Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Earth Retention Solutions for

Infrastructure Development
Jimmy Thomas. Techfab (India) Industries Ltd., Mumbai, India. j.thomas@techfabindia.com

ABSTRACT
Geosynthetic reinforced soil walls and slopes are one of the most economic solutions for retaining fills.
This paper presents a critical review of various aspects of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls and slopes.
The limiting face inclination which differentiates walls from slopes is examined with respect to various
codes and guidelines. The basic similarities and differences in the mechanics of walls and slopes are
highlighted. The relative advantages and limitations of both techniques are brought out. The salient
features of the commonly used design methods are summarized. The major advantages of using a
reinforced soil steep slope over a reinforced soil wall including cost savings in geosynthetic
reinforcement, facing and fill are highlighted. The roles of facing in reinforced walls and slopes are
compared and the difficulties associated with face stabilization and protection of reinforced steep slopes
are discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION

Many infrastructure projects like construction of bridges, flyovers, underpasses, road over/under bridges,
roads, railways and airports in hilly/mountainous areas involve extensive earthwork and grading
operations. Very often, it is not practically or economically feasible to form a stable slope between the
different grades and suitable earth retention schemes are required. Geosynthetic reinforced soil
structures is usually the most attractive solution for retaining earth fills.

Geosynthetic reinforced soil earth retention solutions include reinforced soil walls and slopes. A wide
range of geosynthetics including geogrids, geotextiles and geostrips are used as soil reinforcement. The
technology is proven through the successful performance of thousands of structures constructed all over
the world over the last four decades. Today a wide range of reinforcement products are combined with
different forms of facings to construct an amazing variety of reinforced soil walls (RSW) and reinforced
soil slopes (RSS).

2. REINFORCED SOIL STRUCTURES

2.1 General

Reinforced soil structures may be defined as a composite earth structure wherein soils (or other suitable
fills) are internally stabilized by the inclusion of discrete layers of reinforcement materials which are
generally placed horizontally, between successive lifts of fill during construction. The distinguishing
characteristics of reinforced soil structures include:
• Fills are reinforced
• Reinforcements are placed horizontally
• Reinforcements are distributed uniformly throughout the fill mass
• The construction sequence is bottom-up.
• The objective of reinforcing is to enable the face of a mass of fill to attain a steeper angle than
would be possible if the fill was unreinforced

The above characteristics distinguish reinforced soil structures from other forms of soil/ground
reinforcement – soil nailing, columns, basal reinforcement of embankments, reinforced foundation beds,
reinforced bases, void spanning etc.
2.2 Classification

Reinforced soil structures may be classified on the basis of different criteria – geometry, function of the
structures, type of soil reinforcement etc.

One of the most important features is the face angle (β) with horizontal based on which structures are
classified as follows:

• Walls : β > 70°

• Steep slope : 45° ≤ β ≤ 70°
• Shallow slopes : β < 45°

Walls may be further classified as walls with a normal retaining function, bridge abutments, back-to-back
walls, multi-tiered walls etc.

2.3 Applications

Reinforced soil walls and slopes have extensive applications in various fields of civil engineering:

• Highways: Approaches to flyovers, road over rail bridges, underpasses and river bridges, bridge
abutments, high embankments, hill roads, noise-barriers
• Railways : Approaches to road under bridges, rail flyovers and river bridges, bridge abutments,
high embankments, railway in mountainous areas
• Airports : Table-top airports
• Site development for residential, commercial and industrial projects
• Storage silos, crushing plants
• Earth dams, reservoirs, ponds, canals
• Landfills, Ash-pond dykes
• River bank stabilization
• Flood protection embankments and dykes
• Rock-fall and avalanche protection embankments

2.4 Materials

Geosynthetic reinforcement products may be grouped into three major types – geogrids, geotextiles and
geostrips (straps).

Geogrids may be further classified into three major categories:

• Punched and oriented or extruded and oriented high density polyethylene geogrids with relatively
stiff, smooth ribs and monolithic junctions.
• Polymeric coated polyester geogrids which comprise of a woven or knitted structure of high
tenacity polyester filament yarns coated with polyvinyl chloride, acrylic etc.
• Laid geogrids which consists of flat bars of polyester welded together at junctions

Geotextiles are typically woven polypropylene, woven polyester or non-wovens reinforced with polyester
filament yarns.

