Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1990
Setser, Darrell M.
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/28542
Slope Reinforcement Design
by
S4l^i
Darrell M. Setser
University of Washington
1990
Date
T248076
J AJtt'J
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction 1
3 . Design Approaches 10
4. Costs 15
5 . Summary 16
6 . References 17
7. Appendix
Koerner A2
Van Zanten A8
Polyfelt A13
Ingold A17
Tensar A21
Jewel 1 et al A24
Bonaparte et al A28
Introduction
reinforced slope?;
-1-
slopes and the use of geo synthetics in this application
continues to grow.
system
(Bonaparte et al . , 1987).
particular design.
dynamic loads.
right-of-way;
c) Repairing landslides;
-3-
d) Raising existing dikes and levees.
b) Bunkers.
-4-
reinforced slopes. One of their findings was that in one
may include:
a) friction behavior;
b) seam strength;
c) creep;
d) geosynthetic degradation.
-7-
With most compacted fills, the lateral strains developed in
needed.
folded.
-8-
Frictional properties for the interaction of the soil
and the geosynthetic are needed for design and are usually-
(Tensar 1988)
, . Higher temperatures (greater than 20 deg.C)
instal led
-9-
Design Approac hes
mind
for the soil and the effect of the reinforcement in the soil
-10-
reinforcement was added. Failure surfaces outside the
stability .
field observations;
movement
For the most part these assumptions are carried over into
include
determining
particular type;
eroding;
f) Installation considerations.
appendix
a) Koerner, 1990;
b) Van Zanten,1986;
f) Ingold,1982;
i ) Jewel 1 et al . , 1984.
-13-
(1982) are included in the appendix. The author recommends
to:
grow;
include
b) slope geometry;
earthquake
Costs
a) geographical area;
Some typical costs for geotextiles with a mass per unit area
2 2
between 4.0-10.0 oz/yd vary between $0.60 to $1.50/yd
2
for material and $0.10 to $0.50/yd for installation
Summary
-16-
References
-17-
10. Holtz, Robert D., "Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering
Construction," New Horizons in Construction
Materials, Eds. D.Y. Lee and S. P. Shah,
New York:ASCE, 1988.
13. Jewell, R.A., Paine, N., and Wood, R.I.,, " Design
Methods for Steep Reinforced Embankments,"
Proceedings of the Polymer Grid Reinforcement
Conference, London, 1984, pp. 70-81.
pp. 279-290.
-19-
Appendix
a. Reinforcement type
b. Soil type
6. Other
A\
Koerner, 1990
1 Circular
2. Yes
3. Horizontally
b. c, phi
ID CR CD BD
Where
Geotextiles Geogrids
FS 1.1-1.5 1.1-1.4
ID
FS 1.5-2.0 2.0-3.5
CR
FS 1.0-1.5 1.0-1.4
CD
FS 1.0-1.3 1.0-1.3
BD
6. Spacing and anchorage length considerations are
face
Al
Frov- koimtf, \^°
The usual geotechnical engineering approach to slope stability problems is to use
limit equilibrium concepts on an assumed circular arc failure plane, thereby arriving at an
equation for the factor of safety. The resulting equations for total stresses and effective
stresses,- respectively, are given below corresponding to Figure 2.49. It is illustrated for
where
N, - w, cos 8,;
<t>,4>
= the total and effective angles of shearing resistance, respectively;
N, - N, - u,Ax,, in which
u, - h, yw = the pore water pressure,
Use of the total stress analysis (Equation 2.45) is recommended for embankments where
water is not involved or when the soil is at less than saturation conditions. The effective
stress analysis equation (Equation 2.46) is for conditions where water and saturated soil
A3
hfo^ fcoemer {
X^O
*~ T„
Figure 2.49 Details of circular arc slope stability analysis for (c, <J>) shear strength
soils.
are involved — conditions typical of earth dams and delta areas involving fine-grained
cohesive soils.
These equations are tedious to solve, and when additional consideration is given to
finding the minimum factor of safety by varying the radius and coordinates of the origin
of the circle, the process becomes unbearable to do by hand. Many computer codes exist
m
that can readily be modified to include ^ T,y, contribution of the geotextile reinforce-
t = i
ment. When the search is done independent of the computer, the analysis portion easily
fits on most personal computers.
For fine-grained cohesive soils whose shear strength can be estimated by undrained
conditions, the problem becomes much simpler. (Recall that this is the same assumption
as was used in Section 2.6. .3 on unpaved roads.
1 Here slices need not be taken, since the
)
A^
"Fc?/^ K^erw^r iHHO
soil strength does not depend on the normal force on the shear place. Figure 2.50 gives
details of this situation, which results in the following equation. ,
The example illustrates
its use.
cR + 2= T,y,
(2.47)
FS =
1 1
WX
where
Oix.y)
Figure 2.50 Details of circular arc slope stability analysis for soil strength represented
by undrained conditions.
Example:
For the 21 -ft. -high, 40 deg. angle slope shown below, which consists of a silty clay embank-
3 2 2
ment (y = 120 lb./ft. , <t>
= deg., c = 200 lb. /ft. , area = 291 ft. , center of gravity as
indicated) on a silty clay foundation (7 = 125 lb./ft.
3
, <t>
= deg., c = 300 lb./ft. \ area =
2
250 ft. , center of gravity as indicated) determine (a) the factor of safety with no geotextile
reinforcement, (b) the factor of safety with a high-strength geotextile of allowable tensile
strength 250 lb. /in. placed along the surface between the foundation soil and the embankment
soil, and (c) the factor of safety with five layers of the same geotextile placed at 5-ft. intervals
from the interface to the top of the embankment. Assume that sufficient anchorage behind the
slip circle shown is available to mobilize full geotextile strength and that seams are also
A?>
Vro^ ko^rAef ,
m°
Solution: The following computational data are needed in all parts of the problem:
Embankment Soil
3
7= 120 lb./ft.
= 0°
2
c = 200 lb./ft.
Foundation Soil
3
7= 125 lb./ft.
= 0'
c = 300 lb./ft?
L ad = 2(42.4)tt = 25.2
(^) ft
/70
Z^=2(42.4)tt 51.8 ft.
V360
-y resisting moments
FS "*
driving moments
FS
Wabed 25.8 + WdefK (0)
34.900(25.8) +
873,000
0.97 NG; failure
900,000
(b) Slope with a geotextile along surface e-d with sufficient anchorage beyond point d:
AG
c c
^TCory koefyver \ \ \.°
(c) Slope with five layers at 5-ft. intervals from surface e-d upward, all of which have
sufficient anchorage behind the slip surface:
Example:
For the preceding example, determine how much embedment (anchorage) is required behind
the slip circle to mobilize the allowable tensile strength of the geotextile. Assume that the
transfer efficiency of the fabric to the soil is 0.80 and base the calculation on a FS = 1.5.
