Computers and Geotechnics 7 (1989) 67-82

M I X E D M O D E L L I N G OF R E I N F O R C E D SOILS
WITHIN T H E F R A M E W O R K OF THE YIELD DESIGN T H E O R Y

Armelle ANTHOINE
Charg6e de recherche au C.N.R.S.
Laboratoire de M6canique des solides
Ecole Polytechnique
91128 PALAISEAU CEDEX FRANCE

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the paper is to define a basic reliable framework for the combined use of
yield design and mixed modelling. In the so-called "mixed modelling", a soil reinforced by strips,
nails or geotextiles, is considered as a continuous medium reinforced by one- or two-dimensional
media (rods, beams, membranes or plates). The yield design theory, on the other hand, provides
powerful means for investigating the stability of soil structures.
Through the example of a simple reinforced soil structure, both static and kinematic
methods are reviewed for different types of mixed modelling. The emphasis is placed on the pecu-
larities which should be kept in mind whenever a design method is to be implemented.
Finally, a computational program based on the above-mentioned theory is presented.

INTRODUCTION

Most classical engineering methods performed to analyze the stability of reinforced soil
structures ( see for instance [1], [2], and [3] ), refer to mixed modelling and yield design. Indeed, the
reinforced soil is generally considered as a mixed medium, i.e., a three-dimensional continuum
enclosing generalized continuous media of dimension one or two, which is fully legitimate as far as
strips, nails or geotextiles are concerned. Furthermore, these methods of analysis are more or less
accurately derived from either the lowerbound or the upperbound theorems of the yield design
theory.
Here, it is intended to study, from a practical point of view, how the yield design theory as
generally stated by Salen~on [4], can be used within the framework of mixed modelling to determine
the ultimate capacity of reinforced soil structures. For such an analysis, three kinds of data are
required : the geometry of both the structure and the reinforcement arrangement, the loading, and
finally the strength criteria of the soil, of the reinforcement and of the soil-reinforcement interface.
Each of these criteria must be expressed in terms of the corresponding generalized forces namely the
stress tensor for the soil, the stress vector for the interface and the normal force, shearing force and
67
Computers and Geotechnics 0 2 6 6 - 3 5 2 X / 8 9 / S 0 3 . 5 0 @ 1989 Elsevier Science
P u b l i s h e r s Ltd, E n g l a n d . P r i n t e d in G r e a t Britain
 68

bending moment for the reinforcement.

In this unusual context, the classical lowerbound and upperbound methods must be used
with great care. The aim of the paper is to draw the reader's attention to some pecularities inherent
in mixed modelling. In a paper to appear, the complete theory will be presented in a more formal
way.

AN I L L U S T R A T I V E E X A M P L E

In order to make things clear, the simple example of a vertical cut-off in a homogeneous
soil reinforced by a single horizontal layer of inclusions is considered. The analysis could easily be
extended to more realistic cases such as slopes or foundations subjected to more complex loadings
and reinforced by several layers of inclusions. Under the plane strain assumption, the reinforced soil
is therefore considered as a two-dimensional matrix enclosing a one-dimensional generalized
medium, namely the layer of inclusions. The geometrical characteristics of the structure are sum-
marized in figure 1. The loading parameter is the volumetric weight of the soil, 7. The shearing
strength of the soil is supposed to be governed by a Coulomb failure criterion which can be written
in the classical form :

] r l _ < C - atanff , (1)

where C is the cohesion and ~ the internal friction angle, tensile stresses being counted positive.

!.
H

FIGURE 1 : Characteristics of the cut-off.

As far as the inclusions and the interface are concerned, three different cases corresponding
to configurations of increasing complexity are successively considered :
 69

- Case 1 : the reinforcement is supposed to behave like a strip, i.e. a one-dimensional con-
tinuous medium with only one generalized stress, the normal force N. In this case, the following
strength condition may be adopted :

[NI _< No, (2)

where N O is the maximal tension or compression allowable in the reinforcement per unit of
transverse length. Furthermore, perfect bonding is assumed between the soil and the strip.

- Case 2 : the latter assumption is released by introducing a failure criterion at the

interface. For instance, the simplest way of allowing slip between the soil and the strip is to choose
a Tresca failure criterion expressed by the condition :

]r[ < r o , (3)

where r is the shearing component of the stress vector acting on the interface.

