Technical Note

A comprehensive method for analyzing the effect of geotextile layers

on embankment stability
A. Tolooiyan
a,
*
, I. Abustan
a
, M.R. Selamat
a
, Sh. Ghaffari
b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Engineering Campus, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
b
Soil and Water Engineering, P.O. Box 3185838143, Karaj, Tehran, Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 March 2008
Received in revised form
20 November 2008
Accepted 21 November 2008
Available online 20 February 2009
Keywords:
Embankment
Water condition
Geotextile
Mathematical model
Stability
Finite element method
a b s t r a c t
Commercial software is used widely in slope stability analyses of reinforced embankments. Almost all of
these programs consider the tensile strength of geotextiles and soilgeotextile interface friction.
However, currently available commercial software generally does not consider the drainage function of
nonwoven geotextile reinforcement. In this paper, a reinforced channel embankment reinforced by
a nonwoven geotextile is analyzed using two methods. The rst method only considers the tensile
strength and soilgeotextile interface friction. The second method also considers the drainage function.
In both cases, the reinforced embankment is modeled in rapid drawdown condition since this is one of
the most important conditions with regard to stability of channel embankments. It is shown that for this
type of application, modeling a nonwoven geotextile reinforced embankment using commercial software
which neglects the drainage function of the geotextile may be unrealistic.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
When it happens, embankment collapse can be disastrous
causing serious loss of life, money and time. Reconstructing
collapsed embankments can be very costly and from a purely
economic standpoint, it would be more benecial to reinforce the
embankment so that it does not fail rather than reconstruct.
Nowadays advances in technology in material science have
produced geosynthetic materials for usage in various aspects of
civil engineering.
Geosynthetic materials that are used widely in embankments to
increase stability (Bergado and Teerawattanasuk, 2008; Brianon
and Villard, 2008; Chen et al., 2008; Li and Rowe, 2008; Rowe and
Taechakumthorn, 2008; Sarsby, 2007). Geotextile layers increase
the embankment stability by virtue of two primary functions:
tensile reinforcement (as in the cases cited above) and as a drainage
element reducing pore pressures.
Most analyses of geotextile reinforced embankments consider
the effect of the tensile stiffness of the geotextiles but generally
do not consider the drainage function of nonwoven geotextile
reinforcement. While this is suitable for most applications, in the
case of nonwoven geotextile reinforced channel embankments this
may represent a signicant oversight. Thus the objective of this
paper is to examine the effect of ignoring and considering the
drainage function for a channel embankment subject to rapid
drawdown.
2. Current numerical procedure
Lemonnier et al. (1998), analyzed the effect of geotextile rein-
forcement on the stability of embankments by a mathematical
displacement method presented by Gourc et al. (1986), where by
only the tensile strength of the geotextile was taken into consid-
eration in the analysis. Sharma and Bolton (2001), Bergado et al.
(2002), and Hinchberger and Rowe (2003), utilized different
commercial and non-commercial FEM models to analyze the
stability of geotextile reinforced embankments. In all of these
investigations, tensile strength and soilgeotextile interface friction
were taken into consideration, while ignoring the geotextile
drainage ability. Nagahara et al. (2004) used FEM to analyze the
effect of the drainage ability of geotextiles on stability of embank-
ments. Nagahara and colleagues reported that the measured hori-
zontal deformation of the case study embankment was much
smaller than estimated by FEM due to the neglecting soilgeo-
textile interface friction in their FEManalysis. Iryo and Rowe (2005)
rstly used FEM to model the drainage ability of geotextile, then,
after estimating the water surface in embankment, they used
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tolooiyan@googlemail.com (A. Tolooiyan).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Geotextiles and Geomembranes
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ geot exmem
0266-1144/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.013
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 399405
a limit equilibrium method to consider the tensile strength of the
geotextile.
