Stability of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures

33 The Horseshoe
Covered Bridge Farms
Newark, DE. 19711, USA

Copyright 2002, ADAMA Engineering, Inc.
All Rights Reserved (www.GeoPrograms.com)

Written by Dov Leshchinsky, Ph.D.
1 INTRODUCTION
Soil is an abundant construction material that, simi-
lar to concrete, has high compressive strength but
virtually no tensile strength. To overcome this
weakness, soils, like concrete, may be reinforced.
The materials typically used to reinforce soil are
relatively light and flexible, and though extensible,
possess high tensile strength. Examples of such ma-
terials include thin steel strips and polymeric materi-
als commonly known as geosynthetics (i.e., geotex-
tiles and geogrids). When soils and reinforcement
are combined, a composite material, the so-called
'reinforced soil', possessing high compressive and
tensile strength (similar, in principle, to reinforced
concrete) is produced.
The increase in strength of the reinforced earth
structure allows for the construction of steep slopes,
embankment over soft foundation, or various types
of retaining walls. Compared with all other alterna-
tives, geosynthetic reinforced soil structures are
cost-effective. As a result, earth structures reinforced
with geosynthetics are being constructed worldwide
with increased frequency, even in permanent and
critical applications (e.g., Tatsuoka and Leshchin-
sky, 1994).
This paper describes a design process for geosyn-
thetic-reinforced slope. It includes details of stability
analyses used to determine the required layout and
strength of the reinforcing material. This process
serves as the basis for the computer program ReSlope
(Leshchinsky, 1997, 1999). Recognizing the limita-
tions of ReSlope (e.g., available strength of the rein-
forcement at its front-end can be less than the required
strength; analysis of complex geometries; stability of
embankment reinforced at its base), the rational for a
more complete stability analysis is presented. This
has resulted in program ReSSA (Leshchinsky, 2002).
Finally, the design of walls, which customarily adopt
lateral earth pressure approach, is briefly discussed.
This approach is used by national design procedures
such as AASHTO or NCMA (Collin, 1997) methods,
which serve as the basis for program MSEW (Lesh-
chinsky, 1999, 2000). An appendix provides com-
parative summary of programs ReSlope, MSEW and
ReSSA.

2 DESIGN-ORIENTED ANALYSIS

2.1 General

Limit equilibrium analysis has been used for dec-
ades in the design of earth slopes and embankments.
Attractive features of this analysis include experi-
ence of practitioners with its application, simple in-
put data, useful (though limited) output design in-
formation, and results that can be checked for
'reasonableness' through a different limit equilibrium
analysis method, charts, or even hand calculations.
Consequently, extension of this analysis to the de-
sign of geosynthetics reinforced slopes, embank-
ments and retaining walls, where the reinforcement
is tangibly modeled, is desirable. The main draw-
backs of limit equilibrium analysis are its inability to
deal with displacements and its limited representa-
tion of the interaction between dissimilar or incom-

ABSTRACT: A framework for stability analysis of reinforced soil structures is presented. It produces eco-
nomical design of stable reinforced walls, slopes and embankments. Elements such as local, compound,
global and direct sliding stabilities are ensured. This framework was implemented in program ReSlope.
More complex and versatile stability analysis methods can use the presented framework as a generic template
(e.g., program ReSSA uses it in an analysis-oriented fashion). Following the conceptual analyses is an
instructive parametric study. General guidelines about the selection of long-term geosynthetic and soil
strengths and a comparison with a case history are discussed. The meaning of factor of safety in the context
of reinforced soil structures is investigated showing it to be different for MSE walls and slopes. Some of the
factors of safety used in programs ReSSA, ReSlope and MSEW are not defined in the same way thus their
numerical value has to be examined independently; however, when the factor of safety is one, all definitions
are equivalent. An appendix provides comparative summary of programs ReSlope, MSEW and ReSSA.
patible materials comprising the soil structure.
Typically, adequate selection of materials properties
and safety factors should ensure acceptable dis-
placements, including safe level of reinforcement
deformation.
In principle, inclusion of geosynthetic
reinforcement in limit equilibrium analysis is a
straightforward process in which the tensile force in
the geosynthetic material is introduced directly in the
equilibrium equations to assess its effects on stability.
However, the inclination of this tensile force at the
assumed slip surface must be assumed. Physically, its
angle may vary between the as-installed (typically
horizontal) and the tangent to the potential slip
surface. By using a log spiral mechanism,
Leshchinsky and Boedeker (1989) have demonstrated
that for typical cohesionless backfill, this inclination
has little effect on both the required strength and
layout of reinforcement. Conversely, Leshchinsky
(1992) pointed out that for problems such as
reinforced embankments over soft soil, the inclination
of the reinforcing geosynthetic, located at the
foundation and backfill interface, plays a significant
role. The long-term value of cohesion used in design
of manmade reinforced steep slopes or walls is
negligibly small and hence, inclination has little
effects. Therefore, the force in such structures may be
assumed horizontal without being overly conservative.
In case of basal reinforcement of embankment over
soft soil, the uncertainties associated with defining the
foundation properties make it prudent to be
conservative and assume the reinforcement force is
horizontal. Consequently, based on a practical
argument, the force inclination is assumed horizontal.
A potentially significant problem in limit
equilibrium analysis of reinforced soil is the need to
know the reactive force in each reinforcement layer at
the limit state. Physically, this force may vary
between zero and the ultimate strength when the slope
is at a global state of limit equilibrium. Assuming the
actual force is known in advance, as is commonly
done in analysis-oriented approach, implies the
reinforcement force is actually active, regardless of
the problem. The designer then assumes the available
active force of each reinforcement layer to ensure
that overall satisfactory state of limit equilibrium is
obtained. The end result of such assumption may
yield an actual slope in which some layers actually
provide more force than their long-term available
strength while other layers are hardly stressed. To
overcome the potential problem of local instability
(reinforcement overstressing), a rational methodology
to estimate the required (i.e., reactive) reinforcement
tensile resistance of each layer is introduced via a
'tieback analysis' or internal stability analysis.
Consequently, the designer can verify whether an
individual layer is overstressed or understressed,
regardless of the overall stability of the slope. Once
this problem of 'local stability' is resolved, overall
stability of the slope is assessed through rotational and
translational mechanisms. The rotational mechanism
(termed 'compound stability' or pullout analysis)
examines slip surfaces extending between the slope
face and the retained soil. The force in the
geosynthetic layers in this limit-state slope stability
analysis is taken directly as the maximum available
long-term value for each layer. The translational
analysis ('direct sliding') is based on the two-part
wedge method in which the passive wedge is sliding
either over or below the bottom reinforcement layer,
or along the interface with the foundation soil.
The common factor of safety in stability analysis of
reinforced soil is equally applied to all failure-resisting
components (i.e., soils and reinforcement). This im-
plies that all resisting elements are equally mobilized.
Practice proves that such an approach combined with
the ability of geosynthetic to greatly deform produce
structures in which all reinforcement layers are typi-
cally mobilized uniformly (i.e., efficient use of rein-
forcement). This definition of safety factor is used in
ReSSA thus making it applicable to marginally stable
slopes where the overall factor of safety needs to be
increased via reinforcement.
A modified concept included in this paper relates to
a versatile definition of factor of safety suitable for in-
herently unstable unreinforced structures. It suggests
a rational and physically meaningful alternative to the
conventional factor of safety used in slope stability. In
fact, this factor of safety can be measured in an actual
structure. This factor of safety is used in ReSlope.
2.2 On the factor of safety in reinforced soil
structures