- Case 3 : perfect bonding is again assumed but, on the other hand, the reinforcement is
supposed to behave like a beam. In addition to the normal force, the bending moment M must be
taken into account. A combined strength criterion such as :

(4)

which refers to a rectangular cross section under bending with normal force, may be adopted. It
may be seen that the shearing force V is not involved here, which implies that there is no limitation
on it. As a matter of fact, the determination of a strength criterion involving N, M and V is still an
open problem [5]. Therefore, more complex configurations, taking shear into account in the beam,
will not be considered here. Furthermore, within the frame of this paper, they would not present
any fundamental difference by comparison with the cases already mentioned.

T H E STABILITY C O E F F I C I E N T

It is worth noting that, at first glance, the three configurations may be considered as partic-
ular cases of the more general one of the beam reinforcement with partial bonding. In that case, the
problem is completely defined by the values of % H, ~b, C, D, L, N o, M o and r o. Case 1 is obtained
when both conditions M o - . 0 and r o - . +oo are met, and case 2 (resp. case 3) when only the first
(resp. second) condition is satisfied.
 70

According to the yield design theory, the general structure appears to be stable under the
loading % if the non dimensional factor ~/H/C remains lower than a critical value K ÷. Moreover,
K + is a function of the six non dimensional parameters $, L/H, D/H, No/CH, Mo/NoH and %/C.
Thus, it is natural to define the stability coefficient F of the structure under the loading ~ as
follows :

L D No Mo ro
F= K+(~' H' H' CH' NoH' C ) ' (5)

since it exhibits the following properties :

- F < I <=> the structure is not stable under 3',
-F= 1 <=> ~ is the ultimate load, (6)
- F > 1 <=> the structure is stable under "1.

Our purpose is now to reconsider, within the framework of mixed modelling, both the
upperbound and lowerbound methods for estimating F in each of the three cases. On the one hand,
we establish "mixed equilibrium equations" where the stresses in the soil and the generalized forces in
the reinforcement are coupled. On the other hand, we define the kinematic'ally admissible velocity
fields which describe virtual motions for the soil and the reinforcement ("mixed failure
mechanisms"). We also review how to compute the "maximum resisting work" and, finally, we give
some examples of failure mechanisms which may lead to good upperbounds of F.
As indicated in figure 2, mixed modelling requires suitable notations which will be used
throughout the paper. All quantities are expressed in the main reference system (Oxz) unless the
argument or subscript s referring to reinforcement is explicitly mentioned. Other notations will be
introduced as the paper proceeds.

,Z

0 nI X

--f)
S-I]...

"1
F I G U R E 2 : The notations.
 71

CASE 1 : STRIP R E I N F O R C E M E N T WITH P E R F E C T B O N D I N G

The Iowerbound method.

Within the modelling adopted, it is natural to consider mixed generalized stress fields (a,N)
defined on nxA, where a is the Cauchy stress tensor in the soil and N is the normal force in the
strip, counted positive in tension. Such a field (~,N) is said to be statically admissible with the
loading "/if it satisfies the equilibrium equations in the soil and along the strip. Taking into account
the soil-strip interaction, a statically admissible field (o,N) must then satisfy :

diva+'TffiO onflwheredivaexists,
[[o]].n = 0 wherever a is discontinuous across a line of normal n,
o . n =, 0 on ogfl,
n,.[[a]]s.n , = 0 on A , (7)

- ~ ( s ) + t,.[[u]]e.n , 0 on A ,

N(s)=O fors=OandL,

where [[a]]~ is the jump of the stress tensor across A at the abscissa s, i.e. :

[[¢]]j ffi lim {a (-D+h ; s) - a ( - D - h ; s)} . (8)

h...,0 +

The first three equations are well-known and the next two express the equilibrium of the strip
loaded on both sides. They can also be deduced from the translational equilibrium of an elementary
volume taken around the rod provided that its height h tends to zero faster than its width w does,
i.e. h << w << 1 (figure 3). The last equation is obvious since both ends of the strip are free, but it
could also be found by considering the same elementary volume around each end of the strip.

w<<l and h - . O .
Gls;-D+h/2).n,
Equating the resultant force to zero upon n , ,
ns.[[o]]s.n , = 0 ,

and upon t~ ,
-o(s; - D-h/21.~'~'~ N(s+w) - N(s) + t..[[o]]j.n, w ffi 0 ,

FIGURE 3 : Establishing the equilibrium equations along the strip.

