Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SYNOPSIS
The mechanics of steep reinforced soil slopes in the range 90 > p > 30
are considered to seek improvements in the simplified design charts
published by Jewell et al (1984). A description of the equilibrium in a
steep reinforced slope is given which clearly identifies the mechanics
governing the maximum required reinforcement forces for equilibrium,
and the required reinforcement length. Two independent limit equili
brium analyses are used to derive revised design charts, which are
presented in the paper, and to identify some conservatisms in the
existing charts. The influence of reinforcement bond is clearly identified
and a bond allowance is introduced for chart design. Savings in reinforce
ment quantity of the order 20% to 30% can be achieved for slopes
designed using the revised charts.
INTRODUCTION
An analysis for steep reinforced slopes was developed in the early
1980s and used to derive design charts, Jewell et al. (1984a). The
confidence in using geotextiles and polymer grids to reinforce steep
slopes has increased markedly since that time. As indicated by several
papers to this symposium, the behaviour and testing of polymer rein
forcement materials is now more clearly established, and the practical
details of steep reinforced slope construction have been developed
through experience. Indeed, steep reinforced slope construction has
now achieved such maturity that work on drafting national and inter
national standards and codes of practice is well advanced, for example
BSI (1988) and ICE (1989).
Another important development is that steep reinforced slopes de
signed using the existing charts have performed satisfactorily, although
the reinforcement forces (and measured deformations) have been smal
ler than those anticipated in the design calculation, see for example
Jarrett and McGown (1988) or Fannin and Hermann (1989).
In the light of the above, it is timely to reassess the design charts for
steep slopes, and their theoretical basis, to determine what improve:
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
the peak shearing resistance, the critical state shearing resistance does not
vary with mean effective stress over the practical range, (Fig. 2).
Pore water pressures are an important feature of soil mechanics
design problems, and these are included using the non-dimensional pore
water pressure coefficient r = u/yz introduced by Bishop and Morgen-
u
stern (I960). This approach identifies the magnitude of the pore water
pressure u, at depth z, simply as a function of the overburden pressure
yz, (Fig.1). The coefficient r is not an ideal description of the pattern
u
rate of load transfer between the reinforcement and the soil (i.e. the
pullout resistance or required bond length for a reinforcement layer). A
separate direct sliding coefficient fd governs the shearing resistance to
s
Critical state
shearing resistance
c'
Fig.2 Curved envelope of shearing resistance showing a peak secant angle offriction
<|> p at &d, and a conventional (c'^O fit to the data
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
charts.
The present work allows greater flexibility in design, and the bond
coefficient may take any value in the legitimate range 1 > j\> > 0. The
revised design charts are therefore not restricted to geotextile and
polymer grid reinforcements, and may be used for strip or other narrow
reinforcements, as well as for anchored earth and loop anchors.
To keep the number of charts to a minimum it is necessary to select
only one value for the direct sliding coefficient, and /a = 0.8 has again
s
F D B
+ LR Jt
Fig.4: Three zones in a steep reinforced slope; zone 1 with uniform high reinforcement
forces, zone 2 with decreasing reinforcement force, and unreinforced backfill in zone
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM
It is helpful to identify three distinct zones in a steep reinforced fill,
(Fig. 4). Large reinforcement forces are required in zone 1 to maintain
stability across a series of critically inclined surfaces such as CD. Each
reinforcement layer must have an allowable force and spacing sufficient
to maintain equilibrium in this zone. The reinforcement layers extend
beyond zone 1 to a depth into the slope, zone 2. This is required both
to maintain equilibrium on potential failure surfaces passing through
zone 2 and the unreinforced soil behind, zone 3, and to allow for bond
1
between the reinforcement and the soil The idealised equilibrium is
with a constant force in the reinforcement through zone 1 (i.e. main
tained through to the connection with the facing) and a reducing force
through zone 2 which falls to zero at the boundary with zone 3.
Internal equilibrium in zone 1 is the starting point for steep slope
design. The magnitude of the required reinforcement stresses and the size
and shape of zone 1 depends on the slope angle, p, the soil shearing
resistance, the pore water pressure, r and any uniform vertical
w
1 The concept of these zones in reinforced soil is discussed for reinforced soil
walls by Jewell and Milligan (1989).
