160 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap. 2 Sec. 2.

from 3 to 5. This contradiction begs the next question of how the geotextile is to reinforce ing the facir
if it is not deformed to approximately 5 to lÚVoof its maximum elongation. Advocates of the strips an
a reinforcement function in paved roads will suggestthat the fabric deformation around the and interact
coarse aggregatebase course (when heavily rolled) is sufficient to mobilize the fabric's
massive gra
strength. Thus design can proceed in a manner similar to unpaved roads. Such a design cost per sqr
procedure is available from Reemay Inc. [61] for its geotextile Typar.
Vidal's, all
Those who feel this is not the casemight still desirea geotextile under the stonebase,
but for reasons other than soil subgrade reinforcement. Here the primary function . facin
becomesseparation,which was discussedin Section 2.5, or filtration, which is handled in 'facin
Section2.8.
. solid
When separationis the primary function in paved road applications, it is important to
recognize where the fabric is located with respect to the pavement cross sections and 'anchr
appliedloads. In a trial testsite with 1.5 in. (38 mm) of asphaltpaving, 6.0 in. (150 mm) 'anch
of basecourse,and 4.0 in. (100 mm) of largecrushedstone,a lightweight(4.5 oz.lyd.z or 'geogr
150 g/m2) fabric failed under 165,000repetitionsof a standard18,000-lb. axle load [62]. ' geote
This premature fabric failure was evidenced by abrasion of the fibers followed by fines
pumping up from the subgradeinto the stone base. Although no specificdesign can be
directedat this situation,it does illustratethat a minimum set of propertiesis requiredin
2.7.1
cefain situations. In other words, a survivability criterion is requiredto ensureadequate Since ¡
performancein generalsituations. existing curn
To specifically add reinforcement for paved roads on firm subsoils, a fabric pre- adequate fou
tensioningsystemis required. By pre-tensioningthe fabric, the stonebasewill be placed in-situ or rep
in compression(i.e., therebyproviding a lateralconfinement)and will effectively increase footing of an
its modulusover the nonreinforcedcase. Someof theseconceptsare discussedin Section the foundatio
2.7.4. Service and i

l. Au
2.7 DESIGNING
FORSTABILIZATION grou
This
In this sectionusing geotextilesfor soil stabilization,reinforcementis again the primary woo
function ofthe fabric. Sincethis was also the casein the precedingsectioninvolving road 2. The
systems,it could easily have beenplacedas a direct continuation. However, stabilization exte
raises a unique set of problems for the geotechnicalengineer. These problems involve can
wall stabilization,embankment(slope) stabilization,foundationstabilization,and in-situ leng
slope stabilization,which are the various topics coveredin this section. large
depl
sewr
2.7.1 Geotext¡le Walls
stres
2.7,1.1Background 3. Bacl
placr
Conventional gravity and cantilever wall systemsmade from masonry and concrete pact€
resistlateralpressureby virtue of their largemass. They act as a rigid unit and haveserved Iight
the industrywell for many years. However, a new era of retainingwalls was introducedin
4. Awi
the 1960sby H. Vidal of Francewith the conceptof reinforcedearth. Here metal strips
road
extendingfrom the exposedfacing panelsback into the soil servethe dual role of anchor-
bene
iles Chap.2 S e c .2 . 7 D e s i g n i n gf o r S t a b ¡ l i z a t i o n 161

le is to reinforce ing the facing units while being restrainedthrough frictional stressesmobilized between
n. Advocatesof the strips and the soil. The backfill soil thus createsthe lateral pressureon the wall face
Lationaroundthe and interactswith the strips to resist it. The walls are relatively flexible comparedto
ilize the fabric's massive gravity structures.They offer many advantages,including significantly lower
. Sucha design cost per square foot of exposed surface. A steady series of wall variations followed
Vidal's, all of which can be put into the flexiblecategory:
:r the stonebase,
rimary function ' facing panels with metal strips
ich is handledin . facing panels with metal wire mesh
' solid panelswith tieback anchors
it is importantto
' anchoredgabion walls
rss sectionsand
' anchor crib walls
. 0 i n . ( 1 5 0m m )
or
t ( 4 . 5o z . l y d . ? . geogrid walls (to be describedin Chapter3)
. axle load [621. ' geotextilewalls
rllowed by fines
c designcan be 2.7.1.2 Construction Details
es is requiredin
ensureadequate Since geotextile walls are not especiallycommon (there are probably 200 to 250
existingcunently), some detail on their constructionis appropriate.Upon preparingan
ls, a labric pre- adequatefoundation,which consistsof removing unsuitablematerialand compacting
;e will be placecl in-situ or replacementfoundationsoils, the wall itself is begun. Note that there is no
:ctivelyincrcase footing of any kind with thesewalls, and the lowestgeotextilelayer is placeddirectlyon
ussedin Section the foundationsoil. An interactiveconstructionsequence, developedby the U.S. Forest
Serviceand illustratedin Fisure 2.41. is now followed.