Geostrips or straps comprise bundles of high tenacity polyester filament yarns encased in a polyethylene
sheath.

Geosynthetic reinforcement is characterized by two properties – long-term design strength and bond with
the fill material. The long-term design strength is defined as the load which, if applied continuously to the
geosynthetic during the service lifetime, is predicted to lead to rupture at the end of that life time. Two
internationally accepted standards for the determination of long-term design strength of geosynthetic
reinforcement are ISO/TR 20432 and WSDoT Standard Practice T925.
Reinforcement can develop bond resistance with the fill materials through two mechanisms:

• In the case of woven/knitted and coated polyester geogrids with rough surfaces and low junction
strengths and for polymeric strips, the primary source of bond resistance is the frictional
resistance mobilized along the surface of the reinforcement.
• In the case of the stiff geogids with relatively smooth surfaces and strong junctions, passive
resistance mobilized by the transverse ribs is a major component of bond strength.

Two forms of interaction direct sliding and pullout are considered in design. The in most cases the
coefficient of interface friction is related to the angle of shearing resistance of the fill through coefficients
of interaction. These are usually determined from modified shear box tests or pullout tests in the
laboratory.

2.5 Design of Walls

Current design methods for geosynthetically reinforced soil walls employ a tie-back model. There are two
distinct zones – an unstable active zone and a stable resistant zone. The reinforcement ties the active
zone to the resistant zone by transferring destabilizing forces from the active zone to the resistant zone
where they are safely absorbed. In this process purely axial tensile loads are resisted by flexible
reinforcement. Thus, although at an elemental level reinforced soil is a composite material, current
design methods consider the reinforcement as a series of tie-backs only. Several codes and guideline
are available for the design of reinforced soil walls – BS 8006-1:2010, Berg et al. (2009), Jewell (1996),
Jones (1985, 2002), Nordic Geosynthetics Guidelines, and QA specification R57 (2011).

For walls it is assumed that the geosynthetic reinforcement is extensible and an active earth pressure
state is mobilized. Although, the reinforced soil mass is considered to be a coherent mass, true
composite behaviour is not taken account of and reinforcements are considered simply as tie-backs.

Two design philosophies are used – a limiting equilibrium approach with lumped factors of safety and a
limit state or load and resistant factor design approach. It is expected that use of limit state methods
would become more popular in future.

Four modes of collapse are generally considered:

• External stability: Failure of the reinforced soil mass as a whole in forward sliding along the base,
bearing capacity, overturning (some methods)
• Internal stability : Failure of the reinforcement in rupture or pullout and sliding of the soil along the
surface of the reinforcement.
• Global and Compound stability: Failure along deep seated slip surfaces or surfaces passing
through both reinforced and unreinforced zone
• Local stability of the facing

Prediction of settlements of foundation soils are carried out using conventional soil mechanics methods.
None of the codes give any limit for the maximum permissible total settlement of reinforced soil
structures. However, some codes give recommendations on the tolerable differential settlements for
reinforced soil structures (which is principally governed by the type of facing). However, it may be difficult
to estimate the anticipated differential settlements with a reasonable degree of reliability in practice.

Vertical compression of the fill itself is rarely addressed in design. In the case of well-compacted,
granular fills internal compression of the fills normally would not be a problem. However, there have
been instances of wall failures due the compression of poorly compacted fills either because of the
reinforcement rupturing or pulling out at the connection.

Most of the current design methods do not attempt to predict the lateral displacements. It is considered
that by using a reinforcement of minimum 0.7 times the wall height, the lateral deformations would be
within acceptable limits. However, some codes prescribe limits on the post construction creep strains of
the reinforcement.
Durability issues of the reinforcement are addressed through the use of a reduction factor for durability in
the calculation of the long-term design strength. However, use of chemically aggressive fills may need
particular attention. Durability of facing elements, bearing pads and connection devises and fixtures also
need adequate attention. Use of poor quality materials to cut costs, could affect the life and performance
of the structures.

2.6 Design of Reinforced Soil Slopes

Guidance for the design of geosynthetic reinforced soil slopes is available in many codes and guidelines
- BS 8006-1:2010, Berg et al. (2009), HA 68/94, Jewell (1996), Jones (1985, 2002) and Nordic
Geosynthetics Guidelines. Here also the tie-back model is employed but instead of an earth pressure
based approach, a slope stability approach is used.