The FEM can be used to compute stresses and displacements in
earth structures and soil masses. The method is particularly useful
for soilstructure interaction problems, in which structural
members interact with a soil mass (USACE, 1995). In complex
conditions, it is often difcult to anticipate failure modes, particu-
larly if reinforcement or structural members such as geotextiles,
concrete retaining walls, or sheet piles are included (USACE, 2003).
Another important input to the stability analyses for reinforced
slopes is the load in the reinforcement and FEM can provide useful
guidance for establishing the load that will be used (USACE, 2003).
The capabilities of FEM, led to it being used by many researchers to
investigate the behavior of reinforced embankments e.g. Rowe
(1982, 1984), Rowe and Soderman (1984), Humphrey and Holtz
(1989), Hird and Kwok (1989), Rowe and Mylleville (1990), Bergado
et al. (2002), etc. However, Rowe and Mylleville (1994) explained
that careful consideration must be given to the type of FEM and
constitutive relationships that will be used to model the discrete
components of the reinforced embankments.
2.1. Serious limitations of mathematical models in modeling
geotextile
While commercial software such as Plaxis Ver.7.2 (1998), MStab
Ver.9.8 (2004), Geostab 2004 (2004), Stedwin Ver.2.6 (1999) and
Pcstabl Ver.6 (1999) are widely used to analyze geotextile rein-
forced embankment, those just consider the geotextile tensile
strength and/or soilgeotextile interface friction. In some cases of
reinforced embankment analysis, the results may be unrealistic
because the drainage function of geotextile is ignored by the
previously mentioned commercial software.
2.2. Equations to evaluate geotextile tensile strength and soil
geotextile interface friction
To evaluate the soilgeotextile interface in FE analysis the
MohrCoulomb equation can be used as it is widely employed in FE
modeling of soilstructure interfaces. This equation is able to
consider both cohesion and friction angle of interfaces.
The equation for considering geotextile tensile strength is
usually strain energy equation that is shown in Eq. (1).
P
a

_
L
0
EA
2
_
du
dx
0
_
2
dx
0
(1)
where P
a
is the strain energy, EA is the axial rigidity, L is the length
of geotextile, u is the axial displacement along the geotextile, and x
0
is the distance along the geotextile.
2.3. Necessity of equations associated with water in reinforced
embankment components
In analyzing the embankment, one of the most important issues
is pore water pressure since pore water pressure whether positive
or negative has a direct effect on the stability and safety factor of
embankment. Therefore realistic pore water pressure conditions
need to be considered explicitly in the analysis.
2.4. Water ow in reinforced embankment components
Richards (1931) derived the governing equation for transient
water ow within an unsaturated material from Darcys law and
Continuity. For the two dimensional homogeneous anisotropic
material, the equation is as Eq. (2).
k
x
v
2
h
vx
2
k
y
v
2
h
vy
2

vQ
vt
m
w
g
w
vh
vt
(2)
where h is the total hydraulic head, k
x
, k
y
are the unsaturated
hydraulic conductivities for the x- and y-directions, m
w
is the slope
of the water volume characteristic curve, g
w
is the unit weight of
water, Q is the volumetric water content, and t is the time.
2.5. Water storage in reinforced embankment components
Both the soil and geotextile consists of a collection of solid
particles and interstitial voids. The pore spaces or voids could be
lled either with water or air, or with a combination of both. In
saturated materials (soil and/or geotextile), all the voids are lled
with water and the volumetric water content of the materials is
equal to the porosity of the soil according to Eq. (3).
Q nS (3)
where Q is the volumetric water content, n is the porosity, and S is
the degree of saturation (in saturated materials equal to 1.0 or
100%)
In unsaturated materials, the volume of water stored within
the voids depends on the negative water pressure (suction). The
water content is not constant and therefore so a function is
required to describe how the water contents changes with
different stresses in the materials. The volumetric water content
function describes the capability of materials to store water under
changes in pore water pressures (Krahn, 2004). A typical function
of volumetric water content and pore water pressure is shown in
Fig. 1.
