Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

Zornberg, J.G., and Leshchinsky, D. (2003). Comparison of International Design Criteria for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures.

Landmarks in Earth Reinforcement, Ochiai, H., Otani, J., Yasufuku, N., and Omine, K. (Editors), Fukuoka, Japan, November, Vol. 2, pp.
1095-1106.

Landmarl<s in Earth Reinforcement, - Ochiai et al (eds),


e2003 SWets & Zeitlinger, Usse, ISBN 90 265 1863 3
-
Comparison of international design criteria for geosynthetic-reinforced
soil structures -

J.G. Zomberg
University <? Colorado at Boulder, USA

D. Leshchinsky
University of Delaware, USA

ABSTRACT: A summary of currently available criteria for the design of geosynthetic-reinforced walls, geo
synthetic-reinforced slopes, and embankments founded on soft soils was compiled. The objective is to evalu
ate the consistency among different design criteria put forth by agencies worldwide, including evaluation of
different performance criteria, backfill criteria, reduction factors for geosynthetics, and design methods. This
compilation includes criteria established by .Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, the
United Kingdom, and the United States.

1 INTRODUCTION details of the information are briefly discussed


below. It should be noted that although the design
The use of inclusions to improve the mechanical criteria could be the same for two different agencies
properties of soils dates to ancient times.However, it (e.g., same factor of safety for a particular design
is only within the last three decades or so that aspect), the calculations needed to dimension the
analytical and experimental studies have led to the structure accordingly could be different. Therefore,
contemporary soil reinforcement techniques. Soil the same design criteria may lead to different design
reinforcement is highly attractive for use in outcomes. Nevertheless , the summary tables
embankment and retaining wall projects because of reflect the perceived level of conservatism assigned
the economic benefits it offers in relation to for each design aspect by each agency.
conventional retaining structures. Moreover, its Furthermore, when the computations are the same,
acceptance bas also been facilitated by a number of comparison then is direct. By the time of
technical factors, which include aesthetics, reliability, compilation of these summary tables, several
proven durability, simple construction techniques, additional agencies were undertaking efforts to
good seismic performance, and the ability to tolerate compile standards in geosynthetic-reinforced soil
large deformations without structural distress. design. This includes the BNSR (Bureau National
As a consequence of the significant growth in the Sols-Routes, France)' that is preparing the French
use of geosynthetic-reinforced systems, government Standard NFG 38064, as well as the Nordic
agencies and industry agencies (e.g. NCMA) have Geotechnical Societies that are preparing the Nordic
developed guidelines for the design of reinforced handbook for soil reinforcement
soil walls, reinforced soil slopes, and reinforced
embankments over soft soils. The pwpose of this
work is to evaluate the consistency among different 2 GEOSYNTHETIC-REINFORCED son.
design criteria that are currently available on WAUS
reinforced soil design. This effort was coordinated
as a task of subcommittee 3 Design and Parameter Table 1provides a comparison of the design criteria
Determinatio n of the Technical Committee 9 (TC9) for geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. The compiled
Geosynthetics and Earth Reinforcement Committee, information from government agencies includes
International Society of Soil Mechanics and Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong,
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United
information was gathered from members of the States. Io addition, the National Concrete Masonry
Society and compiled in a tabulated format. The Association (NCMA) is an industry agency that has

