Horizontal stress

Figure 2

3.3 Embankment soils and pore water pressures

Pore water pressures significantly affect the equilibrium of a slope,
which in turn affects the magnitude of reinforcement force required
to maintain equilibrium. The maximum expected pore water
pressures for all fills during the construction period and specified
design life of the embankment should be used for calculation.
The assumptions used in deriving the Design Charts apply equally
to clay soils as well as granular soils, when shear strength
parameters are expressed in terms of effective stresses. The present
set of Design Charts are for soils with the shear strength defined by
an angle of friction ¢ 'measured under effective stress conditions
with c' - 0.
Pore water pressures are represented in the Design Charts by the
coefficient ru.
 4.1 Chart parameters
The design approach suggested in this guide requires the direct
selection of design values of material parameters together with a
single overall Factor of Safety for the embankment. It can be carried
out as follows:

a) Geometry of the structure

:#c::gdhL#uaensdc::Pbeeaandg:St€arf%ru8:S,I:ynwpeL'r8:f:::.dandthe
b) Loading
The maximum expected value of loads which may occur
simultaneously may be taken. The soil unit weight (y), coefficient of
pore water pressure (ru) and surcharge loading (ws)should all be
taken as equal to their maximum expected values.

c) The strength of the soil and reinforcement

(i) Soil
ln design it is appropriate to use an angle of friction (¢ ') representing
a large strain value, as measured in laboratory strength tests.

(ii) Reinforcement
The Characteristlc Strength (fk) of each `Tensar' geogrld has been
determlned from long-term sustained load tensile tests, details of
these have been published by Netlon Limlted. The Safe Design
Strength of a `Tensar' geogrld is the safe permissible load that can
be carried by the grid during Its design life. It is derived from the
Characteristic Strength of the grid alone, to which Partial Factors of
Safety are applied to allow for the effects of construction activities,
and the type of fill used.

:8,|t:#:rnaq:'r°ensjTBOEo%/7a8ntreavaseesqgTn9,:f:)5;)urpetco°T2Eey:gisan'n-

!!i;eufrea::t:':a;s:#:?::re8r#ur[a%St¥T::£}ga&:!#g°?raitghr%:eegsi:§liR:#rT°::d
years. These values are presented in Table 4.1 at temperatures of
| OOC and 2o°C.

Characteristic Strength fk (kN/in)

ln-soil of `Tensar' geogrids
temperature
SP55 SP80 SB110

1 OOC temperate
climates such as 22.0 32.5 45.0
the UK*
• :,, ,y ( +-y(:„;Ll;S: (^l(I:),"- 42.0

; 2o°C warm c!imat6s t;

Table 4. i
* For UK conditions the Department of Transport recommends that
the value of the Characteristic Strength at 10°C should be used.

The Characteristic Strengths of `Tensar' geogrids have been

derlved from tests carried out in air.
Extensive field trials have been carried out to evaluate the effects of
construction activities on the performance of `Tensar' grids in soil.
Factors such as fill type and size. methods of compaction,
undulation of the fill and other construction activities have been
Investigated.

7
 Analysis of data from the field trials has been used to provide the
recommended Partial Factors of Safety (yin) presented in Table 4.2.

Basic soil Well graded fill Suggested Partial

type of maximum Factors of Safety yin
particle size for `Tensar' geogrids

+LT. .TT T

SR55 SFi80 Sft;ih\¥

fu

Cobbles 125mm75mm 1.70 1.40 1.40

Gravels Coarse 1.45 1.30 1.20

and 20mm
Crushed Medium
1.25 1.20 1.10
rocks 6mmFine

2mm
SandsClaysPFA
1.15 1.10 1.05

Table 4.2
The safe Design strength is the safe I
allowable load „.
.~.v.v__ lnthegridduringthedesign Safe uui-il+--itl.I-|i-iig..I
`..vt,.,_uu„„±, `„vuvv,tju Design strength = -yin xoverall Factorofsafety
life and is calculated f rom the formula
wherefk = characteristic strength (from Table4.1) and yin = Partial Factorofsafetyto allow for
construction activities (from Table 4.2)
The overall Factor of Safety should be related to the assumptions of the
design methods and the state of the soil.
d) Overall Factor of Safety

:I::€I§#:e:i,%°:D:e:[nsgTe8;::S:#:e#a:)I;°na(t:e:ibh::§f:d::b:ifcru:?::ff::,ent
ive a value for the force coefficient K from Design Charts 3. i to
ratio L/H from Design Charts 3.4 to 3.6 leads directly to the
determination of the relnforcement length.
A design based on the parameters selected from (a), (b) and (c) is in
the limiting condition of stability. Such a design would only have a
small margin of error against any unexpectedly high loadings,
unexpectedly low soil strengths and inadequacies of the design and
construction methods.
Deslgn methods for `Tensar' grid reinforced soll structures such as
walls, abutments, steep slopes, slip repairs and foundations to
embankments take advantage of the unique mode of interlock and
Interaction between `Tensar' grids and soil. The high strength and
stability of the Integral junctions between the longitudinal ribs and
the transverse bars are unique to `Tensar' geogrids. These junctlons
remain Intact whilst soil loads are taken up by the load bearing bars
and then transferred through the junctions to the high strength ribs.
Thus strains ln `Tensar' geogrids are compatible with strains ln soils.
I:rtgheester:,T:t,,Tg3qc:,:g:usTfeq;sb!nuFeedthaondds:leo::,lap,rE!:t:,resfat

Safety in the range of i.2 to 1.5 can be chosen. The most common
value used in design is 1.35.