The volumetric water content function describes what portion
(or volume) of the voids remains water-lled as the materials
drains. The three main features that characterize the volumetric
water content function are the air-entry value (AEV), the slope of
the function for both the positive and negative pore water pressure
(m
w
), and the residual water content (Q
r
). The air-entry value (AEV)
corresponds to the value of negative pore water pressure when the
largest voids or pores begin to drain freely. It is a function of the
maximum pore size in a soil and is also inuenced by the pore-size
distribution within a soil. Soils with large and uniformly shaped
pores have relatively low AEVs (Krahn, 2004). Another key feature
of the volumetric water content function is the residual volumetric
water content (Q
r
), which represents the volumetric water content
of a soil where a further increase in negative pore water pressure
does not produce signicant changes in water content (Krahn,
2004).
Fig. 1. Volumetric water content (storage) function (Krahn, 2004).
A. Tolooiyan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 399405 400
As shown in Fig. 1, the slope of the volumetric water content
versus pore water pressure has different slopes (m
w
) in positive and
negative pore water pressure regions. The value of the slope in the
positive pressure range is the coefcient of volume compressibility,
and in physical terms, it describes how much a saturated soil
volume will swell or shrink for a given change in pore pressure. This
coefcient can be back-calculated from consolidation test data
(Krahn, 2004).
m
w

1
E
(4)
where E is the elasticity modulus.
Van Genuchtens (1980) predictive method for measurement of
a volumetric water content function in negative pore water pres-
sure has been used in many studies and its validity has been
examined for a wide range of soils. Iryo and Rowe (2004) also used
this model to investigate inltration into a soil column containing
a nonwoven geotextile layer and found that it works well for
modeling the unsaturated reaction of the nonwoven geotextile.
Therefore, this method could be used in modeling to describe the
hydraulic properties of both soil and the geotextile.
Q Q
r

Q
s
Q
r
_
1
_
J
a
_
n
_
m
(5)
where Q is the volumetric water content, Q
r
is the residual volu-
metric water content, Q
s
is the saturated volumetric water content,
J is the negative pore water pressure, and a, n, m are the curve
tting parameters.
Rawls et al. (1982), and Carsel and Parrish (1988) conducted
substantial experimental work and obtained the Van Genuchten
model parameters for different soil textural groups according to the
USDA soil classication system. As a result of this work, laboratory
particle size analysis can be directly related to the modeled
parameters. Further, for geotextile, the Van Genuchten model
parameters could be taken from the typical values evaluated from
published data compiled by Iryo and Rowe (2003).
2.6. Hydraulic conductivity in reinforced embankment components
In a saturated soil, all the pore spaces between the solid particles
are lled with water. Once the air-entry value is exceeded, air
enters the largest pores and the air-lled pores become non-
conductive conduits to ow and increase the tortuosity of the ow
path. As a result, the ability of the soil and geotextile to transport
water (the hydraulic conductivity) decreases. As pore water pres-
sures become increasingly more negative, more pores become air-
lled and the hydraulic conductivity decreases further. By this
description, it is clear that the ability of water to ow through
a prole depends on howmuch water is present in the soil, which is
represented by the volumetric water content function (Krahn,
2004).
The hydraulic conductivity function for an unsaturated soil can
be developed using Van Genuchten method. Van Genuchten (1980)
offered the following closed form equation to describe the
hydraulic conductivity of soil as a function of suction, as seen in
Eq. (6).
k
w
k
s
_
1
_
aJ
n1
__
1
_
aJ
n
_
m
__
2
_
_
1 aJ
n
_m
2
_ (6)
where k
s
is the saturated hydraulic conductivity, a, n, m are the
curve tting parameters, J is the required suction range, and n is
equal to 1/(1 m).
From Eq. (6), the hydraulic conductivity function of soil or
geotextile could be estimated once the saturated conductivity and
the two curve tting parameters, a and m are known.
