Geotextiles and Geomembranes 6 (1987) 33-51

Soft Soil Stabilization Designs Using Geospthtics

Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu and Mark H. Wayne

Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA

\'''-^

ABSTRACT

' Numerous facilities are currently being construcred world wide on very soli
soils-using geosynthetics. Often the foundation soils are at such low shear
strengths (often less than 5-I0kPa), that the geosynthetic reinforcement
material clearly must be in the high strength classification. A series ol'design
elements leading to the required geosynthetic strength, modulus, anchorage
length and surface friction are illustrated in this paper, many with design
charts. These quantiutive design elements are then augmented by numerous
qualitative considerations, such as fabric specific gravity, its stffiess, and
the size and weight of the rolls.
Finally, an attempt at integrating the above mentioned technical con-
siderations into the actual fabric's manufacture is presented. A concluding
flow chart showing each element along the entire design sequence is
described which will hopefully aid in affording owners both a safe and
economical solution for soft soil stabilization projects.

1 INTRODUCTION

High water content fine grained soils have posed formidable problems for
geotechnical engineers throughout history. Usually, their low shear
strengths combined with the magnitude of the proposed loads require the
soil to be removed and replaced, or simply avoided by means of deep
foundations. Alternatively, the in situ soil can be treated in such a way as to
accommodate the proposed loads. Numerous techniques within the general
category of 'ground modification' are available, e.g. grouting, freezing,
dewatering, compacting, etc. Most, however, are site specific, often costly,
33
Geotextiles and Geomembranes AZ(f,-ll4/.l87l$x!8.50 O 19e7, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Creat Britain
 Robert M, Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu, Mark H. Wayne

and generally time consuming. In this paper the focus is on the use of some
type of geosynthetic (geotextile, geogrid or geocomposite) placed directly
on tt ut stiUt" ground with an embankment placed above. The embank-
ment "can be either temporary or pelmanent. The action of the embankment
loading is to induce excess pore water pressure in the subsoil which is
subsequently expelled, while the purpose of the geosynthetic is to support
the embankmeni. Clearly the function of the geosynthetic is reinforcement.'
However, this situation may change somewhat with time as the subsoil gains
in strength through consolidation and begins to supPort Part, or all, of the
embankment load.
Nowhere is the above situation more prevalent than in dealing with
water-transported soils, usually silts and clays, near rivers and their
estuaries. Thus it should come as no surprise that the Corps of Engineers
and various port and harbor authorities have played a key role in the
development of this technology. A number of referencesz* are available and
collectively they will be utilized in this paper.
Since the soit strengths being considered herein are generally less than
!-10 kPa (i.e. they will not suPport an individual nor a piece of lightweight
construction equipment by themselves), the geosynthetic reinforcement will
of necessity be rilatively strong. This in turn suggests that high strength
geotextiles, geogrids and specially fabricated geocomposites will be
iequired. Thii belng the case, it also suggests that the material cost will be
considerably higher than conventional lighfweight geotextiles, such that
engineering design of the situation becomes economically logical to per-
form. It is this engineering design which is the focus of this Paper.
After presenting an overview of the individual design elements, each one
witl be eiplored in depth with illustrative examples and design guides. The
summation of these elements wilt then be directed at implications toward
geosynthetic material design per se. Thus the interaction of the geosynthetic
Iesign engineer and the geosynthetic manufacturer is not only suggested,
but is absolutely necessary for both a safe and economical design.

2 DESIGN OVERVIEW

In considering an embankment placed uPon very soft foundation soil and

supported by-a geosynthetic, a number of failure scenarios (hence design
etiments) arise. Figure 1 illustrates these various possibilities' In
sequentially going from one element to the next, the overall system design
gradually becomes more defined as:

(i) Bearing capacity defines overall embankment geometry'

 Soft soil smbilizaion designs using geosynthaics

(ii) Global stability defines strength design in the major and minor
principal stress directions.
(iii) Elastic deformation defines modulus and failure strain in the major
and minor principal stress directions.
(iv) Pullout or anchorage defines anchorage length behind the slip
plane(s).
(v) Lateral spreading defines frictional properties of the geosynthetic.

These quantifiable characteristics are then viewed in light of more

qualitative considerations such as creep, effect of holes, fabric stiffness,
length, width and weight of panels, etc. , to arrive at a final design. As will be
discussed later, this final design must be modified in light of the manu-
facturing (of the geosynthetic) so that a balanced design results which will be
both safe and cost effective.