4.2 Design chart procedure

(I) Usingthevaluesofslopeangle(4) and angle offriction(¢')of
the soil, K may be determined using any one of the Charts 3.1,
3.2 or 3.3, depending on the chosen value of the pore water
pressure coefficient ru.
(ii) The required length of the reinforcement (L) is determined from
Charts 3.4, 3.5 or 3.6, depending upon the pore water pressure
coefficient (ru), in terms of the ratio of reinforcement length to
embankment height (L/H). The slope angle and the angle of
friction of the soil are used to determine the L/H ratio.
(iii) The vertical spacing of the `Tensar' geogrids generally
increases from the base to the :rest of the slope. A method for

8Pvt,a',nn';ih%Phre:%tH%frteh:f:irocpeeT:tn:iaoyn°eust:fasqbuea:nsg::',:%dTbhye
method recommended is as follows:-

8
 (a). A minimum thickness of (v) for a single layer of compacted
soil is selected, either from experience, or by referring to an
appropriate Code of Practice on placing and compacting earth
fills.

(b) The reinforcement arrangement is then considered in terms

of the minimum spacing (v) selected in (a) or multiples thereafter
to ensure that the layers of grid can be placed at practical
spacings to minimise the disruption to fill placement and
compaction.
(c) For each grid type the spacing constant (a) is determined
from:
Safe Design Strength
Q= ... (4.2)
Kyv

(d) lf the minimum spacing (v) selected in (a) above is too large,
the value of Q will be less than the height of the embankment
and the grids will be overstressed. If this occurs, the
reinforcement spacing (v) at the base of the slope will need to
be reduced and steps (iii) (a), (b), (c) and (d) should be
repeated. Alternatively, a higher strength `Tensar' grid should
be selected for use near the base.
(e) The first layer of `Tensar' geogrid is placed on the foundation
at the base of the slope. Working from the base, the number of
grids in the first zone of equal spacing can be calculated by
dividing the thickness of the zone by the spacing of the
reinforcement layers in that zone.
The result is unlikely to be a whole number, so the result is
rounded down to the nearest whole number of grids and the
remaining thickness is added to the thickness of the overlying
zone. The effect of rounding down is to make more efficient use
of the grids and is justifiable because the lower layers of grid
can support the maximum total horizontal stress at the base of a
zone. The boundary of each zone may vary depending on the
remainder which is added as a result of rounding down the
number of layers of grid used in the lower zone. The calculation
is repeated for all overlying zones. If the top layer of
reinforcement is more than 0.75m below the slope crest it would
be prudent to insert an additional layer near to the crest.
Alternatively, a lower strength `Tensar' grid could be selected
for use near the top of the slope, thereby reducing the spacing
in this zone.
(f) The total horizontal force (T) is calculated using the equation

T = I/2KyH2 ... (4.3)

and the theoretical mlnlmum number of grids (N) given by:

•.. (4.4)
Safe Design Strength
4.3 Surcharge loading
The Design Charts can be used to take account of a uniformly
distributed surcharge loading (ws) on the top of the embankment.
The surcharge loading is considered to be equivalent to an
additional thickness of soil placed on top of the embankment.
The horizontal force IT) and the length (L) of the reinforcement are
determined as previously explained, with the exception that the
slope height H is replaced by an effective height (H ') where

H'= H +¥ ...(4.5)
y
The actual slope height H is used to determine the required
number of `Tensar' grid reinforcement layers.

4.4 Pore water pressures

EH
Tensar®
The Design Charts take into account pore water pressures
expressed in terms of a pore water pressure coefficient ru. The
Charts have been derived with pore water pressure coefficients
equal to 0, 0.25 and 0.5.
Linear interpolation is required for pore water pressure coefficient
values lying between those used in the Charts.

9
 I 5. W®rked exa The following worked example is Intended to demonstrate the use of
the Design Charts. It is by no means complete in Itself .

Design Example
Design a sultable layout of `Tensar' geogrid reinforcement for a
steep embankment to be constructed in the UK using a granular fill
material with properties as shown. No pore water pressures are
expected but a surcharge of 20 kN/m2 will be applied.

The Characteristic Strength (fk) of `Tensar' SF]55 and SR80 geogrids

for a design life of 120 years in the UK can be taken from Table 4.1.