Solution: When the anchorage test was explained in Section 2.2.3.11, it was assumed that
the resistance was uniformly distributed over the fabric's embedment and that the fabric was
entirely mobilized. This is almost certainly not the case. It appears that the concentration
decreases rapidly as the embedment length increases and that separate mobilized and fixed
portions of the fabric exist. For this problem, however, a linear distribution will be assumed
over a continuous displaced length, since it results in a conservative length.
•- T
2(200) (0. 8 )L C = 250(12) (1.5) use 15 ft. beyond slip circle for anchorage
length of each fabric layer
L,. = 14.1 ft.
A7
Van Zanten, 1986
1. Bi-linear wedge
2. Yes
3. Horizontally
4. a. Geotextiles only
b. c, phi
A 8
T orv\ vO IA l^oATe °[Q6
A^l
Fr f* \Ja* ?^Ha, \°\i>6
reinforcing mot
t = zytan^
u .A0l
[• * 4» ^ *
h
Figure 10.31. Equilibrium of forces near
the outside of the embankment.
the angle of friction between the fill and the reinforcing mat, and o %
'
is the vertical
soil pressure. For a reinforcing fabric, <pa corresponds to the angle of internal
friction of non-cohesive or slightly cohesive soil. This frictional resistance (t)
increases the horizontal ground pressure on the soil cube, shown schematically in
Now
K,=-? (10.18)
where
K, = is a factor larger than the Rankine coefficient for the active earth
pressure
K = (l
a -sin<f»)/(l + sing>).
ov'
and a'H are no longer principal stresses owing to the mobilized frictional
resistance t. For non-cohesive material it can be shown that:
1
K,= :
10.19)
1 + 2(tan <p)
For sand, with <p = 35°, the value of K,, found from triaxial tests, is 0.5. This
implies that the lateral earth pressure at a distance X = H may already be 10
times larger than that calculated according to Rankine's active earth pressure
theory. This also means that the effective lateral earth pressure at the front face of
such a structure (X = 0) is very slight. Summarizing, both vertical and horizontal
away from the face.
earth pressures increase rapidly
The maximum spacing between two reinforcing mats is determined by consid-
ering:
- the distribution of the lateral earth pressure on the inside of folded-back
envelopes,
- the effective load take-up by the reinforcing mat.
A \o
pf orv\ Va ^ OA W ,
>^8£
In this case it is assumed that the total lateral earth pressure is uniformly
distributed over the vertical plane A-A (Figure 10.32), as suggested by Terzaghi-
Peck (1967) for the dimensioning of anchored cofferdams, i.e.:
N
H= (10.21)
0.65 K a (1.5q + y2H)s
where
H = spacing between two reinforcing mats [m]
N ma = allowable
« permanent load on the reinforcing mat [kN].
N ma ,FS
L= (10.22)
yH tan 9
where
<P = <Pso.l ° r SPfabric
FS = factor of safety.
f f f T f reinforcing mot
EH
CE
£
r
H
Figure 10.32. Anchor
7" * forces.
AV
Y-fOf^ Voa "Z^At^^ ,1^06
toS?
Figure 10.36. Equilibrium
of the reinforced wedges.
sliding plane
A 12
Polyfelt, 1989
1 . Circular
2. Yes
3. Horizontally
only.
b. c, phi
A 13
'
fro-* PolyfeM ,
nfe !
= tan = _£l Z = I*
tan to tl Co
1.3 1.3 3.0
Where:
Co = Apparent soil cohesion (kPa)
c
'
= Effective soil cohesion (kPa)
<t> = Apparent angle of internal friction (°)
<t> = Effective angle of internal friction (°)
Z = Apparent geotextile tensile strength (N)
ZB = Actual geotextile tensile strength (N)
n
E po + (Pk + T • hk) • t
K
</>, I
k g ^o • t
K ak J <>"> ak
n
E (p k + T . hk) • A xk . sin ak - Zo k
• cos ak
k = 1
13-3
Al**
Fr?m ?o\y*e.\1 .
1*101
! ! I I I I I
| p
r
1 * i t i I 1 +
-Jf-
'/•',- "
-h— -+-
taining wall
A 15
Fro* \W-H ,1131
•a
1
o §
CD
1— 1
"1
ol
in I
r~ 1
*
oil
4 V
>>r\
'°
•V
l c
° \\\
© \\\
S
l/»l\\
J;
^s. £
^ n .£
^0^ 8\\
X
*
*J/\^
^v "A
\ kN 8
ho
X
V 8
1
"3
1
. oTT^~
\N ^\ « c
-J
2
a
1
^ 1
\
x> ^'1
V. 2ls
1 <
^ - ^ r4 O* M5 m 5 CM
•-
>0
•-
O
fsl ? ? a s
r »- «C i/-i i- 4 o -< > n-s .» OD C-J -O
Jp
•
-o —
' O" —
» _)
y •SO 5 1/5
.-
o o
i » °
1) .
e
o •s s i
1 o
5 -
S."
O --9.
A 16
Ingold, 1982
face
2. Yes
3. Horizontally
b. phi only
installation procedure.
A 17
Session 4C: Slopes and Embankments II Second International Conference of Geotextiles,
Las Vegas, U.S.A.
460
685
AIB
Session 4C: Slopes and Embankments II Second International Conference of Geotextiles,
Las Vegas, U.S.A.
= ^iwq-r^tancvm^] (4)
Fo
I Wsina
where
1/m =seca / ( 1 -i-tan* '
tand )
do =
40 50 60 70 80 AF = F-F m /m (5)
o a ao
Slope Angle 3 (Degrees)
Having determined a value of AF for a particular slip
Fie 3 Infinite Slope Analysis Results circle the next step is to determine what reinforcement
is necessary to fulfill this requirement. This might be
assessed on a trial and error basis by assuming that the
slip surface parallel to the slope batter at a depth S horizontal reinforcement generates a restoring moment
below the slope surface of a dry cohesionless fill. AM which is the sum of the product of the individual
Limiting consideration initially to the stability of the tensile force developed in each reinforcing layer and its
soil mass of weight W contained by two consecutive rein- lever arm about the centre of the slip circle under
forcements and the slip surface, the hatched area in consideration. That is AM=lTRcosa/F„ where F„ is the ,
Figure 8, the disturbing force is WsinB. For a soil of factor of safety against tensile failure of the rein-
unit weight Y then W=YS 2 cotS. For deeper slip surfaces forcement. The arrangement for a single layer of rein-
this weight would increase. Restricting the depths of forcement is shown in Figure 10. Contrary to the assump-
slip surface investigated to multiples of the reinforce- tions of Binquet and Lee (22) the mobilised reinforcing
ment spacing S then in general W=nYS 2 cot£ giving rise to force, T/F R for each reinforcement, is assumed to act
a disturbing force nyS'cosS. Restoring forces will be horizontally rather than tangent ially This assumption .