(a) BEARING CAPAC}TY

(b) GLOBAL STABILITY (c) ELASTIC DEFORT,ATION

(d) PULLOUT oR ANqEoRAGE (e} LATERAL SPREADING

HS. l. Geotextile design models for use in soft soil stabilization (after Fowler and
Koernef).
i

Roben M. Koerner, Bao'Lin Hwu, Mark H. Wayne

2.1 Bcaringcspacity

The limiting embankment height that can be placed on a given foundation

soil from aLaring capacrty point of view is essentially independent of the
geosynthetic. If a mass failure wants to occur beyond the limits of the
Ieinforced zone, the geosynthetic will be carried along en masse. Thus
conventional geotechnical engineering theory cr.l OffifiO directlY, EivinB
(1)
4arow=c,N"lFS E= }}-l 1^rrlo-'
t4llou Xo .).ta
where

{ar,ow= 7H"uo*: allowablebearingcapac rr," ff9

? = unitweightof embankmentsoil ,(6fr)
Harow: allowable heightof embankment V
c, : rndrained shear strength of foundation f,f,. | -1

N. : bearingcapacity factor(=3'5 to5'7) \:2)

FS = factorofsafety

Using an embankment unit weight of 18 kN/m3 and a value of N" of 5'7,

tn" d"Jgn curves of Fig. 2 result from eqn (1). Here thelinear behavior of
H"no* is Jbserved which-for low foundation soil strengths, is also very
low. [n
orde, to work toward greater heights the embankment soil must be placed in
stages. Between eactistage sfficient time must elapse for the foundation
soif to consolidate. This in t.rtn is site specific, depending primarily on the
permeability of the soil. If it is prohibitively low prefabricated vertical drains

.a- Bcaring capacity

(p.9.:t.O)
,o- Bcaring caPacity
1p.5. t.1 )
c =

-4 .- Bcaring c:Pacity
(F.S.:12)
'
o
n
7 .o- B.aring cePacitY
(ES.:13)

o246alo12
cu (kN'm2)

tr.rS. 2. Atlowable bearing capacity height for different subgrade conditions'

tt^tr('-l ,,9i:r,
Y^)
) W"9
 38 Roben M. Koemer, Brc-Lin Hwu, Mork H. Wayne

Fo','fly' I-
*-"
-T-

or/V Lr

,l

F c. 3. Slope stability analysis procedure including geosynthetic reinforcement layer.

Caocyntrtc (
Sr€neth
(ktUm)

0 10 20 30 40 5o

Stope Angb (&9.)

It. {r). Required geosynthetic stren^gth based on F.S. = 1.3 (soil dead load only). -o-
cu = 1'2 kN/m2;t"-'-"1-:"';:T.'Jli;#,:'j_:;:Hlfih#., cu = z'r 'io':/m2
 Soft soil subilkuion designs using geosynhetics 39

500

a00

300
Oeoryrdreilc
Str.mlh
(kN/m)
200

r00

0
50

gope rnOb (deg.)

F.g.4(b). RequiredgeosyntheticstrengthbasedonF.S. = 1.3(soildeadloadplus14kN/m2

dozer on embankment). -o-, cu = 1.2 kN/m2; - o-, cu = 2.4 kN/mz; - r-, cu = 4.9
kNlm2;-o-, qn,r 78kN/m2;-t-,cl p 98lt{/m';- o-ru = 15.0kN/m2.
t,6
600

500

400
Aorynttptt
Srongth
(kNrm) 300

200

r00

0
20

Stope Angf (dog.)

FfC. 4(c). Required geosynthetic strength based on F.S. = t.3 (soil dead load + 42 kN/m2
stripdrainrigonembankment).-O-,cu= 1.2kN/m2;-o-,cu = 2'4kl{/m2;-r-,cr= 4.9
kN/m2;-o-, cu= 7.3kN/m2;-A-,cu = 9.8kN/m2;-a-,cu = 15.0kN/m2,
40 Robert M. Koemer, Bao-Lin Hwu, Mark H. Wayne