`Tensar' SF]55fk = 22.OkN/in and `Tensar' SF]80fk = 32.5kN/in

Take yin f rom Table 4.2

`Tensar' SF]55 yin = 1.25and `Tensar' SF]80 yin = 1.2

and adopt an overall Factor of Safety = 1.35

Safe Design strength (S.D.S) =
Figure 3 yin x F.o.S
Therefore S.D.S. for
`Tensar' SP55 22 = 13kN/in SB80 = 32.5 -20.1 kN/in
1.25 x 1.35 1.2 x 1.35

The influence of the surcharge is treated as an extra layer of fill

placed on top of the slope. This increases the effectlve helght of the
slope to H' where

H'=H+±=16+29 =17.05m
19

The force coefficient K is determined from Chart 3.1 using ¢ ' = 35°
and 4 = 6oo
K = 0.12

The equillbrium of the embankment is maintained by the grld

reinforcement which is placed in equal horizontal lengths of L(in).
The ratio L/H' is determlned from Chart 3.4 using ¢ ' = 35° and
4 - 600

i -o53
Hence L = 0.53 x 17.05 = 9m
Assume a compacted fill layer thickness v = 0.2m and calculate the
spacing constant for each grid from the formula
Safe Desi in Stren
a- Kxyxv

20.1 13 - 28.5m
Q (SB80) - = 44m Q(SP55) =
0.12 x 19 x 0.2 0.12 x 19 x 0.2

Calculate depths to bottom Of zones of equal reinforcement spacing

for the two grids:-

Depth to bottom of zone (in)

Spacing in zone (in)
sfa8o s855

v = 0.2 a-44 Q - 28.5

2v = 0.4 Q/2 - 22 a/2 = 14.25
3v - 0.6 Q/3 = 14.67 Q/3-9.5
4v = 0.8 a/4 = 1 1 a/4= 7.1
5v - 1 .0 a/5-&8 Q15 -- 5.7

10
 An economic and practical layout of grids would be SB80 at 2v, 3v,
4v and 5v spacing and then SPl55 at 5v spacing.

Evaluate and tabulate the number of grids in each zone

Grld Spacing Calculated Chosen

Thickness Bemainder
type ln Zone number of number
(in) (in)
(in) grids Of grids

SFI80 nitia, grid at base 1+

SB80SB80sB80SB80S855 2v=0.4 ( 2is§ - 5'95,

17.05-14.67 I 5633(4 2.38 -(5 * a.4) = a,384.o5-(6xo.6)=o`45 i2.65-(3xO`8)=0.253.35-(3`x1)=0.355-(4x1)-1
= 2,.38 0,4

3v=0.64v=0.85v=1.05v=1,0 + 14.67 -11 + 0.38t 4iQ§ = 6.75

- 4.05 0.6

t 11 -8.8 + 0.45 2ies = 3.31

= 2.65 0.8

8.8 -5.7 + 0.25 3i¥ = 3.35

= 3.35 1

5.7 - i.05 + 0.35 §=5

=5 1

Finally check that the total horizontal force required to provide

equilibrium is less than the total resistance provided by the grid
layout.

Total horizontalforceT = 1/2 KyH'2 = 1/2 x 0.12 x 19 x 17.052 = 331.4kN/in

Total resistance = 18 NoSR80 + 4 NoSF355 = 18 x 20.1 + 4 x 13 = 413.8 kN/in

This is greater than the force required for equilibrium therefore the
suggested grid layout is adopted.

Figure 4

iE

geogrid reinforced embankment
6.1 General
Conventional construction techniques and equipment can be used
to construct embankments which are reinforced with `Tensar'
geogrids. Horizontal layers of grid reinforcement are easily
Incorporated between compacted layers of fill to stabilise the
embankment.
Within this Section, attention is given to construction details which
are specific to the use of `Tensar' grid reinforcement.

6.2 Compaction of fill

A wide variety of fill types can be used with the grids including
crushed rock, gravel, industrial slag, PFA (pulverised fuel ash) and
clay, but fill particles greater than 125mm should be avoided.
The placement and compaction of fill can be carried out using
conventlonal plant in accordance with the "Specificatlon for
Highway Works" prepared by the Department of Transport in the
United Kingdom or relevant national standards in other countries.

Phu:I:%#%ttreudctf',?Th::fnseus:abceet;:tehne:'dj::::[qaby%rkseopfttt%r+::T,ta'
grids should not be less than 150mm.
`Tensar' geogrids are laid directly on the horizontal surface of a layer
of compacted fill and covered with the next layer of fill. Fill should be
spread using mechanical plant such as an excavator bucket or a
dozer with an opening bucket which causes the fill to cascade onto
the grids. Care should be taken to control the timing and rate of
placing of fill material to ensure that grids are not damaged by
compaction equipment or site vehicles travelling over exposed
areas of grid reinforcement.
For slopes > 45°, in order to limit djstortion at the face, plant heavier
than 1 tonne should not be allowed within 1.5m of the face.

6.3 Geogrid reinforcement

`Tensar' geogrids are available in two forms:

(i) Uniaxially orientated `Tensar' SB geogrids e.g. `Tensar' S855

which have their strength in one direction. These are
characterised by elongated apertures.

(ii) Biaxially orientated `Tensar' SS geogrids e.g. `Tensar' SS2

which have similar strengths in two perpendicular directions but
which have a lower strength than the uniaxial grids. These are
characterised by square or rectangular apertures.

