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

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

1095
also compiled guidelines for the design of reinforced soil walls.
Guidelines for performance criteria (rows 1.4 to ._. -
1.11 in Table I) reveal a significant consistency among the
different agencies. The minimum factor of safety against sliding
is typically 1.5, with the exception of Australia (FS ;,: 2.0).
Design criteria from Germany account explicitly for internal sliding
(i.e. sliding between reinforcement layers). Several agencies do not
consider overturning as a feasible mode of failuie, as indicated in
Tab1e 1(row 1.6). Yet, factors of safety ranging from 1.35 to 2.0
were adopted by agencies that consider this mode of fai11ue. The
guidelines provided by NCMA focus on the design of
 segmental retaining walls. Accordingly, they
provide guidelines not only against overturning of the overall
reinforced soil mass, but also against local facing overturning, crest
toppling, and facing shear (bulging). Eccentricity at the base of
the reinforced soil wall is limited to L/6 in most guidelines,
where L is the width of the reinforced soil mass. The factor
of safety values adopted against bearing capacity range from
values as low as 1.35 (U.K.) to values as high as 3.0
(Brazil). However, most guidelines recognize the flexibility of
the geosynthetic-reinforced systems by adopting a factor of
safety value of 2.0 against bearing capacity, which is lower
than values typically adopted for most geotechnical systems.
Consistent with guidelines adopted for unreinforced systems, the
factors of safety adopted for compound and deep seated stability
range between 1.3 and 1.5. Most agencies have not
established guidelines regarding seismic stability. US agencies
{FHW A and NCMA) have typically established pseudo-static
approach methods to deal with seismic design and, accordingly,
have established factors of safety as design criteria (typically
75% of the corresponding static values). Finally, pullout factors
of safety are reasonably consistent among different agencies.
They range from values as low as 1.35 in the British guidelines to
values as high as 2.0 in the Brazilian and Japanese guidelines.
Not all methods specify global and compound stability
although such stabilities could control the design in complex
walls (e.g., tiered wall systems).
In general, all agencies are conservative regarding the
selection of default soil-reinforcement interaction properties.
Several agencies, though, provide default coefficient of
interactions that designers can use in the absence of project-
specific test results (Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan, US).
Differently than regarding the design criteria, default values are
not consistent among different agencies
1096
(Table 1, rows 1.13 to 1.14). The default values range from
coefficient of interactions as low as 50% (Germany) to as high as
100% (Japan). Nonetheless, their selection typically depends on
the type of reinforcement (geogrid, geotextile) and in some
cases on the type of backfill (granular, cohesive). Little
guidance is provided regarding selection of default coefficients
of interaction under seismic conditions. FHWA guidelines ask
for 80% of the static values, while NCMA accepts 100% of the
static value.
Regarding selection of backfill properties, most agendes
preclude the use of any cohesive component of the shear
strength of the backfill soil. Only Japan, FHWA, and NCMA
provide default values of friction angles, while most of the
agencies indicate that such parameters should be design
specific. Regarding selection of peak or residual friction angle
values for _ design, most agencies indicate explicitly the use of
peak friction angles for design (Germany, Hong Kong, UK,
FHWA, NCMA). Only Australian guidelines explicitly call for
constant volume friction angle values in the design.Gradation
requirements are typically stringent, and do
not allow the use of cohesive backfill soils. British and
FHWA standards require no more than. 10 and 15 % fines,
respectively. On the other extreme, Brazilian and NCMA standards
allow up to 30 and 35% fines, respectively. NCMA has
provisions under which soils with up to 50% fines can be used
in reinforced soil walls. There is also considerable
discrepancies among agencies regarding the
maximum value of Plasticity Index to be allowed for reinforced
soil wall design. FHWA standards require a Plasticity Index of no
more than 6 %, while Brazilian and Hong Kong guidelines
allow Plasticity Index values up to 15 and 20%, respectively. It
is likely that gradation and plasticity criteria are related to local
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
 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
strength with default reduction factors for
degradation (RFo) as high as 2.0, most guidelines
indicate degradation reduction factors ranging from
1.0 to 1.1. Finally, regarding reduction factors to
account for construction damage (RFc0), minimum
values of 1.1 have been generally adopted by the
different agencies. The factor of safety FS, typically
adopted in addition to the reduction factors to
penalize the ultimate tensile strength of the
geosynthetics ranges from values as low as 1.0
(Japan) to values as high as 1.7 (Hong Kong).
