Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stability of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Structures PDF
Stability of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Structures PDF
Stability of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Structures PDF
33 The Horseshoe
Covered Bridge Farms
Newark, DE. 19711, USA
ABSTRACT: A framework for stability analysis of reinforced soil structures is presented. It produces eco-
nomical design of stable reinforced walls, slopes and embankments. Elements such as local, compound,
global and direct sliding stabilities are ensured. This framework was implemented in program ReSlope.
More complex and versatile stability analysis methods can use the presented framework as a generic template
(e.g., program ReSSA uses it in an analysis-oriented fashion). Following the conceptual analyses is an
instructive parametric study. General guidelines about the selection of long-term geosynthetic and soil
strengths and a comparison with a case history are discussed. The meaning of factor of safety in the context
of reinforced soil structures is investigated showing it to be different for MSE walls and slopes. Some of the
factors of safety used in programs ReSSA, ReSlope and MSEW are not defined in the same way thus their
numerical value has to be examined independently; however, when the factor of safety is one, all definitions
are equivalent. An appendix provides comparative summary of programs ReSlope, MSEW and ReSSA.
1 INTRODUCTION forcement at its front-end can be less than the required
strength; analysis of complex geometries; stability of
Soil is an abundant construction material that, simi- embankment reinforced at its base), the rational for a
lar to concrete, has high compressive strength but more complete stability analysis is presented. This
virtually no tensile strength. To overcome this has resulted in program ReSSA (Leshchinsky, 2002).
weakness, soils, like concrete, may be reinforced. Finally, the design of walls, which customarily adopt
The materials typically used to reinforce soil are lateral earth pressure approach, is briefly discussed.
relatively light and flexible, and though extensible, This approach is used by national design procedures
possess high tensile strength. Examples of such ma- such as AASHTO or NCMA (Collin, 1997) methods,
terials include thin steel strips and polymeric materi- which serve as the basis for program MSEW (Lesh-
als commonly known as geosynthetics (i.e., geotex- chinsky, 1999, 2000). An appendix provides com-
tiles and geogrids). When soils and reinforcement parative summary of programs ReSlope, MSEW and
are combined, a composite material, the so-called ReSSA.
'reinforced soil', possessing high compressive and
tensile strength (similar, in principle, to reinforced 2 DESIGN-ORIENTED ANALYSIS
concrete) is produced.
The increase in strength of the reinforced earth 2.1 General
structure allows for the construction of steep slopes,
embankment over soft foundation, or various types Limit equilibrium analysis has been used for dec-
of retaining walls. Compared with all other alterna- ades in the design of earth slopes and embankments.
tives, geosynthetic reinforced soil structures are Attractive features of this analysis include experi-
cost-effective. As a result, earth structures reinforced ence of practitioners with its application, simple in-
with geosynthetics are being constructed worldwide put data, useful (though limited) output design in-
with increased frequency, even in permanent and formation, and results that can be checked for
critical applications (e.g., Tatsuoka and Leshchin- 'reasonableness' through a different limit equilibrium
sky, 1994). analysis method, charts, or even hand calculations.
This paper describes a design process for geosyn- Consequently, extension of this analysis to the de-
thetic-reinforced slope. It includes details of stability sign of geosynthetics reinforced slopes, embank-
analyses used to determine the required layout and ments and retaining walls, where the reinforcement
strength of the reinforcing material. This process is tangibly modeled, is desirable. The main draw-
serves as the basis for the computer program ReSlope backs of limit equilibrium analysis are its inability to
(Leshchinsky, 1997, 1999). Recognizing the limita- deal with displacements and its limited representa-
tions of ReSlope (e.g., available strength of the rein- tion of the interaction between dissimilar or incom-
patible materials comprising the soil structure. Consequently, the designer can verify whether an
Typically, adequate selection of materials properties individual layer is overstressed or understressed,
and safety factors should ensure acceptable dis- regardless of the overall stability of the slope. Once
placements, including safe level of reinforcement this problem of 'local stability' is resolved, overall
deformation. stability of the slope is assessed through rotational and
In principle, inclusion of geosynthetic translational mechanisms. The rotational mechanism
reinforcement in limit equilibrium analysis is a (termed 'compound stability' or pullout analysis)
straightforward process in which the tensile force in examines slip surfaces extending between the slope
the geosynthetic material is introduced directly in the face and the retained soil. The force in the
equilibrium equations to assess its effects on stability. geosynthetic layers in this limit-state slope stability
However, the inclination of this tensile force at the analysis is taken directly as the maximum available
assumed slip surface must be assumed. Physically, its long-term value for each layer. The translational
angle may vary between the as-installed (typically analysis ('direct sliding') is based on the two-part
horizontal) and the tangent to the potential slip wedge method in which the passive wedge is sliding
surface. By using a log spiral mechanism, either over or below the bottom reinforcement layer,
Leshchinsky and Boedeker (1989) have demonstrated or along the interface with the foundation soil.