In the construction of reinforced embankments or slopes, uniaxially

orientated SB grids are generally adopted as the main reinforcement.

When positioning the grids, particular attention should be given to

ensuring that they are placed in the correct directions with regard to
the strength used in design. .
The reinforcement is generally laid horizontally in continuous strips
cut to the required design length. In the case of the uniaxial grids,
the strips are laid perpendicular to the slope face. In most
embankment applications, no joints or overlaps are required
between adjacent lengths of reinforcement and so they are laid side
by side. However, provisions such as fixing the grid to the fill using U-
shaped steel pins may be made to maintain the position of the grid.

Ftecommended tolerances for the placing of `Tensar'

geogrids are as follows:
(a) Horizontal alignment:
The reinforcement should extend to the full length from the face of
the embankment as shown on the drawings.

12
 (b) Vertical alignment:
(i) The vertical position of each layer of grids should not be more
than one half of the minimum compacted layer thickness of the
fill from the position shown on the drawings.
(ii) The variation in the vertical position along each grid layer
should not exceed half the minimum compacted layer thickness
of the fill from the position shown on the drawings.
(iii) Successive reinforcement layers should not be spaced apart
more than one half the minimum compaction layer thickness
from the spacing shown on the drawings.

Tolerances (i) and (iii) should not be compounded.

6.4 Facings
Facings may be `hard' or `soft' and are selected to retain fill mater`al,
prevent local slumping and erosion of steeply sloping faces, and to
suit environmental requirements.

Hard facings
Interlocking concrete blocks, grout filled bags or gabions can
provide a substantial facing.

Figure 5 F,gure 6
Soft facings

f€::edr:|',#h%r:3'nt:tru%%anryo{%{Fewp°:iko'Seesrf5t28ot)°ii%gR?:kteh:he
form of a lightweight system of scaffold tubes and boards or consist
of some form of 'cllmbing' shutter. The grids are turned up the face
of the formwork and returned into the embankment directly below

#;hn8:tnrs:I;f8:i;eThey|te'na¥ebr'oTdhk:nt#,%H:S:#:,fa°bri`en;r%t#H:'8Pva
Engineering Division, Netlon Limited, (Figure7).

Figure 7

13
 Turf and topsoil can be placed on the fill side of the `Tensar' grid
reinforcement as it is turned up the face of the slope to create a
natural and aesthetic appearance.
Where the vertical spacing of the main reinforcement is greater than
500mm, biaxial SS grid reinforcement is used as intermediate
secondary relnforcement to provide local stability at the face of the
Slope.
`Tensar' secondary reinforcement.

I;;' ` ,`.`.... `

I.n.-i.:.--ENEi------i_--_i-i-i.-__ii-

Figure 8

As an alternative, the use of sandbags can avoid the need for

external formwork (Figure 9).

Figure 9
For slopes < 45° the jnterlocking action between the grids and the
soil will ensure efficient stress transfer to the reinforcement without a
formal facing. Short layers of secondary grid reinforcement may be
used to limit the vertical distance between the primary reinforcement
layers and so ensure local face stability (Figure 10). The only facing
normally required is `Tensar' Mat which is placed during topsoiling to
provide a long-term protection against erosion.

14
F,gure 10

6.5 Drainage
lf the embankment becomes waterlogged and pore water pressures
increase, the magnitude of the tensile forces induced into the grid
reinforcement also Increases. Pore water pressures can be
controlled by providing drainage layers at the back of the reinforced
zone in combination with an underdrain (Figure 11).

Figure 11

15
 The paper "F3einforcement techniques in repairing slope failures" by
B.T. Murray was presented at the Symposium on Polymer Grid
Beinforcement, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, March 1984. It
is reprinted in full with the kind permission of the author.*

Reinforcement techniques in repairing slope

failures
P.T Murray, Transport and Boad Pesearch Laboratory, United
Kingdom.
A recent survey of slope stability in selected lengths of motorway has
Indicated that shallow faHures have already occurred on significant
lengths of both cutting and embankment slopes constructed in over-
consolidated clays. Moreover the survey also revealed that
substantial further lengths are potentially at risk.
The usual method of repairing slope failures in such conditions has
Involved replacement of the foundered region of soil with free-
draining granular material, but where granular soils are not locally
available, this approach can incur large haulage costs.
To minimise costs the Department of Transport has recommended
re-using the existing material whenever possible, perhaps in
conjunction with lime, if necessary, when the soil is too wet to be
compacted.
An alternative method of repairing slip failures is described in which
the foundered soil is re-used jn conjunction with layers of geotextile
or geogrid reinforcement. A number of design charts are presented
to assist in assessing the reinforcement requirements for a particular
situation. The paper also gives details of the application of the
techniques to the repair of a cutting in London clay.