t . A wooden form of height slightly greaterthan the lift height is placed on the
ground surface(or on the previouslyplacedlift after the first layer is completed).
This form is nothing more than a seriesof metal L bracketswith a continuous
¡ain the primary wooden brace board running along the face of the wall.
n involvingroad 2. The fabric is then unrolled and positioned so that approximately 3 ft. (l m)
¡er, stabilization extendsover the top of the form and hangsloose. If sufficientlywide, the fabric
r o b l e m si n v o l v e can be unrolled parallel to the wall. This will dependon the required design
tion.andin situ lengthand fabric strength,which will be discussedlater. If a singleroll is not
largeenough,two of them can be sewn together. Alternatively, the fabric can be
deployed perpendicularto the wall and adjacent strips can be overlappedor
sewn. In this way the fabric's machinedirectionis orientedin the maximum
stressdirection.
3. Backfill, preferably free-draininggranular soil but not necessarilyso, is now
placed on the fabric for approximatelythree-fourthsof its lift height and com-
my and concrete pacted. This is typically9 to 18 in. (20 to 40 cm) and is donewith conventional
and haveserved light earth-movingequipment.
¿asintroducedin 4. A windrow is made 12 to 24 in. (30 to 60 cm) from the face of the wall with a
Iere metal strips road graderor is dug by hand. Care must be exercisednot to dig into the fabric
I role of anchor- beneathor at the face of the wall.
Sec.2.7

5.

6.

7.

When c<
face of t
exposure
asphalt p
anchorec
wall.
 'Sec.
hap.2 2.7 D e s i g n i n gf o r S t a b i l i z a t i o n 163

5. The loose end of the fabric (i.e., its "tail") is then folded back over the wooden
form into the windrow.
6. The remaining lift thicknessis then completedto the plannedlift thicknessand
suitably compacted.
7. The wooden form is then removed from in front of, and the metal brackets from
beneath, the lift and is reset on top of it in preparation of the next higher lift.
Note that it is usually necessaryto have scaffolding in front of the wall when the
form. wall is higherthan 5 or 6 ft. (1.5 or 1.8 m).

When completed, this sequenceprovides walls as appearin Figure 2.42. The exposed
face of the wall must now be coveredto prevent the geotextile'sweakeningdue to UV
exposure(recall Section2.2.6.6) and possiblevandalism. Bituminousemulsionsor other
asphaltproductsand gunite (shotcrete)have been the usual wall coverings. A wire mesh
anchoredto the fabric may be necessaryto keep the coating on the vertical face of the
wall.

rm.

la)

Figure 2.42 Geotextile walls (compliments of Crown T.ellerbach, Washougal, WA)

1il Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2 Sec. 2

2.7.1.3 Design Methods

There are two somewhatdifferent approachesto the design of geotextile walls: that
used by Broms [63] and that used by the U.S. Forest Service, Stewardet al. [64], and
Whitcomb and Bell [65]. The latter method will be followed in this book. This later
method follows the work that Lee, et al. [66], did on reinforcedearth and was originally
adaptedto geotextile walls by Bell, et al. 1671.The design progressesin parts, as fol-
lows:

' Internal stability is first addressedto determinelift thicknesses,fabric length, and

overlap.
' External stability against overturning, sliding, and foundation failure is veri-
fied.
. Miscellaneousconsiderations,including wall facing details, are completed.

To determinethe lift thicknesses(or fabric layer separationdistances),earth pres-

suresare assumedto be linearly distributedusing K" conditionfor the soil backfill andK"
conditions for the surcharge.A prediction conferenceat the Royal Military College
(Kingston, ontario, canada) in 1987, however, showedthat the entire design to be pre-
sentedhereis quite conservative(seeJarrett,et al. [68]). Therefore,K, conditionswill be
used throughout. Boussinesqelastictheory for live loadson the soil backfill is used. As
shown in Figure 2.43, the following earth pressuresresult:

úhs : Ka ^lz

onq: KoQ

x2z
o 4 : r^f r
The cal
Cfh:Ah"!o¡o*O¡¡
ticularly
formed
where B¡
summin
o¿ : the total horizontal (lateral) pressure ness:
o¿" : the pressuredue to soil;
Ko : tanz (45 - +12) : the coefficient of active earth pressure,in which ó : the
angle of shearingresistanceof backfill soil;
"y : the unit weight of backfill soil;
z : the depth from ground surface to layer in question;
o¡n: the pressuredue to surchargeload; where
q : ^lD : the surchargeload on ground surface,in which : the unit weight of
1
surchargesoil, and D : the depth of surchargesoil;
o¡¡ : tha pressuredue to live load; Tul
P : the concentratedload;
Jhap.2 S e c .2 . 7 D e s í g n i n gf o r S t a b i l i z a t i o n

P , - ( L i v el o a d s )

Llls:that
r4l, and
is latter
iginally
-t-
as fol-
I
Z

3th,and onq

is veri-

:d.

th pres-
and K,,
College
be pre- Soil pressure Surcharge Live-load
pressure pressure
s will be
sed. As
Figure 2.43 Earth pressure concepts and theory for geotextile walls.

¡ : the horizontal distanceload is away from wall; and

R : the radial distancefrom load point on wall wherepressureis beingcalculated.