{ 1 T tan$
n^S 2 tanS (3)
The circular slip analysis developed by Bishop (21) has Fig. 10. Circular Slip Analysis
686
Al^
Session 4C: Slopes and Embankments II Second International Conference of Geotextiles,
Las Vegas, U.S.A.
out force. Tbe factor of safety against pull-out or assuming a required final factor of safety, F, of 2.
tensile failure may be set at some arbitrary valuejiowe-
ver, this does not mean that the Maximum value of factor Table 1. Analytical Results
of safety of the reinforced fill embankment per se is
limited to this same value. Obviously the greater the D/H P Q Fo AF yAf,h N F
amount of reinforcement with a chosen local factor of 10.0 1 . 11 1.05 3.00 7.0 3.61
safety, the greater the global factor of safety becomes .
The proposed design method is based on the phi losophy For the required value of S=60° Figure 11 is entered for
presented in the preceding section, namely, to determine D/H=0 whence a value of yAF/N =3.00 is obtained. This
what reinforcement is required to obtain a specified is repeated for D/H=0. 25and 0. 50 to render values of 1.72
factor of safety F for the reinforced fill embankment. and 1.04 respectively.
Some indication of a simple approach was given by an
initial series of dimensionless analyses which showed Knowing the required values of AF the unit weight of ,
that, for a slip circle and slope of given geometry and soil, Y, and remembering that T/F„=H 2 which in this ,
soil properties, the restoring force, IT, for a given case is lOOkN m it is possible to evaluate N from the
,
factor of safety varies in inverse proportion to the respective pairs of values of yAF/N and AF Table 1 .
largest lever arm and is therefore the most efficient. primary reinforcement is to be restricted to the lower
The material of the embankment was assumed to have weight third of the embankment the required spacing is 10X3x11)
but no shear strength thus the resulting calculated =0 3m
. Using this reinforcement the embankment was re-
.
factor of safety could be attributed to the reinforce- analysed using an adapted Bishop routine method which
ment alone and is in fact the value AF cited earlier. incorporates the effects of the reinforcement This re- .
By running a parallel series of analyses for unrein- sulted in values of final factor of safety F shown in
forced embankments of the same geometry but with fill the last column of Table 1. As would be expected the
material having finite strength it was possible to de- reinforcement requirement derived from the design chart
fine pairs of values of AF and critical values of F .
renders high factors of safety for D,H values of zero
These particular values of AF for given values of D/H
,
and 0.25, however, for the most critical case occuring
as defined in Figure 11 have been plotted in the nor- at D/H=0.50 the recalculated value of 2.12 is very close
malised form of yAF/N against slope angle 8 in Figure 11. to the required value of two.
The use of tbe design chart can be illustrated through The above analysis has only considered primary rein-
the example shown in Figure 12. The embankment was forcement, namely that distributed in the lower third of
first analysed unreinforced for a range of values of P,
the embankment and as such does not guard against more
Q and D/H. This led to the minimum value* of F and superficial failures that can occur in the upper two-
consequently the AF values indicated in Table 1. In thirds of the embankment. This can obviously be guarded
this particular case the value of AF has been calculated against by the introduction of appropriate reinforcement.
It is useful at this stage to invoke the relationship
between tensile strength and the effective embankment
5 height, H', defined in equation (7). On this basis the
reinforcement spacing may be maintained at 0.3m but the
strength reduced. Bearing in mind that the above case
need only be analysed for D/H' of zero the strength
40- should be reduced from that determined for the original
.ID.'.
D/H value of zero, namely (7x100) /12=58kN/ro Thus the .
20-
10-
^ ___ 25
50
• IRQ)
0'=
C"
tf =
r„»
35°
20kN/m s
1 W?
H=l0m
/v8=60°
<WN^ '- '
45 60 75 90 0'=25c , C'« 0, S=20kN/m? r„ = 25
Slope Angle /9*
687
A^-O
Tensar, 1968
2. Yes
3. Horizontally
b. phi only
A2-1
Fcor* T-AS^f ,
\°\8&
W=Soil Weight
N= Normal Force on Failure Plane
Failure Plane
S= Shear Resistance on
p =|nterslice Force
Friction
6 = Angle of Interstice
Geogrid Tensile Force
T horizontal
FIGURE 1
WEDGE ANALYSIS
DIAGRAM OF TWO PART
Aaz
r
INTERMEDIATE
REINFORCEMENT-
(TYR)
PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT
(TYR)
12" 1
MAXIMUM —L
TYPICAL —
;mm^ ^^^^^^
A. INTERMEDIATE REINFORCEMENT
TEMPORARY FORM
GEOGRID LAYER
(TYP.)
y//,^y^A^>><<^
777ZfS&Z&$&
B. WRAP-AROUND CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 9
CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES FOR
SLOPE FACE PROTECTION
AZ5
Jewel 1 et al .
, 1984
1. Bi-linear wedge
2. Yes
3. Horizontally
b. phi only
AZ^f
-..— ^ -^ Mi nrfrrtw :^sa
JEWELL ET AL •^94
;
c' =
0.50
y H Y Z
0.8 J . O"
20
2.R
0.7 25
X
\
•J
20
2.6-
30 4J
0.6 35
H
01
01
2.4- H
40 x:
O^
Ql 01 c
a ro
0.5 0) o
c
i-H t-t
2.2" o
D> n
c
ro
\
.c 4J
4J u
C o> 2.0-
0.4 c 25
H 0)
•u ^H
o
H 4J
u c 1.8- 1 o
0.3 M 0) en
^H 1
H u
O >-l
W 1.6"
U-l
30
c
0.2 -H
(1)
OS 1.4
0.1 35
1.2 -
40
1 .0
30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80
Slope angle 6 Slope angle 8
3. Determine earth pressure coefficient K and length of reinforcement L from the charts
4. Choose "in soil" design strength properties for the reinforcement and
an overall factor of safety
6. Choose a minimum vertical reinforcement spacing and the spacing constant Q=P/Kyv
7. Perform tabular calculation for the number and spacing of reinforcement layers
80
Ai5
miiu ^m m i * fern tmmismKmssmsast jdm
Yro*~ Te.we.ll ^-"1" °^* »
1^0^ tMBANKMENTS
c' = u =
y H Y z
15 =14,
X 1.4
\
J
0.5 P
o» 1.2-
20 » "J
K <u .c
25 m
C
^V)
c
(0
•h j= 0. 8- c
S 0.3 4J 4J
o 25
0) 30 g.
4J
CJ M 01
QJ
3
H)
i
u
0.2 .
35
/in
40
h
W°
H 0.6-
£
«
e
g 0.4"
T/^ -
30
35
40
5
u
"«
-h
•H
o
a
| 0.1
o
14-1
5 0.2.
01
hy w
^^ i
u IT /
i i i 1— r
3( 3 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 8C
Slope angle e Slope angle 6
0.6 20
X
25 •J
0.5
x; 1.8.