The fundamental characteristic of such a statically admissible mixed field (¢,N) is that the
tangential component o f the stress vector acting on A in the soil may be discontinuous across the strip
 72

A, the jump being balanced by the normal force N in the strip.

If one can exhibit, in the whole structure, a mixed stress field (a,N) satisfying condititions
(1), (2) and (7), then the corresponding value of "IH/C is a lower estimate of the critical value K +
and, thus, a lowerbound of stability coefficient F may be deduced. Of course, it is most desirable
that the normal force N in the strip should not become identically zero on A, since this would
amount to ignore the reinforcement. As a matter of fact, the system (6) would then reduce to the
classical equilibrium equations of the unreinforced structure. Hence, to prove the reinforcement
effect, i.e., the increase of the stability coefficient F, the shearing component of the stress vector
acting on A in the soil must be discontinuous across the strip. Unfortunately, such a mixed stress
field proves rather difficult to construct.

T h e u p p e r b o u n d method.
First it is necessary to define which are the kinematically admissible velocity fields
(mechanisms). As far as the soil is concerned, the usual velocity fields v, defined on 12 and
vanishing at infinity may be adopted. On the other hand, it is legitimate that the velocity field w on
A should be chosen irrespective of v. As a matter of fact, owing to the perfect bonding assumption,
the motion of the strip and of the surrounding soil may be identified. Thus, any velocity field kine-
maritally admissible for the unreinforced structure may be transformed in a mixed kinematic field
(v,w), v and w being its restrictions to fl and A, respectively. Let (v,w) be such a mixed
mechanism. The upperbound method relies on the fundamental inequality :

Pext("/,v) < e.oil(v) + Pstrip(w) , (9)

where P,xt(7,v) denotes virtual work done by the external forces ('/), and where Psoa(v) and Pjtrip(w)
are the maximum resisting work in the soil and in the strip, respectively. Since condition (9) is
necessary for the stability of the structure, the value of "/H/C for which (9) becomes an equality is
an upper estimate for the critical value K + and the corresponding upperbound of the stability coef-
ficient F is directly given by

F < Ps°il(V)+ Pstrip(-w) (I0)

- Pext('7,v)

provided that Pext(%v) is positive. The mixed mechanisms (v,w) must be chosen in order to provide
finite maximum resisting work, otherwise they would lead to an infinite upperbound value of F.
The maximum resisting work in the soil, Psou(v) is given by :

P'°u(v) = f~*°i*(d(v))dfi+ f'rls°u(n;[[v]])d~C

E (11)
 73

where d(v) is the strain rate tensor associated with v, [Iv]] denotes the velocity jump across a dis=
continuity line I~ of normal n, and Pstrip(W) is such that :

Pstrip (w) *ffi I; strip( d-~s

dw,~s) ) ds + ~.trip( [[wt(si)]] ) , 02)
i=l

where w t is the projection o f w along t m and [[Wt(Si)]] is the jump of w t at abscissa s i of A.

Moreover, the different functions ,r, which may be computed from the corresponding strength
criteria (1) and (2), are given by :

x)oil(d) = C cotg~ trd if trd _> ( [di[ + [dll I ) sin~, 03)

= +oo otherwise,

II,on(n;W) = C cotg~ W.n if W.n _> [Wising , (14)

= +00 otherwise,

,r,t~p(ve) = No[W[. (15)

One should bear in mind that the definition of a discontinuity line is purely a matter of
convenience for practical use. It may also be considered as the mathematical abstraction of an infin-
itely thin transition layer leading to the definition of II~ou.
As an example, consider the well-known logspiral mechanism passing through the toe as
shown in figure 4. It is represented by arrows and also by a deformed configuration which is not
correct but more eloquent.

FIGURE 4 : Logspiral mechanism passing through the toe.

 74

The computation of Pext and P~oil is unchanged in comparison with the unreinforced case (see [6]
for example). The maximum resisting work in the strip is exclusively due to the velocity jump W,,
provided the strip be long enough. Any value of (01,0~) provides an upperbound of F, the lowest the
best, which may be determined by means of a numerical calculation. As a matter of fact, depending
upon the values of D,L and No, an even better upperbound may be obtained by considering other
types of mechanisms (Figure 5).

[------

l¸ /V
Logspiral mechanism passing above the strip. Two-block mechanism.
F I G U R E 5 : Some posssible mechanisms.