1095
Design criteria from Germany account explicitly for internal sliding
also compiled guidelines for the design of reinforced soil walls. (i.e. sliding between reinforcement layers). Several agencies do not
Guidelines for performance criteria (rows 1.4 to ._. - consider overturning as a feasible mode of failuie, as indicated in
1.11 in Table I) reveal a significant consistency among the Tab1e 1(row 1.6). Yet, factors of safety ranging from 1.35 to 2.0
different agencies. The minimum factor of safety against sliding were adopted by agencies that consider this mode of fai11ue. The
is typically 1.5, with the exception of Australia (FS ;,: 2.0). guidelines provided by NCMA focus on the design of
segmental retaining walls. Accordingly, they (Table 1, rows 1.13 to 1.14). The default values range from
provide guidelines not only against overturning of the overall coefficient of interactions as low as 50% (Germany) to as high as
reinforced soil mass, but also against local facing overturning, crest 100% (Japan). Nonetheless, their selection typically depends on
toppling, and facing shear (bulging). Eccentricity at the base of the type of reinforcement (geogrid, geotextile) and in some
the reinforced soil wall is limited to L/6 in most guidelines, cases on the type of backfill (granular, cohesive). Little
where L is the width of the reinforced soil mass. The factor guidance is provided regarding selection of default coefficients
of safety values adopted against bearing capacity range from of interaction under seismic conditions. FHWA guidelines ask
values as low as 1.35 (U.K.) to values as high as 3.0 for 80% of the static values, while NCMA accepts 100% of the
(Brazil). However, most guidelines recognize the flexibility of static value.
the geosynthetic-reinforced systems by adopting a factor of Regarding selection of backfill properties, most agendes
safety value of 2.0 against bearing capacity, which is lower preclude the use of any cohesive component of the shear
than values typically adopted for most geotechnical systems. strength of the backfill soil. Only Japan, FHWA, and NCMA
Consistent with guidelines adopted for unreinforced systems, the provide default values of friction angles, while most of the
factors of safety adopted for compound and deep seated stability agencies indicate that such parameters should be design
range between 1.3 and 1.5. Most agencies have not specific. Regarding selection of peak or residual friction angle
established guidelines regarding seismic stability. US agencies values for _ design, most agencies indicate explicitly the use of
{FHW A and NCMA) have typically established pseudo-static peak friction angles for design (Germany, Hong Kong, UK,
approach methods to deal with seismic design and, accordingly, FHWA, NCMA). Only Australian guidelines explicitly call for
have established factors of safety as design criteria (typically constant volume friction angle values in the design.Gradation
75% of the corresponding static values). Finally, pullout factors requirements are typically stringent, and do
of safety are reasonably consistent among different agencies. not allow the use of cohesive backfill soils. British and
They range from values as low as 1.35 in the British guidelines to FHWA standards require no more than. 10 and 15 % fines,
values as high as 2.0 in the Brazilian and Japanese guidelines. respectively. On the other extreme, Brazilian and NCMA standards
Not all methods specify global and compound stability allow up to 30 and 35% fines, respectively. NCMA has
although such stabilities could control the design in complex provisions under which soils with up to 50% fines can be used
walls (e.g., tiered wall systems). in reinforced soil walls. There is also considerable
In general, all agencies are conservative regarding the discrepancies among agencies regarding the
selection of default soil-reinforcement interaction properties. maximum value of Plasticity Index to be allowed for reinforced
Several agencies, though, provide default coefficient of soil wall design. FHWA standards require a Plasticity Index of no
interactions that designers can use in the absence of project- more than 6 %, while Brazilian and Hong Kong guidelines
specific test results (Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan, US). allow Plasticity Index values up to 15 and 20%, respectively. It
Differently than regarding the design criteria, default values are is likely that gradation and plasticity criteria are related to local
not consistent among different agencies availability of backfill soils and local experience. Most of the
guid.elines indicate restrictions regarding soil pH. Many of them
establish more stringent requirements for PET than for PP and
HDPE.
In relation to geosynthetic reinforcement properties and
reduction factors, most agencies have already identified standard
tests to define the ultimate tensile strength. Although typical
and/or default reduction factors on creep, degradation; and
installation damage are typically provided by the agencies, there is
no consistency regarding the magnitude of these factors. Creep
reduction factors (RFcR) of 2.5 for Polyester products and of 5.0
for Polypropylene products have been typically established in the
absence of test results. Although

1096
Table 1. Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Walls.
I.I Cout1tr7 Allllnlla Brull Cauda ......, BoacK.,.. li.17 1paa Ulliled United Statu
IC--.
1.2 RTA, NSW OOT
(RTA)
QMRD,
QucensJud
OOT(QMRO)
(leoRjo.
Fcwiclatioa
fi>rSlopt
Caudiail
Geolcchnical
Sociely
Gcocnl
piduce by
Oennu Soc.
OcotcdWcal JcaJian
enpeu;.,.
omc. Miaislryol
Public
Public Wotl:s
IUscatdl
Ccoter
Brilish Scudud
lllslilutioa
AAStm>/Fcderal
Higllway
Admiaislntioa
Ndoul
M.-iy
.
Slabilily S.Medt.And (GEO) Worlc.s (FHWA) Allocialiaa
Ccetrol inlhc Gcot. Ells. (NOIA)
City of Riode
Jucilo
1.3 ttere.....,. RTA(l997) QMRD(l997) GeoR;o CUadian EBGl!O OC0(1989) Jtalila Pllblic Wotks Bmm l!lils and NCMA(t997,
(1989) OcotccluUc:al (1997) Minislryof R Srudards Cbrillophu 1998)
Socicly (I99'2) Public C...tcr (2000) laslitutioa (1997)
Wcxb (1995)
(1988)
I.A PttfonnaacecrllaU
1.5 Slidin1 FS2.0 FSll2.0 F'S .. 1.5 FS" t.S FSa 2.0 F'Sa 1.S FSa 1.3 FSa t.S F'S a t.JS F'Sll l.S FS 1.S
(cxlcmol)
FS a 1.4
lia1em11\
u

-
0-,,ertumin& NIA NIA F'S ..2.0 FSa 2.0 N/A N/A FS:t 1.5 NIA FS 1.35 N/A FS2.0
FS..-. 1.5
FS....,.... 1.s
FS....--"l.S
1.7 &ceolricity al Mo)'Clbof Meyerhof ...l/6 ...lJ6 "lJ6 (Italic ...116 ...116 ...116 NIA c"lJ6(iuoil) N/A
buc distribution dilln'butiool aaalysis) (trapOlll)idll c"IJ4 (io rock)
116 ...1/3 dlllribetioa)
(seismic
aoalwisl
u
. I'S:.t.75 FS :.1.75 FS 3.0 FSa2D I'S ..2.0 FSa 2.0 F'S :.2.0 FS:.2D PS" 1.35 FS 2.5 FS 2.0