INTF30DUCTION
Because of the economic constraints on both materials and land
usage, embankment and cutting slopes constructed in cohesive
soils are generally designed with relatively low factors of safety. In the
longer term, therefore, failures may develop as a result of changes in
the pore pressure conditions or in the site drainage characteristics.
Some preliminary results of a survey of 300 kin of selected lengths of
motorway are presented in Table 1 ITransport and Boad Pesearch
Laboratory, 1983).
Although the results highlight the more severe examples of the
stability survey, they nevertheless demonstrate that significant
problems can be expected with overconsolidated clays.
The usual method of repairing such slope failures has Involved the
replacement of the foundered material by a free-drajning and easily
compacted granular soil of high frictional strength. Where a source
of suitable granular soil is not locally available, however, considerable
haulage costs can be incurred and to minimise costs the
Department of Transport has proposed re-using the existing material
whenever possible (Department of Transport, 1983). One possible
approach involves re-using the foundered soil together with
reinforcement layers of geogrid or geotextile to ensure the integrity of
the reinstatement.

In this paper the technique of repairing slopes employing

reinforcement layers is briefly described and some details are
provided of the application of the method to the repair of a cutting in
London clay. A set of design charts are also provided to enable a
rapid assessment to be made of the reinforcement requirements for
a range of typical slope situations.

EH
Tensar®
16
 Method of Analysis
Details of the method of analyses are provided in earlier publications
(Murray et al 1982; Murray,1982) but for completeness a brief
outline is given below.

§ter:i:gJca[ ea#e#s S'%::zP:rc::d!,;nt s[°r:v?:s}§!# P:{fi;::£8e

Cutting
Boulder clay 1 :21/2 -1 :2 8010
Fleading clay 1 :31/2 -1 :3 7750
Gault clay 1 : 3 1/2 1240
Oxford clay 1:2 1970
Embankment
London clay 1 :21/2 -1 :2 22820
1 :21/2 -1 :2 2460
:::gj:8:i:; 1 :21/2 -1 : 1 1/2 23380
Gault clay 1:3 -1:2 4420
Kimmeridge clay 1:2 5420
Oxford Clay 1 :21/2 -1 :2 7620
Oxford clay 1:2 3540
Kelloways clay 1:2 -1..11/2 4340
TABLE 1 More severe examples from TRRL Slope Stability Survey on Selected
Motorways
The failure surface is represented by a bilineal slip plane as shown in
Fig.1, in preference to the more conventional circular or non-
clrcular slip surfaces; much of the complexity of analysis is then
removed and moreover the volume of computation is greatly
reduced. It is possible to provide a reasonable representation of
most types of failure surface by the use of bilineal slip planes and the
accuracy of the results obtained from the analysis agree favourably
with those obtained by other methods. This is demonstrated by the
comparison provlded in Fig. 2, whlch relates to stability
assessments based on the above method together with the results
obtained from stability coefficients produced by Bishop and
Failure surface Morgenstern (1960). As can be seen f rom the figure the results are
in very close agreement.
Fig.1. Plepresentation of Failure Surface
The results shown in Fig. 2. relate to the sltuation where the slope ls
as Bilineal slip Plane. unreinforced, and the Inclusion of a tensile component into the
analysis produces a significant Increase in the complexity of the
assessment of the stability of the reinforced soil system. It is normal
practice to consider two aspects of internal stability, namely
adherence and tensile resistance. However, because geotextiles or
geogrids are more strain susceptible than metallic reinforcing
elements, additional reinforcement layers are generally Incorporated
to limit these strains. The adherence or pull-out resistance of the
tensile elements is determined by the coefficient of friction between
the soil and reinforcement. It is frequently the case that the friction
coefficient at the soil geotextile Interface is a high proportion of the
soil friction coefficient, particularly where geogrids are used. The

Fig. 2.
Comparison of
Factors of Safety by Two
Different Methods of
Analysing Unreinforced
Slopes.
123
Fac'°Brj:#:iydfh°oTgcehnasrttesr:r(a,8:8;dby

17
 possibility of an adherence failure occurring in such circumstances
thus appears very unlikely. For purposes of the stability
assessments therefore, the influence of the reinforcement layers is
treated purely as a mobilised or permissjble tension component and
no consideration has been given to pull-out or adherence type
failures.
The result of a serjes of analyses for 3 different values of pore water
pressure ratio (ru), have been used to compile the charts shown in
Figs. 3-5; a unit weight for the soil of 20 kN/m3 , is assumed. These
charts can be employed to obtain a rapid assessment of the
reinforcement requirements for djfferent slopes. It is assumed in
using the charts, that the vertical spacing, Sv, of these reinforcement
layers is constant.
In selecting a value of permissible tension to use in a particular
situation, due consideration must be given to both the short-term
and long-term strain and creep characteristics of the geotextile. On
this basis, therefore, the value chosen will generally be much
smaller than the known ultimate tensile strength of the material and

#:f::8upeenrt'cyecn?rsrt::Pn°,#%i::tgrteeqr#resdotfep:°odnus:dee?:t,gn°ro:#:n
procedures for determining the potential deformations of a
reinforced slope is given ln an earlier publication (Murray, 1982).