plus a 14 kN/m'z bulldozer and dead load plus a 41 kN/m'? strip drain
installation crane, respectively. Some trends in these curves are worthy of
note:
O Increasing the slope angle requires gradually increasing geosynthetic
strength.
O Decreasing the strength of the foundation soil also requires gradually
increasing geosynthetic strength.
O The introduction of live loads (via construction equipment on the crest
of the slope) is very significant in requiring increased geosynthetic
strength. Larger live loads than those analyzed here, e.g. loaded dump
trucks, must be strictly avoided.
O The cumulative effect of 'steep' slope angles, low foundation soil
strengths and/or live loads, invariably requires geosynthetic strengths
of 100 kN/rn or greater. An indication of polymeric capability to
provide such strength is available in Koemer and Hausmann.e
O The strength values in Figs 4(a-c) do not include any creep con-
siderations. Depending upon the duration of the project, its criticality
and use, the type of polymer, etc., the calculated value must be further
increased. The literature is very unsettled on this important point.
Factor of safety values of 2.0 to 5.0 are reported in the literature,6'10
however, further inquiry is surely required. [t is most important to
recognize that the effect of soil confinement is rarely included in
laboratory testing but always occurs in field considerations.

2.2.1 Globd stabitity of the minor principal stress direction

The cross-section shown in Fig. 3 has clearly defined the direction of

principal stresses. It is typical of a highway slope or an earth dam. ln such
cases the minor principal stresses are generally ZOVo to 4OVo of the major
principal stresses and ordinarily cause no problems. Not so with the type of
soft soil stabilization being considered herein. Principal stress directions are
being reoriented constantly during construction from both dead and live
loads, see Bromslr for various construction patterns. At the minimum, two
cases must be considered:

O Linear embankments where the major principal stress is as shown in

Fig. 3 (and are conventionally handled by the strong, or warp, direc-
tion of the geosynthetic) and the minor principal stress is parallel to the
axis of the embankment. The minor principal stress in such a situation
should be considered as SOVo of. the major principal stress unless
construction can be strictly controlled. If so, a lower value can be used.
It is important to note that this will be the direction where seams are
 Soft soil stabilization designs using geosynthetics 41

required to transfer load from the edge of one roll of geosynthetic to

the next. Often, the seam strength in this direction dominates the
overall strength design of the geosynthetic. The importance of seams,
particularly field seams, cannot be overemphasized.
O Areal embankment fills where length and width are both extremely
Iarge. In such cases the soil fill is placed in a multitude of directions and
the principal stress directions are quite undefined. In such cases, the
major principal stress must be considered to occur throughout the
geosynthetic, requiring a balanced geosynthetic design. In this case the
seams (particularly the field seams) usually dominate the geosynthetic
design. It makes no sense to require a 300 kN/m fabric when the field
seams can only handle one half of this value. Clearly, seam designs and
their construction take great significance in projects of this type.

2.2.2 Etrect of holes in the inchrsion

Invariably, holes will be required to be made through the geosynthetic and

the resulting loss in strength must be assessed. Such holes are typically made
by strip drain installation, monitoring devices or accidentally; see Fig. 5.
Where in the analysis they are considered (i.e. in the factor of safety or in a
lowering of allowable geosynthetic strength) makes little difference, as long
as they are considered. The original reference on this topicl2 has been
expanded in this paper; see Table 1 in which a number of holes, slits, etc.,
have been placed in fabric test specimens and in fabric seam test specimens
to assess the resulting behavior on wide width tensile strength. To be noted
is that fabric strength varies within *9Vo to -4Vo of. a linear decrease with
hole or slit size, but seam strenglh losses are considerably higher. As with
other aspects of fabric strength design, the seams are of great importance.
With this information, the designer must now estimate the size, spacing and
number of holes to be expected. When dealing with closely spaced strip
drains, the reduction in strength can often amount to between lSVo and
25Vo. This concern for holes (in the geosynthetic itself, or in the seams) is
brought about by a concern for'zippering', wherein rapid propagation of a
failure could bring about a catastrophe.

2.3 Elastic deformatbn

The amount of elastic deformation allowed by the geosynthetic will govern

the deformation of the embankment as shown in Fig. 1(c). Obviously, too
great an amount will cause unwanted embankment cracking and loss of
overall stability. Thus 'relatively high' modulus values of the geosynthetic
are required. Unfortunately, 'relatively high' is a poorly defined term.
Roben M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu, Mark H. Wavne

F[. 5. Photographs of holes in geotextile.