The calculationsof o¿" ?lrd a¡n &Íe quite straightforward,but o¿¡ presentsproblemspar-
ticularly for multiwheeled truck loads where superpositionof each wheel must be per-
formed. Figure 2.44 greatlyaids in such calculations.
By taking a free body at any depth in the total lateral pressurediagram and then
summingthe forcesin the horizontaldirection, one obtainsthe equationfor the lift thick-
NESS:

Iull.*
(r¿S, :
ó:the FS

^ Iutt.*
" (2.40)
o¡FS
where
'eightof
Su : the vertical spacing(lift thickness),
Turro*: the allowablestressin the fabric (recallEquation2.18 andTable2.l2),
o¿ : the total lateral pressureat depth considered,and
 166 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap. 2 Sec.2.¡

1m = 0.1

\
..] The san
o.2
in the a
).5¿ A
nonacti¡
i

'\ o.¿
I
m = O . 7 .)2 v\ is,
ll
-z
r' m 0.3
7
'i6
o
0.6
4 where
m R

"r{.1
I 0 . 1 60á
0,8
t 0,3 a n ¿
0.5 56¡¡
/ I o.7 48h and
/ /
1.0
0.4 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.6
Valueof (&) Valueof
", ",(E)

where
For m ( 0.4:
Line load O.
/ H\ o.20n f
"' \o')= (or6 + ,,')'? L"
For m { 0.4:
P, = A'55Q,
I u2 \ o.2$n2
,s
For m ) O.4: " ' \ o , ) = ( o J 6+ ó 3 A¡
Form ) 0.4: FS
I H \ 1.28m2n
"' \or)= rm,+ n r, lt+ \ r.77m2n2 c
"'
\a, ) lm2 + n2l3
0.64O¿ T
ResultantP, o'H= oH cos2(.1e1
( m 2+ 1 l z
:zl
Pressuresfrom line load O. aP 6
(Boussinesq equationmodified
by exper¡ment)
Finally,tl
exception
ando¿ is r
Presures from point load Oo
( Boussinesqequationmodified
stressin n
by experiment) eitherside
equation
Flgure 2.,14 Lateral earth prcssuresdue to a surfaceload (after NAVFAC [53]).
C h a p .2 S e c .2 . 7 b e s i g n i n gf o r S t a b i l i z a t i o n 167

FS: the factor of safety (use 1.3 to 1.5 when using Z"¡¡.* as determined
above).

The sameapproachcan be taken for obtaining the length of embedmentof the fabric layers
in the anchoragezone, 1". Note that these values when obtained must be added to the
nonacting lengths (Ln) of fabric behind the failure plane for the total fabric lengths, L, that
is,
L:L"*Lp (2.4t)
where

Ln: (H - z) tan
/
145
- y) (2.42)

and

Sro¡FS :ZrL"
: 2(c -l o, tan 6)L"
:2(c + ytan6)L"

Srro¿FS
f -
(2.43)
2(c + 1z tan 6)

where

r : the shearstrengthof the soil to the fabric,

L" : the requiredembedmentlength (minimum is 3 ft. or I m),
S, : the vertical spacing(lift thickness),
18n2
+ n2l3 o¿ : the total lateral pressureat depth considered,
FS : the factor of safety (rangesfrom 1.3 to 1.5),
lm'n' c : the soil cohesion(zero if granular soil is used),
+ n'?\3
1 : the unit weight of backfill soil,
,10)
z : the depth from ground surface, and
6 : the angle of friction betweensoil and fabric.

Finally, the overlap distanceL,, is obtainedin a mannersimilar to that above with a few
exceptions,namely, the distanceZ should be measuredto about the middle of the layer,
and o¡ is not as largeas illustratedin Figure 2.43. lt is reasonablywell establishedthat the
stressin reinforcementelementsis maximum nearthe failure plane and falls off sharplyto
either side [70]. As an approximation,ll2o¡ will be used, which resultsin the following
equation.

Sro¿FS
T - (2.44)
4(c * "yz tan 6)
168 Designíngwith Geotextiles Chap. 2 Sec. 2.

whereLo is the requiredoverlafength (minimumis 3 ft. or I m). Exampl

Next, one must considerexternalstability of the geotextilewall, which includes
D
overtuming,sliding,andfoundation failures.Theseareillustrated in Figure2.45. These 2(
featuresarecommonto all wall systemsandcanbe treatedexactlyaswith gravityor crib lb
walls. They are generallysite-specificinsofaras calculationsare concerned. wl
The miscellaneous considerations are facing details(includingdrainage),seaming
Sc
methods,creepdeformation,and life expectancy.

/--
\
r-
t(
and

l.--

l -
( -
['-.-
t
l---.
I
l-
rcñ_

(c)

Figure 2.45 Externalstabilityconsiderationsfor geotextilewalls. (a) Overturningcon-

siderations.(b) Slidingconsiderations.
(c) Foundationconsiderations.
 C h a p .2 Sec. 2.7 D e s i g n i n gf o r S t a b i l ¡ z a t i o n

" Example:
vhich includes Design a l2-ft.-high geotextilewall that is to carry a storageareaof equivalentdead load of
'e 2.45. These
2N lb.lft.z. The wall is to backfilled with a granularsoil (SP) having propertiesof 1 : I l0
gravity or crib lb./ft.3, 0:36 deg., and c = 0lb./ft.2. A woven slit-film geotextilewith ultimatewide
ed. width tensile strengthof 250 lb./in. is intendedto be used in its construction.
rage),seaming Solution: (a) Determine the horizontal pressureas a function of the depth z:

Ku = tan2(45 - +/2)
= tan2(45 - 36/2)
= 0.26

A¡=Cf¡r*ú¡O
: K"1z * Koq
: (0.26)(ll0) (z) + (0.26)(200)
:292+52

and

: 2",,
I",,"* I FS¡¡rx FSCRx FSCDX FSao
:250
[ 1 . 5x 3 . 0 x 1 . 2 5x
:250t6.19
I
.l
: 40.4lb.tin.
: 485 lb./ft.