It is sometimes considered that for shallow slopes (≤ 45°) a rotational slip circle approach is more
suitable and for steep slopes (> 45°) a two part wedge approach is more appropriate (BS 8006).

The following failure modes need to be considered in design

• External stability: bearing and tilt failure, forward sliding and slip failure around the reinforced soil
zone
• Internal Stability : Tensile and bond failure of reinforcement
• Compound stability : Tensile and bond failure of reinforcement

2.7 Comparison between BS 8006-1:2010 and FHWA-NHI-10-024

Some of the salient features of two popular design guides are summarized in table 1.

Table 1. Comparison between BS 8006 and FHWA-NHI-10-024

Description BS 8006-1:2010 FHWA-NHI-10-024

Design philosophy Limit state LRFD
Mechanism Tie-back Tie-back
Minimum reinforcement Walls 0.7 H or 3.0 m 0.7 H or 2.5 m
length Slopes Not specified Not specified
Maximum reinforcement Walls 0.8 m
Not specified
spacing Slopes Not specified
External Rankine Rankine for batter ≤ 10°
Earth pressure theory for Coulomb for Batter > 10°
walls Internal Not specified Rankine for batter ≤ 10°
Coulomb for Batter > 10°
Walls with complex geometry Very limited guidance Guidance for 2 tiered walls
and back-to-back walls
Seismic design No Yes

3. REINFORCED SOIL WALLS VERSUS SLOPES

3.1 General

Where the additional space for construction beyond the functional space is not available, a vertical wall
would be required to be constructed. Here, the choice would be between a conventional retaining wall
and a reinforced soil retaining wall. In cases, where some additional space is available, a reinforced soil
slope also becomes a viable option (figure 1).
 Figure 1. Earth retention options

3.2 Limiting face slope angle

The general practice is to designs structures steeper than 70° as walls and those with a face inclination ≤
70° as slopes.

In Section 6.1 of BS 8006-1:2010, it is stated that structures that are within 20° of the vertical may be
designed as vertical structures. In Section 7 of BS 8006-1:2010 pertaining to design of reinforced slopes,
it is stated that, slopes with inclinations less than vertical should be designed in accordance with the
recommendations of this section; guidance is also provided. Slopes with face angles within 20° of the
vertical may be designed in accordance with the procedures in Section 6 if desired.

Subsection 1.1.3 of FHWA-NHI-10-024 defines reinforced soil slope as a form of reinforced soil that
incorporate planar reinforcing elements in constructed earth-sloped structures with face inclinations of
less than 70 degrees. Subsection 8.3.3 of FHWA-NHI-10-025 states that the rotational slip surface
approach is used for slopes up to 70°, although technically it is a valid method for evaluating even
steeper slopes. Slopes steeper than 70° are classified as walls and lateral earth pressure procedures in
chapter 4 apply.

The present demarcation between walls and slopes seems to be more a matter of convenience rather
than based on any fundamental difference in behaviour. It has also been suggested that 80° may be a
more realistic demarcation between walls and slopes.

3.3 Design considerations

Whether a structure is designed as a wall or slope has some important practical and economic
considerations, which are summarized in table 2.

Table 2. Important differences between RSW and RSS

Description Reinforced soil walls Reinforced Reinforced

steep slopes shallow slopes
Face angle > 70° 45° - 70° ≤ 45°
Embedment H/20 (typical) Generally not required
Critical failure surface Rankine / Coulomb 2-part wedge Slip circle
active
Facing required Required Not required
Reinforced fill Superior granular fill Suitable local soils
Tolerance to deformations Medium to high Very high

Whether a structure is designed as a wall or slope has some important practical and economic
considerations:
 • The design methodology is different for walls and slopes. Thus a structure with a face inclination
of 71° (designed as a wall) and 69° (designed as a slope) may have significantly different
reinforcement layout. The difference in reinforcement quantities may depend on several factors.
o Minimum length of reinforcement specified for walls and slopes
o Maximum reinforcement spacing specified for walls and slopes
o Earth pressure theory used in internal stability analysis of walls
o Minimum factors of safety specified for walls and slopes

• As per most codes and international specifications, reinforced soil walls require a minimum
embedment of one-twentieth of height. However, embedment is generally not required for
reinforced slopes, unless dictated by special reasons.

• Most often walls are provided with a rigid facing like precast concrete discrete panels, segmental
concrete blocks, gabions etc. Slopes can be constructed with flexible vegetated facing where
conditions are favourable.