The following example has been inclucted to demonstrate how the

charts are used:

(:!hsee:epcbFo::,I:teeoufnpt:rot,RRo#t::tshoThneevaa#er:L|feocrtceedTsent,ayer,
intended to avoid problems of both short and long term
serviceability -say a value of 30 kN/in width has been chosen.
(b) Estimate the height (H) in metres from the lowest to highest point
on the anticipated slip surface. An initial estimate could involve only
the height of slope at risk, however it is possible that the slip surface
will be more deep-seated and actually dlp below the lowest point on
the slope face. Assume a value of 12m has been selected in this
Case.
(c) Select a suitable value of Sv-say i.Om.
(d) For the known values of pore pressure ratio (ru) and effective

3:;'vea3i::t:;no:2f5,3tLodn2`8:)iosreLe3tntJ?Pr%gboepc[,,3teFyc:35,)n,I,tghis3-5;
Case.
(e) Evaluate the factor Tperm/(H x Sv): for the selected values this is
30/12 x 1 = 2.5kN/m3. Obtain a factor of safety for the given slope
angle 4 from the chart (Fig. 4). For purposes of the example a value
of 4 equal to 30° will be assumed, and on this basis the factor of
safety from Fig. 4 is about 1.4. If this factor of safety ls not
considered adequate then either Tperm must be Increased or Sv of the
reinforcement layers to 0.8m would increase the value of Tperm/H x
Sv to 3. i , and the corresponding factor of safety is little more than
1.6. It is interesting to note that the same chart gives a factor of
safety of about 0.4 when the slope is unreinforced.

Practical Considerations in Slope Repair

Although a substantial proportion Of the total cost of repairing a slip
failure by the conventional method of replacing the failed region of
soil by granular material arises from the haulage distances involved,
it is also necessary to add to these costs those resulting from the
impedance to the free flow of traffic that occurs while the
construction work is in progress; these are particularly significant
where this invQlves the removal and importatjon of a large quantity
of material along the section of road affected by the failure. The
difficulties are likely to be compounded where the repair applies to
minor roads or to other roads with limited access.
The repair of a slope by a re-use of the foundered soil could thus
alleviate much of the hindrance to the free flow of traffic utilising the
affected road. Of course, even with the soil reinforcement method of
repair, it will be necessary to remove some of the foundered soil at
the start of the reinstatement operation. The procedure envisaged in
this method involves excavating a strip of soil up the failed slope.
The width of the excavated zone would be dictated by the
requirements to operate the construction plant efficiently in addition
to the need to prevent further slips developing as a result of

18
 Unit weight of soil=2okN/m3

10 20 30 4010 20 30 4010 20 30 40
Slope angle (4) -degrees
Fig. 3. Flelation between Factor of Safety and Slope Angle for Differem Values of ¢'
and Tperm at a Pore Pressure Ratio of 0.0

Unit weight of soil = 20kN/m3

10 20 30 4010 20 30 4010 20 30 40
Slope angle (¢) -degrees

Fig.4.::Lai':e|mb:tt:epeonreFa::3rs::esa'aet|5:T8.a:°PeAngleforDifferentvaluesof¢'

19
 Unit weight of soil =20kN/m3

10 20 30 4010 20 30 4010 2030

Slope angle (P) -degrees
Fig. 5. F]elation between Factor of Safety and Slope Angle for Different Values of ¢'
and Tperm at a Pore Pressure Patio ot 0.5

excavating too large a region; it is self-evident that a narrow

excavation will assume a greater degree of stability than is
produced by a wide excavation. The excavated zone would then be
reinstated together with sheets of reinforcement at the required
vertical spacing. The soil used for the reinstatement would be
obtained from a similar excavation at the other side of the failure
region. This procedure would then be repeated untll the whole of
the foundered soil had been treated as a series of strips.
The depth of the treated zone would need to extend beyond the sllp
surface in order to permit a sufflcient length of reinforcement to be
Installed to avoid adherence failures occurrlng. It would also be
necessary to check that the stabjlity of the region beyond the treated
zone is adequate, otherwise this region also would need to be
reinforced to prevent deeper seated failures developing. It js normal
practice in placlng each relnforcement layer to continue the
geotextile up the surface of the slope and for a distance of one or
two metres onto the next soil level where a reinforcement layer is to
be placed.
Because the foundered soil is generally in a very soft condition, it will
usually prove difficult, or even impossible, to operate with
conventional construction plant. A technique which has proved very
successful In these circumstances is to add quicklime durlng the
placement operations. The quicklime js normally only mixed Into the
upper part of the compacted layers in order to Induce a rapid
improvement in the working surface so that the construction plant
can operate more effectively. Both the strength and permeability
characteristics of the lime treated soil will be increased resulting in a
further enhancement of slope stability. However, because the
underlying material in each compacted layer remains virtually
unchanged, the geotextile reinforcement layers are nonetheless
required to ensure the integrity of the reinstated material.
Once having prepared a surface on which a reinforcement layer has
to be placed, the geotextile will be positioned over the surface and
pegged down, if necessary, to prevent it hampering the
construction work. To prevent the geotextile from being damaged
during the filling operation, it will normally be necessary to end-tlp
the fill and work from one edge by spreading in front of the plant.