Now using Equation 2.40 for varying depths, calculatethe fabric layer spacings.

A t : 1 2f t . :

^
: -Ioll.*
.\..
o¡(FS)

485
t 2 9 ( t 2 )+ s z l t . 3
: 0.93
: ll.2 in. try to use l2-in. spacingsbut check at z : ll ft.
Atz: llft.:
S , ,: 1 . 0 0f t . : 1 2 . 0i n OK; see if spacingcan be openedto 18 in. at
z :9 ft.

Atz:9ft.:
S , : l . 1 9f t . : 1 4 . 3i n . NG, keep at 12 in and try again al z : 6 ft.

Atz:6ft.:
S " : l . ó 5 f t . : 1 9 . 8i n . OK; open up spacingsto 18 in. and use to top of
wall.
170 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2 Sec

Thus, the layers are spacedas follows:

L a y e rN u m b e r

TI 4 Layers

I
12' +
+
t
I
6 Layersa t 1 2

I
+
(b) Determine the length of the fabric layers (L ) using Equation 2.43 for L. with
6 : 24 deg. from Table2.6 for woven slit-film fabric on roundedsand. which is an Sp soil.
Note that La usesa Rankine failure plane and is calculatedfrom Equation2.42.

, : .tu oá(FS)
t-'
,. a t"" or
"r
5,,(292+ 52)1.3
2(0 + llDz tan24")

- s,, (292 * 52)

752

Lp:(H-z)tan lor- {)
\ 2/
- (t2 - z)(0.509)

Depth Spacing
Layer no z (ft \ s, (fr.) L" (ft.) L..min (ft.) LR$t.) ¿ (ft.)

l0 top l 5 1.5 t.27 3.0 5.34 8.3 usel0

9 3.0 1.5 0.92 3.0 4.58 t.6 l0
6 4.5 1.5 0.81 3.0 3.82 6.8 l0
1 6.0 1.5 0.75 3.0 3.05 6.1 l0
6 I.o 1.0 0.48 3.0 2.54 5.5 l0
5 8.0 1.0 0.47 3.0 2.04 5.I t0
4 9.0 1.0 0.46 3.0 t.sz 4.5
3 10.0 1.0 0.45 3.0 1.02 4.0 5
2 l r.0 1.0 0.45 3.0 0.51 3.5 5
I 12.2 1.0 0.44 3.0 0 3.0 5
( b o t .)
iles C h a p .2 Sec. 2.7 Designingfor Stabilization 171

Note that the L" values are very small (this is typically the case with geotextile walls) and the
minimum value of 3.0 ft. should be used. Also, when addedto L¡ for the total length you
shouldround up to a convenientfabric width. In this caseyou would usethe fabric parallelto
the wall, requiring (10 ft. + 1.5 ft. + 3.0 ft.) 14.5-ft.-wide fabric, which is a convenient
size. Thus the wide-width strengthof 250 lb./in. must be in the weft direction, which is
typicallytheweakerdirectionwithwovenfabrics. Ifanonwovenfabrichadbeenconsidered,
the cross machine direction must be used.
(c) Check the overlaplengthL,, to seeif it is lessthan the 3.O-ft. recommendedvalue
using Equation 2.44.

S,o¡(FS)
Lo:
4(c * 1z tan 6)

S" [29(z) + 52]1.3

4[0 + (l l0)z tan 24"]

which is maximumat the upperlayerat z = 1.5 ft.:

2.43 for L. witi-
hich is an SP soil
9 .( 5 )+ 5 2 1 1 . 3
, : 1 . 5 [ 21
¡n 2.42.
"" 4t(r ro) ( r J) on 24'J
: 0.63 OK use3.0 ft.

(d) Sincethe internalstabilityof the wall hasbeenprovidedfor, focusnow shiftsto

geotechnical
externalstability.Standard engineering concepts
areused.Seethefigureon the
nextpage.

P,,: O.51H2Kn
: 0.s(rl0) (12)2(0.28)
= 2218lbJft.

P,, cos 32": l88l lb./ft.

P,, sin 32" - I175 lb./ft.

¿ (ft.) Now, for ovefurning, moments are taken about the toe of the wall to form a factor of
safety.
1.3 use l0
'.6 l0
¡- resistingmovements
r.8 l0 F S o r : 4) -
r.l l0 driving moments
i.5 l0
i.t lrlxt + w2x2 + P,, sin 6(10)
l0
..5 5 P., cos E(4)
..0 5
( 1 2 ) ( 5 ) ( l l 0 ) ( 2 . 5 ) + ( 8 ) ( 5 ) ( 1l 0 ) ( 7 . s ) + I 1 7 5 ( 1 0 )
i.5 5
. 0 5 ( r 8 8 r()4 )
: 8 . 1> 3 . 0 OK
172 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2 Sec.2

Backfill
So¡l
'¡ = 110lb./ft9
6=0=32deg.
c=0
K" = o'28

m Foundation
Soil
r= 115lb,/ft9
0= 15deg.
6 = 0.95ó= 14.2deg.
c = 400 lb,/ft?
c, = 0,80c= 320 lb./ft3

For sliding,horizontalforcesat the bottomof the wall aresummedto form anotherfactorof

safety:
resistingforces
F'sr=)
driving forces
M
rt+ w2*P.sin6\
-, /|,-- _l _
tanaJ s
["" 5-/
Po cos 6