Limit equilibrium analysis deals with systems that
are on the verge of failure. However, existing slopes
are stable. To analyze such slopes, the concept of
factor of safety, Fs, has been introduced. In unrein-
forced slopes, Fs is used to replace the existing soil
with an artificial one, in which the shear strength is

m
= tan
-1
(tan/Fs) and c
m
= c/Fs where
m
and c
m

are the design shear strength parameters of the arti-
ficial soil. Alternatively, these values represent the
average mobilized shear strength of the actual soil.
Employing the notion of Fs in limit equilibrium re-
duces the statical indeterminacy of a stable slope
formulation via use of Mohr-Coulomb failure crite-
rion. It also provides an object for minimization in
which the lowest value of Fs, considering all poten-
tial failure surfaces and mechanism, is sought. The
physical significance of the conventional factor of
safety can be accepted in an average sense only; i.e.,
the average reduction of shear strength so that the
sliding mass will globally be at the verge of failure.
Extensive experience with limit equilibrium analysis
has produced engineering database providing ac-
ceptable values of Fs.
Leshchinsky and Reinschmidt (1985) applied Fs
equally to all shear-resisting components; i.e., soils
or reinforcement. This renders a factor of safety that
is equivalent to the one used in unreinforced slopes
(e.g., symbolizing the same average reduction of
strength of dissimilar materials that are attaining a
limit equilibrium state simultaneously). In fact, this
definition is used also in most slope stability analy-
ses of reinforced slopes (e.g., program ReSSA).
Such definition produces a single number that signi-
fies the state of global stability of a reinforced sys-
tem, similar to unreinforced slopes, homogeneous or
stratified.
Another definition of Fs that also globalizes the
reinforced system is presented in the federal design
guidelines in the US (Elias and Christopher, 1997):



where Fsu is the factor of safety for the unreinforced
slope; Mr and Md are the resisting moment due to
reinforcement layers and the total driving moment,
respectively. Mr and Md are calculated for the same
slip surface as Fsu. It should be noted that the sur-
face (typically circle) yielding the minimum Fsu is
not necessarily the one yielding the minimum Fs;
the critical surface in reinforced problems is deeper
than the unreinforced one. Such an approach yields
an overall factor of safety whose physical meaning
is only valid in a global sense. However, it treats the
reinforcement as pure moment (i.e., only Mr result-
ing from reinforcement force is considered; actual
force is not included in the equilibrium equations).
Programs ReSSA and MSEW can use this definition
of Fs as an option.
Extension of limit equilibrium stability analysis
to reinforced steep slopes provides an opportunity to
introduce a modified definition for Fs. Rather than
extending the conventional definition of Fs, one can
use the fact that unstable soil structures are suffi-
ciently stable solely due to the reinforcement tensile
resistance. Hence, Fs for the soil alone in this case
is unity everywhere along a slip surface (i.e., a plas-
tic hinge develops mobilizing the full available
strength of the soil). For this state, the required rein-
forcement force needed to restore a state of limit
equilibrium can be calculated. As an example, see
Figure 2 where a log spiral mechanism is used. The
stability of the slope now hinges on the reinforce-
ment strength. Hence, the actual factor of safety can
be defines as:

Fs



) 2 (
t
required
t
available
=
where t
available
is the long-term available strength and
t
required
is the strength required for stability (i.e., for a
limit equilibrium state of the composite reinforced
system). This definition signifies a factor of safety
with respect to the available strength of the rein-
forcement. Such Fs can actually be measured.
This modified definition of Fs is based on the
premise that the soil will attain its full strength be-
fore the reinforcement ruptures; i.e., the soil will at-
tain an active state exactly as assumed in design of
retaining walls including those reinforced with geo-
synthetics. Geosynthetic materials are ductile, typi-
cally rupturing at strains greater than 10% thus may
allow sufficient deformations to develop within the
soil to reach active state. In reality, most of the de-
formation for the active state will occur during con-
struction as the geosynthetic mobilizes its strength.
In fact, this definition is similar to the one used in
MSE walls (e.g., Elias and Christopher, 1997;
Collin, 1997); the design (available) shear strength
parameters of the soil are fully used and then a fac-
tor of safety is applied on the long-term strength of
the reinforcement only. Details of the consequences
of this definition are given elsewhere (Leshchinsky,
2000). Programs ReSlope and MSEW allow the
user to use this definition of Fs while program
ReSSA can reproduce it upon some manipulation
(i.e., analyze a reinforced system repetitively while
reducing the strength of the reinforcement until the
resulted overall Fs is 1.0; the soil now is in an active
state; increase the reinforcement strength to obtain
safe long-term value).
) 1 ( / Md Mr Fsu Fs + =


Figure 1. Notation and convention

Figure 2. Log spiral slip surface and its statical
implications

2.3 Internal stability analysis

Internal stability analysis is used to determine the
required tensile resistance of the each layer needed
to ensure that the reinforced mass is safe against in-
ternal collapse due to its own weight and surcharge
loading. In the context of retaining walls, this
analysis identifies the tensile force needed to resist
the active lateral earth pressure at the face of a steep
slope. That is, the tensile force needed to restrain
the unstable slope from sliding. The reinforcement
tensile force capacity is made possible through suf-
ficient anchorage of each layer into the stable soil
zone located behind the active zone. It is assumed
that at the face of the slope, some type of facing re-
stricts soil movement relative to the reinforcement;
hence, the full long-term strength of the geosynthetic
is available at the face of the slope. This assump-
tion is utilized in ReSlope; however, the actual
strength available at the face (connection strength) is
used in ReSSA or MSEW. While MSEW considers
internal stability explicitly (as does ReSlope),
ReSSA looks for the most critical situation regard-
less whether it is surficial, deep, compound or direct
sliding.
Figure 1 shows notation and convention. Rein-
forcement is comprised of primary and secondary
layers. Only primary layers are considered in
ReSlope; in ReSSA or MSEW the effects of inter-
mediate reinforcement are considered. Furthermore,
ReSSA is applicable also to base-reinforced em-
bankments over soft soil. In practice, secondary
layers allow for better compaction near the face of
the steep slope and thus reduce the potential for
sloughing. In walls it may alleviate connection
loads (Leshchinsky, 2000). The secondary layers are
narrow (typically 1 m wide), installed only if the
primary layers are spaced far apart (e.g., more than
about 0.6 m apart). At the slope face, the geosyn-
thetic layers may be wrapped around the exposed
portion of the soil mass or, if some cohesion exists,
the layers may simply terminate at the face as shown
in Figure 1.

In general, the following rational could be used
with any type of stability analysis. It is most conven-
ient to use it in conjunction with log spiral stability
analysis since the problem then is statically determi-
nate. This analysis produces the location of the criti-
cal slip surface and subsequently, the necessary reac-
tive force in the reinforcement. While ReSlope
utilizes the log spiral, ReSSA is using for rotational
failure circular arcs combined with Bishop stability
analysis. MSEW uses planar slip surfaces for internal
stability following Rankin or Coulomb lateral earth
pressure theories (MSEW is restricted to very steep
slopes having an angle larger than 70, i.e., walls).
The log spiral mechanism makes the problem stati-
cally determinate. For an assumed log spiral failure
surface, fully defined by the parameters x
c
, y
c
and A,
the moment equilibrium equation about the pole can
be written explicitly without resorting to statical as-
sumptions (Figure 2). Consequently, by comparing the
driving and resisting moments, one can check whether
the mass defined by an assumed log spiral is stable for
the design values of the shear strength parameters:
d

and c
d
and the distribution of reinforcement force t
j
.
This check is repeated for other potential slip surfaces
until the least stable system is identified. That is, until
the maximum required restoring reinforcement force
is found. The terms K
h
and K
v
(Figure 2) represent the
seismic coefficients introducing pseudo-static force
components. It is assumed to act at the center of grav-
ity of the critical mass. To simplify the presentation,
no surcharge is shown in Figure 2; however, including
it in the moment equation is straightforward.
Figure 3 illustrates the computation scheme for es-
timating the tensile reaction in each reinforcement
layer. In STEP 1, the soil mass acting against D
n
is
considered. Note that layer n is wrapped around the
slope face to form facing D
n
(Figure 3) thus making
it physically feasible for a mass of soil to be laterally
supported rendering local stability. That is, a 'facing
unit' D
n
(i.e., an imaginary facing element in the front
edge of the reinforced soil mass) prevents slide of un-
stable soil above it. This facing is capable of provid-
ing lateral support through the development of the
necessary tensile force in the geosynthetic (reaching,
at most, its long-term strength). While this assump-
tion exists in ReSlope, MSEW and ReSSA allow for
reduced strength at the front-end signifying possible
low-strength connection to a facing element (MSEW)
or simply front-end pullout (ReSSA). Note that mas-
sive stabilization of slope requires reinforcement away
from the face thus making the front-end strength less
significant unless surficial stability is of concern.
ReSlope uses the moment equilibrium equation to
find the critical log spiral producing max(t
n
), employ-
ing the free-body diagram shown in Figure 3 while
examining many potential surfaces. The resulted t
n