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
0' = 30
(1 = 70
dw = 20
which exceeds the maximum required stress for equilibrium at that depth.
A typical pattern oimaximum required andavailablestress for a steep slope
design is shown in Figure 5, where the reinforcement is divided into
two zones of constant spacing.
The available stress must equal or exceed the maximum required
stress at every depth. A shortfall in the provision of reinforcement at
any depth could result in local stressing of a reinforcement layer above
the allowable force.
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
(a) (b)
Fig.7 (a) Two-part wedge mechanism and (b) forces on the wedge boundaries
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
(a) (b)
Fig.8 (a) Logarthmic spiral mechanism and (b) forces on the boundaries
adopted for the analysis of reinforced slopes is the one most widely used
in plasticity analysis, that is it has a radius which increases according to
the equation dr/rd8=tan<t>, as illustrated in Figure 8(a), see Terzaghi
3
(1943).
The attraction of the logarithmic spiral mechanism is that the soil
reaction R' acts through the centre of the spiral and does not need to be
known for the determination of the required force for equilibrium, PR,
which can be found from moment equilibrium. Pore water pressures
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
RESULTS: r = 0 u
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
0 I i i i 1 1 1
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle (3
Fig.9 Maximum required force from two-part wedge analysis: (a) previous charts,
(b) allowing 8w = <> | , (c) allowing 83 < 90, (d) with corrected reinforcement force
allocation across inter-wedge boundary, and (e) result of logarithmic spiral analysis
4
as long as the failure surface can reduce to a plane the exact result will
be found irrespective ofanyassumptions concerninginternal sliceboundaries.
The same also holds asp-><|) (for r = 0), which is the limiting infinite
u
slope where again the most critical mechanism tends to a plane surface.
The results show that both the two-part wedge and logarithmic spiral
limit equilibrium analyses perform well over the range of slope angles.
The logarithmic spiral mechanism is slightly superior for all the slope
cases examined, and agrees with the earth pressure coefficients of
Caquot et al. (1973) to within a few per cent.
4 The most critical logarthmic spiral has an infinite radius in this case.
10
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED E M B A N K M E N T S
in Figure 9 from (a) the previous work, (b) allowing a rough but vertical
inter-wedge boundary and (c) additionally allowing the inter-wedge
boundary to find a critical inclination. Analysis (c) still indicates higher
required stresses for equilibrium than calculated from Caquot et al.
(1973) or the logarithmic spiral analysis.
The source of the discrepancy (for the analysis of equilibrium in zone 1)
is in the allocation of the reinforcement force across the inter-wedge
boundary. This is illustrated in Figure 10, where three reinforcement
force resultants P\j, Piw and P L are defined. The influence of these
reinforcement forces on the two wedges is shown correctly in Figure
10b. The reinforcement layers crossing the inter-wedge boundary exert
an equal and opposite force on the upper wedge, and thus have no net
effect on the wedge equilibrium. The net stabilising force resultants are
correctly allocated as Pu to the upper wedge, and Piw + P L to the lower
wedge.
Fig.10 Illustration of the allocation of the reinforcement force crossing the inter-wedge
boundary (internal equilibrium calculation)
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
RESULTS: r > 0 u
Apart from two closed form solutions for the vertical case p = 0, and
for the infinite slope case K R e q - 0, there are no published results for
r > 0 with which to compare the computed magnitude of the required
u
reinforcement force.
The two closed form expressions are as follows:
For the vertical case the reinforcement has to maintain effective stress
equilibrium in the soil, and additionally resist the horizontal pore water
pressure, so that
(KR\ = K (\-r )
Rt<l u +ru ...(1)
The limiting infinite slope Pum that is just stable without need for
reinforcement is
tan piim = (1 - r)tan<|>
u ...(2)
Both the two-part wedge and the logarithmic spiral analysis agree
exactly with equation (1) when p=90, and tend towards the limiting
slope Piim as the required force for equilibrium reduces to zero.
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED E M B A N K M E N T S
Typical results for a range of slopes are given in Table 3, where $=30
and r =0.25. The results from both analyses are similar. The greater of
u
the two values was selected for the revised design charts.
OVERALL EQUILIBRIUM
As previously indicated (see Internal Equilibrium), having satisfied
the ideal equilibrium in zone 1 it is necessary next to proportion zone 2
to ensure satisfactory equilibrium on more deep-seated potential failure
surfaces.