• Generally specifications for walls require that a superior quality granular fill be used. Most
international specifications, limit fines content (passing 75 microns sieve) to a maximum of 10 to
15 %. In the case of slopes, it is generally considered that a lower quality fill would be
satisfactory. e.g. FHWA-NHI-10-024 states that a soil with percentage fines ≤ 50 % and plasticity
index ≤ 20 is generally considered satisfactory for reinforced slopes.

Thus, where site conditions allow, the use of a reinforced soil in place of a reinforced soil wall could
result in substantial savings arising from savings in the cost of reinforcement, facing and fill material.
However the biggest challenge in the use of reinforced soil slopes is the suitable treatment of the slope
face.

4. FACING FOR REINFORCED SOIL STRUCTURES

4.1 Functions of Facing

Reinforcement soil walls and slopes steeper than 45° require some form of facing. The important
functions of facing are:
• To contain and confine the fill materials during construction so as to ensure proper compaction of
fill near the face.
• To impart surficial stability to the wall / slope face – prevent ravelling and erosion
• To provide local support to the soil between reinforcement layers;
• To anchor the reinforcement in the active zone
• To provide acceptable finish and attractive appearance

4.2 Importance of Facing

Although facings are often considered as non-structural protective and decorative skin elements, it is a
very important component of a reinforced soil structure because of the following reasons:
• The cost of facing can be a significant component of the total cost of the structure. The cost of
concrete facings (precast concrete panels or segmental blocks) could be of the order of 50 %
and even more in the case of relatively low height walls.
• Facing is the only part of a reinforced soil structure that is seen and hence the quality of a wall
will often be judged by the quality of the facing. Observed defects of the facing (which may not
be significant structurally) could cast doubts on the stability, serviceability and durability of the
entire structure.
• Failure of the facing may not result in an immediate collapse of the reinforced soil structure.
However, it could have serious consequences for the serviceability and durability of the
structure.
• Facing is exposed to the elements and hence environment could have a decisive influence on its
performance and longevity.
 • Most of the problems experienced during construction are usually associated with the casting
and erection of facing elements.

4.3 Criteria in the Selection of Facing

Some of the important aspects to be considered in the section of facing include the following :

• Durability
• Connection with the soil reinforcement
• Ability to tolerate differential settlement
• Ability to accomodate curvature in the horizontal plane
• Batter required
• Dimensions and mass of individual units
• Availability and cost
• Aesthetics

4.4 Types of Facing

Hard facing

Hard facings are of different forms and materials – concrete, steel, wood, stone, polymer etc. It could be
rigid like concrete panels or blocks or flexible like metallic or polymeric facings. Major types of hard
facings are:
• Precast concrete discrete panels
• Precast concrete segmental (modular) blocks
• Precast concrete full height panels
• Cast in-situ concrete facing which is poured after the completion of the reinforced soil block and
attached to the reinforced soil mass using ties/anchors.
• Gabions
• Welded wire mesh supported stone

Soft Facing

With sheet type reinforcements like geogrids or geotextiles, a soft facing can be constructed by
extending the reinforcement to form the face of the structure and folding it back by 180° and anchoring it
by extending it back into the fill for an adequate length or by attaching it to another reinforcing element at
a higher elevation. This form of facing is called a wrap-around or wrapped face.

A wrap-around alone is not sufficient to fulfil all functions of facing. A suitable arrangement has to be
provided to confine and contain the fill during placement and compaction – soil filled bags, welded wire
mesh or temporary formwork. Also, vegetative cover must be established to protect the soil from erosion
and the reinforcement from exposure.

Permanent reinforced soil walls are usually constructed with a rigid facing. For reinforced soil slopes a
soft vegetated facing is usually the first option, although rigid facing may also be used where conditions
are not favourable to the establishment of vegetation.

4.5 Challenges in Vegetated Facing for Steep Slopes

A soft facing comprises three components: - reinforcement wrap-around, arrangement to contain the fill
during construction and vegetative cover.