CP
30 Q. -H
CO
J=
.-t
0.4 35 o> 01 1 6 - <Sl
c a 20
(0 o CD
4n c
.-i —1
en CT
o
•H
\ 1.4" c
JZ a
0.3 4J p
&> c
•H c
M
<u
01
rH
H
*J
1.2" O
.-1 4J iH
0.2 •H c ?5 h
0) l«
w E 1 -
0) •-<
o -H
u n
0.1 o 30 w
>w
c 35
U o .
-
0)
40
0.6
50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80
Slope angle B Slope angle B
79
A^G
fcai^Mitt^M^aattHttahteHrtito^^ .
charts have been devised for the following Pore water oressure
s, Fig. 5
M
rife
Uniform slope with a horizontal Fig. 5. Definitions for the slope cases examined
crest
are three main steps in the chart dpsign Fig 6. Definitions for two-part wedge mechanisms
dure.
73
A27
.
Bonaparte et al . , 1987
2. Yes
Schmertmann et al
width test.
simplified approach.
A2g
fro**- ^o^dpafX^ e~\ ol, \^ 3~7
Reinforcement rupture
Failure surface
pullout.
a.
REINFORCEMENT
M T -T-lRcos<0 -0))
<0<$
REINFORCEMENT
MT- T
p
R » T n tan 0'- R
—
FIG. 16 Stabilizing moment lM r l due to reinforcement force (a) reinforcement force assumed to act as
an tndeDendent free-hodv force which does not effect soil strpnvth nr {hi rpinfnrcement force assumed to
MPi
.
X) o
c
« o
z _o ^ <
1. i
n
g o >> 01
2. ^ .0 &
S- -*
"" .Si
u j= . 3
o JC *- -^ c
o ° c
c
c dO «C w
c
^ ,
2 |i Q..2
="
.
•»
<-
s-
-i
">
"*" ci _>>
—O -o * -j
ft **
to c -o : C
c o « V- 3
"2 .SP
T3 c
"> «J ci *•
E <" c 3 4> a - II
1!
CI cr C.-S
ci
E vi = 2 -«
01
JO w
e°£ c u 3 S 5?*
« V S
l>
o VI
*-
(^ —01
« ^5-
o
CO
1? "S B
n. ™ i> c Ci
vi
vi jt-3 • ion ill.
3 •D
—
8 O 1 »s
, II c JO v is cn
u
or-
«a c >,
'•5
unifo PI 1
X) ci UJ - S 5
oi c c JO -1
oo ^•?|
tier
UJ
— u.
>-.
n
00 n
(A
Cl ."5
'>
'5
2
m
), loading
z
<
!s S ?
«.V.«<i
r-
K X> aE c
v
>
o u ci
\
-7
H
oo /or
< C at UJ or/ mi
a.
ci
> ii
<-- CL c
n
j<
^- JZ
a 0. * a C
< | JC u ci
u vi o- a
O <J C i.
z E Cl V c *v> 3
_j
(0
c b
SP^-Si
"-
o e
u
a.
_o
'5 Of:
c
JO
2 uci "O v ? * s
CD
o
7 v> V
t
3
V)
_01
5
j2 -c
*> a ~ =
VI
<*- TJ 3 3 E 01 VI u — e -o
Ci
o O a c ac -3 o. v
8 '5 u E Cj - -c E S
o V)
O
*--
y*
c
_4>
ft w
'vi
VI
VI
"3 c ci ra c c E
ci
o X c u - E >o a s
c
n
m
x:
or, t>-
V
L.
o
E c
CS
u.
E
E
a
_a>
JO
E
ci
o
u *—
3 'E
V)
>l 'iN3IOIdd300 30d0d
;^
c s J= a. c o_ O cfl Si. S. e
Cl
F .0. 00
3 u 3 c
5 L.
a. * n C
S^"
3 x c 01
l.
i-
ft)
00
1
^
ii
jo u jo V
u
II
<L> (Q
i< .-a;
c
Cl
X 8
a
h| o.?-=
*
o c a C -o
e t, .- t.
£
ci •
-o
.S" b v "3 I/) **- Cl 'N .=
n E e is
u c « -^ = E TO 'Z
a * £ =3 3 V "O
N OO
C .2
o t E o °
L. Cl ? =5
^ - p a
._
£ te S N 2 o 3 n
E
3 if
—
= 3
v
"o ,_
Cl "
o
Ci
VI
V * js o
2 E -2 V) Cl
-— 00
O V)
u —
„ _
'
**"
JO 00 J= " .E "O £
oo =
1>
"5
_^>
*t • j= "o
< '5
e ci — .8 £ b -g
111
s c • a
II
2 .! j2 <T Z * fit o
g u. £ *
> C 00 ."2 .
* £ 32 ID
^Z
— L.
jo' £ - * o a 9 5."° E t P
c vi o 1*8 (8 Q. Cl Ci — vi 2 <« Hi JO n fi C J K
3 Cl
,
_
H >
<«
C VI
E JO " oo Ci •
C n c «
E "B r
! B-l
cl so -2P
i-i JO vi
S B w
•s . «
ci i/i
u
C
1>
CL
o
n >Z
C
B
JO
"
I 111
n n ,g v
8 a It
O 3 " £
S « ST § CL
o ^ —
g-2 ^r o ci vi
E 53 C fi "B g •E « jo >.
g-S-3 « 3 H n
— 3 * u E:S
fi
ci —
v, e •
5
o
•*
— g c 2 C -a tl I — vi n
*» E oo
,
E Ci — Cl
U O c
_ <« N C u ° 3 E — c ci
• _ oc if
B t*
L. ^ V)
vi
vi
^. —C E 0-6^
S
J=
c I E
u
v)
V) OO
« i- a
c ^
=*> n S i5 U
III „
oo •2'g O £ - ? o
.5 -c b 2 E
JO o vi n sn * Eci _* a:
iojO «i5 < 1
P Sou > t* TO T
£ Ji B C
- - I '5
C vi
E
S.
_0
Ci
n d 3
T3
a. jo fi
"= - s
-
E
C ^ 7 ci
nil
'C = O B
!<
ci
<« .t:
'J= o o -z o o s « 1/5
r; jo jo .5 ~
*» —o =
P3
y j=
o jo o I s ci .
— Ci Cl
JO
ac 3 "= B E
C vi B 73 >
ci * '5 "B
-
C ra c II l.
_n 5 o -c
2 S n 3 ci
2 8
v;
B
B
— B- =« ~
.a -a c c Ci e v E 00 Ci
o
jo n o 5 3 C>
•- li U i_ II c o o e fi{S
~ H —
« > j: o s s ci
v
JO r^
-
E
3
VI
Cl
| i'S •— u
VI
O u. Cl
O <» „
J= (J
v fi O
-
S ~ "
E t5
6-
— 5
Ci
c >
r = bc00 -
.