(
6600+ 4400+ E) v'f s The
[''. "" low
I l8l (10
F& : 2.5 < 3.0 NG; therefore,the lowerfabricmustbe six i
lengthened;
try l0 ft.
The
f .rn * /S00 + ¿¿09:t-
-I)tzst
t a n t 4 . 2 ] t I0 for the us
L"-".\ l0
exampleir
bution ag
: 3.3 > 3.0 OK, andsincethelowerlayeranduppersix layers Example
are l0 ft., makeall of them l0 ft. long
For r
Finally, checkfor a foundationfailureusingshallowfoundationbearingcapacitytheory(see, calc
e . e . ,[ 7 1 ] ) . 2.44
 Chap.2 Sec.2.7 Designing for Stabilizat¡on

Pult = cN. * qNn * 0.518N^,

: (400)(10.98)
(0.95)
+ 0 + 0.5(lls) (10)(2.6s)
(0.7)
: 4172+ 1067
: 5239lb./ft.2

u, p u . t= ( 1 1 0 )( 1 2 )+ 4 0 0
: 1720lb.tff.z
t:
rg.
FsBc : ¿s!
P u"t

_ 5239
1720
: 3 . 0 5> 3 . 0 OK

u.
eg.

,./It?

mother factor of

Thedesignis nowcompleteexceptfor miscellaneous details.It usesl0 layersof fabric(the

fowersix at l2-in- centersandtheupperfour at l8-in. centers), whichareeach14.5ft. long
(10ft. + 1.5ft. + 3.0 ft.), of whichtherewill be 6-in. extralengthforoverlapin thelower
six layers,sincetheirfaceheightis only 1.0 ft.
rustbe

The exampleabove illustrateda geotextileretaining wall designcompletelyexcept

for the use of live loads as producedby traffic. To illustrate how this is done another
exampleis given, but just to the point of calculatingthe vehicle's horizontalstressdistri-
bution againstthe wall. Beyond this, the design proceedsas just shown.
upper six layers Example:
. long
For the 40-kip dual-tandem-axle truck whoseeight wheeldimensionsare shownbelow,
:ity theory (see. calculatethe h<¡rizontal
wall stresses
for a l2-ft.-highwall at 2-ft. increments.UseFigure
2.44 for your calculations:
174 Designing with Geotextiles Chap. 2

Solution: Using Figure 2.44, with n-- z/H, m: xlH, H: 12 ft., Qp:5000 lb., and z
c'n:oh cos2 (1.10), each wheel gives the following tabulatedhorizontalstresses(in
lb./ft.2). 0
2
4
6
8
l0
t2

,
0
2
4
o
8
l0
t2

Locat¡on for
s t r e s sc a l c u l a t ¡ o n

z
Vertical face of wall
0
2
4
ó
8
Wheel I l0
Wheel 2 l2
n: zlH m: xlH úhHzlQP o'n = O.22o*

0 0 3 0.25 0 0 0
2 0.17 3 o.25 I _-t 45.1 10.0
4 0.35 3 0.25 1.6 55.5 12.3
6 0.50 3 0.25 1.0 34.7 7.7
8 0.67 3 0.25 0.6 20.8 4.6 0
l0 0.83 3 0.25 0.3 r0.4 2.3 2
t2 1.00 3 0.25 0 .1 3.5 0.8 4
6
8
l0
t2
 Chap .
Wheel3
Wheel 4
5000tb.. n: zlH m: xlH ohH2lQp Ah o'¡: 0.40o¡
ll stresses
0 0 4.3 0.36 0 0 0
2 0.17 4.3 0.36 1.3 45.1 18.0
0.35 4.3 0.36 t . t 59.0 23.6
6 0.50 4.3 0.36 1.0 34.'7 |3.9
8 0.67 4.3 0.36 0.6 20.8 8.3
t0 0.83 4.3 0.36 0.3 t0.4 Á 1

I2 1.00 4.3 0.3ó 0.t 5.2 2.1

Wheel 5
Wheel 6
n=zlH m -- xlH úhHz/Qp Oh o'n = 0.76on

0 0 9.0 o.'75 0 0 0
2 o.t7 9.0 0.75 o.2 6.9 5.3
A
0.35 9.0 0.75 0.3 lo.4 7.9
6 0.50 9.0 0.75 0.4 13.8 10.ó
8 0.6"/ 9.0 0.75 0.3 10.4 7.9
l0 0.83 9.0 0.75 0.2 6.9 5.3
l2 1.00 9.0 0.75 0 .I 3.4 2.6

Wheel 7
Wheel 8
n: zlH m=xlH o¡H2lQ, o'¿ = 0.81o¡

0 10.3 0.86 0 0 0
2 o.t7 10.3 0.86 0 .I 3.5 2.8
0.35 10.3 0.86 0.2 6.9 5.6
6 0.50 10.3 0.86 0.3 t0.4 8.4
8 o.67 10.3 0.86 o.2 ó.9 5.6
l0 0.83 10.3 0.86 0.1 3.5 2.8
eel 2 t2 1.00 10.3 0.86 0. I 3.5 2.8
O.22o¡

0
oh (lb/ft2)
0.0
2.3 l(o¡ f o'¡) 100
7.7
0 0
4.6
2 136.7
2.3 A
l 8 l. 2
1.8
ó 134.2
8 85.3
l0 45.8
l2 23.9
t-
176 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2 Sec. 2.7