.. -
B c
W a
..
u Comp>und FSa l.S FS" t.S o.sip FSa t.310 1.S eo...powid; PS 1.4 F'Sa 1.3 F'Sa 1.2 FS a I.JS F'S 1.3 PS:. t.310
1.S aad docp specific NIA
tulcd snbilily Deep SQJIC<I:
FS" 1.210 t.4
bucdOft lood
I.
conditions
1.10 Seismic \J$c of pawdl>- Rcqo&ift:d but NIA NIA NIA Nonellaled NIA FSa 1.0 NIA FS a 7S1' ol FS,...,. 1.1
Slobilily Mllic ocalcndoa lllClbodology stalic FS (all FS.....a I.I
ooclllc:icats llO( lbt.cd &ihlR modca) FS..-.1.1
FS...,....1.1
FS...- 1.1
i:s....,...1.s
i:s........1.1 .
I.I
1.11 Plllloul FS a 1.67 FS" 1.4S F'S" 2.0 F'S ..l.S FS" 1.S F'S .. 1.8 NIA F'S 2.0 F'Sa l.30 FS .. 1.s F'S .. 1.5
re.sis:ll.llCe I I I I
l.ll Soll .....,,,...,._, 1 ..cdoa .,.._tlH
t.l3
Defauktoll s..c.cl OD ICSI Butdoa tCSI lmnlllH .Bu!!!121l: a.o.s
BascdOll!CR !:ixuYIHm .!'aR!lll!!!ll:
C.0.6S b
rc.sulls fot specific
tdnfcrccmenc intuaic::tim
S)'lkmt
rualts proprieWy
(swie)for
-=
GT:C. 213 GG:C. 0.S ruults fot specific proprictaty
specific propridaJy sys11<ms
W:C.0.8to0.7
Sysll<ms
Olth
NoMr.11111,
6+ pRlimiauy
GT:C.. 213
dcsip>(dina
00.C. 0.8
NW:C.=0.9 lllill; & dimaslidi.a>
alidioa;
OO:C.O.S 0.Sc tu (6). 213
GRJ OO.S
to0.8 ali!lilla: 6+ tall() (poollout) ASTM D S32J ud GRJ GS-6
w: tu(6) 213 tu(+) (direct slidiag)
W :C.0.7
NW:C.0.8
GG:C.O.S
NIA
Ddwll 10U 1.14 ofstatic Not gjvcn NIA NIA None awed 1001'ofsiatic ofstatic 1001' oh111tic
rein.forceme.at inlcracrioa ldvnamic\ Rei.torced m1
value .U..,hllt value value
Maxlm&m i:s,....." 1.2
oobcsinn
1.15

l.1' O kPa 0 Ith Dcsip


specific
O kPa 0 kh b
permanent
O kPa IOkPa S kPa Olth O kPe

walJa
SO"'of test

-
.
ruWISfor

walJa
1.17 Oeflt veluc DetcrmiDcd by Ocsip
ICSling specific
NIA
.......
,
No default Detcmiillcd
by tudog
35 (Jravcl). NIA 34 uioJ6

ot Detcr miaed by 30(sand). 25


(11110<
cohesive ..mn
ComlaDI YOlumc Nolcd
1.18 Pat or Couwll Desiga Pcalt Pcalt Patoa inlilu Pat Pcalt Pcalt

.._.._ . ._.., ,_.._


YCnical SlrCll

- ----
COlllCUI vohuno specific (COllllCn'llivc
volume
_., .,. .._
,

--
u' Ondallnll ,u_, _-is.too
ReqoliremcAll 100 -- ii.-
100- too
Dcsip spec:ific, 1)'pk:ally""'
typically not
NIA l'rialoloal and
Applicabiily
,.,
_
100
IS-100 2$-100 IMS
w dani6catioa
of toil isbased O.JlflU<* 1llli6ed soil
cobcsive - syslcm.
100 t00.7S
-thaa l2"' o.us- 1 0 -

-
u- 100 0.tO 100.:ID
cu- 10.
.IOD cu- !IMO
lllCle lbll fiDes fricDonaJ
Olpaic&tis
loill 0..10 oms- 0.IS o.u-
oms- o.u om- fines. not s
_,_,,......_
0-10 0.117S -

-
o..
2..

1.lO Plulialy Pl.12 Pl d2 Dcsip NIA Pl 7 Pl 20 Pl 6 Ph 6(Ph20


llldex spec:ific, typically Pl < JS bcuc.,Uy
Desiga
specific
SlnlaWCS\
1.21 S..lldaca Inert, lwdand Jaard and NIA NIA IDcrt, bard DcpeadsMapeeium
llpoll ti/A
d1nblo duabie 111d dllrabie Agreementsalfalc IOUlld- 1ou < after 4 cw:...
Certificak
1.22 PH S-10 for
steel 4-9fur
4< pH <10 NIA S<pH<9 S<pH<IO lo<
stul.Buod OD
NOi stipulated l)q>cods
A&>-ment
""" 3< pH <9(PET)
PH > 3(PP and
3< pH <9

PET tcstina fur Certificate HOPE)