counterbalances the horizontal pressure against D
n
and
thus, signifies the reactive force in layer n. That is,
the resulted t
n
represents the force needed to restore
equilibrium and hence stability. Note that D
n
was
chosen to extend down to layer n. This tributary area
implies a 'toe' failure activating the largest possible re-
action force. In MSEW the reinforcement reaction is
calculated based on lateral earth pressure satisfying
horizontal equilibrium at each elevation. In ReSSA,
the user can verify that any given layer supplies suffi-
cient force to render satisfactory Fs.
In STEP 2, the force against D
n-1
is calculated.
D
n-1
extends from layer n to layer (n-1). Using the
moment equilibrium equation, max(t
n-1
), required to
retain the force exerted by the unstable mass against
D
n-1
, is calculated. When calculating t
n-1
, the reac-
tion t
n
, determined in STEP 1, is known in magni-
tude and point of action. Hence, the reactive force
in layer (n-1) is the only unknown to be determined
from the moment equilibrium equation.
Figure 3 shows that by repeating this process in
ReSlope, the distribution of reactive forces for all re-
inforcing layers, down to t
1
, are calculated while
supplying the demand for a limit equilibrium state at
each reinforcement level. Application of appropri-
ate factor of safety to the required reinforcement
strength should ensure selection of geosynthetic pos-
sessing adequate long-term strength. In MSEW, the
reaction is determined by using the lateral earth
pressure and the tributary area of each layer. Con-
versely, in ReSSA, the available Fs at each elevation
are checked while considering rotational and transla-
tional failure and the existing long-term strength of
the reinforcement. In ReSSA the approach is analy-
sis-oriented (i.e., given the layout and strength of re-
inforcement, find the minimum Fs for the structure)
whereas in ReSlope it is design-oriented (i.e., given
the desired Fs, find the layout and strength of rein-
forcement).
Note that cohesive steep slopes are stable up to a
certain height. Consequently, the scheme in Figure 3
may produce zero reactive force in top layers.
Though these layers may not be needed for local sta-
bility, they may be needed to resist compound failure
as discussed in the next section.
The outermost critical log spiral in ReSlope defines
the extreme surface as dictated by Layer 1. In
conventional internal stability analysis (e.g., MSEW)
it signifies the extent of the 'active zone'; i.e., it is the
boundary between the sliding soil mass and the stable
soil. Consequently, reinforcement layers are anchored
into the stable soil to ensure their capacity to develop
the calculated tensile reaction t
j
(Figure 4). The 'sta-
ble' soil, however, may not be immediately adjacent to
this outermost log spiral and therefore, some layers
should be extended further to ensure satisfactory sta-
bility (see next section).
Note in Figures 3 and 4 that the reinforcement lay-
ers are wrapped around the overlying layer of soil to
form the slope face. However, in slopes that are not
as steep (say, i<50), typically there is no wrap around
the face nor is there any other type of facing. In this
case, load transfer from each unstable soil mass to the
respective reinforcement layer is feasible due to a 'co-
herent' mass formed at the face. This mass may be
formed by soil arching, by a trace of cohesion and by
closely spaced reinforcement layers. The end result is
a soil 'plug' that acts, de facto, as a facing unit thus
enabling the load transfer into the primary reinforce-
ment layer. It should be pointed out that 'closely
spaced reinforcement' does not necessarily mean
closely spaced primary reinforcement layers; simply,
this 'plug' can be formed by the combination of secon-
dary and primary layers acting together to create a co-
herent mass. Since reinforcement layers, including
primary and secondary layers, are spaced approxi-
mately 30 cm apart in practice, and since the secon-
dary layers extend at least about 1 m into the slope,
the contribution of secondary layers to the formation
of a 'facing' needs not be ignored. With time, surface
vegetation and its root mat enhances this 'facing.' The
end result of forming a coherent face is not just an ef-
ficient load transfer from the deeply unstable soil
mass to the reinforcement, but also improved surficial
stability and erosion resistance. While such transfer is
needed to ensure that the front-end available strength
assumption in ReSlope is valid, ReSSA assess the sta-
bility based on actual front-end strength. MSEW is
limited to walls thus uses facia in its analysis. Note
that when planar reinforcement is closely spaced, the
load carried by each layer can be small. Consequently,
even if the full geosynthetic strength cannot develop
at the face, its overall effect on stability may not be
critical (parametric studies of practical cases show it).

Figure 3. Scheme for calculating tensile reaction in
reinforcement layers

2.4 Compound and pullout stability analysis
For a given geometry, pore-water pressure distribution
and (
d
and c
d
), the internal stability analysis provide
the required tensile resistance at the level of each rein-
forcement layer. It also yields the trace of the outer-
most log spiral defining the 'active' soil zone, a notion
commonly used in conjunction with analysis of retain-
ing walls. In reinforced soil structures, the capacity of
the reinforcement to develop the required tensile resis-
tance depends also on its pullout resistance; i.e., the
length anchored into the stable soil zone. If the
boundary of this stable zone is indeed defined by the
'active' one, then potential slip surfaces that extend
into the soil mass further than the outermost log spiral
in Figure 4, outside or within the effective anchorage
length, will never be critical. However, such potential
surfaces may render reduced pullout resistance since
the effective anchorage length is shortened. That is,
the reduced tensile resistance capacity along these sur-
faces could potentially produce a globally unstable
system. Consequently, a conventional slope stability
approach is used to determine the required reinforce-
ment length so that compound failures (i.e., surfaces
extending into the unreinforced soil zone) will not be
likely to occur. The term conventional refers to the
nature of the analysis in which global stability is
sought (recall that internal stability looks at local sta-
bility at the elevation of each reinforcing layer). The
objective of the compound analysis is to find the
minimum length of each reinforcement layer needed
to ensure adequate stability against rotational failures.


Internal stability analysis yields the required rein-
forcement strength at each level (in ReSlope and
MSEW). In actual practice, however, specified rein-
forcement layers will have allowable strengths in ex-
cess of that required (i.e., t
j
t
(allowable)j
whereas t
allowable

t
available
and t
available
is the long-term strength). The
end result of specification of reinforcement stronger
than needed is that actually only m reinforcement lay-
ers, extending outside the active zone and into the
stable soil, are globally needed. That is, the m layers
are sufficient to maintain stability of the active mass.
Internally, however, layers (m+1) through n are also
needed to ensure local stability as implied in the
scheme presented in Figure 3. The minimum number
of layers, m, is calculated using the following equa-
tion:






) 3 (
1 1
) (

=

=
n
j
t
j
m
j
t
j allowable

Note that m is the number of layers, counting from the
bottom, capable of developing a total tensile resistance
equal to (or slightly greater than) the net total rein-
forcement force obtained from the internal stability
analysis. When m = n, the compound stability degen-
erates to that introduced by Leshchinsky (1992). The
m layers are assumed to contribute their full allowable
strength simultaneously to global stability when com-
pound stability of the reinforced system is examined.
The assumption of simultaneous availability of rein-
forcement strength is commonly used in limit equilib-
rium stability analysis of reinforced slopes and is sup-
ported by (scattered) field data.
Embedding the layers immediately to the right of
the outermost log spiral obtained in the internal sta-
bility analysis, so that t
allowable
for layers 1 through m
and t
j
for layers (m+1) through n can develop
through pullout resistance, ensures that, in an aver-
age sense, the mobilized friction angle,
mob
, along
this log spiral is equal to, or slightly less than,
d
.
The upper layers (m+1) through n (see points A, B
and C in Figure 5) are not needed for the global sta-
bility of the active mass and therefore, from a theo-
retical view point could be ignored at points A, B
and C. Note that the mobilized friction angle,
mob
,
represents the required friction angle to produce a
limit equilibrium state while using the allowable re-
inforcement strength. Hence, when
mob
<
d
, a fic-
titious situation is analyzed; i.e., the system is actu-
ally stable since the available soil strength, as
expressed by
d
, is larger than needed,
mob
, for a
limit equilibrium state. Only when
mob
=
d
limit
equilibrium state achieved.
At this stage of ReSlopes analysis, which uses de-
sign-oriented approach, layers 1 through m are length-
ened to a test body defined by an arbitrary log spiral
extending between the toe and the crest, to the right of
the outermost log spiral (Figure 5). Each layer be-
yond the slip surface is embedded so that the calcu-
lated t
(allowable)j
can be developed;
mob
for this surface
will be smaller than
d
used in design (i.e., for this
layout, the internal stability outermost surface is most
critical). The upper layer is truncated in a numerical
sense (i.e., t
m
= 0), and the moment equilibrium equa-
tion for the arbitrary log spiral is used to check
whether
mob
=
d
. If
mob
=
d
than layer m is suffi-
ciently long (see point D in Figure 5); otherwise,
lengthen this layer and repeat calculations until satis-
factory length is found. A satisfactory length implies
that the critical log spiral passing through point D
yields a stable system for the design friction angle,
d
;
all feasible log spirals between this one and the out-
ermost log spiral from the internal stability have
mob

<
d
indicating they represent less critical mechanisms
(note that the strength of layers 1 through m is avail-
able between these two log spirals).
The process is repeated to find the required length
of layer (m-1) (Figure 5). Since layers above were al-
ready truncated, they no longer contribute tensile re-
sistance to deeper slip surfaces. Once the process has
been repeated for all layers down to layer 1, the length
of all layers (curve DEFGH in Figure 5), required to
ensure that
mob
does not exceed
d
for all possible log
spiral failure surfaces, has been determined. The proc-
ess in ReSlope is slightly conservative since the full
anchorage lengths to resist pullout are specified be-
yond points D, E, F and G. This simplification is con-
servative since, contrary to the compound analysis
procedure, it ensures the following: t
(allowable)m
at point
D (not zero resistance at D); t
(allowable)m-1
at point E (not
zero resistance at E); and so on. However, since the
anchorage length of planar geosynthetic sheet is typi-
cally small relative to its total required length in prac-
tical problems, this simplification is reasonably con-
servative. Programs ReSSA and MSEW do not use
this simplification; the actual available strength of re-
inforcement at its intersection with the slip surface is
calculated and used in the stability analysis.
Compound critical surfaces emerging above the toe
are also possible and consequently, the procedure in
Figure 5 is repeated for slip surfaces emerging
through the face of the slope. Subsequently, layers
previously truncated are lengthened, if necessary, to
ensure that
mob

d
. While other surfaces can pass
through the reinforcement and the foundation,
ReSlope ignores those (it assumes competent founda-
tion). However, ReSSA fully accounts for such sur-
faces.
A layout similar to the envelope ABCDEFG will
contain, at least, m potential slip surfaces, all having
the same minimal safety factor against rotational fail-
ure (Figure 5). However, because of practical consid-
erations, a uniform or linearly varying length of layers
is specified in practice. As a result, the number of
such equally critical slip surfaces is reduced in actual
structure since most layers are longer and typically,
some are stronger than optimally needed. ReSlope
ignored the extra stability attained by longer than
needed reinforcement (recall that its objective is to
find the minimum length of reinforcement that pro-
duces a target value of Fs against rotational failure).
ReSSA considers the actual layout by accounting for
the actual specified length and strength of reinforce-
ment (its objective is to calculate Fs for a given layout
and strengths).
Finally, anchorage lengths are calculated to resist
pullout forces that are equal to the required allowable
strength of each layer multiplied by a factor of safety
F
s-po
. In these calculations the overburden pressure
along the anchored length and the parameter defining
the shear strength of the interface between soil and re-
inforcement are used. In ReSlope, this parameter, C
i
,
termed the interaction coefficient. It relates the inter-
face strength to the reinforced soil design strength pa-
rameters: tan(
d
) and c
d
. In ReSSA and MSEW it re-
lates to the full strength of the soil but a factor of
safety ensures that the actual capacity would be at
least 1.5 times greater than that needed.
The interaction coefficient is typically determined
from a pullout test. The required anchorage length of
layer j must equal t
j
/ {
j
C
i
[tan(
d
)+c
d
]} where
j

signifies the average overburden pressure above the
anchored length. Adding the anchorage length to the
length needed to resist compound failure produces the
total length required to resist internal and compound
failures.

Figure 4. Tensile reaction transferred into soil next
to active zone

2.5 Direct sliding analysis

Specifying reinforcement layout that satisfies a pre-
scribed
d
against rotational failure does not ensure
sufficient resistance against direct sliding of the re-
inforced mass along its interface with the foundation
soil, or along any reinforcement layer. The rein-
forcement length required to ensure stability against
failure due to direct sliding, L
ds
, can be determined
from a limit equilibrium analysis that satisfies force
equilibrium; i.e., the two-part wedge method. Such
a conventional approach is used in ReSlope and
MSEW. However, ReSSA is consistent with LE
analysis and therefore, it uses Fs against direct slid-
ing (Spencer method) that accounts for the strength
of the reinforcement should failure propagate
through the geosynthetic layers.
Figure 6 shows the notation used in defining the
geometry and forces in the two-part wedge analysis.
First, an initial value of L
ds
is assumed. Then, for an
assumed interwedge force inclination, , the maxi-
mum value of the interwedge force, P
max
, is found by
varying while solving the two force equilibrium
equations for the active Wedge A. This interwedge
force signifies the resultant of the lateral earth pres-
sure exerted by the backfill soil on the reinforced soil.
Next, the vertical force equilibrium equation for
Wedge B is solved considering the vertical component
of the lateral thrust of the active wedge (i.e., P
max
sin).
The reaction N
B
is obtained and the base sliding resist-
ing force of Wedge B, T
B
, is calculated. While this
procedure is used in ReSlope and, with some limita-
tions in MSEW, in ReSSA the method used is
Spencer and all equations of equilibrium are satisfied.
When calculating T
B
, the coefficient C
ds
is used
(C
ds
= the interaction coefficient between the rein-
forcement and the soil as determined from a direct
shear test). If the bottom layer is placed directly over
the foundation soil, two values of C
ds
are needed: one
for the interface with the reinforced soil and the other
for the interface with the foundation soil.
In ReSlope and MSEW, the actual factor of
safety against direct sliding, F
s-ds
, is calculated by
comparing the resisting force with the driving force:






) 4 (
cos P
T
B
F ds s
=

This factor of safety corresponds to the assumed
value of L
ds
. In case it is unsatisfactory, the value of
L
ds
is changed and the process is repeated for Wedge
A and Wedge B until the computed factor of safety
against direct sliding equals to the prescribed value.
In ReSSA the definition of the factor of safety
against direct sliding is equally applied to the soils
shear strength and reinforcement layers intersection
the slip surface. That is, in ReSSA the rotational
and translational Fs have the sane physical signifi-
cance; in ReSlope the significance is different and
thus comparing values rendered by these two pro-
grams could be misleading.
The assumed value of may have significant in-
fluence on the outcome of the analysis. Selecting
>0 implies the retained soil will either settle rela-
tive to the reinforced soil and/or the reinforced soil
will slide slightly as a monolithic block thus allow-
ing interwedge friction to develop. Some rein-
forcement layers will typically intersect the inter-
wedge interface (especially if i < 70 ). However,
unlike program ReSSA, ReSlope ignores the tensile
resistance of these reinforcement layers. Conse-
quently, selecting a value of in between (2/3)
d

and
d
could be viewed as a conservative choice.
The technique for incorporating seismicity into the
force equilibrium analysis is shown in Figure 6. In a
pseudo-static approach, however, large seismic coeffi-
cients may produce unrealistically large reinforced
soil block, Wedge B. In this case, a permanent dis-
placement type of analysis is recommended (i.e.,
Newmark's stick-slip model; e.g., Ling, Leshchinsky
and Perry, 1997). Alternatively, one may eliminate
inertia from Wedge B, analogous, in a sense, to
Mononobe-Okabe model used in analysis of gravity
walls. Only the 'dynamic' effects on P are superim-
posed then on the statical problem. ReSlope allows
for the elimination of wedge B; ReSSA and MSEW
do not allow for such elimination.





