Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lesh Chin Sky 2001
Lesh Chin Sky 2001
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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).
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
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.