3-12filr HOPE Olhen
1.23 GYnlhctlc R.einforcem.i.
1.2-4 Ultlmltc Bued on tcst Bucd on test ABNT12824 ASTM 009S ISO DIN Bued on test UNI EN Tutin& BS69061'al1 I ASTMD4595 ASTM D4S9S
Tensile rcsWll of specific l'Ullltsof 10319 results of ISO 10319 manual for (ORl:OOI for or ORI 00-1 for
strt.ngth, T propriclary specific product, posyathctics gcogrids) g<ogrids
systems 11JSc piopricWy conducted ll (Public Worb
YI"..a1 30c 3sc Rctwdo
Cuter)
U5 RFca 1)pic:a1: Defllul: Defaull: 1.67 NIA T)pkal: Typical:
l.6mUl 2.S(PET) 2.S (PET) (valioc ucd ia 2-.S ml.O(PET) 1..S IDSD
(PET) SD(PP,PE) .5.0(PP) cumplcal .5.0I04D(PP) l'orlOismic:
3DmSD(PP 1)pical: SD(HOPS) dalgn SD m2..S (P8) dcsip,RFca
ud PE) l.2SI03D. 2..S(AJl) -') takai u lD.
Mini,..m; 2..S(PA)
l.2S
Ll RFo 1)pical: NIA 2.0 1.0 NIA Typical: 1)pic:a1:
' I.Ito2D (..Wucdbl I.I to2.0 1.l lD
Minimwn: uamplcof Mil\lmum: 2D
I.I design I.I Mlaimwn:
awnaal) I.I
-6
Ll7 RF., Typical: T)plcal: Default: 1.0 NIA T)pical: T)pica
1.1IO1.7 1.1IO 2.0 1.S (IOUdcd (value ucdbl 1.0SI03.0 I.OS to3.0
Mlaiamm: Miai1111111>: aucls) example of Minimlm: Minimmo:
I.I 1.2 2.0(roaded design 1.1 1.1
pvcls) muual)
> 2.0(cnUed
-.iall)
Lll l'-.rot 1.1 I .I MioiRmm: Typical: 14(_., 1.7 1.0 Depa>dlllfl'Je 1)pical: 1)pic:a1:
sdtty, I'S 1.1 l..S loeds) Acreemoat 1..S 1..S
1.3 ydrnlic: Certificate
ud aeismic
loeds)
1.29 ---W./c ouldendou
1.30 External Onvity applOICh Onvity Coheteat Coherent Bishop, Jaabu, Gravity CohcRnt Limit Coh<reot gravity C.Ohereoi gravity
111bitit wi&h UIOOf approach gravity gravity Block analysis approteb pvity EqulbDrim app.roecb
y C.O..lccnb JlllfOICh approacll approedl (imiltr IO (C.OUlomb
prosaure (similar to (Rankioe (linollar IO traditional theory win
coellicieat ia lrldilioaal theory) ttadiliceal 1r1vily structure 6dly
i.ctliU gravity gravity t111lysis) mobilized
llnlemrc lltUCIUtO inletfacc friaion
analysis) ualysis) bdW<ell

,.,.,..
......... praare
rciabcoclud
Rtakioype r<lliMd zaacs)
1.3 Aai eanll AdivcU1111 R t Raa.Uoe-cypc Rukille eanll Cou.loollb-<)1I c.o.Jomb 1llccry
1 llllbility
di"1il>uboo
presare
clislribuboo iK atface approods pressarc, but
will! vetlictl
a.oalysis Umil
"illrium,
autface ck'""' willi bltcdace
triclioa

. .. .
lluoqh BJod: ualysis E q JIJess
Raaldae w rcilllforced aoiJ
suface liac of aoiJ """facia
reillbotd aoiJ IDUS
mass mass muimum colu.al.Typical
uiAfcrc:.:mcnl
ieasion ac
O.ISH
....,.6 2fJ.
iAlerfact fric:lion

1.32 Seismic: Mo9ooobo- Noigiven NIA NIA NIA Nolgin M..-,bc. NIA Mo4oaobe-Obbe Monooollc-
stability
...
Obbetypc Obbc typc
1tlilvm
type analysis Obtypc
111'-"
l.33 PulinUaiy ..o.6 lt 0.7 lt0.8 o.s 100.7 1t 0.7 "0.S Noc sq,ulllcd lt 0.7 0.7 ..o.6
UM
1.34 Minimum L L"2m Llt 2m NIA Millimut L NIA NOi giYtll MWa.Jll L L1t 3 m Llt 2.4 m U lt I m
...iu. u1t l m ult I m ""'stipWalcd. DOI slipulaled. Llt 7m for ult I m
La" I m l.alt I.O m aboalmails
1.35 Uvc load Uvc load Live load Daip ConlrilKila to Always Live load c..o.d is 10th IAICCOnluce Live lo9d ConlribllCllO
Clllllidercd whca
cleacasiag ODDSidcrcd
when specific. laidside
equalioasorud
FS coasidcrcd considered
whca inigh-y
applicalioGs will BS 5400
(HAud HB) ooesldcrcd only
whoa dccRasiag load sideorFS
cqllllions ud
...bilicy ckcreuina nolto dec:Ruizla stability no1 to resislance
stabilirv remtaacc Ude. llabilirv side.
13' Oialribution of Mcyctbof Meycrhof Raakine- R.ukinc-Oued Rankine- 1'rWlgWar Kastress stale Ranldne-bued Ra.Ulnc
rcinfcrc:.:meatt 11ica111ress meal siress based triangular distribulion based distn'bution triangular ttilft&ulu
folce with distribution distribution triangular distribution recanmcnded trianplar dillribution distribvtion
hcighl dlstn'bution. dbtn'butioa (modilled !of