that for typical cohesionless backfill, this inclination The common factor of safety in stability analysis of
has little effect on both the required strength and reinforced soil is equally applied to all failure-resisting
layout of reinforcement. Conversely, Leshchinsky components (i.e., soils and reinforcement). This im-
(1992) pointed out that for problems such as plies that all resisting elements are equally mobilized.
reinforced embankments over soft soil, the inclination Practice proves that such an approach combined with
of the reinforcing geosynthetic, located at the the ability of geosynthetic to greatly deform produce
foundation and backfill interface, plays a significant structures in which all reinforcement layers are typi-
role. The long-term value of cohesion used in design cally mobilized uniformly (i.e., efficient use of rein-
of manmade reinforced steep slopes or walls is forcement). This definition of safety factor is used in
negligibly small and hence, inclination has little ReSSA thus making it applicable to marginally stable
effects. Therefore, the force in such structures may be slopes where the overall factor of safety needs to be
assumed horizontal without being overly conservative. increased via reinforcement.
In case of basal reinforcement of embankment over A modified concept included in this paper relates to
soft soil, the uncertainties associated with defining the a versatile definition of factor of safety suitable for in-
foundation properties make it prudent to be herently unstable unreinforced structures. It suggests
conservative and assume the reinforcement force is a rational and physically meaningful alternative to the
horizontal. Consequently, based on a practical conventional factor of safety used in slope stability. In
argument, the force inclination is assumed horizontal. fact, this factor of safety can be measured in an actual
A potentially significant problem in limit structure. This factor of safety is used in ReSlope.
equilibrium analysis of reinforced soil is the need to
know the reactive force in each reinforcement layer at
the limit state. Physically, this force may vary 2.2 On the factor of safety in reinforced soil
between zero and the ultimate strength when the slope structures
is at a global state of limit equilibrium. Assuming the
actual force is known in advance, as is commonly Limit equilibrium analysis deals with systems that
done in analysis-oriented approach, implies the are on the verge of failure. However, existing slopes
reinforcement force is actually active, regardless of are stable. To analyze such slopes, the concept of
the problem. The designer then assumes the available factor of safety, Fs, has been introduced. In unrein-
active force of each reinforcement layer to ensure forced slopes, Fs is used to replace the existing soil
that overall satisfactory state of limit equilibrium is with an artificial one, in which the shear strength is
obtained. The end result of such assumption may m = tan-1(tan/Fs) and cm = c/Fs where m and cm
yield an actual slope in which some layers actually are the design shear strength parameters of the arti-
provide more force than their long-term available ficial soil. Alternatively, these values represent the
strength while other layers are hardly stressed. To average mobilized shear strength of the actual soil.
overcome the potential problem of local instability Employing the notion of Fs in limit equilibrium re-
(reinforcement overstressing), a rational methodology duces the statical indeterminacy of a stable slope
to estimate the required (i.e., reactive) reinforcement formulation via use of Mohr-Coulomb failure crite-
tensile resistance of each layer is introduced via a rion. It also provides an object for minimization in
'tieback analysis' or internal stability analysis. which the lowest value of Fs, considering all poten-
tial failure surfaces and mechanism, is sought. The Figure 2 where a log spiral mechanism is used. The
physical significance of the conventional factor of stability of the slope now hinges on the reinforce-
safety can be accepted in an average sense only; i.e., ment strength. Hence, the actual factor of safety can
the average reduction of shear strength so that the be defines as:
sliding mass will globally be at the verge of failure. t
Extensive experience with limit equilibrium analysis Fs = available (2)
has produced engineering database providing ac- t required
ceptable values of Fs.