Figure 6. Two-part wedge mechanism used in direct
sliding analysis






























Figure 5. Length required to resist compound and pullout failures
2.6 Commentary

1. The factor of safety used in program ReSlope is
compatible with that used in reinforced walls in
internal stability analysis (e.g., MSEW). Like
walls, unreinforced unstable slopes thus enabling
the soil to mobilize its full strength (i.e., attain an
active state).

2. The presented approach assumes the foundation to
be competent and therefore, deepseated failures
were not considered. This approach was
implemented in ReSlope. However, the
computational procedure can be modified for slip
surfaces that penetrate the foundation soil.
Program ReSSA uses a generic approach that
allows for soft foundations, complex geometry
including reinforced embankments.
3. The approach can be modified to include any
type of limit equilibrium analysis. In case of
generalized approach, separation into direct
sliding and compound stability is not needed
(e.g., ReSSA). However, search routines in
generalized methods must be capable of
capturing critical surfaces of greatly different
geometries (ReSSA allows for rotational failure
using Bishops and 2- and 3-part wedges using
Spencers).
4. Possibility of surficial failure is ignored in the
presented procedure (i.e., ReSlope). It can be
modified to deal with this issue by assigning low
or zero reinforcement strength at the face
provided the geosynthetic is not wrapped
around. However, for steep slopes, strict limit
equilibrium analysis will indicate insufficient
stability at the surface. The empirical concept of
soil plug is assumed to be valid for closely
spaced reinforcement layers. Programs ReSSA
and MSEW directly address the potential issue of
surficial stability.
5. Program MSEW follows accepted practice for the
design and analysis of MSE walls. Hence, it
includes checks for bearing capacity (considering
the reinforced soil as a coherent mass) and
eccentricity (or overturning). Both failure modes
are adopted from conventional retaining wall
design and may not be applicable for flexible
MSE structures. Deepseated stability (used in
ReSSA and ReSlope) serves as a much more
rational approach than bearing capacity (using
Meyerhof approach for eccentric load).
Overturning failure is unrealistic mode of failure.

In the strict context of analysis, log spiral slip surface
is valid for homogenous soil only. However, in the
compound failure analyses (Figure 5), this surface
passes through both reinforced and retained soil and
possibly, even through the foundation soil. As an ap-
proximation, one can use an averaging technique,
considering the compound failure surface lengths in
the reinforced soil and in the retained soil, to find
equivalent values for
d
and c
d
to be used in analysis.
The value of the equivalent
d
is used to define the
trace of the log spiral passing through the reinforced
and retained soils. This approximation approach is
used by ReSlope. Program ReSSA considers the ac-
tual soil properties in each zone through which the slip
surface passes. The trade off is using a less rigorous
stability analysis (from statical standpoint): Bishop
and Spencer. In practice, however, both methods
typically yield quite accurate results.
3 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 General
The presented approach is based on the state of lim-
iting equilibrium. Such a state deals, by definition,
with a slope that is at the onset of failure. Applica-
tion of adequate safety factors should ensure accept-
able margins of safety against the various failure
mechanisms analyzed. It is implicitly assumed that
the different materials involved (i.e., the geosyn-
thetic materials and soils) will all contribute their
design strengths simultaneously to attain a state of
limit equilibrium. For materials reaching a constant
plastic shear strength after some deformation (e.g.,
soils), such an assumption is realistic. However, not
all materials in the reinforced soil system possess
this idealized plasticity. Consequently, the follow-
ing guidance is provided for selecting material prop-
erties.
3.2 Progressive failure and soil shear strength
Slip surface development in soil is a progressive
phenomenon, especially in reinforced soil where re-
inforcement layers delay the formation of a surface
in their vicinity (e.g., Huang et al., 1994), or it may
be overstressed locally thus greatly deforming or
creeping locally. Leshchinsky et al. (1995) recom-
mended that the design values of and c (i.e.,
d
, c
d
)
should not exceed the residual strength of the soil.
This would ensure that at the state of a fully devel-
oped slip surface, the shear strength used in the limit
equilibrium analysis is indeed attainable all along
the slip surface.
Use of residual strength has clear cost implica-
tions in the design of reinforced slopes. The re-
quired strength of the reinforcement increases
somewhat; however, the required length of rein-
forcement increases significantly since deeper slip
surfaces are predicted. For compacted granular soil,
an increase in length of 30 to 50% might typically be
required. This additional length makes construction
more difficult, especially if space constraint exists
(e.g., widening existing embankment), thus render-
ing construction more expensive than just the cost of
extra reinforcing material. Hence, this combined
with what currently appears as overly conservative
designed reinforced slopes create a need to introduce
a less conservative design approach.
Based on some experimental evidence, Leshchin-
sky (2001) suggested the following hybrid procedure
for design when granular compacted fill is used:
a. Use
peak
and limit equilibrium analysis to locate
the critical slip surfaces. These surfaces will be
utilized to determine the required layout of geo-
synthetic layers (i.e., length and spacing).
b. Use
residual
along traces of the critical slip sur-
faces determined in (a) to compute the required
geosynthetic strength. That is, in internal stabil-
ity use
peak
to locate the slip surface and the use

residual
in the limiting equilibrium equations to
determine the geosynthetic reactive force. In
compound analysis use
residual
in the limiting
equilibrium equations to assess the required rein-
forcement strength along slip surfaces deter-
mined using
peak
.

It is entirely possible that the backfill in flexibly re-
inforced slopes will deform (during or after con-
struction) mobilizing the soil beyond its peak
strength. Therefore, the stability of such slopes may
hinge then upon the strength of the reinforcement.
Consequently, the reinforcement strength becomes
critical to stability in case residual strength develops.
Note that the hybrid approach recognizes that slip
surfaces will form and have a trace based on the soil
peak strength. However, possible development of
progressive failure is also recognized and at this
state, the ductile and potentially creeping reinforce-
ment should be sufficiently strong to keep the sys-
tem stable. It should be noted that in a sense, Ta-
tsuoka et al. (1998) proposed a similar hybrid
approach, however, it was limited to seismic design
of reinforced walls.
The proposed procedure may result in signifi-
cantly shorter reinforcement as compared to using

residual
. However, the required reinforcement
strength will be somewhat larger than that computed
when using
peak
. Leshchinsky (2001) proposed a
simple procedure when using ReSlope. For ReSSA
or MSEW the process is straightforward.
If cohesive fill is used, extreme care should be used
when specifying the cohesion value. Cohesion has
significant effects on stability and thus the required re-
inforcement strength. In fact, a trace of cohesion may
indicate that no reinforcement at all is needed at the
upper portion of the slope. However, over the long
run, cohesion of manmade embankments tends to
drop and nearly diminish (normally consolidated
clay). Since long-term stability of reinforced slopes is
of major concern, it is perhaps wise to ignore the co-
hesion altogether. It is therefore recommended to
limit the design value of cohesion to a maximum of
about 5 kPa. It should be pointed out, however, that
end-of-construction analysis must also be conducted if
a soft foundation is present. In this case stability
against deepseated failure must be ensured.
3.3 Reduction factors related to geosynthetics