CASE 2 : STRIP R E I N F O R C E M E N T WITH P A R T I A L B O N D I N G

T h e iowerbound method.
The statically admissible stress fields (o,N) which have been defined at the previous case, are
still suitable. The only difference is that condition (3) has now to be added to conditions (1) and (2).
Consequently, a decrease of F may be expected since it means a possible weakening of the structure.

T h e Ul~perbound method.
In order to take into account the possible slip at the soil-strip interface, the motion of the
strip (w) is now allowed to be different from the one of the surrounding soil (vtzx). For such a
mechanism (v,w), the computations of Pext, P,ou and P~t~p are the same as in the previous case, but
the maximum resisting work at the soil-strip interface must be added

Vin,(V,W) = I ( lqnt(v+(s) - w(s) ) + 7tint(w(s) - v-(s) ) ds , (16)

 7S

where v+(s) ( v ' ( s ) ) is the velocity of the soil at abscissa s just above (below) the rod, i.e.,

v+(s) - lira v(-D+h,s) and v-(s) ffi lira v(-D-h,s) . (17)

h--,0 + h.-.,0 +

The function gint, which is associated with the strength criterion (3), is given by :

Xint(W)=r o [W.t,] if W.t n = 0 , (18)

ffi +c¢ otherwise.

Though any mechanism of the previous case might still be used, it would provide just the
same upperbound as before since the total maximum resisting work would not change at all. To
account for the possible weakening of the structure, i.e. the possible decrease of F, it is essential for
the mechanism to exhibit some slipping at the soil-strip interface. For example, on figure 6, the
classical Iogspiral mechanism has been modified in such a way that the maximum resisting work in
the strip is equal to zero. The horizontal velocity jump W~ has disappeared since the strip is slipping
in the motionless soil with the uniform horizontal velocity W~.

F I G U R E 6 : Logspiral mechanism with slipping of the strip in the motionless soil.

CASE 3 : B E A M R E I N F O R C E M E N T WITH P E R F E C T B O N D I N G

The lowerbound method.

The previous mixed stress field (a,N) must be completed with the bending moment M at
any point of the rod. Concurrently, the equilibrium equations must be modified. A mixed stress
field (¢,N,M) defined on f~xAxA will be said statically admissible with the loading "y if it satisfies
the following equations :
 76

divo+'1ffi0 (or[[o]].n=O) onfl,

o'.n ffi 0 on o91-1,

~-~-(s) + t , . [ [ e ] ] , . n = = 0 on A ,

dSM(s) - nr[[o]].,n = ffi 0 on A (19)

ds2

N(s)=O fors=OandL,
M(s) ffiO forsffiOandL,
dM
~.-~'~s/= 0 for s = 0 and L i

dS'-

AS in case 2, the equations along A involving the generalized stresses N and M, express the
equilibrium of the beam loaded on both sides. They may also be obtained by balancing the forces
acting on the same elementary volume as before (figure 7). It is then necessary temporarily to
introduce the shearing force V along the beam. The last three limit conditions may be found by the
same way or by noting the absence of concentrated forces or moments at both ends of the beam.

w<<l and h - - - ~ 0 .
Equating the resultant force to zero upon n, ,
e(s;-1~/2).~ V{s÷w),, v(s+w/- V(sl + n,.tt°ll,.n, w = 0 ,

~N~I~~ j w. • s)+t,.[[e]],.n,w=0.
f Equating the resultant moment around the right end
-e{s;-I}-IV2}.n,
to zero ,
M(S+W) - M(S) + V(s) w = 0 .

FIGURE 7 : Establishing the equilibrium equations along the beam.

It is worth pointing out that both tangential and normal components of the stress vector
acting on A in the soil may be discontinuous across the line A.
Any mixed stress field (o,N,M) satisfying conditions (1), (3) and (191 provides a lowerbound
of the new coefficient F, which may be compared to the one of the first case. As a matter of fact,
a field (o,N) which satisfies conditions (11, (2) and (7), may be transformed in the field (o,N,M=0)
which obviously satisfies conditions (1), (3) and (191. Consequently, passing from ease 1 to case 3, F
cannot decrease, i.e. the structure cannot become weaker. Nevertheless, no possible increase of F
may be shown unless considering mixed stre~ field (o,N,M) exhibiting a non zero moment, i.e. dis-
continuities of the normal component of the stress vector acting on A.
 77

The upperbound method.