Leshchinsky and Reinschmidt (1985) applied Fs where tavailable is the long-term available strength and
equally to all shear-resisting components; i.e., soils trequired is the strength required for stability (i.e., for a
or reinforcement. This renders a factor of safety that limit equilibrium state of the composite reinforced
is equivalent to the one used in unreinforced slopes system). This definition signifies a factor of safety
(e.g., symbolizing the same average reduction of with respect to the available strength of the rein-
strength of dissimilar materials that are attaining a forcement. Such Fs can actually be measured.
limit equilibrium state simultaneously). In fact, this This modified definition of Fs is based on the
definition is used also in most slope stability analy- premise that the soil will attain its full strength be-
ses of reinforced slopes (e.g., program ReSSA). fore the reinforcement ruptures; i.e., the soil will at-
Such definition produces a single number that signi- tain an active state exactly as assumed in design of
fies the state of global stability of a reinforced sys- retaining walls including those reinforced with geo-
tem, similar to unreinforced slopes, homogeneous or synthetics. Geosynthetic materials are ductile, typi-
stratified. cally rupturing at strains greater than 10% thus may
Another definition of Fs that also globalizes the allow sufficient deformations to develop within the
reinforced system is presented in the federal design soil to reach active state. In reality, most of the de-
guidelines in the US (Elias and Christopher, 1997): formation for the active state will occur during con-
struction as the geosynthetic mobilizes its strength.
Fs = Fsu + Mr / Md (1) In fact, this definition is similar to the one used in
MSE walls (e.g., Elias and Christopher, 1997;
where Fsu is the factor of safety for the unreinforced Collin, 1997); the design (available) shear strength
slope; Mr and Md are the resisting moment due to parameters of the soil are fully used and then a fac-
reinforcement layers and the total driving moment, tor of safety is applied on the long-term strength of
respectively. Mr and Md are calculated for the same the reinforcement only. Details of the consequences
slip surface as Fsu. It should be noted that the sur- of this definition are given elsewhere (Leshchinsky,
face (typically circle) yielding the minimum Fsu is 2000). Programs ReSlope and MSEW allow the
not necessarily the one yielding the minimum Fs; user to use this definition of Fs while program
the critical surface in reinforced problems is deeper ReSSA can reproduce it upon some manipulation
than the unreinforced one. Such an approach yields (i.e., analyze a reinforced system repetitively while
an overall factor of safety whose physical meaning reducing the strength of the reinforcement until the
is only valid in a global sense. However, it treats the resulted overall Fs is 1.0; the soil now is in an active
reinforcement as pure moment (i.e., only Mr result- state; increase the reinforcement strength to obtain
ing from reinforcement force is considered; actual safe long-term value).
force is not included in the equilibrium equations).
Programs ReSSA and MSEW can use this definition
of Fs as an option.
Extension of limit equilibrium stability analysis
to reinforced steep slopes provides an opportunity to
introduce a modified definition for Fs. Rather than
extending the conventional definition of Fs, one can
use the fact that unstable soil structures are suffi-
ciently stable solely due to the reinforcement tensile
resistance. Hence, Fs for the soil alone in this case
is unity everywhere along a slip surface (i.e., a plas-
tic hinge develops mobilizing the full available
strength of the soil). For this state, the required rein-
forcement force needed to restore a state of limit
equilibrium can be calculated. As an example, see Figure 1. Notation and convention
mediate reinforcement are considered. Furthermore,
ReSSA is applicable also to base-reinforced em-
bankments over soft soil. In practice, secondary
layers allow for better compaction near the face of
the steep slope and thus reduce the potential for
sloughing. In walls it may alleviate connection
loads (Leshchinsky, 2000). The secondary layers are
narrow (typically 1 m wide), installed only if the
primary layers are spaced far apart (e.g., more than
about 0.6 m apart). At the slope face, the geosyn-
thetic layers may be wrapped around the exposed
portion of the soil mass or, if some cohesion exists,
the layers may simply terminate at the face as shown
in Figure 1.
In general, the following rational could be used
with any type of stability analysis. It is most conven-
ient to use it in conjunction with log spiral stability
analysis since the problem then is statically determi-
nate. This analysis produces the location of the criti-
cal slip surface and subsequently, the necessary reac-
tive force in the reinforcement. While ReSlope
utilizes the log spiral, ReSSA is using for rotational
failure circular arcs combined with Bishop stability
Figure 2. Log spiral slip surface and its statical
analysis. MSEW uses planar slip surfaces for internal
implications
stability following Rankin or Coulomb lateral earth
pressure theories (MSEW is restricted to very steep
2.3 Internal stability analysis
slopes having an angle larger than 70, i.e., walls).