Van Genuchten showed that the curve tting parameters could
be estimated graphically based on the volumetric water content
function of the soil and suggested that the best point to evaluate
these parameters is the halfway point between the residual and
saturated water content of the volumetric water content function. If
Q
p
be the volumetric water content at the halfway point of the
volumetric water content function, and J
p
be the suction at the
same point, then the slope S
p
of the function could be calculated as
Eq. (7) (Krahn, 2004).
S
p

1
Q
s
Q
r

dQ
p
d
_
log J
p
_

(7)
Van Genuchten proposed Eqs. (8) and (9) to estimate the parame-
ters m and a, when S
p
is calculated.
m 1 exp
_
0:8S
p
_
(8)
where S
p
is between 0 and 1.
m 1
0:5755
S
p

0:1
S
2
p

0:025
S
3
p
(9)
where S
p
>1.
After calculating m, a could be estimated by Eq. (10).
a
1
J
_
2
1
m
1
_
1m
(10)
2.7. Analysis associated with drainage ability of geotextile
By applying Eqs. (2)(10) to both the soil and geotextile, it is
possible to obtain water storage and hydraulic conductivity in
embankment components and subsequently estimate the manner
of water ow in reinforced embankments. It follows that the effect
of geotextiles as a drain layer could be taken into consideration in
analysis of reinforced embankment. In this research, the nite
element computer program SEEP/W Ver. 5.18 (GEO-SLOPE Inter-
national Ltd., 2002a) was used to solve Eqs. (2)(10).
Table 1
Specications of nonwoven geotextile.
Material property Value
Thickness (mm) 2.5
Unit weight (kN/m3) 1.11
Hydraulic conductivity in plane direction (m/s) 2.72E3
Hydraulic conductivity in cross plane direction (m/s) 7E2
Elasticity modulus (kPa) 33,000
Maximum tensile strength (kN/m) 21
Table 2
Soil characteristics and soilgeotextile interface specications.
Specication Value
Water content (percentage) 32
Dry unit weight (g/cm
3
) 1.43
Poisson Ratio 0.38
Specic gravity 2.71
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s) 4.29E7
Elasticity modulus (kPa) 12,500
Soil cohesion in saturated condition (kPa) 10.571
Soil friction angle in saturated condition (degree) 50.06
Soilgeotextile interface cohesion in saturated condition (kPa) 15.491
Soilgeotextile interface friction angle in saturated condition (degree) 52.21
A. Tolooiyan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 399405 401
2.8. Analysis associated with geotextile tensile strength
and soilgeotextile interface friction
In this research, Eq. (1) was used in a linear-elastic mode to
model the effect of tensile strength of geotextile. The nite element
computer program SIGMA/W Ver. 5.18 (GEO-SLOPE International
Ltd., 2002b) was used to solve Eq. (1). To estimate the elasticity
modulus of a particular kind of nonwoven geotextile, appropriate
tests were done according to ASTM D4632 (2003) in the composite
material laboratory of USM. The specications of this particular
nonwoven geotextile are mentioned in Table 1.
To analyze the strain, stress and shape change in embankment
components, an elasticplastic model was used by utilizing SIGMA/
W Ver. 518. Also, this model can consider the soilgeotextile
Fig. 2. Situation of the geotextile layers in reinforced channel embankment.
Fig. 3. Slip surface of reinforced embankment during rapid drawdown, analyzed by proposed method.
A. Tolooiyan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 399405 402
interface friction by very ne meshes in the soilgeotextile inter-
face. The friction angle and cohesion between the soil and geo-
textile were determined using direct shear tests in the geotechnical
laboratory of USM. The geotextile layers were cut to square pieces
of 100 mm by 100 mm and then it was glued using epoxy glue to
the top of a piece of hard wood having the same dimensions
(100 mm by 100 mm). This procedure was used previously by
Mahmood et al. (2002). The soil used was classied as Silt Loam
and Lean Clay with Sand in USDA and Unied Soil Classication
System, respectively. Soilgeotextile interface specications and
characteristics of the soil are mentioned in Table 2.