This stressdistribution diagram for the live load is now added to those from the soil and
surcharge(if any) to obtain the resultanthorizontal pressuredistribution shown in Figure
L.+J . Fillmateri

2.7.1.4 Summary

Easily seenis that the geotextilewall designjust completedis not trivial, and to do such
designscontinuouslywould be a very time-consumingtask on the part of a design engi-
neer. In such a case it would be preferredto develop design guides by systematically
varying certainparametersin the analysis(e.9., height of wall and slopeangleof the wall
face). Severalinnovativedesigngraphscan be generated,an exampleof which is shown
in Figure 2.46 using Polyfelt's TS line of geotextiles. Graphs for different geotextiles
could be similarly developed, or the type of loading could be included as a separate
variable. The number of variationsis essentiallylimitless [73].
Regardingthe performanceof geotextilewalls, one of the most carefully developed,
constructed,and monitoredwas built in 1982nearGlenwood Springs,Colorado. It is 16
ft. (4.9 m) high and 300 ft. (91 m) long, with the lengthconsistingof ten 30-ft. (9.1-m)
segments.These segmentsconsist of different nonwoven fabrics supplied by separate
manufacturers.They were sewntogetherin order to form the 300-ft. (91 m) length. Two
of the segmentswere purposelyunderdesignedto provide for controlled failure. When
such a failure did notoccur, 17 ft. (5.2 m) of surchargewas added, but still no failure.
Each segmentof wall continuesto remain serviceable,with no creep,even though part of
the wall is founded on soft soil, which has settledmore than 2 ft. (61 cm) 1741.Clearly,
geotextilewalls are intrinsically sound in concept, but this casehistory suggeststhat the
design method may be quite conservative.
Concerning a comparisonof geotextile walls over gravity walls (and, to a lesser
extent, over other types of flexible walls), the following applies:

. Advantages:
Flexible wall systemis created.
Minimum excavationis neededbehind face of wall.
No corrosion problems. Traffic load

Backfill can contain fines. (Silty) 5¿¡¿

Drainagecan occur using certain geotextiles. (c'=0,d'=

Unskilled labor can be used.

No heavy equipmentis required.
Cost per squarefoot of exposedwall is very low (= $10/ft.2 1985 price
Í741)
. Disadvantages:
The design method appearsto be quite conservativeand needs modifica-
tion.
Fabricinteractionin the analysis(perhapsvia archingtheory)is not currently
considered. Figure 2.4ó
Wemer[72] a
 Chap.- Sec. 2.7 Designingfor Stabilization

re soil and Type of load

r in Figure
Fillmaterial

Height of wall

S l o p ei n c l i n a t i o n
d to do su"-
Type of geotextile
designeng
¡stematical.. Lift thickness
eofthe*¡.
ich is shou-
t geotextilc.
s ? Sepsfal:

¡ developec
ldo. It is l' 10
) - f t . ( 9 .l - n : o
by separat,.
I
ength. T$
ilure. Whc': 7
I no failurc 6
ough part, '
41. Clearlr
eststhat th:

, to a lessc': ¿
1

9 8 7 6 5 4 2 10

I
10
Traff ic load 1 20
(Silty) sand
(c'= 0, ó' = 30")

I30

40

J
50
S p a c i n go f
1985 pncl cm geotext¡ le
layers

L e n g t hc u r v e
ls modifica'
Anchorage
length
of currentlr
Figure 2.4ó Design guide for geotextile walls using Chemie Linz, Polyfelt geotextiles (after G.
Werner [72] and J. A. Studer of GSS, Switzerland).
178 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2 Sec.2.
Creepis potentiallya problem.
which r
The wall facemustbe coatedto preventUV degradationand vandalism.
deploye
Coatings(shotcreteor asphalt)are not particularlyattractive.
thisis th
stability
The disadvantages regardingwall facingarebeingdealtwith evermoreeffectively. For
that all (
instantce,it is becomingpopularto use wall facing panelsmadefrom precastconcrete
fabric pr
elements,continuousmetal stripsor largesizetimbers. The geotextilesare fixed to the
in Secti
rearof thefacingpanelsandextendinto thebackfillsoil exactlyasdescribedanddesigned
in this section. For wallslessthan 15ft. (5 m) in height,timbercanbe usedfor thefacing
2;
as illustratedin Figure2.47. The attachmentdetail is important,as describedby Rich-
ardsonand Behr [75]. Whenconstructedproperly,however,the walls are aesthetically Fa
pleasingand are extremelyeconomical[75]. the shee
fabric (n
2.7.2 Geotextile-Stabilized Embankments mum stre
the emba
2.7.2.1 Background Sin
overlapo
It shouldcomeas no surprisethat if verticalwalls can be built using geotextiles,
the mobil
embankments can be stabilizedby them also. In fact, as the slopeanglewith the hori-
next, the
zontal(B) decreases
(seeFigure2.46), oneessentiallyhasan embankment,albeitonein
principal,
further th