Wrapping back the reinforcement performs the following functions:

• Anchorage of the reinforcement in the active zone
• Local support to the fill between the reinforcement layers
• Some protection to the soil against erosion
Fill needs to be contained and confined during placement and compaction so as to ensure that the
desired profile of the face is achieved and the fill is compacted properly in the vicinity of the face.
Following methods are used:
• External temporary formwork
• Climbing formwork
• Soil-filled bags
• Welded wire-mesh

Vegetation can be incorporated on to the face of a reinforced soil structure in several ways:

• Turf / sods placed on the wrap-around face and tied to the geogrid. In this case the roots of the
vegetation entwines with the geogrid ribs
• Placing pre-seeded turf mats or geomats against the back face of the wraparound facing.
• Planting creepers or climbers on horizontal benches created by periodic set-back of the wall
face. This may not result in a high density of root reinforcement on the vertical/sloping face of the
structure.
• Planting brush-layered live unrooted cuttings or rooted specimens of hardy shrubs laid between
encapsulated layers of fill. The cuttings should be approximately 2.5 m in length, with three-
quarters of this length buried in the fill (soil bioengineering)

Vegetation stabilizes and protects the face of the structure by:

• strengthening the retained soil by soil root reinforcement;
• anchoring the face of the structure into deeper stable soil by root tendon action;
• strengthening the soil by reducing the moisture content and increasing the effective soil shear
strength by evapotranspiration;
• reducing the weight of unstable masses by evapotranspiration;
• shielding the structure from the effects of rainfall, frost, heat and UV radiation on the
reinforcement

The major challenge in establishing and maintaining a durable vegetative cover on the face of a steep
reinforced soil structure is to ensure that the vegetation has access to enough water to survive. Where
the slope angle approaches 70°, artificial irrigation systems may be required. In wet temperate climates,
healthy vegetation can be expected quickly establish, but in hot dry climates establishing a sustainable
vegetative cover could be difficult. In such cases one may have to think of a welded wire-mesh supported
wrap-around face with stone backing.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Reinforced soil structures offer proven, reliable, economic, easy to construct and eco-friendly solutions to
a wide range of earth retention problems. Reinforced soil structures can be constructed using a wide
variety of reinforcement products, facings and fill materials. In many cases, where conditions permit, a
reinforced soil slope could be the most economical alternative. However, the biggest challenge in steep
reinforced slopes is the establishment of a healthy and sustainable vegetative cover on the slope.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2002) Standard specifications for highway bridges, 17th Addition

Adams, M., Nicks, J., Stabile, T., Wu, J., Schlatter, W., and Hartmann, J. (2011) Geosynthetic reinforced soil
integrated bridge system, interim implementation guide, Federal Highway Administration.
Allen, T., and Bathurst, R.J. (2001) Application of the K0-stiffness method to reinforced soil wall limit states
design, Washington State Department of Transportation.
Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., and Walters, D.L. (2005) Reinforcement loads in geosynthetic walls and the case for a
new working stress design method.
BS 8006-1:2010 Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills, British Standards Institution,
London, UK
Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., and Samtani, N.S. (2009) Design of mechanically stabilized earth walls and
reinforced soil slopes – Vol 1 and 2, Federal Highway Administration, USA
Christopher, B.R., Gill, S.A., Giroud, J.P., Juran, I., Mitchel, J.K., Schlossser, F., and Dunnicliff, J. (1990)
Reinforced soil structures – Vol 1and 2, Federal Highway Administration, USA
EN 14475 (2006) Execution of special geotechnical works – Reinforced fill
HA 68/94 (1994) Design methods for the reinforcement of highway slopes by reinforced soil and soil nailing
techniques, The Highways Agency UK.
Ingold T.S. (1982) Reinforced earth, Thomas Telford Ltd., London
ISO/TR 20432 (2007) Guidelines for the determination of the long-term strength of geosynthetics for soil
reinforcement.
ISO/TS 13434 (2008) Geosynthetics – Guidelines for the assessment of durability
Jewell, R.A. (1996) Soil reinforcement with geotextiles, CIRIA, London
Jones, C.J.F.P (1985) Earth reinforcement and soil structures, Butterworths, London.
Jones, C.J.F.P (2002) Geoguide 6 – Guide to reinforced fill structure and slope design, Geotechnical Engineering
Office, Civil Engineering Department, The Government of the Hong Kong
Nordic Geosynthetic Group (2004) Nordic guidelines for reinforced soils and fills
Passe, P.D. (2000) Mechanically stabilized earth wall inspector’s handbook, Florida Department of Transportation.
QA Specification R 57 (2011) Design of reinforced soil walls, Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales
WSDOT Standard Practice T 925 (2005) Standard practice for determination of long-term strength for geosynthetic
reinforcement