 Sofi soil stabilization dcsigtts using geasynkaics 43

TABI.EI
Effects of Holes and Slits in Fabrics and Fabric Seams

Geosynthetic Widewidrt Re&tced Acaut C alculated I inear D ev iatio n from

type stren$h sfiength reducfton reduction linearity
(kN) (kN) (vo) (Vo) (Vo)

Lightweight nonwoven
Nodamage tn
Horizontal slit
2.5 cm ta7 Lz.O 12.5 -0.5
5.0cm 0.991 18.6 25-O -6.4
7.5 cm 0.831 31.8 37.5 -5.7
Vertical slit
2.5 cm l.l9 2.6 0 +2.6
5.0cm 1.24 0 0 0
7.5 cm l.l5 5.8 0 +5,8
Diagonal slit
2.5 cm 1.19 2.6 8.E -6.2
5.0 cm l.G n.7 t7.7 -6.0
7.5 cm 0.y24 24.1 26.5 -2.4
Holes
:
2.5cm6 1.27 3.7 t2.5 -8.8
5.0cm 6 0.880 7.7 25.0 -17.3
7.5 c:rt 6 0.809 33.6 37.5 -3.9
Lightweight woven
Nodamage 4.50
Holes
2.5crn6 4-U2 10.8 t2-5 -1.7
5.0 cmd 3.41 24.2 25-0 -0.8
7.5 cm6 2.81 37-6 37.5 +0.1
Seamed lightweight h,oven
No damage 4.24
2.5cm6 !ffi t3.7 t2.s +t.2
5.0cm 0 3.09 n.r 25.O +2.1
7.5 cm d 2.35 4.7 37.5 +7.2
Seanred heavyweight woven
Nodamage 3.Tt
2.5qt6 2'70 28.3 12.5 + l5.E
5.0cm6 2.s2 33.0 5'0 +8.0
7.5cmb 1.99 47.2 37.5 +9.7

d: diameter.
 4 Robert M. Koerner, Bao_Lin Hwu, Mark H.
Wayne

Based primarily on work by Fowrer er o/.s using

finite erement methods, the
generally desired varue of maximum strain at
tlne reqri.eo ,ii"* is approxi_
mately lOVo,thus

E: Tr.r,6le1
E: I*,6/0.10
E,"q,a : 10I.o,6
(3)
where r,"o'o is the required strength of geosynthetic reinforcement
and e, is
the strain at failure. However,lo oblain ihi, E*0, ;;il;-;"qrire,
a sig-
nificantly stronger geosynthetic that T*.6 without this condition.
Thus the
modulus requirement can easily dominate over the
strength requirement.
Note that these comments are Lased on the geosyntheii"ii..rt,
not taking
into account seamed areas. The latter situalion is oifficuliio
define and
awaits additional research.

2.4 hrllout or anchorage

with the mobilization of a[, or part, of the strength of the geosynthetic

reinforcement comes an e-quar and opposite requirJmeni"iiL
soil behind
the slip zone to resist pullout. As.tro*n in Fig.
1(d), the situation is one
wherebv an anchorage probrem can be enrisionZo.
this area, an equation can be formulated as follows:
iti;;-ktd; free body of
Tr", : 2rL = 2(cu+ c, tanS)L
and

L."q'd : T*rl[2(cr* cr, tan6)] (aa)

or
L""q'd : T*rll2\(c + o, tan S)]
(4b)
where
L,q'd :
required anchorage length behind the srip plane for
a factor
of safety of unity against pull_out
7"", = actual stress in the geosynthetic
c = cohesionofthesoil
c" : adhesion of the soil to the geosynthetic
S : friction angle of the soil
6 : friction angle of the soil to the geosynthetic
qv : average vertical stress (=7Fl)
7 : unit weight of embankment soil
 Soft soil snbilization designs using geosynthaics 45

H = avetage height of embankment above geolxnthetic

E = efficiency of pqsynthetic-to-soif, where p/is efficiency on
cohesion andQtfs efficiency on friction

Equation (4b) has been solved for required anchorage lengths using the
following conditions: c : A; u" = yH;7 : 18kN/m3; H : 4m; S : 3ff,
and is plotted using different geosynthetic efficiencies in Fig. 6. Here it can
be seen that relatively long lengths are required for high strength geo-
synthetics. Such lengths may present problems in confined construction
areas. If so, the geosynthetic must be anchored or possibly folded around a
soil mass in the form of a osausage'.
Note in eqn (4) that the soil above the geosynthetic may be completely
different than the soil below the geosynthetic. For many situations the soil
above the geosynthetic will be completely granular and the soil below
completely cohesive. In that case eqn (4) becomes:
Lrrqd : Tr"rl(c"r*.r+ r" tan6uo*r) (4c)

L..q'd : T"ol (E"cw", * o' E6tan@uo*r) (4d)

Regarding the value of T* in the above equations, the conservative

approach would be to use f,,,. If so, no additional factor of safety need be
taken. If a lower value for geosynthetic strength is used, €.8. T*,-, then it
would be prudent to use a factor of safety on it, or on the value of required
length.
Lastly, comments on geosynthetic-to-soil efficiencies are in order. The

400

300
Goosymheth

il'ifiil 2oo

100

0
91567
L (m.)
,Eqd

Fig. 6. Required anchorage length vs geosynthetic strength and efficiency.