The log spiral mechanism makes the problem stati-
Internal stability analysis is used to determine the
cally determinate. For an assumed log spiral failure
required tensile resistance of the each layer needed
surface, fully defined by the parameters xc, yc and A,
to ensure that the reinforced mass is safe against in-
the moment equilibrium equation about the pole can
ternal collapse due to its own weight and surcharge
be written explicitly without resorting to statical as-
loading. In the context of retaining walls, this
sumptions (Figure 2). Consequently, by comparing the
analysis identifies the tensile force needed to resist
driving and resisting moments, one can check whether
the active lateral earth pressure at the face of a steep
the mass defined by an assumed log spiral is stable for
slope. That is, the tensile force needed to restrain
the design values of the shear strength parameters: d
the unstable slope from sliding. The reinforcement
and cd and the distribution of reinforcement force tj.
tensile force capacity is made possible through suf-
This check is repeated for other potential slip surfaces
ficient anchorage of each layer into the stable soil
until the least stable system is identified. That is, until
zone located behind the active zone. It is assumed
the maximum required restoring reinforcement force
that at the face of the slope, some type of facing re-
is found. The terms Kh and Kv (Figure 2) represent the
stricts soil movement relative to the reinforcement;
seismic coefficients introducing pseudo-static force
hence, the full long-term strength of the geosynthetic
components. It is assumed to act at the center of grav-
is available at the face of the slope. This assump-
ity of the critical mass. To simplify the presentation,
tion is utilized in ReSlope; however, the actual
no surcharge is shown in Figure 2; however, including
strength available at the face (connection strength) is
it in the moment equation is straightforward.
used in ReSSA or MSEW. While MSEW considers
Figure 3 illustrates the computation scheme for es-
internal stability explicitly (as does ReSlope),
timating the tensile reaction in each reinforcement
ReSSA looks for the most critical situation regard-
layer. In STEP 1, the soil mass acting against Dn is
less whether it is surficial, deep, compound or direct
considered. Note that layer n is wrapped around the
sliding.
slope face to form facing Dn (Figure 3) thus making
Figure 1 shows notation and convention. Rein-
it physically feasible for a mass of soil to be laterally
forcement is comprised of primary and secondary
supported rendering local stability. That is, a 'facing
layers. Only primary layers are considered in
unit' Dn (i.e., an imaginary facing element in the front
ReSlope; in ReSSA or MSEW the effects of inter-
edge of the reinforced soil mass) prevents slide of un-
stable soil above it. This facing is capable of provid- Note that cohesive steep slopes are stable up to a
ing lateral support through the development of the certain height. Consequently, the scheme in Figure 3
necessary tensile force in the geosynthetic (reaching, may produce zero reactive force in top layers.
at most, its long-term strength). While this assump- Though these layers may not be needed for local sta-
tion exists in ReSlope, MSEW and ReSSA allow for bility, they may be needed to resist compound failure
reduced strength at the front-end signifying possible as discussed in the next section.
low-strength connection to a facing element (MSEW) The outermost critical log spiral in ReSlope defines
or simply front-end pullout (ReSSA). Note that mas- the extreme surface as dictated by Layer 1. In
sive stabilization of slope requires reinforcement away conventional internal stability analysis (e.g., MSEW)
from the face thus making the front-end strength less it signifies the extent of the 'active zone'; i.e., it is the
significant unless surficial stability is of concern. boundary between the sliding soil mass and the stable
ReSlope uses the moment equilibrium equation to soil. Consequently, reinforcement layers are anchored
find the critical log spiral producing max(tn), employ- into the stable soil to ensure their capacity to develop
ing the free-body diagram shown in Figure 3 while the calculated tensile reaction tj (Figure 4). The 'sta-
examining many potential surfaces. The resulted tn ble' soil, however, may not be immediately adjacent to
counterbalances the horizontal pressure against Dn and this outermost log spiral and therefore, some layers
thus, signifies the reactive force in layer n. That is, should be extended further to ensure satisfactory sta-
the resulted tn represents the force needed to restore bility (see next section).