-.
..ilmlc
ana!Wis)
l.37 Conacctiotl to FS 1.6 (pulioul Oependeal on NIA Mu1tperform T-0.8 Aaalyscs FS a 1.S(pullo111) FS:o 1.S "
fac:iag (facton
ohalety,
6om COIDccton)
FS 1.3(pullollt
propriewy
sysiem .....
laboratory T- clcpeodcu
type of wait
FS a 1.S
(brcabge)
(c:oa)
FS:o 1.S

.. rcdl!Clloe
Caaon)
of CC1111ecdoe
from facingO
(wnppcd .
around wall,
llecl "'""
Rfa ud RFo ere
used for
breabgc. Boch
(Interface shear)
FS l.S
(lntcru.1 &tiding)
8 wall, c:mcmc pullout 111d bteat FS .. 1..s
wall) are l\ancdoa or (toppling)
in1trbloclr: AD FS cqul 1.1
c:oafinia& bldsmlc:
p<CSIWe. anahsa.
German standards penalize the ultimate tensile
As for the case of geosynthetic-reinforced walls,
strength with default reduction factors for
performance criteria for geosynthetic-reinforced
degradation (RFo) as high as 2.0, most guidelines
slopes (rows 2.4 to 2.12..fu Table 2) are reasonably
indicate degradation reduction factors ranging from
1.0 to 1.1. Finally, regarding reduction factors to consistent among thedifferent agencies. The factors
of safety against sliding, local bearing failure, deep
account for construction damage (RFc0), minimum
seated stability, and compound failure are typically
values of 1.1 have been generally adopted by the
different agencies. The factor of safety FS, typically 1.3. Eccentricity at the base is typically not
adopted in addition to the reduction factors to considered in the design. Factors of safety against
penalize the ultimate tensile strength of the internal slope stability are also typically 1.3, while
geosynthetics ranges from values as low as 1.0 factors of safety against pullout range from values
(Japan) to values as high as 1.7 (Hong Kong). as low as 1.2 (Hong Kong} to values as high as
While most of the agencies use coherent gravity 2.0 (Brazil, Japan). Most agencies have not
approaches for the design of geosynthetic-reinforced established guidelines regarding seismic stability.
soil walls (similar to traditional gravity structure Yet, FHWA and Japan establish minimum factors
analyses), German and British standards adopt a of safety of 1.1 and 1.0, respectively, in pseudo-
more generic limit equilibrium approach for external static analyses. It should be noted that in lieu of
stability analysis. Regarding internal stability, all the conservatism of the pseudostatic stability
agencies adopt some type of Rankine- or Coulomb analysis, FHWA recommends to use a
type surface through the reinforced soil mass. Not all design seismic coefficient that is half the maximum
agencies provide guidelines regarding seismic ground acceleration .
stability, but those that provide it adopt a Agencies are conservative regarding the selection
pseudostatic (Mononobe-Okabe type) .analysis. Most of default soil-reinforcement interaction properties.
agencies adopt a minimum length of reinforcements Several agencies., though, provide default coefficient
equal to 70% of the structure height. However, Hong of interactions that designers can use in the absence
Kong guidelines ask for a length as low as 50% of of project-specific test results (Brazil, Japan,
the height, while Brazilian guidelines ask for a FHWA). The values selected by these agencies are
minimum of 80% of the height. The minimum the same as those adopted for geosynthetic
reinforcement length is typically on the order of 2 m, reinforced soil wall design. Little guidance is
while the minimum active reinforcement length is provided regarding selection of default coefficients
typically on the order of 1 m. The distribution of of interaction under seismic conditions .
maximum reinforcement force with height adopted Regarding selection of backfill properties, there is
by all agencies is typically a Rankine-based less guidance on the selection of backfill material for
triangular distribution. Some guidelines establish geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes than in the case
factors of safety and reduction factors to be used in of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. However,
the analysis of the connection of the reinforcement agencies are in general more permissive regarding
to facing. Detailed modes of failure have been the use of cohesive soils, with FHWA standards
identified by NCMA, with factors of safety of 1.5 allowing up to 50% fines and Brazilian standards
adopted for connection to facing, interface shear typically up to 30% fines. There are also more
(bulging), internal sliding, and toppling. relaxed requirements regarding the Plasticity Index
to be allowed for reinforced soil slope design, with
most agencies allowing up to a Plasticity Index value
3 GEOSYNTHETIC-REINFORCED SOIL of 20 %. Most of the guidelines indicate restrictions
SLOPES regarding soil pH.
Criteria adopted by different agencies regarding
Table 2 provides a comparison of the design criteria geosynthetic reinforcement properties and reduction
for geosynthetic-reinfo rced soil slopes. The factors for geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes are
compiled information from government agencies consistent with those adopted for geosynthetic
includes Brazil, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, the United reinforced soil walls. Regarding methods of design,
Kingdom, and the United States. In a general sense, most agencies adopt some type of limit equilibrium
there have been fewer efforts by government analysis. A triangular distribution of maximum
agencies in compiling design criteria for reinforcement tension with depth is typically
geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes than for adopted in the design considerations. As noted in
geosynthetic-reinforced walls. Table 2, FHWA adopts a uniform distribution of
reinforcements with depth for walls lower than 6 m.
Not all agencies provide guidelines regarding