T3 t:
2 -& .2 o 5 E t.= J
£ B g n^> U 5 **
I 2 I
'
n «J
o v E- o j= « 5 e CL 3 '
e 5 11 n c I
B *
j5 11
*"
n V c 8 as 3 "5 vi n 8 T3 E E
CI
C vi « -
1 Ci
o o c > c — c S « o S
c w> i
en
vi
—
3
vi
ci O OO "B £• E = §
n X
Cl
11 C '3 1
"B *- 'T
e
.33
« C Ci .E Z n
* c Ci E -b
JO
E I b-
-
a -a
'S i li C Cl
0 V) LU 5 E
Cl
~ .Eu Z
3
Cl -a Qi fi
5 B *- = . "O oo VI u
2
vi
o s E jz n
a c
e Q 8 = B* Cl
Cl
n £ x>'
c
o
3 JO
CL
Cl ^
f° It 1 b
u 5
^^ n
£ B
s 1
—
•JO
ci
00
c .•= u
D.
© 6 ^3 r
£^ § £c n Ci • v>
o. E a 5
Cl
C _ > o
3 k t <C "
B H
fi E -^
3
Cu T5 Si
I n a i cr ci Cl V)
s?- o O -- n
2
8 |
a.
5"
£ C = •so
o -
E o
£
- Cl
E S
e
Cl S -£ ° ^ 3
.E
o .S E ^5 Cl —
a JOw JO
^ =
Cl ££0 2n S st
ci
X
c
n
n
JO
Cl
^ 5
-
>
3
» u
ci
•— n
(I
A3£>
- Z re 11
at n i>
're
V -n a.
u re C^ c a.
-c D. ^1
u o at
U re c
S«J c.
re
re
"re re
re
11
u C u Of, 3 a
o c a 1
c:
c n n s
r M
ii u
.».
c c n re
re
o 2
~ s 11 '->
n U. a. ^)
&
_o <s
c vj
-o Im
a. <
Iff u u c u re
11
c 0/ u 3 re re JL.
ID o 13 o
Cl 1/5 o B
C
n
u
Du a 01
u c
H B 3 an
.s\S o c
E oV u D- re
n c at 01
Ii
re
o C C 11 E X
L. E o i-
c n o "re
C n
at
c 3 LL.
XI
c
'J/
o
o
ac c
c n li c
•3 c 11 re re re
u re
•o 3
o 11 u E
-*:
X •-
^ re
B
X
re
n Xn 3 11
O
c
ui
5 _c p 41
V.
re
-i E p X, E
^ u o "re
o
to
o "re 00
C
at -o
z
< C*«l ^ £ i>
_C X
n 3 re
ll
n X) o
111 E c re x: re _11
0.
2 C wi o re
o "re c re
> </i
i^
C
1) 01 11
ii
•D
re
o
o; re _>-, c re 11
O "re a.
a 3 re
ii Xl
|
C X
It
5
u
u a re
o 'Co re i
.Oc
v > n 11
u u E a
3 U E
Q c
t-
re
X re "re
S .2 " JC F re
CL "H S" t/;
(^
C c
a
.3 i>
t>
r o
1 Cl
"3 1/
n
H o re
X- 11 3
(.HH) OUVH H10N3T iN3«30aOdNI3b 5 13 a. _>.
re
a '5
11 >>>
c
i u M
11 o n
Is u
e
c n X
JB i- re
o
c o v n re
| | Uu E 3 b.
5 o
1)
o
C o CL
^ X
X> a.
OS c *•- re (^ re
E E —
13
T5 TS
T3 O E
O 1) w = — W
L- flj
3 3
*- JE — U
aw p F B
at
5 E — E JC - "z Z' * o X
o •
at c
1 .2 XT
5O - ° — xw — e
'Z
n _« Lm r re
•< * o . •- jO — Ll
cc C
Cl Cl c n °"
O C ^ a. II
11
m
t-
n at
B Cl e
Hi at
S I -
i^ u u re re
E
tf] o-
J
X "ti
X TJ
u
L.
re
'•c
.2
re > re E
° S x 5. o
L. c **
11
*-
n S L.
u 3 ™
Si «
« w 2 °S
1) at
3 C B u "" re w "s
re
re
>
at
L.
B X'
"3 ^3
11
n u
'G
E ~ * 3 S n s
F re Si re
>
3 C
re
X
u X3
11
> T3 H J= n
o n CL — h -5 P = £ E dw2
a -
C or Im
11
.a Cl u Cl *° 5 = Z D. '5; e
n N
L.
u 3
ft
'u
re
B
11 TJ
H
11
.3. -a .= -a E S
J=
< >> ii
Xo X X
ISt
u X L. E _;
13
11
Cl
_o
re
11
E
u
o
x:
'5 c
'C
c
" E R « «= ii II
a — o
L.
CL
H c x> L.
C o. X g.
k.
'5 n X) •o c
u
o
11
E
11
11
re
> *; re
£ Cl
E
c cr 9 x So S Ji- oc re
cr 3
11 — — £.-
X
T3 '7i o 3 0^
11
o 3
2: at * E W ,2 B «i O
LU
>»
r
e
£
re
ll
•S * >- — 3 -o LU £ c e |
C
.li
E
(- ° 5 c
-
<-* w x
S5
"
« X E
iire
E Clj;
.a i>
re
3
3 X
c = : "ii E *! _ — ^ U
3
!C
3
E x: E
E
2 * •=-
a:
.
Cl O a e
11
o * E o. © O *" H
11 + S 'J- E
u ^ B £
-
= B II
c
4 If § £ -E E «.
=
ai
-5
** LUxl °^ o p E £ E B E L Mr S'g
E w O T5
i: x
ti —
1
Cl £— "2 E *- E
>> _ © 3 £ ti — E
E
J!
S
« ^ ii ^
"3 </>
Sg£c*3 u. re C
a 3 •5
00
°
C
g * re >
v2 B 3 Cl
o.
o
o * S ts « 1 II B
o g £
u O *"
L. X
13 •&
clE cr
u "o
E g.
T3
c* x:
O 3
cr X w —
g B 2 x —
o S J2
i - £o g II c E «- i
O £
3
cr "S'E
U atuu i
ii
3 CO 3 60 g
B
Te Cl >-,
c o
U XI EX E _
u
x: x:
— 11
3 X
E E *O Z »s O «
M _
F.I E n
io
Z 42 13 > C -5 m
IiD
o
3^i £
11
o o H >— o
>, B
L* E o -- U
x:
1 ^ - x .i: 3
— re
_• H x v
~^ ._
z Xin Xu c
re
1-
— 3 "o —
u L.
u
O :
e * re
5 -o
E
e a
- i>
X •"
ii & s a =
n
-=
x> * C to <N — Q. — c/i
x:
at
re
L.
J2 E u
R £?x
a. l? S E o
on *- E 3 w n
^
LU
_o >S £* B f
O
g-s i/l
_ii
o
<J
ii
j-
3
E
E
O
X on
L^
a—
re re
.2 o L- o 2*8- « ob §
w « Ji « J! >, F
_J
n
x:
00
.2fX ^ CL
Cl u u "S
E X!