equilibrium and hence stability. Note that Dn was Note in Figures 3 and 4 that the reinforcement lay-
chosen to extend down to layer n. This tributary area ers are wrapped around the overlying layer of soil to
implies a 'toe' failure activating the largest possible re- form the slope face. However, in slopes that are not
action force. In MSEW the reinforcement reaction is as steep (say, i<50), typically there is no wrap around
calculated based on lateral earth pressure satisfying the face nor is there any other type of facing. In this
horizontal equilibrium at each elevation. In ReSSA, case, load transfer from each unstable soil mass to the
the user can verify that any given layer supplies suffi- respective reinforcement layer is feasible due to a 'co-
cient force to render satisfactory Fs. herent' mass formed at the face. This mass may be
In STEP 2, the force against Dn-1 is calculated. formed by soil arching, by a trace of cohesion and by
Dn-1 extends from layer n to layer (n-1). Using the closely spaced reinforcement layers. The end result is
moment equilibrium equation, max(tn-1), required to a soil 'plug' that acts, de facto, as a facing unit thus
retain the force exerted by the unstable mass against enabling the load transfer into the primary reinforce-
Dn-1, is calculated. When calculating tn-1, the reac- ment layer. It should be pointed out that 'closely
tion tn, determined in STEP 1, is known in magni- spaced reinforcement' does not necessarily mean
tude and point of action. Hence, the reactive force closely spaced primary reinforcement layers; simply,
in layer (n-1) is the only unknown to be determined this 'plug' can be formed by the combination of secon-
from the moment equilibrium equation. dary and primary layers acting together to create a co-
Figure 3 shows that by repeating this process in herent mass. Since reinforcement layers, including
ReSlope, the distribution of reactive forces for all re- primary and secondary layers, are spaced approxi-
inforcing layers, down to t1, are calculated while mately 30 cm apart in practice, and since the secon-
supplying the demand for a limit equilibrium state at dary layers extend at least about 1 m into the slope,
each reinforcement level. Application of appropri- the contribution of secondary layers to the formation
ate factor of safety to the required reinforcement of a 'facing' needs not be ignored. With time, surface
strength should ensure selection of geosynthetic pos- vegetation and its root mat enhances this 'facing.' The
sessing adequate long-term strength. In MSEW, the end result of forming a coherent face is not just an ef-
reaction is determined by using the lateral earth ficient load transfer from the deeply unstable soil
pressure and the tributary area of each layer. Con- mass to the reinforcement, but also improved surficial
versely, in ReSSA, the available Fs at each elevation stability and erosion resistance. While such transfer is
are checked while considering rotational and transla- needed to ensure that the front-end available strength
tional failure and the existing long-term strength of assumption in ReSlope is valid, ReSSA assess the sta-
the reinforcement. In ReSSA the approach is analy- bility based on actual front-end strength. MSEW is
sis-oriented (i.e., given the layout and strength of re- limited to walls thus uses facia in its analysis. Note
inforcement, find the minimum Fs for the structure) that when planar reinforcement is closely spaced, the
whereas in ReSlope it is design-oriented (i.e., given load carried by each layer can be small. Consequently,
the desired Fs, find the layout and strength of rein- even if the full geosynthetic strength cannot develop
forcement). at the face, its overall effect on stability may not be
critical (parametric studies of practical cases show it).
ment length so that compound failures (i.e., surfaces
extending into the unreinforced soil zone) will not be
likely to occur. The term conventional refers to the
nature of the analysis in which global stability is
sought (recall that internal stability looks at local sta-
bility at the elevation of each reinforcing layer). The
objective of the compound analysis is to find the
minimum length of each reinforcement layer needed
to ensure adequate stability against rotational failures.
Internal stability analysis yields the required rein-
forcement strength at each level (in ReSlope and
MSEW). In actual practice, however, specified rein-
forcement layers will have allowable strengths in ex-
cess of that required (i.e., tj t(allowable)j whereas tallowable
tavailable and tavailable is the long-term strength). The
end result of specification of reinforcement stronger
than needed is that actually only m reinforcement lay-
ers, extending outside the active zone and into the
stable soil, are globally needed. That is, the m layers
are sufficient to maintain stability of the active mass.
Internally, however, layers (m+1) through n are also
needed to ensure local stability as implied in the
scheme presented in Figure 3. The minimum number
of layers, m, is calculated using the following equa-
tion:
m n
t ( allowable )j t j (3)
Figure 3. Scheme for calculating tensile reaction in j =1 j =1
reinforcement layers
Note that m is the number of layers, counting from the
bottom, capable of developing a total tensile resistance
equal to (or slightly greater than) the net total rein-
2.4 Compound and pullout stability analysis forcement force obtained from the internal stability
For a given geometry, pore-water pressure distribution analysis. When m = n, the compound stability degen-
and (d and cd), the internal stability analysis provide erates to that introduced by Leshchinsky (1992). The
the required tensile resistance at the level of each rein- m layers are assumed to contribute their full allowable
forcement layer. It also yields the trace of the outer- strength simultaneously to global stability when com-
most log spiral defining the 'active' soil zone, a notion pound stability of the reinforced system is examined.