6 Robert M. Koemer, Bao-Lin Hwu, Mark H. Wayne

key laboratory test is the pullout test which is an adapted form of the double
direct shear test. By puling a geooynthetic out of surrounding soil under
applied normal stress and comparing the results to the shear strength of the
soil itself, a number of efficiency relationships can result. [n general,

(i) E*,,* = 1.3 to 1.5

(ii) fE;r.,'n = 0'8 to l'2
"
(iii)"Er.*-brem = 0.5 to 0.7
Thus, geogrids provide an excellent anchorage mechanism in soil, par-
ticularly when it is granular soil capable of fitting into the apertures of the
geogrid. However, when E is greater than 1, failure may occur in the
surrounding soil. Consequently, for desrgn, assume E is not greater than L.

2.5 Lateralspreadiry

On occasion, tension cracks have been observed on the surface of

embankments as shown schematically in Fig. 1(e). The situation can be
nicely analyzed using the following equation and considering granular fi lls to
be above the geosynthetic:

P^-tL
P : (o"rr"tan 6) L
^
O-SyHz K^ = (0.57Htan6)L

.af,6."q.a
: HKrl C (s)

where

6,"q.a = required friction angle of geosynthetic-to-soil

H : embankment height
K. : tarf (45 - 612) : coefficient of active earth pressure
I- : length of zone involved in spreading
P" : active earth pressure force

_-o. Q.: friction angle of embankment soil

) (9 = of geosynthetic-to-soil
"tfi"i"ncy

Shown in Fig. 7 is the tendency for lateral spreading of a 4.0 m high

embankment versus slope angle for various efficiencies. The individual
curves of different efficiencies are typical of geogrids, geotextiles and geo.
membranes. As indicated on Fig. 7, the situation only becomes severe for
steep slope angles and very smooth geosynthetic surfaces.
 Robert M. Koemer, Bao-Lin Hwu, Mark H. Wayne

many of which are qualitative. These include the specific gravity and rigidity
(or stiffness) of the geosynthetic and the size and weight of the rolls.
Regarding specific gravity, the geosynthetic should not float. Invariably
the sites envisioned are at, or under, water, and buoyancy is not a desirable
feature.
Rigidity, or stiffness, of the geosynthetic is desirable to provide some type
of working platform for deployment. The ASTM stiffness test modified by
Haliburton et al.'3 can be used for specifications. The minimum value is
related to the CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of the foundation soil, see
Table 2. This is an important feature where additional investigation seems to
be warranted.
The size and weight of geosynthetic rolls must be considered by everyone
involved in the process. It is obviously a site specific situation, but one which
is tantamount to the success of the project. Designs which cannot be
reasonably constructed, should not be!
Other papers in these proceedings by geosynthetic manufacturers
(Voskamp, Willibey, Myles, Mattox and Paulson) will give considerable
insight into the geosynthetic material aspects of soft soil stabilization.

4 CONCLUSIONS

It is the authors' perception that soft soil stabilization using geosynthetics

has proceeded from two different directions. One is the geotechnical
engineer who has modified traditional design methods to accommodate for a
reinforcement inclusion, and the other is the geosynthetic manufacturer
who has provided a means to accomplish an end. In this case it is a high
strength geosynthetic. For both economical and safe designs (and instal-
lations) they must be brought together. Figure 8 attempts to bring this
about.
Beginning from the design elements illustrated in this paper, the flow in
Fig. 8 is to the right wherein the stresrstrain charaeteristics of the
geosynthetic are formulated. This rudimentary design is modified by other
technical considerations and available fibers, yams and fabrics or materials.
The next, and most significant, question is to see if the result is a balanced
design. Where, for example, is the critical aspect of the design? If it is the
field seams, then everything (*arp, weft, modulus, elongation, etc.) should
emanate from this point.
Lastly, one must challenge if the resulting geosynthetic is constructable in
light of the actual site situation. Here considerations of workability (and
concomitantly, survivability) are very important.
In the final analysis, one should be able to arrive at a geosynthetic design
 tr
U
d
ra
.o
d
E