E c (8
Cl
3 E •£, *« s _^ S o Cl —
3-,
M - IT
Vsii x>
.at)
3 n "re C
x H X ?
N ^* I g- O — >
h-
X.
UJ
-
o c
D. 11
X
f~
•1
5 |
LU c
to
cr >>
*. iS
13
c
= c
s
o
U
>>
x;
"
'Ii 'C
£ J re
> E
E
ou
-1
-J
re
c
L.
XH 13 ~ E
& '
ft!
'
.. O Q.
s « .. « z:2
c
-C — u
E
L-
!'E 3or E
1^
O > 3 > -^ O LZ E E E
Ore — - L- ug
,S 13
3 *
LU B 'at O C
3
3 O 3 n _11 u XU C 11 41
o ? ^
E
D O rC
(0 O"
(0 o £ c •9-3 o x
£ B g
Cl C
II II u 11
X » « o x2 « ^ Cl J5
o o
T3 E 11 11 c w - c oo ^ E E
11
Q.
E 5. Cl 2 i u ^" < J= j<: 11
^_
z.
C *e
—3 C " u
l.P ere "O
«.
E
""
ii =u
CT o Cl O 11 11
xo
JB u_
o.* p .2 "5 JZ J. Z X X> re i2 E £ o
A3 I
.
1 Circular
2. Yes
3. Horizontally or tangential
4. a. Geotextile or geogrid
b. c and phi
A 32
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
J.R. VERDUIN
Hart-Crowser, Inc., U.S.A.
R.D. HOLTZ
University of Washington, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
into account. Any convenient method of analysis of the unreinforced slope can be used as long as the
coordinates of the slip circle and the safety factor of the unreinforced mass are known. Conventional
construction practices including site location, foundation stability, geosynthetic spacing, and project
budget can be appropriately considered. Three reinforcement conditions are possible: 1) equal
number and strengths of reinforcement layers in the top and bottom portions of the slope; 2) different
number and strengths of reinforcement in the top and bottom of the slope, and 3) an equal number
but different strength reinforcement layers in the top and bottom of the slope. Design for both
sliding and pullout are considered. The design procedure can easily be programmed. An example
problem is presented.
INTRODUCTION
The stability of unreinforced slopes is generally controlled by the shear strength of the soil in
the slope and the slope angle. Slopes of cohesionless materials are usually stable up to slope angles of
30° to 35°, while the maximum stable slope for compacted cohesive soils is typically 26°. If designs
require steeper slopes, then reinforcement is needed.
This paper describes a simple slope reinforcement design procedure, in which multiple layers
of geosynthetic reinforcement are used to increase the stability of potentially unstable
new construction or for the reparation of failed slopes.
279
A^2.
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
Scope
'
"
Rei
t^T
Variable
C ° nSiSt
impractical-
When geosynthetically reinforced slopes fail,
they' mainly do so in their lower
third f3V and
n nd
sC J , T
JeCt bUd 8etS ften 3ffeCt the
°
slope geometry and soil conditions ,
-inforcement select ionTmuc as^he
at the site.
required^teK
requirea tor overall stability,
***"
determinin * '> actional tensile force
2) geosynthetic tensile strength required
reinforcement length required to resist by each laver
V and *n}
'
pullout.
DESIGN PROCEDURE
st^f^
S.^: h
S " ng
siope
m ° ment
- * ^™iKir^
0f the cri,ical siidi
"e ™»»- The first two items can
:
B ,n
,rc.s !,ts; ^
teS
, ,,ip
obtained r
fto m common
'
siope stabiH.y anaiyses, and ft, las,
item can be obS
d uL'g' g^phicai
FS'M D
ET = *
FS R (1)
280
A34-
N
Geosyn the tics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
is This equation neglects any resistance the geosynthetic may provide normal to the slip
given in (12).
surface. As shown in Fig. 1, the increase in normal force along the slip surface produced by the
geosynthetic is T sin a while the tangential force is T cos a, where T is the geosynthetic tensile force.
— T
Tn - Tsin a
Geosynthetic Geosynthetic
X
a)Tangential
b) Horizontal (a = 0)
281
A35
—
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
To evaluate the effect of a possible increase in normal stress on the potential slip surface, two
extremes of geosynthetic force orientation are shown in Fig. 2; they range from tangential to the slip
surface (a > 0) to horizontal (a = 0). The assumption of a tangential geosynthetic force produces the
lowest tensile forces required for stability, while assuming the geosynthetic force to be horizontal will
produce the highest force. For example, Humphrey (5J assumed that the geosynthetic provides only a
resisting moment or force and does not increase the normal stresses on the slip surface. On the other
hand, Jewell (£), Murray (9), Schneider and Holtz (JJ_), and Schmertmann, et al. ( 10) considered the
increase in normal stress on this surface. In fact, Schmertmann, et al. (10) arbitrarily assumed that
the geosynthetic force is inclined at 0.25a. Bonaparte and Christopher (2) concluded that "the
orientation of the reinforcement at failure will depend on a number of factors including the load-
deformation characteristics of the reinforcement, its flexural rigidity, and the stress-strain
characteristics of the embankment-foundation system." Accurately determining these factors is
beyond the scope of this paper. Because no information exists as to the actual inclination in the field,
we have assumed the geosynthetic force to be horizontal and acting in the plane of the geosynthetic.
This assumption produces the most conservative value of the force.
To account for the increase in normal stress produced by the geosynthetic, the total tensile
force in Eq. 1 was modified as follows:
When a is 45° or greater, it is assumed that the normal force equals the tangential force. This
assumption becomes more conservative as a increases, because sin a > cos a for a > 45°. Two other
ranges for a [a < 25° and 25° < a < 45°] and their corresponding total tensile force modifications are
similarly defined below. These ranges are arbitrary but conservative. Equation 2 gives these
modifications to the total tensile force.
ET
For a > 45°: ET' = (2a)
1 + tan^
ET
For 25° < a < 45°: ET' = (2b)
1 + 0.5 tan^
ET
For o < 25° : ET' = (2c)
1 + 0.35 tan#
The actual a value depends on the location of the critical surface and slope geometry or
a = cos -i,
!
(
V
9
H/3
R
)
where YQ « the vertical distance between the centroid of the critical slip surface and the bottom of
the slope (y in Fig 3).
Qb
With the knowledge of the additional tensile force needed for stability, the individual
geosynthetic strengths can now be determined. In order to give maximum flexibility, three different
reinforcing options are available. The first allocates the same geosynthetic spacing and strength
throughout the slope. Option No. 2 enables the designer to control both the geosynthetic spacing as
well as the strength in the upper and lower halves of the slope. In the third option the geosynthetic
spacing is constant throughout, but the designer can select different strength geosynthetics in the top
and bottom portions of the slope.
282
A3£
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
The geosynthetic strengths required in the upper layers (T^ and in the lower layers (T^) of the
slope are determined by Eqs. 3 and 4, respectively. Each equation is modified accordingly for the
three options.