1101
Table 2. Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Slopes
1.1 Conln Bradl e--1e-. luly Janan United Klntdoai UDl States
1.l AceDCJ O.ORio-Found1tion for Gectechnical lcolian Ministry of Pllblic Public Worb Rcscardi British Siandardl lnslitudon Federal Highway
Slope SlabiHty Control in EnJPnuriag Onice Worb Cent Administration (FHWA)
the OtvofRio deJanciro lOEOl
2.J R.efereoce 0.0Rio{l999) 0!!0(1993) Italian MiniJlry of Public Pllblic Works Rcsurdi 8S8006(199S) Eliu aad Ouistophcr (1997)
Works (1988) Center l2000\
2.4 crituirl
2.5 Slidilla NIA f'Sa12 FSa 1.3 f'Sa 1.2 f'Sa 1.3 FSa 1.3
:u llccearricirv albaK NIA Tdlslriblltioft NIA NIA NIA NIA
1.7 l..ocal -m..faiJwe NIA FS a 1.2 NIA NIA f'Sa 1.3 FS a 1.3
1.1 Deco IC8tod lllbility f'Sa 1.3 FSa U NIA f'Sa 1.2 FS:.1.3 f'Sa 1.3
1.f Oimaoand faikm FSa 1.3 FS:.1.2 f'Sa 1.3 NIA FSa 1.3
2.10 llllcmal slope stability NIA FSa 1.2 f'Sa t.3 F'S (Iona tenn)a 1.2 httial faclor d<lip FSa 1.3
F'S lshotl terml 1t I.I
1.11 Seismic Slabilily NIA None lllalcd NIA F'S .. 1.0 NIA FSa l.1
analwisl
1.12 Pullout FSa2.0 F'S .. 1.2 NIA FSa 2.0 Paitial f.actor dulgn f'Sa l.S
F'S:. 1.2 (aclsmic cue) F'S :.2.0 (cohesive ooils)
1.13 SoR relaf nt lokractlon nroaortle1
1.14 Det.uk sdlrcioforocmenl : BIKd on tcsl results for Q11puJar 19i!a: :
.. iatctaelioa prcperric5 (stalic W:C.a 0.8 specillc proprietary O kh OT:Q a

..
.. cue) NW:Qa 0.9
OO:QO.S I00.8
n:infon:cmeots 6
Hsm11111i1llt Dk:
2/3
QQ:Q s0.8
.. : --o.sc Fmdiem alidia1
. W:Cc
6 tu (6) 213 ma(>
2 0.7
NW:Q0.8
2.IS Rmforced llll oo.c...o.s
1.1' Coloesioe tlt.dra llDf.IC.ific Okh !O ltPa i:Skh O kh
1.17 Dcaipspcc:ilic :W (pYCI). 30(sud). 25 NIA 30

-
Dcfaull .
(siltYor ooltcsive soil\.
1.11 Gradation ments Dcsigllapedfic, typically DOI Colocsive
Peak atfricrional and
iasitu Vcf1ical Appllcabilily of IClil is Bucd upoo Highway
more than 3"' fines fricrional fills based Oii Japanese unified Specification 20 mm 100.15
(mailer than0.o'7S mm) IJoiJ claaalficadon s)'llem.. 4.76mm 100.20
Organic soil not allowed. 0.425 111111 0-60
oms mm so
1.lf Plu1ic:i1Y Index N/A Pl ..20 Pl 20
ue Soundocsa N/A Jacrt, Wd and durable Mapcsiam salfalit
. . ... .. .. ..
IC U n d o ea Joss <
3"' aft.ct<9{PET)
1.21 PH 4 < pff <10 Bucd oa lest r....tb fOf Not sdpulated 3< pH
specific proprietary pH>3 (PP .t HOPE)
rcUifon:cmcnts
2.22 Ralat-II
Table 2. Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Slopes
1.1 Conln Bradl e--1e-. luly Janan United Klntdoai UDl States
1.l AceDCJ O.ORio-Found1tion for Gectechnical lcolian Ministry of Pllblic Public Worb Rcscardi British Siandardl lnslitudon Federal Highway
Slope SlabiHty Control in EnJPnuriag Onice Worb Cent Administration (FHWA)
the OtvofRio deJanciro lOEOl
2.J R.efereoce 0.0Rio{l999) 0!!0(1993) Italian MiniJlry of Public Pllblic Works Rcsurdi 8S8006(199S) Eliu aad Ouistophcr (1997)
Works (1988) Center l2000\
2.4 crituirl
2.5 Slidilla NIA f'Sa12 FSa 1.3 f'Sa 1.2 f'Sa 1.3 FSa 1.3
:u llccearricirv albaK NIA Tdlslriblltioft NIA NIA NIA NIA
1.7 l..ocal -m..faiJwe NIA FS a 1.2 NIA NIA f'Sa 1.3 FS a 1.3
1.1 Deco IC8tod lllbility f'Sa 1.3 FSa U NIA f'Sa 1.2 FS:.1.3 f'Sa 1.3
1.f Oimaoand faikm FSa 1.3 FS:.1.2 f'Sa 1.3 NIA FSa 1.3
2.10 llllcmal slope stability NIA FSa 1.2 f'Sa t.3 F'S (Iona tenn)a 1.2 httial faclor d<lip FSa 1.3
F'S lshotl terml 1t I.I
1.11 Seismic Slabilily NIA None lllalcd NIA F'S .. 1.0 NIA FSa l.1
analwisl
1.12 Pullout FSa2.0 F'S .. 1.2 NIA FSa 2.0 Paitial f.actor dulgn f'Sa l.S
F'S:. 1.2 (aclsmic cue) F'S :.2.0 (cohesive ooils)
1.13 SoR relaf nt lokractlon nroaortle1
1.14 Det.uk sdlrcioforocmenl : BIKd on tcsl results for Q11puJar 19i!a: :
.. iatctaelioa prcperric5 (stalic W:C.a 0.8 specillc proprietary O kh OT:Q a