The problem is illustrated in Figure 11. Clearly the reinforced zone
must extend to a sufficient depth into the slope so that an acceptable
equilibrium can be achieved with the reduced magnitude of available
reinforcement force, because of the fewer reinforcement layers inter
sected.
The present work has confirmed that the choice of a constant rein
forcement length LR made for the earlier charts does indeed provide
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
P A P E R 1: J E W E L L
an efficient and practical reinforcement layout, and this has been main
tained.
The overall equilibrium calculations for the required reinforcement
length L R / H were completed for the revised design charts assuming that
the maximum available force from the intersected reinforcement layers
was fully mobilised, as indicated in Figure 11. Clearly the requirement
for a bond length at the free end of the reinforcement layers would
invalidate this assumption. To allow for this, and to provide greater
flexibility in the range of reinforcement materials to which the charts
may be applied, requires the introduction of two new concepts for steep
slope design, namely bond allowance and load-shedding allowance.
BOND ALLOWANCE
The maximum bond force which can be mobilised Pbond (in kN), for
a section of reinforcement of length Lbond and width W , embedded in r
sand with a friction angle <>| and an effective stress normal to the
reinforcement & is given by the equation
n/
Lb ...(4)
H 2
yH 2W r
/*tan<|>
In the design of flatter slopes (LR < H / tan p) the depth of overburden
is limited by the sloping soil surface above the reinforcement, and this
smaller depth should replace one term H in the right-hand side of
equation (4).
In steep slopes, the required bond length Lb higher in the slope
increases as a simple function of L R / H and the depth of the reinforce
ment z below crest level
h = h ...(5)
H z
This bond length is shown in Figure 12 for a vertical wall. Also shown
is the mobilised reinforcement stress and force for a typical potential
failure surface. Only a proportion Pb of the maximum available rein
forcement force P R is available to maintain equilibrium on such a poten
tial failure surface.
14
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
t L R ](
(J
Av Mob
Zcrit
M a x i m u m /
available 7 <
stress /
>t )
\ /
Lost stress
d u e to b o n d / ^ X \
/s
V
\ /
^ B o n d length Lb
Fig.12 The variation of the reinforcement bond length with depth in the slope, showing
the loss of available reinforcement force due to bond along an overall failure
mechanism
= constant ...(6)
PR
tan<
...(8)
PR
U tv
The exact proportion of the maximum available reinforcement force
which can be mobilised could be calculated using equation (3) for the
reinforcement layers intersected in their bond length. The simpler ap
proach described above using the bond allowance captures (slightly
15
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
LOAD-SHEDDING ALLOWANCE
The consequence of reducing bond as described above is to reduce
the mobilised reinforcement force. Greater reinforcement length LR /H
is then required to ensure satisfactory overall equilibrium in the rein
forced slope.
Alternatively, additional reinforcement layers may be included in the
slope, surplus to those required for the ideal equilibrium in zone 1 (see
Internal Equilibrium), so that the short-fall in reinforcement force can
be made up without increasing the reinforcement length.
Since the available reinforcement force is an approximately constant
proportion of the maximum available force at any depth in the slope,
(Pb = bond allowance x P R ) , the short-fall may be counteracted most
effectively by increasing the provision of reinforcement in the slope
by a constant factor. This factor can be called the load-shedding allow
5
ance.
In practical use, the requirement for reinforcement determined from
the design charts J C R e q would be increased in design to Kd, as illustrated
in Figure 13, where
K d = #Req x load-shedding allowance ...(9)
16
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED E M B A N K M E N T S
^ Additional stress
^1 made available
from load-shedding
allowance
(with
load-shedding
allowance)
z
Fig.13 Compensation for the loss of force due to bond through design with Kd > KReq
(seeFig.12)
6 Clearly, very short reinforcement length (but not necessarily economic design)
could be achieved if a high load-shedding allowance were used. The limit is
eventually set by external equilibrium criteria, or criteria for no-tension in the
soil.
17
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
P A P E R 1: J E W E L L
U ^>{ 1
( p \(
H
hi r
all tan
1 \
...(11)
LR
The additional provision of reinforcement to allow for bond at the
crest of the slope is illustrated in Figure 14. The effect of this provision
on the total quantity of reinforcement for typical geotextile and polymer
grid reinforced slopes is usually small (< 5%), because of the relatively
low density of reinforcement in the upper portion of a reinforced slope.