a
cg (J
4t
a
!,
'i
o
s o.
!
o o
.o
b x
ru

C'

o.
o
o
dI
T ! o
E
t c
!t bt o
e E e
o oo
o o t
,o
! }{
o 5
tt c !
a
o
t) o o a
t
I
A !
{
I
G
n Ti
IE
o rt)
I
h B.
a 2i
:!
i! oc .n
a
tr
g ! Io & 0
o
5: "E
o
a
E E t E.o o
o
u L!
crs !i
o oe 6r EE
, rc
0)
dodE
! 09 0 o a
Ooad I cr
a (,
!-..
n il
c
t,o €
E'
t-

o
C:
o
r{
+,
d
lr
oo
g c
o o c o
o G
a
tt
ur, !
o
,a
+, (,o
UI I
a, o d
I ra € H
o A o k o
t{ o
I I I $r
th o
a d
D o (,
:<
t0 .o
 fl) Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu, Mark
H. Wayne

which is optimafly safe and economical. It is

indeed a very nobre and
worthwhile pursuit, for'finally'the profession has
a technique whereby we
can essentially .walk on water'.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was performed at the Geosynthetics Research

Institute of Drexel
university and funded by a mnsortium of organizations as listed in
the
Foreword of this volume. The authors sinceriy appreciate their
support
of this type of generic research in the overall ot'gosynthetics.
"r"u

REFERENCES
1. Koerner, R. M.,
*:rrglhg with geosyntherics, prentice_Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey (1986).
2' Fowler, J., Analysis of-fabric reinforced embankment test
section at pinto
Pass, Mobile, Arabama,- phD Thesis, o*arroma
siaie tin,ilri,y (1979).
3. Haliburton, T. A.,,fowlgr, f.. anO J. p., Oe.ign unJCon.,ruction of a
Fabric Reinforced rest Section atLangan,
pinio pass. Mobile, Arabama,
Trans. Res.
. Fowler, J.,
4.
Rec..79, Washington, DC (19g0).
Theoreticar- Design Considerations for Fabric
Embankments, proc. 2nd rntr.-conJ'. Geotex., io, Reinforced
i"go;,"'x"vada (r9gz),
IFAI, pp. 665-76.
5. Fowler, J., peters, J- and Franks, L., Influence of Reinforcement
Design and Construction of Mohicanville oite rvo. -iiii.'sra Modurus on
i, Intr. Conf.
_ Qeotex., Vienna, Austria(1996), pp.267_7t.
6. Lawson, c. R., G,eosy.ruhitics fi ioil reinforcement,Notes for a Short
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 19g2. Course,
7- Koerner, R. M., Soft soil .Iiuitirufio, for wilmington
Harbor south dredge
3.a1e1ar disposar area, Report t" usne-wuieriav. iipllirr"nt Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, Misi. paper GL_8G38 (June
^
8. Fowler, J. and Koerner, R. M:. stauilizati-oi::i zb. f sdi.-
*r;;rsoits
synthetics, proc. G3osylt\ttics '87, New Orleani,' using geo_
[;;;;;rr,
Fabrics Association tnt. jSt paut, MN (l9AZl, pp.28il.300:--* Industrial
9' Koerner' R' M. and Hausm"nn, M. n., i.quir"m"nts of geo-
synthetics for soir reinforcement, Geotech. _sg""!t1
roorir? nift]ln-Jurrriur
Association Int., St paul, MN, S(1) (19g7), pp. fL2e - Fabrics
10' den Hoedt' G., cl99p ano retaiaiion of'geotext,e
fibers, J. Geotex. and
Geomemb.,4(2) (1986), pp. 8192.
'
1l Broms, B. B', stali.liiftion very soft cray using geofab
ric, J. Geotex. and
Geomemb.,S(1) (1987), pp. 9_f
t7-28.'
12' Nowatski. E. A' and FagLau, s. R., The effect of
hores on the tensile per-
 jffi:
-r.. r : .-:i.rr]qffei.{1q1it_eEr$11. :.:ii:ti-t:a.a{ia:!5a,iF:i:!sa:rf,q

ja .)

Soft soil sffiitization designs ustng geosy nhaics

formane of gcotextiles, 1(4) (1984), Geogch. Fab. Rpt.,Industrial Fabrict

Association Int., St Paul, MN, pp. 12-15.
t3. Haliburton, T. 4., Lavmastei,'J. D. and Mc6uffey, v. C', Draft Notee of
FHwA Contract No. DTFHSISC$H (Oct. 1981).