Limit equilibrium analysis assumes that the geosyn-
thetic will not mobilize its full strength before the
design strength of the soil is attained. Formally,
there is no consideration of deformations. One can
envision a scenario in which very stiff reinforcement
will have its strength mobilized, potentially reaching
its design value before the soil mobilizes its
strength. This may lead to overstressing and subse-
quently, premature rupture of the reinforcement, vio-
lating the analysis premise that its tensile resistance
will be available simultaneously with the soil
strength. The result might be local, or even global,
collapse. However, since geosynthetics are ductile
(typically, rupture strain greater than 10%), large
strains may develop locally in response to over-
stressing thus allowing the soil to deform and mobi-
lize its strength as assumed in the analysis and as
needed for stability. Over twenty years of experi-
ence indicate that lack of stiffness compatibility is
not a problem when using limit equilibrium design.
To ensure that indeed some overstressing of the re-
inforcement without breakage is possible, an overall
factor of safety is specified. This factor multiplies the
calculated minimal required reinforcement strength at
each level. Typical values for this factor range from
F
s-u
=1.3 to 1.5. The strength of the factored rein-
forcement should be available throughout the design
life of the structure. To achieve this, reduction factors
for installation damage (RF
id
), durability (RF
d
), and
creep (RF
cr
) should be applied so that geosynthetics
possessing adequate ultimate strength, t
ult
, could be se-
lected. That is, the specified geosynthetic should have
the following short-term ultimate strength:






t
) 7 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
RF
r
RF
d
RF
cr
RF
id
F
u s
t
required ult

) ( =

Table 1 shows typical range of values used for vari-
ous polymeric materials. The values of RF
id
and
RF
d
are site specific. For typical reinforced soil con-
ditions (i.e., near neutral pH), degradation should
not be a problem when using typical reinforcing
polymeric materials. The creep reduction factor,
RF
cr
, depends, to large extent, on the polymer type
and the manufacturing process. The term ultimate
strength, t
ult
, should correspond to the result obtained
from the short-term wide-width tensile test, following,
for example, ASTM D4595-86 procedure. Typically,
the strength at 5% elongation strain in the wide-width
test is reported as well. Some designers concerned
with performance prefer to use this value as 't
ult
.' It
should be noted that performance (i.e., deformations)
of slope and embankments is less critical than that of
walls and therefore, the 5% 'limit' is unnecessary and
is overly conservative for most practical purposes. In
fact, it is conservative even for walls.
Finally, if seismicity is considered in the design, the
reduction factor against creep can be set to one.
Simply, since the duration of the superimposed
pseudo-static seismic load is short, significant creep
is not an issue. However, the designer should verify
that the required seismic strength is no higher than
the required long-term value for static stability
where creep is feasible; the larger strength value
from static and pseudo-seismic should prevail.

Table 1. Preliminary reduction factors

Polymer Type RF
id
RF
d
RF
cr

Polyester 1.0 to 1.5 1.0 to 2.0 1.5 to 2.0
Polypropylene 1.0 to 1.5 1.0 to 2.0 3.0 to 5.0
Polyethylene 1.0 to 1.5 1.0 to 2.0 2.5 to 5.0
PVA 1.0 to 1.5 1.0 to 1.5 1.4 to 1.8

3.4 Other specified safety factors

The factor of safety against direct sliding, F
s-ds
, en-
sures that the force causing direct sliding is ade-
quately smaller than the force available to resist it.
In ReSlope it is a straightforward adaptation of
analysis from reinforced retaining walls (MSEW) or
gravity walls. It is recommended to use F
s-ds
=1.5 to
2.0 to avoid possible progressive failure associated
with peak shear strength of soil. However, if the de-
sign value of the soil shear strength used in analysis
is lower than its residual strength, one can use F
s-ds
=
1.0 since safety is already manifested in the reduced
shear strength. In ReSSA the factor of safety for di-
rect sliding is applied to soils shear strength as well
as reinforcement strength (i.e., slope stability ap-
proach); hence, a value of 1.3 to 1.5 should be satis-
factory.
Note that the coefficient C
ds
is related to direct
sliding mechanism. There are two such coefficients.
The first signifies the ratio of shear strength of the
interface between the reinforcement and reinforced
soil to the shear strength of the reinforced soil alone.
The second coefficient signifies a similar ratio but
with respect to the strength of the foundation soil.
This coefficient reflects a mechanism in which soil
slides over the reinforcement sheet or vice versa. Its
value can be determined from direct shear tests in
which the shear strength of the interface between the
relevant types of soil and the reinforcement is as-
sessed under realistic normal loads. Typically, C
ds

will vary between 0.5 and 1.0, depending on the type
of soil and reinforcement. For typical granular soils
and geosynthetics, C
ds
is about 0.8. In many cases
the required length of bottom layer (i.e., see L
B
in
Figure 7) may increase significantly as C
ds
decreases
below 0.8.
The factor of safety against pullout, F
s-po
, multi-
plies the calculated required allowable tensile force
of each reinforcement layer. Anchorage length then
is calculated to provide pullout resistance for this
factored tensile force. Typically, F
s-po
value is speci-
fied as 1.5. C
i
signifies an interaction coefficient. It
relates the strength of the interface between the rein-
forcement and soil to the shear strength of the rein-
forced soil or the foundation soil, reflecting geosyn-
thetic movement relative to the confining soil. The
required anchorage length is calculated based on C
i
.
The value C
i
is normally determined from a pullout
test. Typically, the value of C
i
varies between 0.5
and 1.0, depending on the type of soil and rein-
forcement. For granular soils, the typical value of C
i

is about 0.7. It should be pointed out that for typical
reinforced slope or wall, anchorage length is quite
small relative to the total required length in the final
layout (i.e., 30 to 60 cm vertical spacing). Conse-
quently, the interaction coefficient may just be con-
servatively assumed in design.


3.5 Practical layout of reinforcement

Two practical options for specifying reinforcement
length are common in practice (Figure 7). The first
option simplifies construction by specifying all lay-
ers to have uniform length. This length is selected
as the longest value obtained from the internal
stability analysis, the pullout and compound failure
analysis, or the direct sliding analysis. In walls it
also include overturning and bearing capacity modes
of failure.
The second safe option is to specify L
B
and L
T
at
the bottom and top, respectively, where L
B
is the
longest length from all analyses and L
T
is the longest
length obtained from internal stability and com-
pound/pullout analyses. Length of layers in between
is linearly interpolated. This specification is more
economical; however, it may result in misplaced
layers at the construction site.
Figure 7 shows primary and secondary reinforcing
layers. In ReSlope stability analyses, only primary
layers are considered. However, layers spaced too far
apart may promote localized instability along the
slope face. Therefore, secondary reinforcement layers
should be used. Their width should extend at least 1m
back into the fill and their strength, for practical pur-
poses, may be the same as the adjacent primary rein-
forcement. The vertical spacing of secondary rein-
forcement layer is typically be limited to 30 cm.
Secondary reinforcement creates a 'coherent' mass at
the face, a factor important for local stability, espe-
cially in ReSlope where surficial stability is not
checked. Furthermore, it allows for better compaction
of the soil at the face of the steep slope. This, in turn,
increases the sloughing resistance and prevents surfi-
cial failures. If wrap-around is specified (necessary in
slopes steeper than about 50), secondary reinforce-
ment can be used to wrap the slope face as well. It
should be backfolded at least 1 m back into soil, same
as the wrapping primary layers. Secondary rein-
forcement can also be used with wire cage facing,
gabions, or even modular blocks in segmental retain-
ing walls.