The kinematic fields (v , wffivl~) considered in case 1 must be completed with the angular
velocity r of the section at any point of the beam. As a matter of fact, it may be shown that the
maximum resisting work in the beam cannot be finite unless the velocity field (w,r) satisfies the
Navier-Bernoulli condition :

dw n
r(s)ffi~--~S) on A. (20)

It is intuitively easy to understand : if the Navier=Bernoulli condition is not satisfied, the shearing
force V works and consequently, its maximum resisting work is infinite since there is no limitation
dwn
on V. Consider such a mechanism (v , wffivL~ , rffi-~---). In inequalities (9) and (10), Pstdp must be

replaced by:.

f2 dwt dgwn ~II dwn

Pb,,...(w) ," b..,~(~--~S) ; ~---~2" S) ) ,is + b.,,,.( ffw(s~)]]; ff ~--~-~(S~)]] ), (2~)
i=l

where

4M52 + N206' No16I

~'b.,m(a;X) = 4Mol×l if ~ _< i , (22)

- NoI~ j otherwise ,
and

IIbeam(W;O) = 4M2oO= + N2W2

4MolOl if ~ _ I and Wn ffi 0 (23)

NolWd
- NolWd if ~ _ > l and Wnffi0 ,

ffi+oo if W n ~ 0 .

The function II~m~(W;O) may be deduced from ~rbnm(w) by considering the mathematical
definition of a velocity discontinuity as an infinitely thin transition layer. The Navier-Bernoulli
condition then appears through the condition on Wa, which may be intuitively understood since the
shearing force is working as soon as the normal component of the velocity is discontinuous.
Owing to the above-mentioned condition, it may be seen that many mechanisms of the first
case are no longer useful since they lead to an infinite upperbound for F. In order to get finite
maximum resisting works in the beam, the simplest way is to replace the discontinuity lines by tran-
sition layers of finite thickness (Figure 8).
 78

:~: =i °
FIGURE 8 : The logspiral mechanism with a transition layer of finite thickness.

In such a transformed mechanism, the normal component w n of the velocity is continuous along the
beam, and the maximum resisting work is composed of three terms coming from :
- the soil within the transition layers, which may be computed by means of (13),
- the parts of the beam which intersect the layers ( expression (22)),
- the hinges which appear in the beam, on the boundaries of the layers ( expression (23)
with W = 0 ).
With such a technique, the classical circle mechanism, has been successfully employed to in-
vestigate the stability of a cut-off in a cohesive soil uniformly reinforced by beams [7].

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

The upperbound method presented in the second case of this study has been implemented in
a computational program named S T A R S (STability Analysis of Reinforced Soils) operating on a
personal computer. At the present time, it is possible to investigatethe stabilityof a slope, the char-
acteristicsof which are displayed in figure 9. For such a structure, definition (5) of the stability
coefficient F need to be generalized since there are several loading parameters ('t,Qi,qj).A m o n g the
possible generalizations,the one which is coherent with the following overestimate has been chosen :

P~xt('I,v) + ~-'~PG~.(Qi,v)+ ZP~x~t(qj, v)

F _< i J , (24)

P.I(v) + ~--~Pvod(Wk)+ Z P i n t ( v , w k )
k k
AS a matter of fact, it coincides with the "rupture coefficient" introduced by Salenfon [4] and it still
exhibits properties (6).
 79

AVAILABLE DATA

i Geometry{soil theight H
I (inclinations~x,~2,~s
inclusions ~position Dk
inclination %
lIlength Lk

, I:)~:~I, ::ii!i~i~ii::l Loading ~volumetric weight '~

concentrated forces Qi
IIditributed forces qi
qiiTrl I Strength ~ s o i l Mohr-Coulomb C,O
inclusions normal force N k
l/Interface Tresca ro
Figure 9 : Characteristics accepted by the present version of STARS.

Among all the logspiral mechanisms passing above, through or below the toe, with or
without slipping of the strips in the motionless soil, STARS determines the one which leads to the
least upperbound of F (critical mechanism). As a result of the calculation, mechanisms corresponding
to local minima of the upperbound are also available (suberitical mechanisms). The program is struc-
tured in such a way that, whenever he wants, the user can get the representation of the structure,
modify its characteristics, determine and represent the critical and suboritical mechanisms. The sim-
plicity of the method makes it possible to repeat the computational process a lot of times very
quickly. Therefore, STARS may be used either to check the stability of a given reinforced structure,
or to design and to optimize the reinforcement scheme of a structure to be realized.
As an example, the nailed embankment represented in figure 10 will be considered. All the
nails are identical and the tranverse distance d between two of them is one meter. The resistance of
the facing will be neglected.