commonly used in conjunction with analysis of retain- The assumption of simultaneous availability of rein-
ing walls. In reinforced soil structures, the capacity of forcement strength is commonly used in limit equilib-
the reinforcement to develop the required tensile resis- rium stability analysis of reinforced slopes and is sup-
tance depends also on its pullout resistance; i.e., the ported by (scattered) field data.
length anchored into the stable soil zone. If the Embedding the layers immediately to the right of
boundary of this stable zone is indeed defined by the the outermost log spiral obtained in the internal sta-
'active' one, then potential slip surfaces that extend bility analysis, so that tallowable for layers 1 through m
into the soil mass further than the outermost log spiral and tj for layers (m+1) through n can develop
in Figure 4, outside or within the effective anchorage through pullout resistance, ensures that, in an aver-
length, will never be critical. However, such potential age sense, the mobilized friction angle, mob, along
surfaces may render reduced pullout resistance since this log spiral is equal to, or slightly less than, d.
the effective anchorage length is shortened. That is, The upper layers (m+1) through n (see points A, B
the reduced tensile resistance capacity along these sur- and C in Figure 5) are not needed for the global sta-
faces could potentially produce a globally unstable bility of the active mass and therefore, from a theo-
system. Consequently, a conventional slope stability retical view point could be ignored at points A, B
approach is used to determine the required reinforce- and C. Note that the mobilized friction angle, mob,
represents the required friction angle to produce a Figure 5 is repeated for slip surfaces emerging
limit equilibrium state while using the allowable re- through the face of the slope. Subsequently, layers
inforcement strength. Hence, when mob < d, a fic- previously truncated are lengthened, if necessary, to
titious situation is analyzed; i.e., the system is actu- ensure that mob d. While other surfaces can pass
ally stable since the available soil strength, as through the reinforcement and the foundation,
expressed by d, is larger than needed, mob, for a ReSlope ignores those (it assumes competent founda-
limit equilibrium state. Only when mob = d limit tion). However, ReSSA fully accounts for such sur-
equilibrium state achieved. faces.
At this stage of ReSlopes analysis, which uses de- A layout similar to the envelope ABCDEFG will
sign-oriented approach, layers 1 through m are length- contain, at least, m potential slip surfaces, all having
ened to a test body defined by an arbitrary log spiral the same minimal safety factor against rotational fail-
extending between the toe and the crest, to the right of ure (Figure 5). However, because of practical consid-
the outermost log spiral (Figure 5). Each layer be- erations, a uniform or linearly varying length of layers
yond the slip surface is embedded so that the calcu- is specified in practice. As a result, the number of
lated t(allowable)j can be developed; mob for this surface such equally critical slip surfaces is reduced in actual
will be smaller than d used in design (i.e., for this structure since most layers are longer and typically,
layout, the internal stability outermost surface is most some are stronger than optimally needed. ReSlope
critical). The upper layer is truncated in a numerical ignored the extra stability attained by longer than
sense (i.e., tm = 0), and the moment equilibrium equa- needed reinforcement (recall that its objective is to
tion for the arbitrary log spiral is used to check find the minimum length of reinforcement that pro-
whether mob = d. If mob = d than layer m is suffi- duces a target value of Fs against rotational failure).
ciently long (see point D in Figure 5); otherwise, ReSSA considers the actual layout by accounting for
lengthen this layer and repeat calculations until satis- the actual specified length and strength of reinforce-
factory length is found. A satisfactory length implies ment (its objective is to calculate Fs for a given layout
that the critical log spiral passing through point D and strengths).
yields a stable system for the design friction angle, d; Finally, anchorage lengths are calculated to resist
all feasible log spirals between this one and the out- pullout forces that are equal to the required allowable
ermost log spiral from the internal stability have mob strength of each layer multiplied by a factor of safety
< d indicating they represent less critical mechanisms Fs-po. In these calculations the overburden pressure
(note that the strength of layers 1 through m is avail- along the anchored length and the parameter defining
able between these two log spirals). the shear strength of the interface between soil and re-
The process is repeated to find the required length inforcement are used. In ReSlope, this parameter, Ci,
of layer (m-1) (Figure 5). Since layers above were al- termed the interaction coefficient. It relates the inter-
ready truncated, they no longer contribute tensile re- face strength to the reinforced soil design strength pa-
sistance to deeper slip surfaces. Once the process has rameters: tan(d) and cd. In ReSSA and MSEW it re-
been repeated for all layers down to layer 1, the length lates to the full strength of the soil but a factor of
of all layers (curve DEFGH in Figure 5), required to safety ensures that the actual capacity would be at
ensure that mob does not exceed d for all possible log least 1.5 times greater than that needed.