For completeness, where p < 90, the critical depth is given by the root
of the equation
H
= 0 ...(12)
2L#tanP H
The increase in critical depth from equation (12) is found to be small,
even for the flatter slopes. The conceptually more attractive and simpler
equation (11) is considered perfectly adequate for practical design
purposes.
EXTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM
The revised design charts apply to slopes on competent foundation
soils.
18
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
Fig.14 Provision of additional reinforcement near the crest of the slope (above Zcrit) to
compensate for lack of bond in zone 1
lower shearing resistances and higher pore water pressures, the critical
mechanism for overall equilibrium passes around the lower corner of the
reinforced zone and through the surface of the foundation soil, as envisaged in
(c).
19
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
f L
f
forcement.
In order to keep the number of design charts to a minimum a single
value for the coefficient of direct sliding had to be chosen, and the value
from the earlier work/ds = 0.8 was selected again. This value should
allow for most reinforcement materials, with the possible exception of
any particularly smooth geotextile sheets.
20
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
SAVINGS
A rough index to the savings which can be achieved through the
revised design charts may be found by assuming the reinforcement
quantity is directly related to the product of the required reinforcement
force and length. For a typical geotextile or polymer grid reinforced
slope, both the required force J C R e q and the required length LR /H can be as
little as 80% of the value from the earlier charts. However, the load-shed-
ding allowance and the allowance for bond at the crest of the slope can
account for an additional 10% of reinforcement, at most. The net saving
in reinforcement quantity for a design made with the revised charts is
typically of the order
revised design
= 0.8 x 0 . 8 x 1.1 = 0.70 (ie. 3 0 % saving)
9 ...(13)
previous design
21
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
The above is only indicative and the savings will vary depending on
the slope case and the reinforcement material
22
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED E M B A N K M E N T S
to determine the required earth pressure coefficient K Req, and the required
reinforcement length L R / H from the revised design charts.
Td), and for the material having been subject to installation mechanical
damage and the subsequent action of the soil chemical and microbiol
ogical environment. A procedure for evaluating such an allowable force
is described in the paper to this symposium by Greenwood and Jewell
(1989), who give recommended values for the safety margin/ between m
{expected strength ) , T
P M = ^ (14)
Jm
then greater length to resist direct sliding will be required than that
indicated in the charts.
There is no simple test for the bond coefficient of grid reinforcement,
and this parameter depends strongly on the proportions of the grid and
the shearing resistance of the soil. Currently available grids typically
have a bond coefficient in the range 1.0 >fh z 0.3 .The bond coefficient for a
grid depends on the shearing resistance of the soil and can change by a
factor of 2 depending on whether the grid is to be used in compacted
sandfillor compacted clay fill, i.e., from/b= 0.9 to/i, = 0.45, for example.
A method for estimating the bond coefficient of grids was described by
Jewell et al. (1984b), and the values deduced using their lower limiting
solution have been shown to give suitable, slightly conservative values
for design, Palmeira (1987).
23
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
P A P E R 1: J E W E L L
Design chart procedure (1) First determine the design values for JCR^,
LR/H and LB/H as described in the sections above. A linear interpola
tion between charts is sufficient where the design pore water pressure
coefficient (r )d takes an intermediate value. Ensure that the charts are
u
If the spacing is changed at a depth Z2 below the slope crest, the above
inequality must again be satisfied but using the depth zi rather than H .
Construct an envelope of available stress, marking in the maximum
depths at which the spacing may be changed, and marking in the
positions of the reinforcement layers. Start from the base of the slope
24
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
Reinforcement
spacing 2
Reinforcement
spacing 1
Maximum
K
^ Req Z
required
stress
K =K
d Req x load-shedding allowance
(a) (b)
*-crit
I H - L I LR B
Vmin = 7dH(L I L) B R K R e q
= load-shedding allowance
1-LB/L, R
and only change the spacing once the reinforcement layer is above the
maximum depth for any new zone, Fig. 16b.