&

Flgure 2,47 Geotextile-reinforced,

timber-faced
walls,showingwall connectiondetails Figr
(afterRichardsonand Behr [75]). (a)
spa
'hap.2 179
S e c .2 . 7 D e s i g n i n gf o r S t a b i l i z a t i o n

which the exposed face is not fabric-covered. In this section the geotextileswill be
llism. deployedin horizontallayerswith no upturnedfacing treatmentnor facing panels. When
this is the case,the designmethodologymovesfrom lateralearthpressuretheoryinto slope
stability analyses. Various fabric deploymentschemesare shown in Figure 2.48. Note
ly. For that all of them require the embankmentto be built at the sametime as placementof the
oncrete fabric proceeds;that is, they arenot in-situ stabilizationschemes,which arediscussedlater
I to the i n S e c t i o n2 . 7 . 5 .
:signed
: facing 2.7.2.2 Construction Details
y Rich-
Fabric placementin embankmentstabilizationsituationsis relatively simple in that
etically
the sheetsare usually horizontaland placedas directedby the design. When using woven
fabric (moresothan with nonwovens)it is important to recognizethe direction of maxi-
mum stress. For two-dimensional(plane strain) casesthis is typically in the direction of
the embankmentface, hencethe strong direction should be orientedaccordingly.
Since it is almost impossibleto do the work within a single fabric roll width, either
overlap or seamingmust be considered. Although either methodcan effectively transmit
.extiles. the mobilized tensilestressesin the minor principal direction from one f'abricsheetto the
re hori- next, the labor cost of sewn seamsbecomesvery small when orientationis in the major
t one in principaldirection. Thus the cost comparisonillustratedin Section2.6.1.5 swingseven
further than illustrated in the favor of sewn seams.

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
-penny XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX X XXX XX X XXX
XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX

(a)
text¡le

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

X X X XX X X X X X X X X
,XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

(d)

Figure 2.48 Various fabric deployment schemesfor stabilizing embankments and fills.
(a) Multiple even-spacedlayers. (b) Multiple concentratedlayers. (c) Multiple even-
spaced layers of uneven length. (d) Single layer on top of foundation.
180 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2
Sec. 2

2.7.2.3Limit EquilibriumDesign
The usual geotechnicalengineeringapproachto slope stability problems is to use
limit equilibrium conceptson an assumedcircular arc failure plane, therebyarriving at an
equation for the factor of safety. The resulting equations for total stressesand effective
stresses,respectively,are given below correspondingto Figure 2.49. lt is illustratedfor
the case of fabric reinforcement.

n m
s
Z-¿
( N ¡ t a n $ + c A l ) R +ZJ
I T¡l¡
FS: (2.4s)
s
Z-¿
(w¡sin 0) R

n m
t 1 Ñ ¡ t a n 6 + eA l , ¡ R + ) I ¡ y ¡
¿J

FS: (2.46)
n
s
ZJ
(w¡ sin 0) R

where

F.l : the factor of safety (should be greaterthan 1.3);

N ¡ : w ¡ c o s0 ¡ ;
w¡ : the weight of slice;
0¡ : the angle of intersectionof horizontal to tangentat centerof slice;
A/¡ : the arc length of slice;
R : the radius of failure circle;
ó,S : the total and effective anglesof shearingresistance,respectively;
c,á: the total and effective cohesion,respectively;
Z, : the allowable geotextiletensile strength;
y¡ : the moment arm for geotextile(note that in large-deformationsituationsthis
moment arm could becomeequal to R, which is generallya larger value); are invol
¿ : the numberof slices; cohesive
m : fhe number of fabric layers; The
finding th
& : ¡¿, - u¡Ax¡,in which of the cir<
u¡ : h¡ 1. : the pore water pressure,
h¡ : the height of water above baseof circle, that can r
Ax, : ¡h" width of slice, and
1. : the unit of weight of water, ment. Wl
fits on mc
Use of the total stressanalysis(Equation2.45) is recommendedfor embankmentswhere
For
water is not involved or when the soil is at less than saturationconditions. The effective
condition
stressanalysisequation(Equation 2.46) is for conditionswhere water and saturatedsoil
as was use
 Chap.2 Sec. 2.7 D e s i g n i n gf o r S t a b i l ¡ z a t i o n 181

O ( x ,y l
rms is to use
rriving at an
rnd effective
llustrated for

(2.4s) Toe of slope

(2.46)

lice;

,ly;

Figure2.49 Detailsof circulararcslopestabilityanalysis

for (c, S) shearstrength
soils.
tuationsthis
rugervalue); are involved-conditions typical of earth dams and delta areas involving fine-grained
cohesivesoils.
Theseequationsare tediousto solve, and when additionalconsiderationis given to
finding the minimum factor of safety by varying the radius and coordinatesof the origin
of the circle, the processbecomesunbearableto do by hand. Many computercodesexist

that can readily be modified to include r,r,contribution of the geotextilereinforce-

i
t : I
ment. When the searchis done independentof the computer, the analysisportion easily
fits on most personalcomputers.
nents where For fine-grainedcohesivesoils whose shearstrengthcan be estimatedby undrained
'he
effective conditions,the problem becomesmuch simpler. (Recall that this is the sameassumption
aturatedsoil as was usedin Section2.6 . | .3 on unpavedroads.) Here slicesneednot be taken,sincethe
 Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2 Sec.2.7
182
Solution: T
soil strength does not depend on the normal force on the shear place. Figure 2.50 gives
details of this situation, which results in the following equation. The example illustrates
its use.
m
cR * ) T¡y¡
(2.47)
FS:
wx
where