spiral failure surfaces, has been determined. The proc- The interaction coefficient is typically determined
ess in ReSlope is slightly conservative since the full from a pullout test. The required anchorage length of
anchorage lengths to resist pullout are specified be- layer j must equal tj / {jCi[tan(d)+cd]} where j
yond points D, E, F and G. This simplification is con- signifies the average overburden pressure above the
servative since, contrary to the compound analysis anchored length. Adding the anchorage length to the
procedure, it ensures the following: t(allowable)m at point length needed to resist compound failure produces the
D (not zero resistance at D); t(allowable)m-1 at point E (not total length required to resist internal and compound
zero resistance at E); and so on. However, since the failures.
anchorage length of planar geosynthetic sheet is typi-
cally small relative to its total required length in prac-
tical problems, this simplification is reasonably con-
servative. Programs ReSSA and MSEW do not use
this simplification; the actual available strength of re-
inforcement at its intersection with the slip surface is
calculated and used in the stability analysis.
Compound critical surfaces emerging above the toe
are also possible and consequently, the procedure in
tions in MSEW, in ReSSA the method used is
Spencer and all equations of equilibrium are satisfied.
When calculating TB, the coefficient Cds is used
(Cds = the interaction coefficient between the rein-
forcement and the soil as determined from a direct
shear test). If the bottom layer is placed directly over
the foundation soil, two values of Cds are needed: one
for the interface with the reinforced soil and the other
for the interface with the foundation soil.
In ReSlope and MSEW, the actual factor of
safety against direct sliding, Fs-ds, is calculated by
comparing the resisting force with the driving force:
TB
F s ds = (4)
P cos
2.6 Commentary
The outermost internal failure surfaces using the Hence, all compound slip surfaces are also con-
approach presented in this paper are contained tained within the reinforced soil. Assessment of di-
within the reinforced zone (Figure 11) for residual = rect sliding reveals that Fs-ds for the layout used is
38. Since peak is unknown, the corresponding slip between 1.5 and 2.0.
surface is not plotted, however, because peak is The actual layout is not the same as required in
larger than residual, the critical slip surfaces would be Figure 5 (i.e., not minimum lengths but rather uni-
even shallower (i.e., certainly contained within the form lengths) and therefore, back-analysis using the
reinforced zone). The long-term allowable geogrid presented design-oriented analysis (ReSlope) can
strength is not reported, but it can be verified that its only suggest a probable range of feasible values.
value is much larger than the measured forces. The probable range for each layer is between the re-
quired forces needed for internal stability and for The presented stability analyses include
compound failure. The approach (ReSlope) speci- recommendations regarding the selection of soil shear
fies the maximum value of this probable range in strength parameters and safety factors. Recognizing
design. Table 2 shows the comparison between the limitations of limit equilibrium analysis, especially
measured values and those predicted using residual = when applied to soil structures comprised of materials
38. possessing different properties (i.e., such as soil and
The agreement exhibited in Table 2 is considered polymeric materials) and the potential for progressive
good. Repeating calculations for the problem for failure, a hybrid approach for selecting soil shear
peak = 43, one gets tj = 11.1 kN/m; for peak = 41, strength is recommended. The peak shear strength
one gets tj = 13.3 kN/m. The measured (actual) parameters of the soil should be used to determine the
value of tj was 15.3 kN/m. Fannin and Herman re- critical slip surfaces (i.e., the reinforcement layout).
port only the total sum of forces for the surcharged Superimposing on these critical slip surfaces the
case. The measured value is 22.2 kN/m whereas the residual strength of the soil and solving the limit
calculated one (residual = 38) is 21.1 kN/m. equilibrium equations provide an estimate of the
Strain measurements by Fannin and Herman indi- required reinforcement strength in case progressive
cates the location of maximum force is shallower failure is likely to develop.