2m
Soil [~ : IS k~/m s
I~ 300
%C 5 kPa
=

Inclusion ~diameter D = 0.032m

,-(% 250000kPa
~
Interface rum - 50 kPa

Figure 10 : Characteristics of the nailed embankment.

 80

First of all, the characteristics of the equivalent 2D mixed structure must be determined,

a02 aOr~m
which implies the calculation of N O ffi ~ = 201 kN/m and r e ffi ~ ffi 5 kPa. The other char-

acteristies remain unchanged. It may be pointed out that slipping will occur at the interface before
breaking of the nails since the anchoring length of the latters, i.e. No/to, is greater than their length.

The purpose of the first calculation is to estimate the stability coefficient F of the structure.
The result is presented in figure l la. The critical mechanism does not pass through the toe but
above the deepest nail and gives F ffi 1.49. As an indication, this calculation required less than three
minutes on an AT computer.

1.72

13
a : Original structure, b : Optimal structure.
Figure 11 : Critical and suberitieal mechanisms determined by the program.

Suppose now that the depths of the different layers of nails may be modified. The problem
is then to find the best reinforcement scheme, i.e. the one that leads to the highest stability coeffi-
cient. It is easy to understand that the optimal scheme is obtained when all suberiticai mechanisms
become critical at the same time. By continuous approach, such an event may be found rather
quickly since the result of a calculation indicates where and how to modify the reinforcement. In
figure 1lb, the configuration is almost perfect and the stability coefficient has been improved from
1.49 to 1.72 which represents an increase of 15%.
Finally, since this optimal embankment is realized by successive excavations, it is important
to check its stability during its construction. Each step consists in excavating until 0.50m below each
layer of nails. In figure 14, the criticais mechanisms of the five steps are suecessiveley represented.
The dotted inclusion indicates the layer of nails to be installed just after. The stability coefficient
never becomes lower than 1.23 which is satisfactory.
 81

\
123- ,5. 1.27 3~
i
1.31
.... J
i

..... J
/ . . . . . J

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

h'x~\\ \
\ \
\, \

1,33-- 1.36"--~
Step 4 Step 5
Figure 14 : The five steps of construction.

CONCLUSION

Mixed modelling proves an appropriate means of describing soils reinforced by inclusions

provided the latter may be considered as one or two-dimensional media (strips, nails, geotextiles).
However, some cautions are required when using it within the framework of the yield design
theory. Both lowerbound and upperbound methods have shown to be strongly influenced by the way
the reinforcement is considered. According to whether perfect bonding is assumed or not, and
depending on which generalized stresses are taken into account in the inclusion, the mixed statically
admissible stresses and the mixed kinematically admissible velocities may be quite different.
In a more practical point of view, the computational program STARS is the direct applica-
tion of the upperbound method when the inclusions are considered as strips with partial bonding.
STARS is operational on a personal computer and proves to be quite efficient to check the stability
of a given reinforced structure or to design and to optimize the reinforcement of a structure to be
realized.
 82

REFERENCES

Pastor, J., Turgeman, S., Ciss, A.,

Calculation of limit loads of structures in soils with metal reinforcement.
European Conference on Num. Meth. in Geomechanies, Stuttgart, Germany (1986).

Blondeau, F., Christiansen, M., Guilloux, A., Schlosser F.,

Talren : A design method for reinforced soil structures.
In Proc.of Int. Conf. in situ soil and rock reinforcement, (1984) 219-224.

Leshchirtsky, D., Reinschmidt, A.J.,

Stability of membrane reinforced slopes.
In J. of Geotech. Eng., A.S.C.E., vol. 111, nb. 11,(1985), 1285-1300.

Salen~on, J., Calcul ~ la rupture et analyse limite,

Presses de I'E.N.P.C., Paris (1983).

Zyczkowski, M., Combined loadinss in the theory of plasticity,

Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw (1981).

6. Chen, W.F., Limit analysis and soil plasticity,

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1975).

Anthoine, A.,
Stabilit~ d'une fouille renforc6e par clouage.
Fourth French-Polish Symposium on Applied Soil Mechanics,
Grenoble, France (1987).