FS : factor of safety (should be greater than 1.3),

K
c : cohesion0.5 q, (where qu: the undrainedshearstrengthof soil),
Embankmen
S
R : the radius of the failure circle,
1=12O
I¡ : the allowable tensile strength of various geotextile layers,
0=0'
y¡ : the moment arm for geotextile(s), c=200
area"o"o= 291 1
W : the weight of failure zone, and
X : the moment arm to center of gravity of failure zone.
Olx, yl

+Tz
----+- Tt

=- (a) Slope r
T=C

Figure 2.50 Detailsofcircular arc slopestabilityanalysisfor soil strengthrepresented

by undrainedconditions.
Example:
For the 2l-ft.-high, 40 deg. angle slope shown below, which consistsof a silty clay embank-
ment ("y : 120 lb.lft.3, $ : 0 deg., c :200 lb./ft.2, area: 291 ft.2, center of gravity as
indicated)on a silty clay foundation('y = 125 lb./ft.3, Ó = 0 deg., c : 300 lb./ft.3, area =
250 ft.z, center of gravity as indicated) determine (a) the factor of safety with no geotextile
reinforcement, (b) the factor of safety with a high-strength geotextile of allowable tensile
(b) Sloper
strength 250 lb./in. placed along the surfacebetween the foundation soil and the embankment
soil, and (c) the factor of safety with five layers of the samegeotextile placed at 5-ft. intervals
from the interface to the top of the embankment. Assume that sufficient anchoragebehind the
slip circle shown is available to mobilize full geotextile strength and that seams are also
adequateto transmit the stresses.
p.2 Sec. 2.7 Designingfor Stabilization 183

ives Solution: The following computational

dataare neededin all partsof the problem:
ates Watud: Q9l) (r20): 34,900lb.
W a " * : ( 2 5 0 )( 1 2 5 ): 3 1 , 2 0 0 I b .

.47)

EmbankmentSoil
t = 120lb./ft?
4=0o
rl
c = 2OOlb./+t?
= 291 ft?
area"o"o

F o u n d a t i o nS o i l
+
t = 125 lb'/ft? CGaúc
d=0o
c = 300 lb./ft?
c
areao"ro= 25O lt?

L"¿: 2(42.4)"(r*O) : 25.2rt.

L¿¡=2(42.4)n
(# = 51.8rt.

sr resistingmoments
-/ . -
driving moments
(a) Slope as shown (with no geotextile reinforcement):

(c&"¿ * ¡La¡) R
FS:
wo6"¿ 25.8 + wd.Í.8(0)

IQO0)(2s.2) + (3OO)(sL.8)142.4
ank-
34,900(25.8)+ 0
.y as
)a= 873.000
: o'ez NG; failure
xtilc n*o,
nsile
(b) slope with a geotextile along surface e-dwithsufficient anchoragebeyond point
nenl d:
rvals 873,000+ 250(t2)(36.2)
t thc
900,000
als¡t
: 1.09 NG; marginalsituation
1U Designingwith Geotextiles Chap.2 Sec. 2.7

(c) Slope with five layers at 5-ft. intervals from surface e-d upward, all of which have
sufficient anchoragebehind the slip surface:

+ 2s0(r2) (36.2 + 3r.2 + 26.2 + 2r.2 + 16.2)

FS _873,000
900,000
. l.4l OK; adequatesafety

Example:
For the preceding example, determine how much embedment (anchorage)is required behind
the slip circle to mobilize the allowable tensile strength of the geotextile. Assume that the
transferefficiency of the fabric to the soil is 0.80 and basethe calculationon aFS: 1.5.

Solution: When the anchoragetest was explainedin Section2.2.3.11, it was assumedthat

the resistancewas uniformly distributed over the fabric's embedment and that the fabric was
entirely mobilized. This is almost certainly not the case. It appears that the concentration
decreasesrapidly as the embedment length increasesand that separatemobilized and fixed
portions of the fabric exist. For this problem, however, a linear distribution will be assumed
over a continuousdisplacedlength, since it resultsin a conservativelength.

mobilized ar
*------Soil infailurezoñe - To adapt thr
of the soil ¿
+ T
limiting she
was attaine
zone at a h(
embankmen
)F. = 0; 2¡EL": T(FS) of 2.05 m (
predicted he
2 ( 2 0 0 () 0 . 8 ) L , . :2 5 0 ( 1 2()1 . 5 ) use 15 ft. beyond slip circle for anchorage
Techn
length of each fabric layer
L,.= l4.l ft. large and/or

2.7.2.4FiniteElementAnalysis 2.7.2.5Su
Finite element methods (FEMs) have been used to study the performance of geo-
Geotextile n
textile-reinforcedembankmentsin both analysisand designsituationsU6,771. Although
many situati
these sophisticated computer-basedmethods might not be routinely used for noncritical
ation. Desi¡
situations,they do give great insight into the behavior of the system.
are within t
To illustrate the results of the technique, Rowe and Soderman [78] evaluated two
approach. T
instrumented test embankments on very soft soils in Holland. The embankments were
certainly wa
purposely brought to failure. One was without geotextile reinforcement and failed as the
height was brought to 1.75 m (see Figure 2.51a), and the other was reinforced with a . Wha
geotextile and reacheda height of 2.75 m before failure (seeFigure 2.52a). Using a plane
. Wha
strain nonlinear elastoplasticFEM program with over 1000triangular elements, the veloc-
. Wha
ity field and the plastic region are shown in Figures2.5Ib and c for a fill height of 1.8 m
for the casewithout reinforcement. Both figures clearly show that continuous failure was .Isth