..
.. cue) NW:Qa 0.9
OO:QO.S I00.8
n:infon:cmeots 6
Hsm11111i1llt Dk:
2/3
QQ:Q s0.8
.. : --o.sc Fmdiem alidia1
. W:Cc
6 tu (6) 213 ma(>
2 0.7
NW:Q0.8
2.IS Rmforced llll oo.c...o.s
1.1' Coloesioe tlt.dra llDf.IC.ific Okh !O ltPa i:Skh O kh
1.17 Dcaipspcc:ilic :W (pYCI). 30(sud). 25 NIA 30

-
Dcfaull .
(siltYor ooltcsive soil\.
1.11 Gradation ments Dcsigllapedfic, typically DOI Colocsive
Peak atfricrional and
iasitu Vcf1ical Appllcabilily of IClil is Bucd upoo Highway
more than 3"' fines fricrional fills based Oii Japanese unified Specification 20 mm 100.15
(mailer than0.o'7S mm) IJoiJ claaalficadon s)'llem.. 4.76mm 100.20
Organic soil not allowed. 0.425 111111 0-60
oms mm so
1.lf Plu1ic:i1Y Index N/A Pl ..20 Pl 20
ue Soundocsa N/A Jacrt, Wd and durable Mapcsiam salfalit
. . ... .. .. ..
IC U n d o ea Joss <
3"' aft.ct<9{PET)
1.21 PH 4 < pff <10 Bucd oa lest r....tb fOf Not sdpulated 3< pH
specific proprietary pH>3 (PP .t HOPE)
rcUifon:cmcnts
2.22 Ralat-II
Table 3. Embankments over Soft
Soils
3.2 .. . National Hillhwav Dcnanment Public Works Research Center I British Siandards lostiwlion

3.1 Countnr I Brull Jamn United Klndom


ONER-Brazilian
3.3 Reference I ONER 0998a, 1998bl Public Works R_,,rch Center mvvn I
BS8006fl99Sl 3.4 Ptrlormance criWi11
3.5 Slidin NIA FS ;o 1.S FS:t 13
3.6 &centricilV at base NIA NIA
37 l.ccal bearin2 failure NIA FS :t 1.3
3.8 Deep seated stabili1y 1.2 lo 1.4, denending on embankmcnl type FS:t 13
39 .,,...,d failure 1.2 IO 1.4, d"""ndino. on embankmenl nm..
3.18 Jnte111al $!00eJtabilil\I NIA fS;o 1.2 Panial Flc:lor Desi1111 (Limit State Codel
3.11 Seismic StahiHtv NIA NIA NIA
3.12 Pullout resi.slance Desi8JI speci6c Clcosynlhelics sllould be pd over lhe entire widlh of Pulial Fldor Design
lhe embankment
3.13 Soll rrinforce1mat lnteractloa ............_
3.14 Dcbull soil-reinfurcemeI interaction NIA Gragular soils: NIA
properties {static case:) -= 0th
6 +
N<!nmn11!ar soj!s:
co.....= O.Sc
6
_. 3.15 Rdnforced Dll
Gradation 11,,;,..;,.;;,,.;nlS Applicabilily of soil is based OD Japenose unified soil Based """D MfWIY S....,.;ficatioa
12 3.16
3.17 Pla.slic:ilV Index
NIA
NIA clusificatioll system.
3.18 Soundness NIA
3.19 PH NIA Not stioulated
3.20 r ntbdk RdnforceaHDLI
3.21 UltimateTensilestreagtb, T.., ABNT12824 Testing manllli for a-YDlhetics {Public Works BS 6906 Part I
Re.swch Ccalerl
3.2.2 RFro (tvoical ian- rlr:.<bon tnlW'41V" Tvoical 1110..: !.7 lo Z.O A-eemenl Certificate and Limit SWe "-'-
3.23 Rfo I.Ito 2.0 {lypical) 1.0 {value ujCCj in esample of duign manual)
Agreemenl Certificate and Limit State Dcsi&Ji
I.I(minimum)
3.24 RFID I.Ito 1.7 (lypical) 1.0(value ujCCj inexample of duign manual)
Agreemenl Certificate and Limit Stale Design 1.1lllliaimuml
3.l5 FS 1.2IO 1.4 ""din on embankmcnl iv... 1.0 A-menl Cenificate and Limit Slate "-'-
3.26 "-'-medlods/conskleratiou
3.27 E.Xtcmal sLlbility Circular and non-citeular slipsurbccs lllins inlO Umit equilibrium analysis Umit Equilibrium
ICCC<IDI rcinforcemen l contriblltioo. Soll$Oil FllM/FDM alsopermitted
elsion has lo be verified
3.28 lnlemal Slability Typically wedge analyses, wilh part of lheslip Umi1equilibrium analysis Umil Equilibrium
surlacc alon2 the fill-reinforccmenl in1erfacc Fl!M/FDM Uio ;1led
3.29 Seismicstsbilitv NIA Noc stioulaled NIA
3.30 Miirimam anchorage length NIA Geosynllletics should be placed over lhc entire width of Partial Facior o..;gn
lhe embankment
seismic stability, but there is a tendency in adopting British Standards Institution (1995), BS 8006:1995,
pseudostatic limit equilibrium analyses. Code of Practice for