3. Modeling reinforced channel embankment
Different size of three node triangular meshes with three inte-
gration points was employed to model the embankment, although
ground surface and the geotextile layers were formed by very ne
four node quadrilateral meshes with four integration points. In
seepage analysis, the left and right boundaries were modeled by
innite elements however in stressstrain analysis the embank-
ment bounded with zero displacement along edges. As a multi-
joined analysis, the stressstrain distribution FEM analysis was
conducted by SIGMA/W. In parallel, the FEM analysis was con-
ducted by SEEP/W to model pore water pressure distribution in the
embankment material. Finally, the FE results of SIGMA/Wand SEEP/
W were jointly imported into the SLOPE/W (GEO-SLOPE Interna-
tional Ltd., 2002c) to analyze the embankment stability and safety
factor.
To estimate the effect of reinforcement and to compare between
the conventional analysis and the proposed analysis method,
a channel embankment was simulated using three methods during
rapid drawdown condition. Firstly, the channel embankment was
analyzed without reinforcement (non-reinforced embankment).
Secondly, with the same rapid drawdown condition, a geotextile
reinforced embankment was analyzed by using the conventional
method and the geotextile tensile strength and soilgeotextile
interface friction were considered together. Thirdly, with the same
rapid drawdown condition and reinforcing method, the reinforced
embankment was analyzed by using the proposed method that
considered geotextile tensile strength, soilgeotextile interface
friction, and the drainage ability of the geotextile, together. Before
rapid drawdown, the water level in the channel was 3 m. In 8 h the
water level was dropped down about 2.5 m and the water level in
the channel reached 0.5 m. In all of the three mentioned analyses,
Fig. 4. Water table at 3 h and 8 h after start of rapid drawdown, analyzed by conventional method (a) and proposed method (b).
Fig. 5. Maximum effective stress at 3 h after start of rapid drawdown, analyzed by
conventional method (a) and proposed method (b).
A. Tolooiyan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 399405 403
embankment stability was calculated at 3 h after the start of rapid
drawdown. USACE (2003) emphasize that the minimum required
safety factor of earth slope should be 1.30 during rapid drawdown
condition.
3.1. Stability safety factor of reinforced and non-reinforced
embankment
Analysis of the non-reinforced embankment gives a stability
safety factor equal to 1.26. According to USACE (2003), this
embankment might be unstable during rapid drawdown condition,
indicating reinforcement is needed to prevent instability.
To reinforce the embankment, as shown in Fig. 2, three layers of
needle-punched nonwoven geotextile with 1.5 m length and 1 m
distance in between were laid inside the embankment. The
reinforced embankment was analyzed by the aforementioned
conventional method under the rapid drawdown condition.
Analysis of the reinforced embankment gave a stability safety factor
equal to1.29. The increase in safety factor in the reinforced
embankment is due to the effect of tensile strength and soilgeo-
textile interface friction.
To nd the more complete effect of geotextile, the reinforced
embankment was analyzed by the proposed method with the same
rapid drawdown condition. A safety factor of 1.33 was obtained
from the analysis which considered the drainage property of the
geotextile. This factor of safety meets the USACE (2003) guideline in
embankment stability which requires a minimum value of 1.3 for
rapid drawdown conditions. The slip surface of the reinforced
embankment, analyzed by the proposed method is shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 4(a) and (b) showthe water table at 3 h and 8 h after start of
rapid drawdown analyzed by conventional and proposed method,
respectively. Comparing the water table in Fig. 4(a) and (b), shows
that geotextile layers drain the embankment internal water during
the rapid drawdown and the embankment becoming lighter. Fig. 5
shows the result of stressstrain analysis at 3 h after start of rapid
drawdown. Different effective stress at the right side of embank-
ment is due to the different pore water pressure condition analyzed
by the conventional and proposed method.