(1 - Percent)(£T)(R)
Tu « (3)
nfl (y ) -
t ot
d t [E(nfl t )]
(Percent)(ET')(R)
T l~ (4)
nf yy b> "
d
JE < nfl b>l
- Y - H/2
y ob = Yo
Option One - Same Spacing and Strengths: - If the designer finds that only one geosynthetic
type and spacing will be the most practical, Eq. 4 is used with the following modifications:
where T^ in Eq. 4 is the geosynthetic strength for all the layers, and n = H/d. (rounding up to next
whole number).
283
A37
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
Option Two - Different Spacings and Strengths: - If the slope is higher than 10 to 15 m, it
There are two different lift thicknesses, one in the top half of the slope (d ) and one in the bottom
t
half (d
fe
). From a construction standpoint this is more practical than varying the geosynthetic spacing
continuously throughout the embankment. It is evident that the number of geosynthetic layers in the
bottom nfl equals the number of lifts in the bottom (n ), while the number of geosynthetic layers in
fc
the top (nfl ) equals one minus the number of lifts in the top (n ). Key relations include:
t t
<V d b - V n
b
- x
H
n
t
2(X)d
b
nfl = n ; nfl = n - 1
b b t t
The percent of total reinforcement force in the bottom half should range from 60% to 80%.
With more than amount, the top half may become unstable. Since cost is roughly proportional to
this
tensile strength, it is generally cost effective to have more, lower tensile strength geosynthetic layers
in the bottom, and fewer, higher tensile strength geosynthetic layers in the top. Sometimes
geosynthetic selection may be limited by availability or construction costs to only one type and
therefore one strength geosynthetic. For this situation, the percentage of reinforcement in the bottom
giving similar T and T^ values (Eqs. 3 and 4) should be used. The higher of the two strengths (T or
u u
T^) should be used for both.
Option Three - Same Spacings, Different Strengths: If the same geosynthetic spacing in both
the upper and lower halves of the slope but with different strengths is desired, the same procedure as
above is used with the following modifications:
d = d b' n t =
t
H /( 2d b )' and n b = n t
Often the calculated number of geosynthetic layers (nfl t and nfl b ) is not an integer. Then the
required strength per layer is determined using these fractional values in Eqs. 3 and 4. The number
of geosynthetic layers in the bottom is rounded up to the next whole number. After the geosynthetic
strengths and their respective spacings are determined, the reinforcement locations can now be final-
ized from the foundation up, as shown in Fig. 3. The thickness of soil at the very top of the slope
might be less than d in some cases, which is satisfactory unless it produces construction problems.
Depending on d short geosynthetic strips
, to 2 m long may be needed midway in the upper lifts to
1
help in compaction of the slope edges (see Fig. 3). The strength of these strips does not contribute to
stability.
2g4
A^8
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
In designing slope reinforcement, it is usually best that the reinforcement spacing be specified
to be at some convenient multiple of typical compaction lift thicknesses, say 150 mmto 300 mm,
which are appropriate for the backfill soil under consideration. When weaker geosynthetics are used,
smaller lift thicknesses may be selected; with stronger reinforcement, thicker spacings are generally
more economical, although they may require temporary support of the facing during construction.
Even with temporary supports, thicker lifts may be more economical overall because of reduced
construction time. The most economical designs should, of course, consider construction as well as
material costs.
The length of geosynthetic in the upper and lower portions of the slope is controlled by two
different conditions. The upper geosynthetic layers have to be sufficiently embedded into the slope
to ensure that sufficient resistance is mobilized to develop the required individual geosynthetic forces.
This is critical in the upper part of the slope, because the confining stress is less due to lower
overburden stress. On the other hand, the geosynthetic layers in the bottom of the slope have to be
long enough so that they produce enough resistance to prevent sliding. Schmertmann, et al. ( 10) use a
similar concept.
Mobilized Resistance
The procedure for determining geosynthetic lengths in the upper half of the slope considers
the length of geosynthetic required to mobilize the needed individual geosynthetic strengths. The
traditionalmodel (Fig. 4a) used for pullout length selection assumes that the mobilized resistance is
uniform and equal to 2r along the geosynthetic (4). This model requires either the same initial
uniform displacement at every point on the geosynthetic or large geosynthetic movements at all points
on the geosynthetic (approaching ultimate resistance). Because the geosynthetic is extensible and
confined, the magnitude of local movements at different points along the geosynthetic will probably
never be the same. Therefore, mobilized resistance will also never be the same, but will decrease
with distance from the critical slip surface.
Beech (JJ developed a procedure for predicting the pullout tension (which is a function of the
resistance) as a function of the geosynthetic displacement. Fig. 4b shows the model we used, which is
a generalization of the curves inBeech (i). It considers the mobilized shear strength to attenuate
linearlyfrom a maximum at the critical surface to zero at the end of the geosynthetic. Equation 5 is
derived by setting the area under the curve equal to the required individual geosynthetic strengths (T);
or
L = FS (5)
max
= maximum mobilized shear strength = a tan <j>
SG
285
A3=l
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
T Mobilized
i ,
1e2l max
^TOax
Geosynthetic
Le Length
a) Traditional Model
t Mobilized
i I
2tmax
t(L) = 2i max (1
-
Geosynthetic
Le Length
b) Proposed Model
286
/\i+o
Geo synthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
<f>
sc = soil-geosynthetic friction angle.
The factor of safety (FS) against pullout is required because of uncertainty in the maximum
mobilized shear strength. Selection of the safety factor, therefore, depends on the designer's
confidence in the value of this strength and how critical the slope is with respect to a potential
The soil-geosynthetic friction geosynthetic, and it can
SG is influenced by both the soil and
failure. <f>
be estimated from the literature (7;8). A geosynthetic with openings similar to the soil particle sizes
will have higher soil-geosynthetic friction values, while geosynthetics which do not interlock well will
obviously have lower friction.
287
A 4-1
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
Sliding Resistance
The geosynthetic layers lower in the slope should be analyzed for possible sliding. As seen in
Fig. 5, the model used for this analysis divides the slope into two blocks. The first block is an active
wedge, which pushes against the second wedge with a force P.. This force is assumed to act
horizontally. The second wedge offers resistance in the form of friction at the soil-geosynthetic in-
terface. By balancing the capacity and demand, geosynthetic length determination is computed by
Eqs. 6:
wt + surch - coh
e
1 + tantf tan(45 4>/2)
H tan<£
3UIWII mn - -
tan(45° + 4/2)
cL i H
coh
cos(45° + <f>/2) sin(45° + t/2)
r^PjFS H
L x (6a)
y-Ytan^tantfsQ tan£
If L > Lp
P.FS
L (6b)
H7tan* SG
lengths of intermediate geosynthetic layers are linearly interpolated between the length of
The
the bottommost layer (designed against sliding) and the length of the top layer (designed against
pullout).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The design procedure presented herein can easily be programmed for use on microcomputers
and a copy is available from the authors.