While most of the agencies use coherent gravity
approaches for the design of geosynthetic-reinforced
soil walls (similar to traditional gravity structure
analyses), German and British standards adopt a
more generic limit equilibrium approach for external
stability analysis. Regarding internal stability, all
agencies adopt some type of Rankine- or Coulomb
type surface through the reinforced soil mass. Not all
agencies provide guidelines regarding seismic
stability, but those that provide it adopt a Agencies are conservative regarding the selection
pseudostatic (Mononobe-Okabe type) .analysis. Most
agencies adopt a minimum length of reinforcements
equal to 70% of the structure height. However, Hong
Kong guidelines ask for a length as low as 50% of
the height, while Brazilian guidelines ask for a
minimum of 80% of the height. The minimum
reinforcement length is typically on the order of 2 m,
while the minimum active reinforcement length is
typically on the order of 1 m. The distribution of
maximum reinforcement force with height adopted
by all agencies is typically a Rankine-based
triangular distribution. Some guidelines establish
factors of safety and reduction factors to be used in
the analysis of the connection of the reinforcement
to facing. Detailed modes of failure have been
identified by NCMA, with factors of safety of 1.5
adopted for connection to facing, interface shear
(bulging), internal sliding, and toppling.
3 GEOSYNTHETIC-REINFORCED SOIL
SLOPES
Table 2 provides a comparison of the design criteria
for geosynthetic-reinfo rced soil slopes. The
compiled information from government agencies
includes Brazil, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. In a general sense,
there have been fewer efforts by government
agencies in compiling design criteria for
geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes than for
geosynthetic-reinforced walls.
1101
As for the case of geosynthetic-reinforced walls,
performance criteria for geosynthetic-reinforced
slopes (rows 2.4 to 2.12..fu Table 2) are reasonably
consistent among thedifferent agencies. The factors
of safety against sliding, local bearing failure, deep
seated stability, and compound failure are typically
1.3. Eccentricity at the base is typically not
considered in the design. Factors of safety against
internal slope stability are also typically 1.3, while
factors of safety against pullout range from values
as low as 1.2 (Hong Kong} to values as high as
2.0 (Brazil, Japan). Most agencies have not
established guidelines regarding seismic stability.
Yet, FHWA and Japan establish minimum factors
of safety of 1.1 and 1.0, respectively, in pseudo-
static analyses. It should be noted that in lieu of
the conservatism of the pseudostatic stability
analysis, FHWA recommends to use a
design seismic coefficient that is half the maximum
ground acceleration .
of default soil-reinforcement interaction properties.
Several agencies., though, provide default coefficient
of interactions that designers can use in the absence
of project-specific test results (Brazil, Japan,
FHWA). The values selected by these agencies are
the same as those adopted for geosynthetic
reinforced soil wall design. Little guidance is
provided regarding selection of default coefficients
of interaction under seismic conditions .
Regarding selection of backfill properties, there is
less guidance on the selection of backfill material for
geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes than in the case
of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. However,
agencies are in general more permissive regarding
the use of cohesive soils, with FHWA standards
allowing up to 50% fines and Brazilian standards
typically up to 30% fines. There are also more
relaxed requirements regarding the Plasticity Index
to be allowed for reinforced soil slope design, with
most agencies allowing up to a Plasticity Index value
of 20 %. Most of the guidelines indicate restrictions
regarding soil pH.
Criteria adopted by different agencies regarding
geosynthetic reinforcement properties and reduction
factors for geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes are
consistent with those adopted for geosynthetic
reinforced soil walls. Regarding methods of design,
most agencies adopt some type of limit equilibrium
analysis. A triangular distribution of maximum
reinforcement tension with depth is typically
adopted in the design considerations. As noted in
Table 2, FHWA adopts a uniform distribution of
reinforcements with depth for walls lower than 6 m.
Not all agencies provide guidelines regarding
 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