Figure 7. Practical layout of reinforcement
4 RESULTS AND CASE HISTORY
4.1 Typical results

Figure 8, reproduced from Leshchinsky and
Boedeker (1989), shows the required tensile force
calculated using internal stability analysis versus

peak
and slope inclination. It should be noted that
Leshchinsky and Boedeker (1989) used a variational
calculus technique to facilitate the generation of re-
sults, however, the results are identical to those pro-
duced using the scheme presented in this paper.
This figure is limited to cohesionless slopes. The
ordinate K represents the non-dimensional value of
the calculated t
j
and, in a sense, is equivalent to K
a

in lateral earth pressures (K
a
is equivalent to Ran-
kins if the reinforcement force is horizontal and to
Coulombs if this force is inclined). Notice that for
reasonable range of
peak
, the difference in required
K as a function of assumed reinforcement force ori-
entation at the slip surface is small. This difference
is the largest for vertical slopes. The value of each t
j
can be calculated from this chart following the ra-
tional presented in Figure 3. That is, start with j = 1
and top layer to find t
n
for which H equals D
n
, then
go to j = 2 and layer n -1 to find t
n-1
where H equals
D
n
+D
n-1
and t
n
is known, and so on. Alternatively,
one can use this chart as an approximation. That is,
the overburden pressure at the middle of a tributary
area of a reinforcing layer can be calculated and then
be multiplied by the tributary area and by the coeffi-
cient K obtained from the chart. Note that soil pos-
sessing low such as 15 or 20 is not likely to ex-
hibit peak shear characteristics; it is presented in this
and following figures for instructive purposes unless
one uses the chart for a case where
design
=
residual
=

peak
.
The K value in Figure 8 is the same as Rankins
for horizontal reinforcement force; for vertical walls
it would produce the same tensile force mobilized in
each reinforcement layer as in MSEW (thus making
ReSlope useful in terms of accepted design for both
walls and slopes). ReSSA and the compound stabil-
ity module of ReSlope will require half the maxi-
mum strength rendered from Figure 8 since it as-
sumes uniform mobilization of the reinforcement
force at a LE state.

Figure 9 shows the outermost traces of critical log
spirals obtained from internal stability analysis. It is
for the horizontal inclination of geosynthetic force
(for traces when reinforcement is tangential, see
Leshchinsky and Boedeker, 1989). Notice that for
vertical slopes, the surfaces are practically planar in-
clined at angle of (45+
peak
/2). Also notice that as

peak
decreases, the slip surfaces become signifi-
cantly deeper thus implying longer required length
of reinforcement.
No charts are shown for required length based on
compound stability analysis. The results in this case
will depend on the selected reinforcement strength.
The interested reader is referred to Leshchinsky et
al. (1995) to view some typical surfaces. In general,
compound failure will not control the length in near
vertical slopes provided the reinforcement is closely
spaced and uniform in strength. However, this
would not necessarily be the case if geosynthetic
layers with variable length and/or strength is speci-
fied. Program ReSlope and ReSSA are ideally
suited for this mode of failure.
Figure 10 shows the length of reinforcement re-
quired to resist direct sliding. It is constructed for
strength related to peak shear strength, direct sliding
coefficient, C
ds
, equals one, and a factor of safety to
resist direct sliding, F
s-ds
, equals 1.5. Figure 10 (top)
represents the case where full friction is developed
along the interface between the two wedges (i.e., =

peak
) while Figure 10 (bottom) shows the conserva-
tive case where = 0. Generally, it can be seen that as
the slope flattens, the length of reinforcement in-
creases. Also, the friction angle and the interwedge
angle have significant effects on length. Notice that
for 45 slopes combined with = 45, no reinforce-
ment is needed, however, if one uses
design
<
peak
the
required length will increase. In this case, one could
use lower F
s-ds
in lieu of smaller . While these results
correspond to ReSlope and MSEW, ReSSA uses slope
stability analysis for direct sliding and therefore layers
length may depends also on layers strength.
4.2 Case history

Fannin and Herman (1990) report the results of a
field test of a well-instrumented full-scale slope.
One tested slope in which no intermediate rein-
forcement layers were used is adequate for compari-
son with the discussed progressive failure approach
and program ReSlope.





Figure 8. Calculated tensile reaction for cohesionless
slopes

Figure 10. Required length to resist direct sliding as
function of peak shear angle and slope inclination
(assuming all soils possess same strength/density)


The slope height was 4.8 m and its inclination
was 1H:2V (Figure 11). The backfill soil was a uni-
formly graded medium to fine sand, compacted to a
unit weight of 17 kN/m
3
. The plane strain residual
internal angle of friction is reported to be 38. Un-
fortunately, the peak angle is not reported. The lay-
out of the uniformly spaced geogrids is shown in
Figure 11. The force distribution in each geogrid
layer was measured using load cells. Only the fac-
ing was constructed of a wire mesh, which is con-
sidered equivalent to wrap-around face. Following
construction, the wall was surcharged with soil
placed to a depth of 3 m. Since no details are given,
it is assumed that the slope of the this surcharge fill
was 2H:1V.


The outermost internal failure surfaces using the
approach presented in this paper are contained
within the reinforced zone (Figure 11) for
residual
=
38. Since
peak
is unknown, the corresponding slip
surface is not plotted, however, because
peak
is
larger than
residual
, the critical slip surfaces would be
even shallower (i.e., certainly contained within the
reinforced zone). The long-term allowable geogrid
strength is not reported, but it can be verified that its
value is much larger than the measured forces.











































Figure 9. Outermost traces of internal slip surfaces

Hence, all compound slip surfaces are also con-
tained within the reinforced soil. Assessment of di-
rect sliding reveals that F
s-ds
for the layout used is
between 1.5 and 2.0.
The actual layout is not the same as required in
Figure 5 (i.e., not minimum lengths but rather uni-
form lengths) and therefore, back-analysis using the
presented design-oriented analysis (ReSlope) can
only suggest a probable range of feasible values.
The probable range for each layer is between the re-
quired forces needed for internal stability and for
compound failure. The approach (ReSlope) speci-
fies the maximum value of this probable range in
design. Table 2 shows the comparison between
measured values and those predicted using
residual
=
38.
The agreement exhibited in Table 2 is considered
good. Repeating calculations for the problem for

peak
= 43, one gets t
j
= 11.1 kN/m; for
peak
= 41,
one gets t
j
= 13.3 kN/m. The measured (actual)
value of t
j
was 15.3 kN/m. Fannin and Herman re-
port only the total sum of forces for the surcharged
case. The measured value is 22.2 kN/m whereas the
calculated one (
residual
= 38) is 21.1 kN/m.
Strain measurements by Fannin and Herman indi-
cates the location of maximum force is shallower
than that implied by
residual
(i.e., implied by the trace
of slip surface shown in Figure 11). Use of
peak
as
proposed by Leshchinsky (2001) will also produce
shallower surfaces.
Looking at the measured tension values (Table 2),
one sees that the mobilized force in the reinforce-
ment is approximately uniform among all layers.
Such observation supports the approach used in
ReSSA and in ReSlope if one examines the com-
pound failure mode.



Figure 11. Configuration of Norwegian Wall

5 CONCLUSION
A framework for assessing the stability of slopes
and embankments reinforced with geosynthetics has
been presented. The analyses involved are based on
limit equilibrium. These analyses ensure that the
reinforced mass is internally and externally stable. A
physically meaningful definition of factor of safety,
which is relevant to an unstable soil structure unless
reinforced, is introduced.
The presented stability analyses include
recommendations regarding the selection of soil shear
strength parameters and safety factors. Recognizing
the limitations of limit equilibrium analysis, especially
when applied to soil structures comprised of materials
possessing different properties (i.e., such as soil and
polymeric materials) and the potential for progressive
failure, a hybrid approach for selecting soil shear
strength is recommended. The peak shear strength
parameters of the soil should be used to determine the
critical slip surfaces (i.e., the reinforcement layout).
Superimposing on these critical slip surfaces the
residual strength of the soil and solving the limit
equilibrium equations provide an estimate of the
required reinforcement strength in case progressive
failure is likely to develop.
The presented design procedure has been imple-
mented in ReSlope (Leshchinsky, 1997, 1999). The
mechanism and analysis used can be replaced with
other stability methods such as program ReSSA
(Leshchinsky, 2002). The approach is comprehensive
and economical; experience proves it is safe. While
ReSSA is based on pure slope stability approach,
ReSlope is based on a hybrid approach. That is, its
rigorous Internal Stability mode yield results conven-
tionally used in the design of MSE walls reinforced
with geosynthetics whereas its Compound Stability
mode corresponds to reinforced slope stability analy-
sis. Consequently, its results are compatible with
those of program MSEW (Leshchinsky, 1999, 2000);
however, it does not deal with stability aspects that
could be important for walls (e.g., connection
strength). It provides a layout that automatically can
resist compound failure, an aspect that cannot be ad-
dressed by lateral earth pressure methods used in de-
sign of walls.