20
To prevent the exposed surfaces of geotextile on the slope face
from being damaged by ultra-violet radiation, it is advisable to
spread a layer of top soil or other suitable material over the surface
of the slope soon after installation.

Application of the method to the repair of a failed cutting

The method was first applied to the repair of a cutting slope in
London clay. As this work has been previously reported (Murray et
al, 1982) only a brief outline will be given:
The cutting, which extended to a depth of 20m, formed part of the
M4 motorway some ten miles west of Beading. Over a period of
several years a series of slips had occurred at the particular section
and this culminated in a major slope failure, over the top 1 Om of the
cutting, in 1979, with further movement in 1980.
The work of reinstatement, which took place in late 1980, was
carried out by Berkshire County council by direct labour contract
and involved the excavation and replacement of some 7000 m3 of
soil. It was possible to excavate all of this matenal in a single
operation after the owner of the adjacent land had given permission
for temporary stockpiling of the excavated material. Clearly greater
productivity can be achieved by dealing with larger regions in a
single operation rather than as a series of strips but, as discussed
previously, the risk of initiating further slips is increased. However,
as the work was carried out during a relatively short period and in
dry weather, no serious problems were encountered in this
instance.
The excavation was taken down to some 30cm below the observed
slip plane. Drainage trenches of 1.2m depth and at 5m centres were
installed at this level to reduce the possibility of further slips
developing below the treated zone. The first layer of reinforcement
was pegged down over the base of the excavation and sufficient
length was taken beyond the face of the slope to allow it to be folded
back with an adequate lap onto the next level of reinforcement. The
reinforcement used was a polymer mesh (Netlon CE 131 ) which
was supplied in rolls 30m long and 2m wide.
The fill was placed and compacted to layers of about 25cm
thickness. Prior to compaction, about 2 per cent by weight of
quicklime was mixed into the upper part of the layer. The
reinforcement was spaced at vertical intervals of 0.5m in the lower
levels which was Increased to 1 in in the upper levels. To avoid
damage by construction plant, a protective layer of top soil was
spread over the lower portion of the slope when this slope had been
completed. The work continued in the same fashion until the
reinstatement was completed and thereafter the remainder of the
slope was top-soiled.
Site observations have indicated that no movement has taken place
since completion of the work in 1980.
An estimate of the relative cost of the repair using the soil
reinforcement method indicated that these were just over half those
estimated for the conventional approach employing granular soil
(£70,000 as against £120,000). Thus considerable savings were
achieved by the former method and ln view of the fact that Table 1
shows that significant lengths of motorway cuttings and
embankments are at risk the method may well find wide applications
for the repair of slopes.

EH
Tensar®
21
 Conclusion
(1 ) A recent survey into problems of slope stability in motorway
cuttings and embankments has Indicated that significant lengths of
slope constructed in over consoljdated clays have failed and, by
implication, further lengths are liable to failure in the longer term.
(2) The repair of slope failures is tradltlonally carried out by
replacing the foundered soil with a free-draining granular matenal.
However, where a source of such material is not locally available,
considerable expenditure can be incurred by the haulage costs
involved in the transportation of suitable fills to the site over relatively
long distances.
(3) An alternative procedure has been described for the repair of
failed slopes which Involves re-use of the foundered soil in
conjunction with reinforcement layers of geotextiles or geogrids. It
may also prove necessary to use a relatively small proportion of
qulcklime in carrying out the relnstatement to enable the
construction plant to operate effectively when the soils are very soft.
To assist in determing the relnforcement requlrements for a
particular problem, a number of design charts have been prepared
which permit a rapid assessment to be made of slope stability for a
range of typical situations.
(4) The application of the technique to the repair of a failed cutting in
London clay has been described. The use of a polymer mesh
reinforcement (Netlon CE 131) in conjunction wlth 2 per cent by
weight of quicklime enabled the soft, foundered, soil to be re-used
and since the reinstatement ln 1980, site observatlons have shown
no Indication of further movement. The cost of the repair by thls
method amounted to just over half that estimated for the
conventional approach; this reflects the fact that haulage distances
of some 30 miles were anticipated for importation of the granular fill.

i:I):;:et:n?,fat,[ye::r|g[hf:ootTn:i:Lit,?y,,ts|:paepsp,,,c:Y:rn-co?TF:'#:!d
could result in slgnlficant savings nationally.

Acknowledgements
This paper is published by permission of the Director,

Ihaen:Bt°hrtora,:dpE:,%%|:r:;egar;i:f:Ft%°wlart°5yM.Farrarwhowas
responsible for preparing the charts given herein.

References
Bishop, A.W. and N. Morgenstern (1960).Stability coefficients for
earth slopes.
Geotechnique,10,129-150.
Department of Transport (1983).
Maintenance of Highway Earthworks. F]oads and Local Transport
Directorate,
Departmental Advice Note HA 26/83, London.
(Department of Transport).
Murray R.T, Wrightman J. and A. Bu.rt (1982). Use of fabric
reinforcement for reinstating unstable slopes.
Department of Environment. Department of Transport,
TF3F31 F}eport SR 751 Crowthorne.
Murray R.T. (1982). Fabric reinforcement of embankments and
cuttings. Proc. 2nd. Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vol Ill, Las Vegas,
707-713.
Transport and Road F]esearch Laboratory (1983).
Studies of slope stability problems in highway earthworks, Leaflet
LF943, February.