Fig. 6 shows the safety factor of non-reinforced embankment
and reinforced embankment analyzed by conventional and
proposed method. Although all the reinforcing and rapid draw-
down conditions are exactly the same in both analyses, the
proposed complete method offered the highest safety factor. This
highlights the benet of accurately modeling both the
reinforcement and drainage functions of needle-punched
nonwoven geotextile as demonstrated in the proposed method.
4. Conclusion and results
Conventional analyses of a needle-punchednonwovengeotextile
reinforced channel embankment which only considers the effect of
the tensile stiffness and strength of the geotextile on embankment
stability underestimatedthe stabilitycomparedtoanalyses that also
considered the drainage function of the geotextile. The proposed
analysis method which considers both functions provides a more
realistic methods of assessing the stability of needle-punched
nonwovengeotextile reinforcedchannel embankments subjectedto
rapid drawdown.
Acknowledgements
The rst author would like to express his sincere appreciation to
David Igoe, Tom Doyle and Paul Doherty PhD researchers from
University College Dublin for their help in reviewing this paper.
References
ASTM D4632, 2003. Standard test method for grab breaking load and elongation of
geotextiles. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 04.13, pp. 4952.
Bergado, D.T., Long, P.V., Murthy, B.R.S., 2002. A case study of geotextile-reinforced
embankment on soft ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20, 343365.
Bergado, D.T., Teerawattanasuk, C., 2008. 2D and 3D numerical simulations of
reinforced embankments on soft ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26
(1), 3955.
Brianon, L., Villard, P., 2008. Design of geosynthetic-reinforced platforms spanning
localized sinkholes. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (5), 416428.
Carsel, R.F., Parrish, R.S., 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil
water retention characteristics. Water Resources Research 24, 755769.
Chen, Y.-M., Cao, W.-P., Chen, R.-P., 2008. An experimental investigation of soil
arching within basal reinforced and unreinforced piled embankments. Geo-
textiles and Geomembranes 26 (2), 164174.
Geostab Version 2004, 2004. Geos Ingenieurs Conseils S.A. Parc dAffaires Inter-
national, Archamps, France.
Gourc, J.P., Ratel, A., Delmas, Ph., 1986. Design of fabrics retaining walls: the
displacement method. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vienna, Austria, Session 3A/1, pp. 289294.
Hinchberger, S.D., Rowe, R.K., 2003. Geosynthetic reinforced embankments on soft
clay foundations: predicting reinforcement strains at failure. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 21, 151175.
Hird, C.C., Kwok, C.M., 1989. Finite element studies of interface behaviour in rein-
forced embankments on soft ground. Computers and Geotechnics 8 (2), 111131.
Humphrey, D.N., Holtz, R.D., 1989. Effect of surface crust on reinforced embank-
ments. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics 89 Conference, San Diego, USA, pp.
136147.
Iryo, T., Rowe, R.K., 2003. On the hydraulic behavior of unsaturated nonwoven
geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21, 381404.
Fig. 6. Increment of safety factor due to reinforcement, analyzed by the conventional and the proposed method.
A. Tolooiyan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 399405 404
Iryo, T., Rowe, R.K., 2004. Numerical study on inltration into soilgeotextile
column. Geosynthetics International 11 (5), 377389.
Iryo, T., Rowe, R.K., 2005. Inltration into an embankment reinforced by nonwoven
geotextiles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42 (4), 11451159.
Krahn, J., 2004. Seepage Modeling with SEEP/W. Geo-Slope International Ltd.,
Alberta, pp. 14, 7179.
Lemonnier, P., Soubra, A.H., Kastner, R., 1998. Variational displacement method for
geosynthetically reinforced slope stability analysis: I. Local stability. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 16, 125.
Li, A.L., Rowe, R.K., 2008. Effects of viscous behaviour of geosynthetic reinforcement
and foundation soils on embankment performance. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 26 (4), 317334.