The following practical limits to the maximum vertical spacing are
suggested for design
($v)max Minimum o/(H/8, lm) ...(15)
at the slope crest is allowed for by designing the slope with an artificially
greater height
...(16)
25
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
CONCLUSIONS
The design charts for steep reinforced soil slopes published by Jewell
et al. (1984a) have been fully revised in the light of the knowledge and
confidence developed over the past five years. The revised design
procedure has been expressed in a way that it is expected will be
common to all reinforced soil applications.
The earlier work has been shown to contain some conservatisms,
which was expected, and many of these have been eliminated in the
revised design charts. Overall, the earlier work has withstood well the
detailed investigation. It has been possible to reduce both the required
reinforcement force and length for most designs, and the revised design
charts provide savings of the order 20% to 30% on the quantity of
reinforcement for many slope cases.
A major innovation in the revised design charts has been the concepts
of bond allowance and load-shedding allowance. With these concepts it has
proved possible to extend the range of the design charts to almost any
reinforcement type.
The influence of reinforcement bond on the equilibrium in steep
slopes has also been highlighted. A non-dimensional measure of bond
length at the base of the slope LB /H has been introduced and shown to
have particular significance for the design of reinforced slopes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of Guy Houlsby and Rick Woods with a number of the
computations described in the paper is gratefully acknowledged. The
work was partially supported by AKZO bv.
REFERENCES
Bishop, A.W. and Morgenstern, N. (1960). 'Stability coefficients for
earth slopes.' Geotechnique, Vol. 10,129-150.
Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands'. Geotech
nique, Vol. 36, No. 1,65-78.
British Standards Institution (1988). 'Report on strengthened/rein
forced soils and other fills.' Published Document, PD 6517:1988, London.
Caquot, A., Kerisel, J. and Absi, E. (1973). Tables de butee et de poussee,
2nd edition, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Chen, W.F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier, New
York.
Fannin, R.J. and Hermann, S. (1989). ' Some soil and reinforcement
parameters for design.' Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs. and Fndn.Engng,
Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 2,1239-1242.
26
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
Greenwood, J.H. and Jewell, R. A. (1989). 'Strength and safety: the use
of mechanical property data', Reinforced Embankments Symposium,
Thomas Telford.
Houlsby,G.T. (1989) Private communication.
Institution of Civil Engineers (1989). Specification for the use of geotex
tiles and related materials. Ground Engineering Group Board, ICE (in
press).
Jarrett, P.M. and McGown, A. (editors) (1988). The application of
polymeric reinforcement in soil retaining structures. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Holland.
Jewell, R.A. and Milligan, G.W.E. (1989). 'Deformation calculations
for reinforced soil walls'. Proc.llth Int. Conf. Soil Mechs. and Fndn.
Engng, Rio de Janeiro, Vol 2,1257-1262.
Jewell, R.A. and Greenwood, J.H. (1988). T,ong term safety in steep
soil slopes reinforced by polymer materials'. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, Special issue on Durability, Vol. 7, Nos. 1 & 2,81-118.
Jewell, R.A., Paine, N. and Woods, R.I. (1984a). Ttesign methods for
steep reinforced embankments'. Polymer grid reinforcement, Thomas
Telford, 70-81.
Jewell, R.A., Milligan, G.W.E., Sarsby, R.W. and DuBois, D.D. (1984b).
'Interactions between soils and grids'. Polymer grid reinforcement, Tho
mas Telford, 18-30.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations under
eccentric and inclined loads'. Proc 3rd Int. Conf Soil Mechs and Fndn
Engng, Switzerland, Vol. 1,440-445.
Palmeira, E.M. (1987). The study of soil reinforcement interaction by
means of large scale laboratoy tests, D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford.
Terzaghi,K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley, New York.
Vaughan, P.R., Hight, D., Sodha, V.G. and Walbanke, H.J. (1978).
Tactors controlling the stability of clay fills in Britain'. Proc. Conf. on
Clay Fills, Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Wroth CP. (1972) 'General theories of earth pressures and deforma
tions. General Reporf. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Fndn. Engng.,
Madrid, Vol. 2,33-52.
27
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle p
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
28
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle p
Minimum Required Length Minimum Required Length
Overall Stability (L /H)
R ovrl Direct Sliding (LRIH)^
30 40 50 60 70 40 50 60 70
29
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle p
X
\
30 40 50 60 70
30
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.