* Crown copyright

22
 Appendix
Considerations for the determination of the length of
reinforcement

The three criteria which have been adopted to define the minimum
allowable reinforcement length (L) are

(a) when acting as a stable block, the reinforced mass should be

sufficiently wide to prevent any vertical effective tensile stresses
from developing due to the thrust developed by the
unreinforced soil (Figure 12). When ru = 0, this criterion is
equivalent to the resultant force on the base of the reinforced
block actlng within the middle third.
F,gure 12

Critical failure surface

(b) the relnforcement layers stiould be long enough to contain and

anchor the critical failure surface through the slope which
requires the greatest total horizontal force for equilibrium (Figure
13). If shorter reinforcement lengths were used, the critical
failure surface could pass outside the reinforced block and only
tbhee:a%%{iv:f,:eLnfa?:?:,H::t:%Y,#,Sut#ea:asceo:f,dht::'r%Poerew8:'d
overstressed. The Design Charts for the ratio (L/H) gives values
of L which provide sufficient anchorage length past the critical
failure surface for all the grids.
F,gure 13

(c) the reinforcement layers should be sufficiently long to prevent

the possibility of a failure surface developing behind the
reinforced block and passing along the top of a layer of
reinforcement (Figure 14). The resistance to direct shearing of
soil over `Tensar' geogrids has been represented by applying a
factor of 0.8 to the shear resistance of the soil. This factor is
incorporated in the Design Charts.
Figure 14

For each case the greatest length from the three criteria was usecii to
evaluate Design Charts 3.4 to 3.6. These give the minimum
allowable reinforcement length L (expressed in terms of the ratio
L/H) for combinations of slope angle 4 and soil friction angle of ¢ '
and for the three different pore water pressure conditions ru = 0,
0.25, 0.50.

23
 References
1. Department of Transport, U.K.,
"Reinforoed Earth F]etainjng Walls and Bridge
Abutments for Embankments' '.
Technical Memorandum (Bridges) BE 3/78 (revised 1987),
HMSO,1987.
2. Murray, B.T. and MCGown, A.,

a:%[:§t:#:T:r°itei:f:j#eedDseoiF#a?I:i,Pehaviourof
Durability of Geotextiles, BILEM: 52-73, Chapman and Hall,
London,1988.

Bibliography
Bell, J.B., Szymoniak, T. and Thommen, G.B.,
` `Construction of a Steep Sided Retaining Wall for an Oregon

83;#r`#dhpwe:¥f':'rcement,ThomasTelford.1985,pp.198-202.
`P§faobpi,,#'Wc3:#i!ioergtesn3terrE,a#.hs,opes"'
Geotechnique,10,129-150, 1960.
Chen, W.F.
` `Limit Analysis and Soil Plasticity' '.
341-398, Elsevier, New York,1975.
Devata, M.

;Fo::%rj,dReinforoedEarthEmbankmentswithsteepside
Polymer Grid Beinforcement, Thomas Telford. 1985, pp. 82-87.
Forsythe, P.A. and Bieber, D.A.

;:I;#:rnGdr:dsi%Pn?opceepma:my+t#oGmea%gi:ji?opd?jingf85T;Fez:;'7.
Jewell' P.A.,
` `Some Effects of Fzeinforoement on the Mechanical
Behaviour of Soils' ',
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge,1980.
Jewell, B.A., Paine, N. and Woods a.I.,

;oP;:jegrnGM8tEe::f%::erms::;+hRoe+nafs°Thi?odrdFTgb8a#B.e7not_%'+
Schlosser, F., Jacobsen, H.M. and Juran,I.,

§%:.R8:inE::Cceomn:nst6iF%cehTE:denp°Ertngng.,vo|.3,Helsink"983.

?i:#jcgait#::n::o?Hih:;haw:a3y:gj:om%,ijgrpffoe#ieDr:pFeiamnedTt,welsh
HMSO,1986.

24
Glossary of Symbols

Symbol Unit
c, kN/m2 Cohesion of the soil at high strain measured
under effective stress conditions.
fk kN/in Characteristic strength of the grid for a
specified design life.
in Height.
in Height of the embankment.
in Effective height of the embankment.
Deg. Angle of slope.
Force coefficient.
Length of the layers of grid reinforcement.
A spacing constant.
Pore water pressure coefficient ( = u/yz).
kN/in Total Horizontal Force required to maintain
equilibrium of the embankment.
kN/m2 Pore water pressure.
in Thickness of compacted fill layer (minimum
vertical spacing of the grid).
kN/m2 Uniformly distributed surcharge.
Deg. Angle of internal friction for the soil measured
under effective stress conditions.
kN/m3 Unit weight of soil.
Partial Factor of Safety to allow for the effects
of construction and relaxation of the grid.
Minimum number of grids.
Multiple.
in Depth below crest.