Mahmood, A., Zakaria, N., Ahmad, F., 2002. Studies on geotextilesoil interface shear
behavior. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Available online:
http://www.ejge.com/2000/Ppr0013/Ppr0013.htm (accessed 02.02.07).
MStab Version 9.8, 2004. Slope Stability Software for Soft Soil Engineering. Delft
GeoSystems B.V., Delft, Netherlands.
Nagahara, H., Fujiyama, T., Ishiguro, T., Ohta, H., 2004. FEM analysis of high airport
embankment with horizontal drains. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22, 4962.
Pcstabl Version 6, 1999. General Solution of Slope Stability Problems. Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
PLAXIS Version 7.2, 1998. Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analysis. Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, D.L., Saxton, K.E., 1982. Estimating soil water properties.
Transactions of the ASAE 25 (5). 13161320 and 1328.
Richards, L.A., 1931. Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums.
Journal of Applied Physics, 1, 318333.
Rowe, R.K., 1982. The analysis of an embankment constructed on a geotextile. In:
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Geotextiles, vol. 2, Las
Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 677682.
Rowe, R.K., 1984. Reinforced embankment: analysis and design. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 110 (2), 231247.
Rowe, R.K., Mylleville, B.L.J., 1990. Implications of adopting an allowable geo-
synthetic strain in estimating stability. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Interna-
tional Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, The
Hague, pp. 131136.
Rowe, R.K., Mylleville, B.L.J., 1994. Analysis and design of reinforced embankments
on soft or weak foundations. In: Bull, John W. (Ed.), Chapter 7 in Soil Structure
Interaction: Numerical Analysis and Modelling. E & FN Spon Chapman Hall,
London, pp. 230260.
Rowe, R.K., Soderman, K.L., 1984. Comparison of predicted and observed behaviour
of two test embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 1, 143160.
Rowe, R.K., Taechakumthorn, C., 2008. Combined effect of PVDs and reinforcement
on embankments over rate-sensitive soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26
(3), 239249.
Sarsby, R.S., 2007. Use of Limited Life Geotextiles (LLGs) for basal reinforcement of
embankments built onsoft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (45), 302310.
SEEP/W Ver.5.18, Software Manual, 2002. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
SIGMA/W Ver.5.18, Software Manual, 2002. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
SLOPE/W Ver.5.18, Software Manual, 2002. GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
Sharma, J.S., Bolton, M.D., 2001. Centrifugal and numerical modelling of reinforced
embankments on soft clay installed with wick drains. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 19, 2344.
Stedwin Version 2.6, 1999. Slope Stability Analysis System. Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995. Geotechnical Analysis by the Finite Element
Method, Engineer Technical Letter 1110-2-544. Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, pp. A/1A/39.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003. Engineering and Design Slope Stability, Engi-
neer Manual No. 1110-2-1902. Department of the Army, Washington, DC, pp. 3/
13/5, C/39C/40.
Van Genuchten, M.Th., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44,
892898.
Nomenclature
P
a: strain energy
E: elasticity modulus
A: cross section area
EA: axial rigidity
L: length of geotextile
u: axial displacement along the geotextile
x
0
: distance along the geotextile
h: total hydraulic head
k
w
: unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
k
x
: unsaturated hydraulic conductivities in x-direction
k
y
: unsaturated hydraulic conductivities in y-direction
m
w
: slope of the water volume characteristic curve
g
w
: unit weight of water
Q: volumetric water content
t: time
n: porosity
S: degree of saturation
AEV: air-entry value
Q
r
: residual water content
Q
s
: saturated volumetric water content
J: negative pore water pressure
a, n, m: curve tting parameters
k
s
: saturated hydraulic conductivity
Q
p
: volumetric water content at the halfway point of the volumetric water content
function
J
p
: suction at the halfway point of the volumetric water content function
S
p
: slope of volumetric water content function at the halfway point
A. Tolooiyan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 399405 405