than that implied by residual (i.e., implied by the trace The presented design procedure has been imple-
of slip surface shown in Figure 11). Use of peak as mented in ReSlope (Leshchinsky, 1997, 1999). The
proposed by Leshchinsky (2001) will also produce mechanism and analysis used can be replaced with
shallower surfaces. other stability methods such as program ReSSA
Looking at the measured tension values (Table 2), (Leshchinsky, 2002). The approach is comprehensive
one sees that the mobilized force in the reinforce- and economical; experience proves it is safe. While
ment is approximately uniform among all layers. ReSSA is based on pure slope stability approach,
Such observation supports the approach used in ReSlope is based on a hybrid approach. That is, its
ReSSA and in ReSlope if one examines the com- rigorous Internal Stability mode yield results conven-
pound failure mode. tionally used in the design of MSE walls reinforced
with geosynthetics whereas its Compound Stability
mode corresponds to reinforced slope stability analy-
sis. Consequently, its results are compatible with
those of program MSEW (Leshchinsky, 1999, 2000);
however, it does not deal with stability aspects that
could be important for walls (e.g., connection
strength). It provides a layout that automatically can
resist compound failure, an aspect that cannot be ad-
dressed by lateral earth pressure methods used in de-
sign of walls.
REFERENCES
Applicable to
Slope Reinforce- Maximum No.
Program MSE Geometry Water
Angle ment of Soils
Structure:
Simple,
Phreatic
two-tiered, Reinforced
Geosynthetic or surface used
MSEW Walls1 70-90
Metallic
bridge abut- soil, retained soil,
only in global
ment, back to and 5 other soils
stability
back
Reinforced
Slopes & Phreatic
ReSlope 10-90 Geosynthetic Simple soil, retained soil,
Walls2 surface
foundation soil
Phreatic
25 different surface or pie-
Nearly any
Slopes, Walls Geosynthetic or soils; reinforce- zometric lines;
ReSSA 10-90 complex ge-
& Embankment3 Metallic ometry ment can be em- effective, total
bedded in all soils or mixed stress
analysis
1
MSEW is strictly for MSE walls (following AASHTO or NCMA). A slope stability module (Bishop) is
available to check global stability. Reinforcement must be embedded in a prismatic shape non-cohesive
homogeneous soil; the retained soil is non-cohesive. Additional 5 layers of soil can be specified for global
stability analysis. Water is invoked only in global stability.
2
ReSlope is a design-oriented program that conducts local and global stability checks. The local stabil-
ity check is analogous with the one used in MSEW. It does not deal with facia (it assumes 100% connec-
tion strength). It also does not deal with eccentricity, overturning, and bearing capacity (though deepseated
failure is assessed). It inherently assumes competent foundation.
3
ReSSA uses a global slope stability framework (i.e., it assumes all reinforcement layers are equally
mobilized). This means that if used in walls, the reinforcement strength might be insufficient for local sta-
bility (experience shows that this is not an issue with geosynthetics). It considers various failure mecha-
nisms; however, no overturning and bearing capacity are explicitly checked.
Strength Types of
Unreinforced
Program of Connec- Surcharge Stability Mechanisms
Slopes/Walls
tion: Analysis2
Internal,
direct sliding,
Uniform and
eccentricity Planar, 2-part
strip (live and
(overturning), wedge (simpli-
MSEW 0 - 100% dead), horizon- No
connection, fied), Meyerhof,
tal, point, and
pullout, bear- Circular (Bishop)
isolated
ing capacity,
and global
Internal, Log spiral and
Uniform and
ReSlope 100% 1
No compound, circular for deep-
strip
deepseated seated (Bishop)
Circular
(Bishop), 2- and 3-
Yes (can run as Rotational part wedge
Uniform and
ReSSA 0 - 100% a generic slope sta- and transla- (Spencer); effects
strip tional
bility program) of reinforcement s
included if inter-
sects slip surface
1
ReSlope ignores surficial failure assuming 100% connection strength
2
Factor of safety in ReSSA is consistent regardless whether rotational or translational analysis is
used; this factor applies equally to all elements resisting failure (i.e., shear strength parameters of soils
and reinforcement resistance, if available); the factor for pullout represents a ratio of resisting force and
pullout force. In MSEW this factor is applied only on the reinforcement strength in Internal Stability; it
represents ratio of resisting force and driving force in direct sliding and pullout; it represent ratio of mo-
ments in overturning; it represents the ultimate foundation capacity over the actual load, considering ec-
centric load and Meyerhof method. In ReSlope the user can specify different factor for the soil shear
strength and for the reinforcement strength when dealing with Internal Stability or Compound (thus mak-
ing this approach adaptable to conventional approach to walls or to slopes); ratio of forces in pullout re-
sistance and in direct sliding; reduction of soils shear strength when deepseated failure (Bishop) is used.