4 EMBANKMENTS OVER SOFr son..s

Table 3 provides a comparison of the design criteria


for embankments founded on soft soils. Only three
agencies (from Brazil, Japan, and U.K.) were
identified that provide guidelines regarding the use
of rei.nforcements to support embankments over
soft soils. Because of the typically site-specific
nature of these projects, less guidance is provided
by the different agencies on criteria for
embankments over soft soils than for geosynthetic-
reinforced soil walls and geosynthetic-reinforced
soil slopes.

ACKNOWI.EDGEMENTS

Major input for compilation of the design criteria


presented herein was provided by Dimiter Alexiew,
Richard J. Bathurst, Daniele Cazzuffi, J.P. Gourc,
Colin J.F.P. Jones, Chris R. Lawson, Yoshihisa
Miyata, Jun Otani, Ennio M. Palmeira, Yvonne
Rogbeck, and K. C. Yeo. Such valuable input is
gratefully acknowledged.

NOTATIONS
AR: Aramid
a
C;: Coefficient of interaction (C; = tan I tancj>)
e: Eccentricity
FS: Factor of
safety GG:
Geogrid
GT: Geotextile
H: Height of the slope or
wall HDPE:High density
polyethylene
L: Reinforcement length at base
La: Anchorage length for pullout
evaluation NW: Nonwoven geotextiles
PA: Polyamid
PET: Polyester
PE: Polyethylene
PP: Polypropylene
RFCR :Creep Reduction Factor
RFm : Installation damage reduction
factor RFo : Durability Reduction Factor
W: Woven geotextiles
c5: Interface friction angle
ip: Peak soil friction angle

REFERENCES

1105
Strengthened/Reinforced Soil and Report No. 34, Geotechnical Engineering
Other Fills, P.162, BSI, London . Office, Hong Kong.
Canadian Geotcchnical Society (1992). GeoRio (1999). Technical Manual for Slope
Canadian Foundation Engineering Stabilization. (in Portuguese). Foundation
Manual. 3rd Edition. for Slope Stability Control in the City of
ONER (1998a). Geosynthetics Applications in Rio de Janeiro, Volumes 1-4, Rio de
Highways. (in Portuguese). Highway Janeiro, Brazil, 682 p.
Standards ONER-PRO 380/98, Italian Ministry of Public Works (1988). Decreto
Brazilian National Highway Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici. Norme
Department, DNER, Rio de Janeiro, tecniche riguardanti le indagini sui terreni e
RJ, Brazil, 9 p. sulle rocce, la stabi/ita dei pendii naturali e
DNER (1998b). Design of Embankments on delle scarpate, I criteri generali e le
Soft Soils. (in Portuguese). Highway prescrzzzoni per la progettazione,
Standards DNER-PRO 381/98, l 'esecuzione e ii col/au.de delle opere
Brazilian National Highway di sostegno de/le terre e delle opere di
Department, ONER, Rio de Janeiro, fondazWne , Gazzetta Ufficiale, 11 March
RJ, Brazil, 37 p. 1988, Roma.
EBGEO (1997) Empfehlungen fur National Concrete Masonry Association {1997).
Bewehrungen aus Geokunststoffen, Design Manual for Segmental Retaining
Ernst & Sohn Verlag. Walls, Second edition, Second printing, J.
Elias, V., and Christopher, B.R. (1997). Collin (Editor), Herndon, Virginia.
"Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls National Concrete Masonry Association (1998).
and Rein/orced Soil Slopes, Design Segmental Retaining Walls - Seismic
and Construction Guidelines ", FHWA Design Manua 1st Edition, Bathurst
Demo. Project 82-1,Washington DC, (Editor), Herndon, Virginia.
367 p. National Road Administration Publication
GCO (1989). Model Specification for 1992:10 (1992) Soil reinforcement -
Reinforced Fill Structures, Geospcc Design tensile strength for synthetic
2, Geotechnical Engineering Office, materials (In Swedish).
Hong Kong. Public Works Research Center (2000). Design and
GEO (1993).A Partial Factor Method for Construction Manual for Geotextile
Reinforced Fill Slope Design, GEO

1105
Reinforced Soil Structures (inJapanese).
QMRD (1997). Reinforced Soil Structures,
- Specification MRSll.06, Main Roads
Department, Queensland, Australia.
RTA (1997). Design of Reinforced Soil Walls, QA
Specification R57, Roads and Traffic
Authority, New South Wales, Australia.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON EARTII REINFORC EMENT
FUKUOKA, KYUSHU, JAPAN, 14-16 NOVE:MBER 2001

Landmarks in Earth
Reinforcement

Edited by
Hidetoshi Ochiai
Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

Jun Otani
Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

Noriyuki Yasufuku
Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

Kiyoshi Omine
Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

VOLUME 2

A.A. BALKEMA PUBLISHERS LISSE I ABINGDON I EXTON (PA) I TOKYO