288
A 4-2
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
t
trSM.5):
:T= (1.5-l.73H25344Wb-ft)
0m W
(l.73)(IIS.7H) i
CO
• 25,?tt!bm-vidth 1
V. 1274pcf
H.«0ft
IT'» (25.MHbMt)
(l4.5tM34 s )
« 18911 lb/ft
Example Problem
• Option 1 it tied to find Tensile Strength required per layer.
Thf lift thickness rill be 3.1 leet («»):
T,= (l.l)(l89lllb/ft)(U5.7ft)
13(95. If t)-3ft(91)
•IWlb/in
I62ps!
•IBM
L«L.*l
«18ft»5ft
•23 It
«43.5ft
q - 840 psl
o Taper the lengths of the intermediate layers:
* * I I J.
Height Froi L (ft t
44.5 10 ft
1 3.l(
2 Mr 43.1 170 lb/in
3 9.1! 41.1
4 12. If 39.1
5 15.lt 37.5
( IB. If 35.5
7 21. If 34.1
1 24.lt 32.1
! 27.lt 3C 1
ir 3f.ll 28.5 Example Problem
ii 3;.n 26.5
i: 3'. II n.t
; 3J •* » »
289
A k-3
Geosynthetics '89 Conference
San Diego, USA
REFERENCES
(2) Bonaparte, R., and Christopher, B. R., "Design and Construction of Reinforced
Embankments over Weak Foundations," Transportation Research Record 1153, pp.
26-39.
(4) Christopher, B. R., and Holtz, R. D., Geotextile Engineering Manual . FHWA,
Washington D.C., 1985, 1044 pp.
(6J Jewell, R. A., "A Computer Design Method for Equilibrium Soil Structures Using
Limit Equilibrium Analysis," Report prepared by Binnie and Partners, London, for
Netlon, Ltd., 1981, 6 pp.
(7J Koerner, R. M., Designing with Geosynthetics Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
.
(8J Martin, J. P., Koerner, R. M., and Whitty, J. E., "Experimental Friction Evaluation
of Slippage between Geomembranes, Geotextiles and Soils," Proceedings of the
International Conference on Geomembrances Denver, 1984, Vol. 1, pp. 191-196.
.
( 10) Schmertmann, G. R., Chouery-Curtis, V. E., Johnson, D. D., and Bonaparte, R.,
"Design Charts for Geogrid-Reinforced Soil Slopes," Proceedings of Geosynthetics
!8_7, New Orleans, 1987, pp. 108-120.
Ql) Scheider, H. R., and Holtz, R. D., "Design of Slopes Reinforced with Geotextiles
and Geogrids," Geotextiles and Geomembranes No. 3, 1986, pp. 29-51.
.
290
A^4-
.
2. Yes
b. phi only
composite structure.
face
A^5
fTo^. L^sKcWv^^^y &.r.c\. Y-vff ,
I v'^7
'(Xc.Yc)
(b)
WvVAW/^'
^jgEE
A^&
. . .
embedment length of the geotextile at the bottom -- see Fig. 3. The condition in eq.
(4c) (i.e., i e . < i e ) can exist only when ^ F > 4>
(d/2m) j \ 1 + 8mHi e /d 2 - 1 I only for m < » and (mi a /2) <. (H-d)
For each problem, the longest i a should be selected. Notice that a minimal
value of a -3 ft., adopted from Steward et al
-2 (12), should ease construction and, .
A 4-7
.
14. Compute i=L»H where £ defines the location at which the potential slip surface
intersects the crest.
15. Based on eq. (6) select the geotextile re-embedment length i a at the wall face-
-see Fig. 3.
16. Determine the required length of each geotextile sheet j i e +i+d+i a +(H-y-j )/m. :
For geotextile j=l use i ei rather than £ e Add one foot as tolerance permitting
.
above) yields tj-27(H-yj )i e tan(0 67<£) i.e., tj is controlled and, in fact, is equal
. ;
the margin of safety then is solely contributed by the geotextile tensile resistance.
This margin of safety is defined as
F - t./t m . (7)
charts, assuming that a preliminary design, based on F s has been carried out: ,
4. Compute the required tensile resistance of the geotextile sheet at the toe
elevation ti~FgT mi 7H 2 /n.
5. Calculate the required tensile resistance of all other geotextile sheets
using eq. (1); i.e., tj-t 1 (H-yj )/H.
6. Compare tj for all n sneets with those obtained based on a prescribed F s in
the previous section. If tj here is smaller, take the previous tj for
103
A48
Session IB: Slopes and Walls Geosynthetic '87 Conference
Ftoy^ Lesk^Kvv\«sky ct*ViM Perry, 1^07 New Orleans, USA
(a)
—n— — —n— — — — —n— — — — —r-r
t i I i i I i i | I i
59
!«;
t
-
-
.
"»
-,
f— .
'».
'
\
"
r !
L o
/ )
WouX
J_L_L '''' i i i i I i i i
/^ i / i
oo CO ro CM o
d d d d Ul
d d O o
(b)
50 100
104
AVI
) . .
design and skip to the next step. If it is larger than the previously
required, select the proper geotextiles based on the recommendations in the
last section. In case the specified geotextile tensile strength is exces-
sively high, incease the number of geotextile sheets n and return to step 4.
Regardless of the conclusion in step 6, in steps 7 and 8 use t^ as computed
in step 4. Use eq. (4) to compute the required length of the restraining
zone i e and i ei .
8 Compute A T(£-(nti)/(F g 7H'i tan £) Notice that t^/F g is used here, whereas
1 .
a spacing of d-1 ft. Computing m gives <£ m-tan_I ( tan 35°)/l. 5]-25°
<f>
For m-» and [ .
<£ m -25°, it follows from Fig. 6a that T m -0.35. For a spacing of d-1 ft., the number
of required geotextile sheets is n-H/d-iO/1-10 sheets. Hence, the required tensile
resistance of the geotextile sheet at the toe elevation is t^-T mi F s 7H^/n -
0.35*1. 5» 120«(10) 2 /10-630 lb. per foot width. Using the equation tj-txCH-yj )/H,
where yj is zero at the toe and H at the crest, one can calculate the required
tensile resistance of each geotextile sheet:
Geotextile # ( j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
tj [lb/ft] 630 567 504 441 378 315 252 189 126 63
Now, a geotextile can be selected based on the recommendations. If only one type of
geotextile is to be used, t^ should be the key value for selecting this type. If,
however, geotextiles with decreasing strength properties are preferred, take the
maximum tj for each cluster of homogeneous geotextiles as the key value.
The required length of the restraining zone, so that t^ can realize without
pullout, should be calculated based on eq. (4); i.e.,
For all practical purposes a uniform value of ie equals one foot can be selected.
105
£orcemetvt
rexn otex tU
e '
Slope
design »*V£
rxds
and S eo S
The sic
S41861 Setser
c.l Slope reinforcement
df.sign using geotextiles
and geogrids.