REFERENCES



Collin, J. (1997). Design Manual for Segmental
Retaining Walls. 2
nd
Edition, National Concrete
Masonry Association (NCMA).
Elias, V. and Christopher, B.R. 1997.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Steep Slopes, Design and Construction
Guidelines. FHWA Demonstration Project 82.
Report No. FHWA-SA-96-071.
Fannin, J. and Herman, S. 1990. Performance
data for sloped reinforced soil wall. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 27(5), 676-686.

















Huang, C.-C., Tatsuoka, F., and Sato, Y. 1994.
Failure mechanisms of reinforced sand slopes
loaded with a footing. Soils and Foundations,
Journal of the Japanese Society of Geotechnical
Engineering, 34(2), 27-40.
Leshchinsky, D. 1992. Keynote paper: Issues in
geosynthetic-reinforced soil. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement
Practice, held in Nov. 1992 in Kyushu, Japan.
Editors: Ochiai, Hayashi and Otani. Published by
Balkema, 871-897.
Leshchinsky, D. 1997. Software to Facilitate
Design of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Steep Slopes.
Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 15, No. 1, 40-
46.
Leshchinsky, D. 1999. Putting Technology to
Work: MSEW and ReSlope for Reinforced Soil-
Structure Design. Geotechnical Fabrics Report,
Vol. 17, No. 3, April, pp. 34-38.
Leshchinsky, D. 2000. Alleviating Connection
Load. Geotechnical Fabrics Report,
October/November, Vol. 18, Number 8, 34-39.
Leshchinsky, D. 2000. On the Factor of Safety in
Reinforced Steep Slopes. ASCE, Geotechnical
Special Publication, Ed.: Zornberg and
Christopher, No. 103, 2000, pp. 337-345.
Leshchinsky, D. 2001. Design Dilemma: Use
Peak or Residual Strength of Soil. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 111-
125.
Leshchinsky, D. 2002. Design Software for
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures.
Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 19,
Marc/April, pp. 44-49.
Leshchinsky, D. and Boedeker, R. H. 1989.
Geosynthetic reinforced earth structures. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(10),
1459-1478.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., and Hanks, G. 1995.
Unified Design Approach to Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Slopes and Segmental Walls.
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 5, 845-
881.
Leshchinsky, D. and Reinschmidt, A.J. 1985.
Stability of membrane reinforced slopes. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 111(11),
1285-1300.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D. and Perry, E.B.
Seismic Design and Performance of Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Soil Structures. Geotechnique, Vol.
47, No. 5, 1997, pp. 933-952.
Tatsuoka, F. and Leshchinsky, D. 1994. Editors:
Recent Case Histories of Permanent
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls,
Proceedings of SEIKEN Symposium, held in
November, 1992 in Tokyo, Japan, published by
Balkema, 349 pages.
Tatsuoka,F., Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Munaf, Y.
and Hori, N. 1998. Seismic stability against high
seismic loads of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
retaining structures. Keynote lecture,
Proceedings of the 6
th
International Conference
on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, Georgia, Vol. 1, 103-
142.
Taylor, D.W. 1937. Stability of earth slopes.
Journal of the Boston Society of Civil
Engineering, 24(3), 197-246.
Yoshida, T. and Tatsuoka, F. 1997. Deformation
property of shear band in sand subjected to plane
strain compression and its relation to particle
characteristics. Proceedings of the 14
th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, September,
237-240, Balkema.







Table 2. Reinforcement forces under self-weight loading

Calculated Measured Layer No. j
/
Elevation
[m]
Internal
Failure, t
j

[KN/m]
Compound
Failure, t
j
/n
[kN/m]
Probable Range
[kN/m]
Maximum
Force,
[kN/m]
1 /0.0 4.1 2.13 2.1 4.1 1.06
2 / 0.6 3.5 2.13 2.1 3.5 2.25
3 / 1.2 2.9 2.13 2.1 2.9 2.01
4 / 1.8 2.4 2.13 2.1 2.4 2.34
5 / 2.4 1.8 2.13 1.8 2.1 2.00
6 / 3.0 1.3 2.13 1.3 2.1 1.46
7 / 3.6 0.8 2.13 0.8 2.1 1.92
8 / 4.2 0.2 2.13 0.2 2.1 2.26
t
j
17.0 17.0 15.3


























































Appendix

ReSSA, ReSlope, MSEW: Comparative Summary
For complete details, see features of each program posted at www.GeoProgram.com


Program
Applicable to
MSE
Structure:
Slope
Angle
Reinforce-
ment
Geometry
Maximum No.
of Soils
Water
MSEW Walls
1
70-90
Geosynthetic or
Metallic
Simple,
two-tiered,
bridge abut-
ment, back to
back
Reinforced
soil, retained soil,
and 5 other soils
Phreatic
surface used
only in global
stability
ReSlope
Slopes &
Walls
2

10-90 Geosynthetic Simple
Reinforced
soil, retained soil,
foundation soil
Phreatic
surface
ReSSA
Slopes, Walls
& Embankment
3

10-90
Geosynthetic or
Metallic
Nearly any
complex ge-
ometry
25 different
soils; reinforce-
ment can be em-
bedded in all soils
Phreatic
surface or pie-
zometric lines;
effective, total
or mixed stress
analysis

1
MSEW is strictly for MSE walls (following AASHTO or NCMA). A slope stability module (Bishop) is
available to check global stability. Reinforcement must be embedded in a prismatic shape non-cohesive
homogeneous soil; the retained soil is non-cohesive. Additional 5 layers of soil can be specified for global
stability analysis. Water is invoked only in global stability.

2
ReSlope is a design-oriented program that conducts local and global stability checks. The local stabil-
ity check is analogous with the one used in MSEW. It does not deal with facia (it assumes 100% connec-
tion strength). It also does not deal with eccentricity, overturning, and bearing capacity (though deepseated
failure is assessed). It inherently assumes competent foundation.

3
ReSSA uses a global slope stability framework (i.e., it assumes all reinforcement layers are equally
mobilized). This means that if used in walls, the reinforcement strength might be insufficient for local sta-
bility (experience shows that this is not an issue with geosynthetics). It considers various failure mecha-
nisms; however, no overturning and bearing capacity are explicitly checked.















Program
Strength
of Connec-
tion:
Surcharge
Unreinforced
Slopes/Walls
Types of
Stability
Analysis
2

Mechanisms
MSEW 0 - 100%
Uniform and
strip (live and
dead), horizon-
tal, point, and
isolated
No
Internal,
direct sliding,
eccentricity
(overturning),
connection,
pullout, bear-
ing capacity,
and global
Planar, 2-part
wedge (simpli-
fied), Meyerhof,
Circular (Bishop)
ReSlope 100%
1

Uniform and
strip
No
Internal,
compound,
deepseated
Log spiral and
circular for deep-
seated (Bishop)
ReSSA 0 - 100%
Uniform and
strip
Yes (can run as
a generic slope sta-
bility program)
Rotational
and transla-
tional
Circular
(Bishop), 2- and 3-
part wedge
(Spencer); effects
of reinforcement s
included if inter-
sects slip surface

1
ReSlope ignores surficial failure assuming 100% connection strength

2
Factor of safety in ReSSA is consistent regardless whether rotational or translational analysis is
used; this factor applies equally to all elements resisting failure (i.e., shear strength parameters of soils
and reinforcement resistance, if available); the factor for pullout represents a ratio of resisting force and
pullout force. In MSEW this factor is applied only on the reinforcement strength in Internal Stability; it
represents ratio of resisting force and driving force in direct sliding and pullout; it represent ratio of mo-
ments in overturning; it represents the ultimate foundation capacity over the actual load, considering ec-
centric load and Meyerhof method. In ReSlope the user can specify different factor for the soil shear
strength and for the reinforcement strength when dealing with Internal Stability or Compound (thus mak-
ing this approach adaptable to conventional approach to walls or to slopes); ratio of forces in pullout re-
sistance and in direct sliding; reduction of soils shear strength when deepseated failure (Bishop) is used.